Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Rush Limbaugh: America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat


RUSH: Late yesterday afternoon I was sitting in the library at home, and I was just swamped. It seemed like every 90 seconds somebody needed something, or somebody had a question or somebody had a comment, requiring my response. It was during the period of time that I generally devote to reading my tech blogs, you know, where I abandon all of this and get away from it and start spending time on, quote, unquote, my hobby.

But it was one of those days. I'm sure you have them. They may happen every day, but if I had been watching a TV show I would have hit the pause button every minute to deal with something. It would have taken me two hours yesterday to watch a 40 minute program. So in the midst of all of this, I hear about Prism. Not the NSA sweep of telephone records. In fact, let me start before I heard about Prism. Even before I heard about Prism, I am hearing from the intelligentsia in Washington that there's nothing to be really concerned about here with what we had learned, the NSA demanding and getting every phone record from Verizon. And, by the way, we now know T-Mobile and AT&T have been added to it.

But the intelligent people were saying, "Nothing to see here. The reaction is way overblown." Those of us who think there's something worrisome here are overreacting and we're too oriented in politics. And the mature thinkers that weighed in and sound reason and levelheadedness assured us that there was nothing to fear here because this was just metadata, and in fact this is something we should all be thankful that the government is able to do.

I have to tell you when I'm listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I'm saying, "Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?" We got the IRS starting in 2010 taking action to suppress the political involvement and ultimately votes of Tea Party people and conservative Republicans. This regime, this government, on the orders of the highest level. In fact, that investigation is ongoing. We have Fast and Furious. We have Obamacare. The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day and yet in the midst of this, "Well, don't go off half cocked on this, Rush. Be very levelheaded. Nothing really to see," as though there's no context here.
It made me once again understand, folks, what you and I are up against here. There are just way too many people -- and I'm talking about on our side -- who do not want to admit what we face, who do not want to engage or admit or whatever what we really face here. It matters. This kind of stuff matters because of who the people doing it happen to be. It's one thing if Colonel Sanders would be collecting all this data, but it's not Colonel Sanders. It's Barack Obama and everybody that works for him, and we know who they are and we know what their goals are. We know what their intentions are.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Rush Limbaugh: Drive-Bys Shocked to Learn Pope Francis is Catholic

Any Catholic who has been listening to the secular media's inane commentary  about the Conclave this past week and who heard Rush Limbaugh  discussing it today, must have broken out into a "Te Deum" and mid-Lent "Alleluia's."  Limbaugh, a non-Catholic, said clearly and persuasively what every faithful Catholic has been thinking.  He, unlike 99% of the media, understands that the Church cannot be explained with a left-right political paradigm.  He understands that the role of the Church is to be counter-cultural, to be, like the cross, a sign of contradiction, immutable in its proclamation of Truth.  It is a church which will never conform itself to the world, but rather seeks to convert the world to Christ.

As Limbaugh explains so well, the media, lacking faith, cannot understand that Pope after Pope continues to be, well, CATHOLIC!  After all, hasn't conforming a church to the feminist movement, the LGBT movement, the pro-abortion movement, to pantheistic environmentalism, to every passing fad, worked so well for The Episcopal Church?

Catholics and those fed-up with a godless media will find the following transcript from today's Rush Limbaugh Show to be a wonderful, refreshing dose of truth.


RUSH: New pope. I am not Catholic. But I have endeavored, I have dug deep, I have attempted to find out from sources that I trust as much as I can, that I can understand, that I could then relay to you about this new pope. He's the first pope from the Americas. I realize some of you from Rio Linda say, "Wait a minute. Argentina? That's South America." He's the first one. And he didn't want to be pope. But there's some incredible things about this man. He is a classic Catholic theologian. There appears not to be one shred of moral relevance. In fact, I'll play the sound bites for you in just a minute.

The media, select members, they're out there. I watched some of it this morning, and it's kind of funny to watch. They're wringing their hands, "How can the church attract young people when it is opposed to contraception? Doesn't the church need to modernize? Doesn't the pope, don't these cardinals realize what they've gotta do if they want to attract young people to the church? If they want to spread their message they can't have this position that's anti-gay marriage and anti-contraception." And they treat the church as a political institution.

And of course there's politics clearly in the Curia throughout the Vatican, but in terms of church teaching, it's not a political institution. It's religious. I heard people, in fact, media people, "Is this new pope, is he a liberal? Is he a conservative?" He's a Catholic! It's no more complicated than that. Catholicism is what it is. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to follow it. But it's not up to them to modernize to you. It's not up to any religion, although some do this, 'cause they want the money. They want the membership. But the Catholic Church doesn't do it. It's not up to them to bend and shape and mold itself to accommodate the shrinking depravity of a worldwide culture. It's to provide the exact opposite. It's to provide a beacon out of depravity, among other things.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Rush and the New Blacklist

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The original "Hollywood blacklist" dates back to 1947, when 10 members of the Communist Party, present or former, invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

The party was then a wholly owned subsidiary of the Comintern of Joseph Stalin, whose victims had surpassed in number those of Adolf Hitler.

