AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Liberalism is Not Dying, it is Only Gaining More Power and Influence

I added this comment to the discussion of this post at This Ain’t Hell: Is Janet Napolitano FOS?

The internet will kill Liberalism.

Laughing Wolf Says: Sadly, I doubt it. Progressiveism killed/supplanted classical liberalism in modern politics, and progressive thought will simply not accept any fact that contradicts it. Any such fact is simply a lie, or is from a source that can’t be accepted, or any other tactic that allows it to be dismissed. Nor is dismissal enough; rather, it must be discredited at all costs (‘Swiftboating’ being a good example).

Rational people of any and all stripes will get it. Your modern progressive never will, and will do anything at all to ensure as few others as possible will get that information or point.

I agree with Laughing Wolf. Naive Conservatives/Right-of-center ideologues have been saying since the days of Rathergate (fake TANG memos created by a major news outlet in order to deceive the American public in the effort to take down a sitting President) and the firing of CNN’s Eason Jordan (who admitted that CNN lied/covered up the truth about Saddam’s Iraq in order to maintain access to the country for ‘news’ purposes) that the MF-ing media is dying and alternative media and the internet would save us from the enemy within that calls itself the media. But that did not happen.

Instead, the MF-ing media — along with the ‘entertainment’ industry, public schools, universities and the Left-wing internet — simply gained even more power and influence to spread their lies.

These groups’ lies about the economy and war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan led to the Democrats taking power in Congress in 2006. Their continued lies led to the Democrats taking super-majorities in Congress in 2008. Their despicable lies and smears and utter destruction of Sarah Palin, combined with their lies and cover-up and over-the-top idol-worship of Barack Obama, succeeded in vaulting into power an Administration full of America-hating socialists, Marxists, anti-capitalists and advocates of the Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy America.

It has been 7 years since the MF-ing media deliberately made sh*t up to take down a sitting President. In those 7 years, instead of the public seeing the MF-ing media as the despicable, evil lying pieces of MF-ing shit that they are, they still believe all their lies.

Ask anyone whom they blame for the current state of the economy. Do they look back at the Bush Administration and GOP time in Congress, where we had record highs on Wall Street and low unemployment in the 5% range, and understand that the deficit spending that the GOP did was on all the things that liberals wanted (education, health care, etc)? Do they look back and understand that the Democrats were against the GOP spending not because it was too high, but because it was too low? Do they look back and understand that the Bush Administration and GOP Congress were lowering the deficit from 2005-2006-2007? Do they understand that it was when the Democrats took over Congress in JAN 2007 that the economy started to tank? Do they understand that the Democrats were the ones to have spent us into oblivion?

Do they understand that the Bush Administration and the GOP were working since 2001 to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as they realized that it was not sustainable, and were trying to avoid a housing market crash? Do they understand that it was the Democrats — including ACORN and Barack Obama — led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who blocked the GOP’s efforts to prevent the crisis by demonizing them as racists and scare-mongers?

Do they understand that the GOP has been proposing healthcare alternatives for years, only to be blocked by the Democrats? Do they understand that the Democrats have been blocking domestic oil drilling for decades, yet opening up drilling to any and all foreign countries, all the while whining that we are too dependent on “foreign oil”?

No, they don’t understand any of that. Ask your average American about all this and the majority of them put all the blame on the Bush Administration and the GOP and have nothing but praise and idol-worship of the Democrats and Obama.

It’s absolutely fothermucking ridiculous.

But that is how little power the internet has compared to decades-long indoctrination by ‘progressives’ in public schools, universities, the ‘entertainment’ industry (TV, movies, songs, ‘celebrity’ activism, etc) and the MF-ing media.

Advertisements

March 27, 2011 , 3:34PM Posted by | Democrats, Liberalism, Marxism, Media Bias, Socialism | Comments Off on Liberalism is Not Dying, it is Only Gaining More Power and Influence

Catholic Pedophiles vs Muslim Terrorists

The liberal defense of the Ground Zero Victory Mosque is getting continuously more and more mind-numbingly ridiculous. And the liberal and MF-ing media defense of Obama’s support for the mosque is even moreso.