In a 346-17 vote, the Hollywood Ten were charged with contempt of Congress and suspended or fired.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Dear Rush: “Why I Canceled My Sleep Number Bed”

Friends, the following companies have put a political correctness code above truth and freedom, particularly free speech.  Please join us in a boycott of these companies. If you listen to Rush, they apparently no longer want your business:
Quicken Loans, Citrix Systems, Legal Zoom, Sleep Number, Sleep Train, Pro Flowers, Carbonite and AOL
By Gary Demar
Dear Rush:

I know you apologized for calling 30-year-old Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” The language was certainly over the top. I know what you were thinking. Sometimes people need to be hit over the head with a 2×4 before something sinks in.

Before the watching world Ms. Fluke told us that she was sleeping around. Promiscuity and sex before marriage were once considered social taboos. No one denied that people engaged in these types of sexual encounters, but such women were generally looked down upon. I can remember people saying, “It’s OK to have sex with these types of girls, but they’re not the ones you bring home to your parents and eventually marry.”

Like you, I have reminded people that the larger issue is not about . I just read a Christian Science Monitor article that continues to perpetuate the lie that conservatives want to deny women contraceptives. We don’t. We just don’t want to have our money taken from us to pay for them. If Ms. Fluke wants to engage in promiscuous sex, then she should pay for it. I don’t want to be an unwilling accomplice to her immorality and stupidity.

I’ve gotten to the point in my life that I would be willing to pay for contraceptive devices for women like Ms. Fluke if they promise never to have children. The thought of them breeding is disturbing.

I’ve read that a number of companies have withdrawn their advertising from the show. The online backup service Carbonite is one of them. Here’s what CEO David Friend said in a written statement:
“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady.”
 Can you believe this? He calls Ms. Fluke’s testimony about her self-professed promiscuity “courageous.” Am I to assume that Mr. Friend would not rebuke his own daughters for sleeping around and broadcasting it to the world? What a shame.

I found that two mattress companies – Sleep Train and Sleep Number – pulled their ads from the show.

My wife and I had just purchased a Sleep Number bed. When I heard about the company’s cancellation of its advertising, we cancelled our order and went with a competitor. I was very nice to the person taking my call. No yelling or expletives. He told me that they were keeping track of the responses. He then asked if I would like to leave a comment. I did.

My message was simple. Sleep Number had every right to complain and pull its advertising, and I had every right to cancel my order. That’s what makes America great. The issue, I said, was not about contraception but freedom. I did not appreciate the government forcing me to pay for someone else’s immoral behavior.

I liked the way you brought in liberal hypocrisy. We know it’s pandemic, but liberals never acknowledge it, and if they did, would never do anything about it. This was my favorite: “Will President Obama now give back the $1 million that Bill Maher just gave his super PAC?  You want to get some of the tapes that Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin? The ‘c’ word over and over again?”

Just like made oral sex acceptable to middle school students, now other young girls will argue that it’s OK to be promiscuous. Even President Obama supports Sandra Fluke. I shudder to think what our nation will be like in 20 years – if it’s still here.

Friday, February 3, 2012

White House Advisors Plotting to "Hush Rush"

"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved."   John 3:20 

Group advising White House wants to restore controversial policy

By Aaron Klein
An organization that helped craft President Obama’s environmental policies has recommended the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, purportedly as a method of silencing critics of the theory of global warming.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Exhausted Food Nanny Flees to Vail, Gorges on Short Ribs

Rush Limbaugh skewers Moochelle, now enjoying another taxpayer-paid vacation.

Can you spot the Nutritionist-at-Large?

Left to right – Princess Letizia of Spain, French first lady Carla Bruni, and taking a break from her vegetable patch, Michelle Obama.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Winner: Rush Limbaugh

A long article, friends, but one you will find very worthwhile. It puts battles just won, and the battles yet to be fought that must be won, in perspective.

From The American Spectator
By Jeffrey Lord

"I hope he fails."

With those famous four words, uttered January 16, 2009 -- only days before Barack Obama was to be inaugurated -- Rush Limbaugh drew a line in the sand.

And as a result, this morning it is Rush Limbaugh who is the undisputed winner of the 2010 election. The White House is repudiated. The Pelosi-run House of Representatives, supported by the Democrats' Congressional Campaign Committee, also deliberately targeted Limbaugh. Speaker Pelosi is, abruptly, now history. The Senate is richer by a still-undetermined number of conservatives as this goes to Internet press.