Case in point: in defending Obama against the public perception that he is a Muslim, the MF-ing media is now saying that he is even more a Christian than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush:

The irony here: The big irony of this story: President Obama is more religious than Reagan or H.W. Bush ever was; in fact, he gets Bible verses sent to his blackberry EVERY DAY.

As a commenter at AoSHQ sarcasticly stated:

I get Viagra spam sent to my e-mail address every day, too. Doesn’t make me a pr0n star…

Posted by: Drumwaster at August 19, 2010 01:21 PM

Heh.

It really is no surprise that more and more Americans suspect that Obama is a Muslim. He has continuously mocked Christians and Jews; his entire background is full of associations with anti-Semites, Islamists and those who support Islam; and the only “church” he has ever attended was a Black Liberation Theology “church” which was/is anti-Semitic, anti-American and pro-Islam. Not to mention, Obama has made numerous statements of his admiration for and support of Islam and Muslims. As I stated on my Facebook today, imagine this scenario:

Imagine if Sarah Palin had said the following:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as Vice President of the United Stated to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear”.

Think the MF-ing media would turn that statement into a major scandal? Damn right they would.

But, she never has stated anything like that. However, Barack Hussein Obama has stated the following:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United Stated to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”.

And the MF-ing media said nothing about it.

Well, I actually could be wrong there. The MF-ing media probably did say something about it, but I’d bet anything that they addressed it in order to defend Obama on his statement. But, I would also feel 100% comfortable betting that the MF-ing media would not give similar treatment to Sarah Palin — or any conservative politician — were she to give a similar statement about Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism or even Mormonism.

And that’s because there is a despicable double-standard with liberals when it comes to religion. They abhor Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism — and, to a lesser extent, Mormonism, about which they only get upset when Mitt Romney comes on the scene or with regards to Proposition 8 in California — and make every effort to lie about, smear, mock, ridicule and spew vitriol at these religions at every chance they get. However, when it comes to Islam, they are 100% in support of this despicable, intolerant, totalitarian cult.

I started thinking about this while reading this post by Ace at AoSHQ: Email Response to a Rightie Suggesting We Support the Ground Zero Mosque

Has there been built a single Muslim museum of 9/11 atrocities with the message that this was wrong? Have there been powerful ecumenicals circulated of the Muslim religion taking any responsibillity or showing any shame for this?

I do not believe this happened in a vacuum: This happened because, as we’ve seen time and time again, defending terrorism, or explaining the NUANCES of murder, is far too common in Muslim circles. This creates an atmosphere of social acceptance and encouragement of terrorism.

Are most Muslims terrorists? Of course not. But, speaking among themselves, would most Muslims continue insisting this is a far more “complicated” issue than we in the West can comprehend?

I believe the answer is “Yes.” And yes, I think a majority. When clerics appear on tv and refuse to forthrightly and unambiguously repudiate terrorism, preferring instead to give a qualified statement of disfavor followed by a list of reasons why the West is to blame for our own murders, I have to imagine that these clerics are not free-lancing, but instead offering the basic sentiment of their congregation.

This Ground Zero Mosque has nothing within it to *disclaim* a glorification of 9/11. There is no museum for the dead; no exhibit showing the bloody fruit of religious extremism. It permits itself to be taken two ways — to the West, they will say “moderation” and “tolerance,” but will the more excitable elements within the religion get that message? Well, I don’t think so — because there’s nothing, nothing in these plans to expressly repudiate that.

The message remains open, open to differing interpretations, and I believe that’s by design — just as Imam Rauf’s nuanced views of organized murder are open to differing interpretations, one designed to placate the West, the other designed to offer succor and moral uplift to killers.

Yasser Arafat did this all the time, offering one message in English for his patrons in the West, and another one for his supporters in the terror cells of Palestine.

Enough, enough.

Ace is exactly correct. However, compare how liberals reacted to the pedophile scandal within the Catholic church and how they treat the entire Catholic Church to how liberals react to Islamic terrorism and how they treat Islam and Muslims in general.

With regards to the Catholic church pedophile scandal, at most about 10% of priests were involved in the scandal. People were rightly outraged not only with the actions of the priests themselves, but also with the lousy way the Catholic Church handled the issue. As a result, the Catholic Church as a whole was smeared and all Catholic priests were branded guilty by association based on this scandal.