You might even call last night's landslide results a "Rushslide."

Unlike a number of conservatives and Republican leaders, Limbaugh understood from the moment of Obama's election what the new president and his allies represented: a radical, far-left agenda designed to, in the president-elect's own words, "transform America." Obama and his administration -- with the Pelosi-run House assisting -- were about nothing less than an attempt to re-make America as a collectivist, socialist state.

Characteristically, Limbaugh was fearless in saying so -- plainly. Asked to submit a 400-word essay for the Wall Street Journal on his hopes for the new administration, he responded on the air:

Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things… See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?

So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

The outrage was instantaneous.

Five days later, a bare 24 hours after Obama had been sworn-in, Fox News host and fellow talk radio star Sean Hannity sat down with Limbaugh in Florida. As the Fox cameras rolled, Rush elaborated in answering Hannity's questions, making himself crystal clear: in spite of the uproar created by his "I hope he fails" remark, Rush Limbaugh would not be backing down. The Obama agenda, he was certain, was doomed to inevitable failure, and if others were afraid to say so, Rush Limbaugh was not.

LIMBAUGH:…When I see the media and the entire establishment on the left lay down and become cult-like and not examine who he is, what he's done, and not really examine what he says, but just praise him because of how he says it, my antenna go up.

Now I look at the things that he has said, and I'm very much concerned that our greatness is going to be redefined in such a way that it won't be great, that we're just going to become average. You cannot have this large of government role in the private sector with so many people thinking that just because they're Americans they're entitled to things, that this guy is going to pass them out and keep this country great and innovative, full of entrepreneurs, and -- these things concern me.

Now my critics, and yours, when they hear me say things like this, they -- have knee-jerk reactions. They're not listening or parsing my words, either. They're just, Limbaugh is not with the program.

…. So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far-left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?… I don't know where what he wants to try has worked…. It hasn't worked…. It doesn't work… it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record breaker."

Hearing this, watching this, the Obama White House made a fateful decision.

As Obama and his aides began relentlessly pushing exactly the far-left agenda that Limbaugh so publicly predicted would fail, they decided to bring the hardball of Chicago politics into play: they would intimidate their opponents by making an example of America's number one conservative talk radio star. .

Which is exactly the point where the path to the conservative victory of 2010 began.

A MERE THREE DAYS after Obama took office, Republican congressional leaders were ushered into the White House for their first formal meeting with the new president. Wary of Obama proposals for a massive stimulus bill, with a huge health care bill looming beyond that, they sat quietly as Obama's Limbaugh strategy began to unfold. Borrowing a tactic from Rules for Radicals, the handbook written by Obama's hero the late Chicago radical community activist Saul Alinsky, Obama the one-time community activist become president lectured the astonished GOP leadership, saying pointedly "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The Republicans were barely out the door before the story leaked, causing a media feeding frenzy as the White House knew it would.

With that, the stage for the entire next two-years was set. The looming battle over the direction of America would be deliberately, willfully cast -- by the White House itself -- as a battle royal between the President of the United States and Rush Limbaugh. The specific tactic to be employed was Rule Number 12 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Which reads this way:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

The Rule 12 signal was flashed by the White House to every Democrat on Capitol Hill along with every Obama ally in the media: the President personally is going to lead the charge against Rush Limbaugh and he was inviting them to join the fray.

Whatever issue was being debated -- the stimulus, health care, immigration, the topic didn't matter -- Rush Limbaugh was to be the highly personalized target of the Obama White House and all of the American Left. They would freeze his image in the public mind in as unfavorable and polarizing a fashion as they could manage. Then Limbaugh would be assaulted repeatedly in the style of Rule 12 as the next two years unfolded.

An attempt was made to intimidate Rush by going after what Alinskyites called a target's "support network" -- which is to say the Rush Limbaugh radio show was targeted when several liberal activist groups filed a "Petition for Inquiry into Hate Speech in the Media and Request to update report on The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes" with the Federal Communications Commission -- the Obama-run government agency that regulates radio airwaves. Limbaugh was specifically cited by name. The unsubtle message: we are coming after your radio show.

To "isolate the target from sympathy" in Alinsky style, Rush was portrayed in as unflattering personal terms as the Obama allies could conjure up. The attacks were designed to be, as Alinsky stipulated, "cruel… direct… personalized" because "ridicule works."

And so the anti-Rush deluge began.