Similarly, with regards to Islamic terrorism, at most about 10% of Muslims are terrorists. However, in contrast to the MF-ing media and liberal reaction to the Catholic priest pedophile scandal, they exhibited no outrage with Islam nor broad-brushing of all Muslims as terrorists. This despite the fact that Muslim leaders worldwide acted in a similarly poor fashion as the Catholic church in response to their scandal. In fact, instead of taking responsibility for the actions, Muslims leaders worldwide actually claimed victimhood and smeared anyone who criticized them as being irrational, even creating the phony term “Islamophobia”. Imagine if Catholic leaders had claimed victimhood and then deemed everyone who was smearing them after the pedophile scandal as “Catholiphobes”. Think they would have gotten away with that? Not on your life (and rightly so). Yet, this is exactly what Muslms and Islam are getting away with thanks to Liberals.

What I don’t understand at all is the fact that Islam is the intolerant, human rights violating, woman-oppressing religion that the liberals wrongly smear Christianity and Catholicism as being. Yet, liberals are in full support of Islam and have a seething hatred for Christianity and Catholicism. It makes absolutely no sense.

Ironically enough, there actually should be the terms “Christianphobe” and/or “Catholiphobe” to describe liberals, as their fear of these religions is ridiculously irrational. Meanwhile, “Islamophobe” is akin to the Left’s favorite discussion-stopping term “racist!” It is simply thrown around to shut down anyone who dares to expose the evils of the cult of Islam. A cult that includes subjugation and opression of women, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, killing of apostates and opression and killing of homosexuals.

So liberals have an irrational hatred of a religion — Christianity — whose ideology welcomes women and homosexuals into its congregation, but simply stands against promiscuous sex and against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Meanwhile, liberals respect and celebrate a religion — Islam — whose ideology believes in opressing women and killing homosexuals.

Maybe that’s why liberalism/progressivism/socialism/Marxism and Islam get along so well… they are all backasswards ideologies.

Once again, Ace states it well:

What it’s about is the utter shamelessness of this. The utter refusal for anyone involved in this grotesquerie to exhibit the sense of decorum and taste that even animals possess and evaluate what impact their designs may have on other people, including the direct victims of radical, triumphant Islam.

Shamelessness.

I would suggest that Cordoba House fixate itself less on selling Islam to the West and more on selling Western values of anti-terrorism, render-unto-Caesar, and tolerance to Islam.

Were they actually doing that, I would support this — wholeheartedly!

But they’re not. Next to a hole in the ground created by Muslim excess and Islamic equivocation over the rightfulness of murdering the infidel, they want to erect and advertisement — not for peace, not for understanding, not for dialogue, not for anti-terrorism — but just for Islam.

And they didn’t bother to ask if anyone would have a problem with this, and that’s because they never cared. It was never about that — it was about, just as suspected, erecting a trimuphal tower to the might of Islam.

And they didn’t ask about that, and now that people have — since they weren’t asked in private, we have to tell them in public — they still don’t care.

So don’t tell me this is about tolerance and moderation and building bridges.

This is about a shameless attempt to grab up a piece of property on the cheap, a piece of property in downtown Manhattan that is only on the market at all because of the actions of some Muslims, and the shamelessness of other Muslims in plunking down cash of dubious sourcing to purchase the land at jet-fuel fire-sale prices.

Exactly.

This commenter summarizes the issue it well:

For Kat (and liberals) history begins when they wake up each morning.

You see Kat…. the headchoppers have been roaming the globe targeting women and children in marketplaces for over 30 years, with impunity.

And US citizens have lived peacefully with Muslims for 30 years. They know they have nothing to fear from us, if we were calm on 9/12, and calm for the last 10 years… they know that Americans are no threat to them or their mosques.

This provocation at GZ is a deliberate attempt to desecrate our war dead…. they started this…… not us.

Posted by: pam at August 19, 2010 02:54 PM

A-freaking-men to this:

They will do this.

Because they do not care.

Because our feelings, our sensitivities, are irrelevant.

They will use the freedom of a Western philosophy that they largely treat with disdain as a justification to do the shameless, and demand our tolerance.