Having earlier said that it "is my job" to make Obama's presidency work, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who famously said of an Obama speech that "I felt this thrill going up my leg," went to work. He memorably described Rush as "Mr. Big," the villain played by actor Yaphet Kotto in the James Bond movie Live and Let Die,taunting: "In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"

"What about this bonehead Rush Limbaugh?" sneered David Letterman on his Late Night show. Newsweek, in the middle of a death spiral that eventually had it being sold by the Washington Post for one dollar plus millions in debt, produced Jonathan Alter sniggering that Rush was a "black-shirted joke" while his colleague Richard Wolffe sagely assured that Rush was an "extreme voice." On and on and on this Alinsky tactic played, with Rush depicted as everything from a "howler" to a man "transformed into [a] car-wrecking quality spectacle" -- both of these from the New York Times. Nor was the Limbaugh audience to escape this treatment, with Jack Cafferty of CNN dismissing some 20 million Americans as "right-wing nuts."

The Obama White House was eating this stuff up, convinced they had a winning strategy.

Politico reported it this way:

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The story went on to say that liberals were lining up to bash Limbaugh as the leader of the conservative opposition.

MOST SPECTACULARLY in terms of last night's results, Pelosi loyalist Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the head of the Democrat's Congressional Campaign Committee, boasted that House Democrats were key players in the anti-Rush strategy. "We helped get the ball rolling on this," bragged Van Hollen. As of last night, Van Hollen had succeeded in losing about 60 House seats to the GOP, a historic loss making Pelosi an ex-Speaker if not an ex-House member period if she decides to resign her San Francisco seat.

All of which is to say, Pelosi and Van Hollen, along with the Obama White House, bet the ranch on a strategy that featured as its centerpiece an attack on Rush Limbaugh. They didn't just lose, they were humiliated.

Also involved in setting this course for Democrats was the George Soros-funded left-wing Center for American Progress, led by ex-Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. The group jumped aboard, launching an attack against "hate radio host Rush Limbaugh." The liberal group Americans United for Change quickly put up an ad and calling the GOP "The Rush Limbaugh Party." It accused GOP Senators and House members of repeatedly saying "no" to the Obama agenda -- because they were listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Politico also named the names behind this brainchild. Specifically, in addition to the President himself, those who thought this a fabulous strategy were then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod and ex-Clinton aides James Carville and Paul Begala.

It was Begala who would provide some of the high-level reasoning behind the selection of Rush as Obama's Number One opponent.:

But here's the secret: I don't like Rush Limbaugh. Here's the other secret: He is the most powerful person in the Republican Party today, bar none.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, meticulously crafted an op-ed for the Washington Post that was titled "Minority Leader Limbaugh." Plouffe threw down the gauntlet, portraying the battle over Obama's agenda as a one-on-one, mano-a-mano fight to the political death with Rush Limbaugh. The GOP leadership on Capitol Hill was taunted because "Rush Limbaugh has become their leader." Displaying a cocky security that can only come from drinking one's own Kool-Aid, Plouffe depicted Obama as triumphant in the polls of the moment, specifically boasting that "voters trust President Obama on the economy." Listening to Rush Limbaugh, the Obama campaign manager warned Republicans, "hardly seems like the best way out of the political wilderness."

In words that this morning look stunningly stupid, Plouffe said if the GOP kept listening to Limbaugh, the GOP was in danger of permanently losing "independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall." Said Plouffe of Limbaugh's challenge: "For many Americans, hungry for leadership and cooperation, this sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard…." Seemingly oblivious to the fact that leadership was exactly what Limbaugh was providing to "many Americans hungry for leadership," Plouffe vowed Republican House and Senate members would rue the day they listened to Limbaugh, all voting unanimously -- with the exception of three liberal GOP Senators -- to oppose the Obama stimulus. A stimulus which, insisted Plouffe as he dug himself even deeper, would "create or save at least 3 million jobs." Concluded Obama's campaign manager: if the GOP kept listening to Rush Limbaugh it would force the GOP to "find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom."

The gain, said former Speaker Newt Gingrich, would be "the largest one-party gain since 1932." The GOP needed 39-seats to win control. They were headed for at least 60 as this is written.

No word this morning whether Plouffe will be writing a piece entitled "Speaker Limbaugh."

UNDAUNTED EVEN AS THINGS looked bleak, Rush picked up the challenge. He had spent over twenty years discussing conservative principles on his show. A book just released by New York Times Book Editor Sam Tanenhaus was getting liberal media attention. The title: The Death of Conservatism. The author told NPR: "When Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Barack Obama to fail, he was not just spitting out a provocative line, he was actually handing out a kind of marching orders to the right, which they now seem to be following." And listening to what Rush Limbaugh had to say was the death knell for conservatism because Limbaugh, Tanenhaus insisted, was far out in a "fringe orbit".