But one good thing will hopefully come out of this. Once you bite that apple, and proclaim proudly, “I do not care whom is hurt, or whom I insult, it is my RIGHT!” you cannot go back. You proudly proclaim that you have the *right* to be as big an a**hole as you want and gosh darn it you are going to do it, suddenly when people treat you rudely you have no argument, no appeal to sensibility and shame.

Because tomorrow, the next day and the next, more of those little minor grievances to Islam, that really amount to nothing, that many in the religion wail about without end, they will occur.

Denial of official recognition of Sharia law.
Artist renderings like Draw Mohammad day.
Literature like the Satanic Verses.
Comedy like episode 201.

And when you wail, and cry about the sanctity of your religious beliefs and make that appeal for sensitivity. An intemperate mass will point at that building and say “F#ck You!”

For once you have given up your shame, you cannot demand it from others. So go ahead, bite that apple, and watch your perfect little garden disintegrate; open that box, and loose the trappings of a free society upon yourself in earnest for the first time.

Who’s with me in asking, that Comedy Central, in order to promote tolerant and peaceful outreach to the Muslim community, re-air episode 201 without censorship? I’m in the mood for a good laugh at Islam’s expense right about now.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 19, 2010 03:10 PM

UPDATE 20 AUG 2010: Great article at The American Thinker on this topic. (Even better that it references one of my all-time favorite shows, Seinfeld. heh)

Of course, none of that makes any sense — and that becomes clearer and clearer to more and more Americans under the microscope of the Ground Zero Mosque issue. And it’s not the mosque issue alone, of course. As theorized by J.R. Dunn, that could simply be the tipping point.

There’s the skipping of the Boy Scout’s 100th Anniversary Ceremony. There’s the golf instead of church almost every Sunday. There’s the “clinging to their guns and religion” comment. There’s the anti-Israel comments and policies. And on and on.

So now we have a president haunted by the idea that he is really a Muslim — and not a Christian at all. How delicious it is that his blatantly secular liberal supporters are totally impotent at fighting this battle for him — given that so many Americans take faith seriously?

And going back to Wright’s Trinity Church will not help. There will be no Jesus Cred available there. Listen to the tapes or order the books. You will simply find Black Liberation Theology and Marxism and so on. Jesus? Not so much.

So Americans will likely continue to think of Obama as a Muslim in increasing numbers. But hey — “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

August 19, 2010 , 3:42PM Posted by | Dhimmitude, Islam, Liberalism, Marxism, Muslims | Comments Off on Catholic Pedophiles vs Muslim Terrorists

Actually, it is Blatantly Obvious that Hitler was a Leftist

Great comment here in response to this post at Gateway Pundit: Howard Zinn, Left’s Favorite Historian Now Proven Member of US Communist Party

Andreas K.
August 1st, 2010 | 8:59 am | #31

I was reading through the link provided by S. Wolf “What the Left Really Thinks of Hitler”

And I had to post this as a comment to it:

Actually Hitler was a leftist. Saying he wasn’t is just further pushing the lie that Hitler was “right wing” and that all Nazis were and are “right wing.”

How was Hitler left wing? It’s blatantly obvious. The only problem is that these facts are usually swept under the carpet by the people selling this “collective guilt” to Germans these days, which means: German politicians and media telling Germans people who were born after the war, that they bear responsibility for the Holocaust, which is, in fact, a Nazi principle by itself. It was called “Sippenhaftung”. One member of a group committed a crime and thus all members of the group were criminals.

Anyway.

First off, national socialism is exactly that. Socialism on a national level, focusing primarily on this strange idea of “race” instead of “class”. “Race” is nothing new in socialism. It was an important point long before Hitler. Plus, Hitler’s national socialism has plenty of “class warfare” themes. Even today you can watch one national socialist country: North Korea. It’s always sold as stalinist, but North Korea has copied the “Aryan master race” idea and calls it “national bloodline”, for which people are murdered, similar to what the Nazis did.

Most importantly though are the statements of Nazi leaders themselves.