Limbaugh knew in his bones not only that conservatism was not dead, but that it was neither in need of some sort of political cosmetic surgery as some sunshine conservatives were insisting. And the real people out on a fringe orbit were liberals like Tanenhaus -- not to mention Obama, Pelosi and their media allies. In a January, 2008 monologue about Ronald Reagan and Reagan conservatism, a subject that had arisen in the presidential primaries, Rush had already touched on the subject before Obama was even nominated:

Well, conservatism isn't dead because it cannot be dead. Conservatism is not manmade. Conservatism is a philosophy. It's not a scheme. It's not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That's populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights. The Declaration of Independence, is that dead? Of course not! What's dead is leadership on the Republican side, and because there is a lack of leadership of someone who [has] the substantive understanding of liberty and the political skills to advance it, we get all this cockamamie nonsense about the death of our principles. Our principles are not dead! Our principles cannot die.

Now, under direct attack by the President and his House allies, previously scheduled to address the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Limbaugh showed up to be greeted as the hero of the Obama Resistance. And promptly lit into the Obama agenda. By turns serious, funny, and self-mocking -- he made the case for conservatism with his typical optimistic gusto. "If we're going to convince the American people what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principles…" The crowd roared its approval, cheering wildly as he demanded of sunshine conservatives who insisted that conservatism needed to be somehow redefined from Ronald Reagan's principles: "How do you get rid of Reagan from conservatism?"

The very next day White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on CBS's Face the Nation to proclaim Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." It was not meant as a compliment. Once in gear, Obama's notoriously blunt top aide couldn't stop himself, going on to say:

He has laid out his vision, in my view. And he said it clearly. I compliment him for that. He's been very up front and I compliment him for that. He's not hiding. He's asked for President Obama and called for President Obama to fail. That's his view. And that's what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him and say they were misunderstood. He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. He has been up front about what he views and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it and I compliment him for his honesty. But that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America.

More tellingly -- particularly in light of the battles to come -- there was a shuffling of some conservative feet. When it came to defending Limbaugh and the timeless conservative principles he (and Reagan before him) had not only championed in both good times and bad for over twenty years, some flinched. To update the famous Thomas Paine reference ("These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.") there were sunshine conservatives who took one look at the rise of Obama and headed for the philosophical hills.

Even as Rush Limbaugh, the leading conservative in the country, was under attack by every conceivable gun in the arsenal of the American Left from the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House on down, there were those who wimped, whistled, or ran.

GOP consultant Mike Murphy went on NBC's Meet the Press the very same day Emanuel was attacking Limbaugh over on CBS to insist:

The country is changing…. And if we don't modernize conservatism, we are going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, joining every applause line, ripping the furniture up, we're going to be in permanent minority status.

None of this was new, of course. Days before Obama's 2008 election, sunshine conservative Ross Douthat, a member in good standing of a species American Spectator founder R. Emmett Tyrrell calls in his book After the Hangover "Reformed Conservatives" (or, more pithily, "the Benedict Arnolds, Backstabbers, Bruti, and Bums" of the conservative movement), took to the liberal pages of the Atlantic to mock Rush's insistence on adhering to principle.

Over at the New York Times, David Brooks stated flatly a few days after Obama's election that it was not a good idea to be listening to conservative "traditionalists" like "Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity" but lamented that's what would happen. And in doing this, said Brooks, "….the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats."

BUT MURPHY, DOUTHAT, AND BROOKS were pikers when it came to former Bush speechwriter David Frum. Handed the cover of Newsweek for a lengthy article titled "Why Rush is Wrong," in a remarkable piece of writing Frum seemed to be an eager participant in a trash-for-cash article that is standard-operating-procedure for sunshine conservatives seeking approval from the liberal media. Frum chose for his venue a failing national news magazine that had traded its own reputation to the far-left in return for a soon-to-be sale by the Washington Post for -- literally - one dollar and millions in debt. The story was not only a Frum version of the personal insult-laden Alinsky strategy, also scolding Reaganites, it repeatedly insisted Rush was a distinct liability to any conservative or Republican victory -- in 2010 or any other election year.

According to Frum, who larded his three-alarm Rush-warnings throughout a piece filled with personal insults that appeared designed to appease the Washington social crowd, Rush Limbaugh was "kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally." If the GOP listened to Limbaugh it would never win women voters who "trust and admire" Obama. Rush's CPAC speech was a terrible liability that was certain to lose votes: "Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word --we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time." It was idiocy to be listening to Limbaugh, as so many conservatives seemed to be doing: "But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?" And finally, the GOP could not possibly win in 2010 because "Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach."

This morning, Rush Limbaugh stands vindicated.

His critics -- whether on the far-left or of the sunshine conservative variety -- have been not simply defeated but routed, humiliated. Independents fled Obama, women fled Obama, the people of Illinois fled Obama. And so on. And so on.

Yesterday wasn't just an ordinary election.

It was a "Rushslide." The latest chapter in the story not just of a conservative ascendancy, but the story of the ongoing conservative majority.

But there is one very important point here.

What Rush Limbaugh's critics have miscalculated is this. As his friend Sean Hannity says, Rush is the Babe Ruth of talk radio. It should never be forgotten that when Babe Ruth stepped onto a baseball diamond -- he was never alone. He had teammates. And the stands at Yankee Stadium and every place else he played were filled with cheering fans.

In the drive to target Rush Limbaugh, millions of Americans -- from fellow talk radio stars to Fox News to the vast audience of average Americans -- listened and watched these White House-directed anti-Limbaugh screeds first with amazement, then a growing incredulity which finally gave way to outrage.


Because all knew at the end of the day that as sure as God made little green apples what began with Rush would end with everyday Americans. You. Your friends. Your neighbors. The barber, the housewife, the independent, the Catholic, Protestant, or Jew and, yes, the law-abiding everyday Muslim. The college student, the entrepreneur, the doctor, the plumber. Americans all -- every one dreaming dreams that somebody in Washington from the President on down was scheming to control, to limit, to regulate, to tax -- and ultimately control to the point of ruin. And sure enough, like clockwork, as the Tea Party burst into existence these average Americans were targeted just as was Rush. Now it wasn't just Rush who was being smeared, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/liberal media attack machine had turned against these everyday Americans, savaging them as nothing more than a collection of racists, Nazis, and "teabaggers," for resisting their obsession with controlling Americans' every last movement in life while spending the country into trillions of debt as far as the next several generations could see. Americans who had heard Rush predict that the Obama-era would bring an all-out assault on American values realized just short of the nick-of-time not only that he was right, but that it was up to them to stop this assault in its tracks.

And so they did.

Obama, as Rush Limbaugh predicted, has in fact now failed. Nancy Pelosi is out of a job. And thanks to Rush Limbaugh, a new generation of Americans is learning that conservatism is not simply cool -- more importantly they are learning collectivism isn't smart.

But lest there be any doubt, this fight will continue. Not all races were won last night -- not all races will ever be won. Harry Reid is still there. No one in all of American history has won a unanimous election -- with the solitary exception of George Washington. 2012 lies ahead. Fortunately for conservatives, for the Republican Party -- and America -- there is one certainty as this battle continues:

Rush Limbaugh will be on the air.

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Religious Left Pro-Censorship Campaign Hits Rough Water

"Whether or not churchgoers agree with Limbaugh, Dobbs and Beck, the move to use the churches to silence them should be chilling to free speech advocates." -- Mark Tooley, IRD President

From The Institute on Religion and Democracy

A campaign effectively to censor conservative voices on the airwaves and sponsored by a Religious Left coalition has been suddenly dropped. Sponsored by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the ACORN-supporting Wallace Global Fund, the "So We Might See" campaign called for advertisers to stop supporting the Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs programs, as well as the firing of Dobbs. The "Color of Change" campaign targeting Beck has been removed from the "So We Might See" website, as has the "Drop Dobbs" campaign.

The move comes as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) joins a growing list of denominational agencies, including United Methodist Communications, which have removed their names from support for an FCC petition promoted by "So We Might See," a coalition that includes agencies of the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and the National Council of Churches, as well as the Islamic Society of North America and the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops Office of Communications. The petition invokes the name of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as an alleged purveyor of "hate speech" and seeks to effectively silence conservative talk radio voices.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

"Shouldn't liberal religious voices defend free speech against an intrusive government? Regrettably, these Religious Left groups are all too willing to censor speech when it works against their political agenda.

"In the free-flowing marketplace of ideas, the truth usually emerges. Efforts to re-define 'hate speech' and intimidate targets by threatening to have them removed from the air are brutal tactics designed to suppress dissent. "Whether or not churchgoers agree with the likes of Limbaugh, Dobbs and Beck, the move to use the churches to silence them should be chilling to free speech advocates."
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, founded in 1981, is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.

Monday, June 1, 2009

We've Got Rush and Drudge Beat!

On May 22, a week and a half ago, we posted a column from the Russian newspaper Pravda about America's descent into Marxism at the hands of our number one toxic asset, Barack Hussein Obama. Today that story is posted on the Drudge Report, and between 2 and 3 pm we had an enormous spike in visits resulting from Google searches because Rush Limbaugh was talking about it.

The moral is, friends, if you want to know what people will be talking about next week, you need t
o read Sunlit Uplands today.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Thank You, Mr. President!

Friends, if you read one thoughtful article on the whole Obama vs. Limbaugh vs. Steele controversy, read the following by James Lewis. It makes clear that the conflict is pivotal. It also recognizes, as perhaps no one has ever done before, that Rush Limbaugh's role in the struggle for American freedoms and Western civilization is far, far greater than any political party's apparatchik or the noisy featherweights of the media.

We detest Obama and all that he stands for, but for recognizing and elevating Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the opposition, we thank him. The opposition is in good hands.