Göbbels said in a speech in December 1933 that the NSDAP is, by definition, the German left wing (he called it “die deutsche Linke”) and that they hate nothing more than a “rechtsstehendes Besitzbürgertum”, a right-wing bourgeousie (literally a “right-wing property owning citizenry”.)

In early 1945, Hitler held a conference of the Gauleiters. During this Hitler lamented that, while the Nazis had succeeded in destroying the “Klassenkämpfer” (lit. “class warriors”, aka the Communists, Hitler’s direct competition for power), they had failed to destroy the German right wing. Hitler called this their biggest sin.

In comparison, right wing people under Hitler were men like Stauffenberg.

And if we go back into the history of the socialist movement, then we find men like Karl Kautzky, chief ideologist of the German Socialist Party, SPD, which still exists today. Kautzky once wrote, in 1914, that the ultimate goal must be the destruction of capitalism, because if you destroy capitalism, you destroy the Jews, and that is good.

And even the founder, Karl Marx himself, ranted about how “inferior classes and races must be wiped out.”

Genocide is part of the program, coming from Marx himself. Lenin. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Che. Castro. And so on. They all just followed the orders from Marx himself. Without Marx, there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. Without Marx no gulags, no famines from Lenin, and so on.

Also, calling Hitler far right is a logic fallacy.

Communism, socialism always lead to what? Oppression, dictatorship, mass murder, as history proves without a doubt. If we call Hitler “far right”, then the extreme opposite to socialist mass murder and oppression is… socialist mass murder and oppression. Which doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Far right, that’s not the Nazis, that’s the extreme support of liberty, freedom and democracy.

Let me add this specifically here:

There are a handful of historians in Germany and Austria these days, who are pushing against this “Hitler = right wing” mantra. They are, as of now, not very popular and are called many nasty things. However, they provide actual evidence for Hitler not being right wing, but rather left wing. Evidence like speeches and notes. And the conclusion from this evidence is pretty clear: Hitler was as left wing as Lenin, just focusing on race instead of class, while Lenin focused on class instead of race. The basic idea, though, is essentially the same. Race and class are the two driving points of socialism in its many forms.

Marx always leads to Stalin and/or Hitler. Always.

And let’s not forget that Hitler received his first political indoctrination and training from whom? The German communists. Essentially Hitler agreed with their ideas. He just hated that they weren’t racist enough. The result was the German Workers’ Party (DAP), or better said, Hitler joining the already existing DAP. Eventually the DAP was renamed into the, yes you guessed right, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Nationalsocialist German Workers’ Party, the NSDAP.

Also let’s not forget what Hitler promoted: German nationalism, anti-semitism, anti-capitalism and anti-communism (since the communists were the direct competition for power.)

Andreas added this great comment earlier in the thread:

Andreas K.
August 1st, 2010 | 6:56 am | #24

“You see, even I as an ardent anti-Communist, can understand why so many western leftists thought that the early communist movement(s) was a great idea. Early in the history of socialism/communism it all seemed so high-minded, such a bold experiment. This was before Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot began to murder millions.”

Let me just say this:

The murdering began before Stalin, before Mao, before Pol Pot.

Lenin triggered famines in Russia which killed the people in the millions. Hunger was a weapon on the civil war and the Communists used it whenever they could. Millions of Russians perished. Men, women, children, because comrade Lenin said so. That was long before gulags and other camps.

If we go back even further we can see Marx himself writing about how “inferior classes and races” must be wiped out. The basic idea of socialism from Karl Marx itself includes genocide. Genocide is part of the ideology.

And every socialist, communist, marxist, maoist, etc, supports this.

Yep. And the modern day genocide is the promotion of abortion-on-demand and encouraging the elderly to simply “die with dignity”… which is promoted by liberals and the LEFT, not conservatives and the Right.

August 2, 2010 , 10:06AM Posted by | Communism, Hitler, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Marxism, Racism, Socialism | Comments Off on Actually, it is Blatantly Obvious that Hitler was a Leftist

I Worry About What the Left is Planning to Do to Keep Their Power

I wrote this less than 6 months ago, but it is even more of a worry now than it was back then.