Obama Appoints Rush Limbaugh Leader of the Opposition
By James Lewis

Rush Limbaugh ‘just an entertainer?" Well, Mark Twain was an entertainer. But he was also one of the finest satirical voices in our history, a searing mocker of our national conscience at the time of slavery. He made people laugh until it hurt, but his aim was fundamentally moral.

For the Chairman of the Republican Party to call Limbaugh "just an entertainer" is both inaccurate and political suicide. Michael Steele saw that quickly, and apologized. ‘Nuff said.
Steele allowed himself to slip on CNN's carefully scripted banana peel, but he knew better. Most of our media Neanderthals don't. They really are ignorant, and the more cocksure they sound, the more you can be sure they don't get the Limbaugh phenomenon. After all, they aren't picked for their capacity for independent thought. Our media artistes begin as Party hacks, like Stephanopoulos, Matthews, Moyers and Russert. They're picked for their completely predictable mindset. Novel ideas are anathema. That's why they're finally going down in the marketplace, and good riddance to ‘em.

The Left may think Rush is just an entertaining loudmouth, like Bill Maher or Jeanine Garofolo, who don't come within a stone's throw of Rush's IQ. Not so. Rush is a political philosopher and a devastating wit in the Burkean political tradition. That's our conservative tradition, which places its trust in human intuition, the profound, tacit wisdom that most of us share. (Unless it's been beaten out of you by an Ivy League education).

Why is intuition so fundamental? Because all human beings are experts at life. And like all experts, most of their knowledge is intuitive, not something you can write down into a large tome like
Das Kapital. Edmund Burke noticed with remarkable insight that French politics of the Revolution was run by intellectuals, who tried to reason out every step of the process. The result was an utter disaster.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Rush Limbaugh's Great Speech to CPAC

Rush Limbaugh closed the CPAC conference yesterday with a brilliant, rousing speech, delivered without a note or teleprompter. He reminded over 8000 conservative activists that they should not be on the defensive, that they do not represent a minority opinion, and that they have an urgent need to take back America from those who would destroy it with generational debt and socialist programs. The speech in ten parts follows:

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Do Conservatives Need to Get Beyond Reagan?

From Imprimis
By Rush Limbaugh

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 4, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of the ninth annual Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner.

THERE ARE ongoing discussions and debates among conservatives about the kind of president Barack Obama will prove to be, and about how they should react to him. But there is a larger and more important debate going on within conservatism—a debate about what conservatism is. Remarkably, we are hearing from a lot of people who are thought to be conservatives that conservatives need to "get beyond Reagan." After all, these people say, "The Reagan era is over." And the liberal media love to print their articles and broadcast their pronouncements to this effect. My response is, well, yes, the Reagan era is over in the sense that it has been 20 years since Reagan was president. But the funny thing is, I never heard the liberals saying that because the era of FDR was over-it ended in 1945-that they needed to "get beyond FDR." They didn't say that 35 years later when Reagan was first elected, or when he was reelected in 1984. They didn't say that when the liberals lost Congress in the 1994 election. Nor did they say it after the 2000 or 2004 elections. Instead, they kept arguing and fighting for the ideas they believe in. And now Mr. Obama is plausibly promising to revive the era of FDR.

So why are some so-called conservatives today arguing that we need to "get beyond Reagan," by which they mean that we need to abandon the ideas that Reagan stood for? To understand the roots of this argument, I think we only need to look back to the years when Reagan first emerged onto the national scene. There was a lot of resentment at that time among many of the elites in the Republican Party because Reagan hadn't gone to the right schools, he didn't come from the right part of the country, he had been an actor rather than a lawyer, he was a bumbling dunce, he was an extremist who was too far outside the mainstream to win, and so on. People have been making these kinds of arguments for a long time. They were saying that conservatives needed to get beyond Reagan even before the Reagan era began. A few of them are the same people. Many of them are new. But what they have in common is that none of them agree with the principles that Reagan stood for. And I would argue that this means that they are not conservatives.

Today the get-beyond-Reagan arguments are often put in so-called pragmatic terms of needing to create blocs of voters who will support the Republican Party. And in order to accomplish this, all that conservatives have to do, these self-proclaimed smart people say,iis embrace the idea of big government, because that's what the American people want and because only so-called big-government conservatives will be able to create blocs of voters by spending money to do them favors. But in answer to this, one has to ask the question-and I'm being a real pragmatist myself here-what's left for government to spend these days? It's already bailing people out right and left with taxpayer money that the government doesn't have. The spigot has been turned on under President Bush. The Obama administration, we can presume, is going to be even more generous in terms of bailouts. But honestly, when we look at auto executives being grilled on TV by liberal members of Congress about their irresponsibility, can we take it seriously? Has anyone ever been as irresponsible with money—and in their case other people's money—than these very same self-righteous members of Congress?

As history has amply demonstrated, down the line the kind of central planning that Mr. Bush has begun and that Mr. Obama plans to escalate isn't going to work. Although it may succeed in increasing the control of government over people's lives—which is how many liberals these days seem to define prosperity—it will fail miserably in restoring economic health to America. So in fact, during a time of economic trouble like this when liberals are in charge of both elected branches of government, conservatives have a golden opportunity to reintroduce to the American people the free market ideas and policies that have made our country the greatest and most prosperous country in human history.

My first point, then, is that there is no pragmatic reason today for conservatives to abandon the ideas of Reagan. It is worth remembering, after all, that despite the warnings of Republican "pragmatists" in the economically bleak 1970s that Reagan was too far outside the mainstream ever to be successful politically, Reagan won the presidency in two landslides-and that in 1994, his party took over the House of Representatives, for the first time in 40 years, using Reagan-like arguments.

But there is a second and more important point to be made in response to the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan. The main idea that animated Reagan wasn't anti-communism or supply side economics. Reagan's main idea was the main idea of the American founding—the idea of individual liberty—and the policies that he supported, both internationally and domestically, grew from that. America was founded on the idea that our individual freedoms derive from God, not from government, and that government should protect those freedoms and never violate them. Reagan argued, and history has shown, that America does best when it is true to its original idea. It does best when its people are left free to work in their individual self-interest—not meant in the sense of being selfish, but in the sense that they are left free to work to improve their own lives and the lives of their families, and for the good of their communities and of the nation at large. The biggest problem with the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan, then, is that the idea of individual liberty will never go out of style as long as America exists. To argue that the Reagan era is over is to argue that the era of freedom is over. And to argue that conservatives should abandon Reagan's principles is to argue that they should stop being conservatives.

There is no such thing, at least in America, as "big-government conservatism." A government that abides by the Constitution and protects our God-given freedoms is by definition limited. Rather than carving out blocs of voters by surrendering their principles, conservatives need to continue to tell the American people as a whole that the ideas of individual liberty and limited government are right and that the policies that come from those ideas work best to produce prosperity. Conservatives don't need to reinvent themselves. They need the courage to be once again who they were.

Friday, February 1, 2008


Dear Sean, Rush, Mark, Roger, Laura, and the rest of the "Conservative" talk show hosts,

You've taught me well, above all else to think for myself. A true "ditto head", I am actually able to form my own truly conservative thoughts, based on what I understand as the most important issues that seperate a REAL Conservative from "wanna be's" and fakes.

Conservative values as I have heard from you all, never change, and this is sound reasoning. True conservatism means that you believe and actually act on your beliefs. True Conservatives are consistent on the following principles. Those start with the Christian values that our forefathers founded this country on, those found in the Bible (which are found in the halls of our Supreme Court), the Ten Comandments. A direct result is that we start in our society wih a Sanctity for Life. It follows that the Sanctity of Marriage and the family is a fundamental building block of our society. Another fundamental belief is that of hard work and self reliance, which creates wealth for those willing to work for it, and as our Bible tells us clearly, if you don't work, if able, you should not eat. One more Conservative test is the Right to Bear Arms, a basic fundamental right in a Democracy and any Free Country.

So lets apply these principles to three "conservative" candidates left standing. Mike Huckabee is the only Conservative who has signed legislation to restrict abortion and protect the Sanctity of Life. Mike Huckabee is the only Conservative candidate who signed legislation protecting the American Family and the Sanctity of Marriage. Mike Huckabee is the only Conservative candidate who stands firmly to abolish the IRS, implement the Fair Tax, and allow us hardworking self reliant Americans to keep more of what we produce and decide how we spend and pay taxes. Last but definitely not least, Mike Huckabee is the ONLY Conservative candidate who has consistently supported the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, a life long hunter and NRA member most of his adult life.

As you all know, John McCain and Mitt Romney fail miserably when compared on these four basic tests of Conservatism. To make matters worse you have broken the "Golden Rule" of our self proclaimed leader "Ronaldus Maximus", never attack a fellow Republican in the primaries.

Yet all of you have in unison decided to attack the record of the only True Conservative in the race, and prop up a man who makes John Kerry's flip flops look like a rank amateur.

So, I must do what you all have schooled me to do, remove my support from the fakes, the "wanna be conservatives" and be true to the real Conservative values I know stand through thick and through thin.

I am no longer listening to any of you! The great thing is that when all of my fellow Conservatives follow suit, your ratings will suffer so badly that the market will have room for some True Conservative talk show hosts!! I think I may have a new career!!

A True Conservative,

Craig A. Nordal

Evangelical Christian
Future Conservative Talk Show Host

Encinitas, CA