“Remember when Michelle Obama talked about having to fear that her husband would be assasinated? (god, i wish I had that link..)The absolute worst thing that could happen to America right now would be precisely that. The cities would come unglued. …

I am so sorry for even thinking this. But. I think this is the way they will burn the house down. …”

Posted by: Derak at August 31, 2009 11:25 PM

I hate to think about stuff like that too, Derak, but, to be honest, I do worry about Soros and Co. manufacturing some crisis for their own benefit.

(1) We still don’t have an answer as to what the f— happened with the economy just all of a sudden, coincidentally crashing at the perfect time to turn the Presidential election last year.

(2) We already have evidence of the Left collaborating on a big lie to take down a sitting President (TANG memos)

(3) The Left already does things on a small level to either turn elections in their favor or intimidate (ACORN, voter registration fraud, campaign donation fraud, using the mass media to smear all opponents, using the power of government to smear a private citizen (Joe the Plumber), Black Panthers at polling places, smearing and intimidating citizens and businesses and churches over Prop 8, sending out union thugs to infiltrate townhalls, sending out paid operatives to pose as ‘unhinged right-wingers’ attacking Democrat offices or hold up inflammatory signs at protests, etc)

And there are many, many other things the Left (Obama, his associates in his Administration and those from his past career (Gates, Wright, Ayers, etc), the mass media, Soros, etc) has been doing the past 8 years and especially during this past 8 months.

All of these things, when presented to the American public during 2007 and 2008 to warn people about Obama and his Marxist minions, were blown off as simply smearing and wackjob conspiracy theories.

Having followed Obama’s career, which was helped by radicals all along the way, I just have to wonder what these people have cooked up to keep their power. Obama has been used his entire life to get the Left into the power they hold now. I am ashamed to admit that I wonder if they have built him up as a messiah in order to be eventually martyred in some way…

Yeah, it sounds batshit crazy, but most of the shit that Obama and his minions have done since JAN 20, 2009 would have seemed batshit crazy had someone predicted last year that Obama would do them.

Also, to add to the above examples, we have the Democrats using the deaths of Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy for political purposes. Granted, this is a FAR, FAR cry from assassination and then using that for political purposes.

But after we have example after example of the Left using projection and accusing the Right of things that the Left does (corruption, astroturfing, etc), we heard all during Dubya’s term that *he* was planning some kind of ‘reichstag fire’ thing or gulf of tonkin incident… could that be more projection by them? Did they accuse the Right of having the capability of doing that, because they on the Left would do that themselves?

I dunno… It’s horrible to even think this way. But after watching the escalation of depravity and corruption and vitriol and hate from the Left over the past decade, I just wonder what they are planning to do next to keep their power…

Posted by: Michael in MI at August 31, 2009 11:50 PM

February 15, 2010 , 12:56AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Liberalism, Marxism | Comments Off on I Worry About What the Left is Planning to Do to Keep Their Power

One Year Ago, Rush Limbaugh Led the Way in Warning Us About Obama’s Destructive Plans for America

On today’s show, Rush replayed his warnings about Obama from one year ago: Rush Flashback: “I Hope He Fails”

As usual, he was spot-on. He was one of the very, very few people with influence who had the courage to speak up and lead the way in working to stop Obama and his Marxist minions.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, to the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? 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? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it!

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him from before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he’s my president, he’s a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn’t have to being down with the struggle, all of that’s irrelevant to me. We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? 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.

I’m happy to be the last man standing. I’m honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I’m the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn’t, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I’m now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I’m serious about this. Why in the world, it’s what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn’t going to assuage anybody’s victim status, and the race industry isn’t going to go away, and the fact that America’s original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it’s not going to happen. Just isn’t, folks. It’s too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I’m fired up about this.

RUSH: That was me, ladies and gentlemen, January 16th of 2009. And I must credit Mr. Snerdley for giving me the idea to replay this when he came in and asked me what the date was. That was January 16th, which was five days prior to the Obama immaculation. Quite prescient, was it not? I called virtually everything that’s happened here in five minutes. In five minutes I ‘splained everything that was going to happen.

January 19, 2010 , 11:49PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Conservatism, Liberalism, Marxism, Rush Limbaugh, Socialism | Comments Off on One Year Ago, Rush Limbaugh Led the Way in Warning Us About Obama’s Destructive Plans for America