While we wait to hear the fate of the prison of Standish, MI, let’s put together the facts. The facility is one of a few in the U.S.that may be used to house Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Bart Stupak, Congressman of the 1st District, is enthusiastic about the idea, and helped suggest his district as a home to the Gitmo prisoners. He first suggested an Upper Peninsula prison, but settled on Standish, which was due to close November 1st, 2009, 150 miles from Dearborn.
The town is divided on the issue, but efforts led by Dave Munson, and Kelly Kimball to oppose the transfer to the small prison town seem effective. Munson has testified in Washington D.C., and Kimball has been involved with protesting the move.
Although interested in the prospects of keeping the prison open, since it is the town’s major employer, the City council of Standish changed their minds about housing the detainees. The council wanted some questions answered about the move because they noted that not a lot of information is being offered by the administration, nor from Stupak.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States agrees to hear a case involving Chinese Muslims, or “Uighurs” and refuses to hear a case from a Yemeni detainee. The Uighurs are pushing to enjoy a free life on American soil.
Just like a slap to reality, a Detroit Imam was shot by the FBI in Dearborn. Luqman Ameen Abdullah was “‘advocating and encouraging his followers to commit violent acts against the United States,’ FBI agent Gary Leone said in an affidavit…” The leader of the radical U.S. Sunni Muslim group has members that are, “mostly are black and some converted to Islam while in prisons across the United States.” Abdullah’s son was arrested in Canada.
Gordon Cullulu, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, who spoke at a town hall in October in Standish, wrote a very detailed and informative article for Human Events, dealing with the real threat to the citizenry of Standish with examples from across the globe to back it up. Cullulu writes, “The mythical 1,000 promised jobs, the lure that continues to entice naive officials, would be filled not by state Department of Corrections personnel but by federal employees. As of latest reporting the administration plans a hybrid system of confinement – some military personnel, others in the Federal Corrections system – but little or no local hiring.”
With little information from the Obama Administration, it leaves me to guess that Standish is still on the table. In an email I received from my friend, Tim Sumner, a retired U.S. Army NCO and co-founder of 911 Families For a Safe & Strong America, more information:
Tim writes, “You see, the largest number of detainees fit into Category C: too dangerous to release but not enough evidence to prosecute them. Out of the 215 remaining at Gitmo, about 60 will be prosecuted, about 60 will be (at some point) offloaded to other nations, and about 100 are Category C detainees. The latter are not going to be spread around in either prisons or military brigs because 1) the Geneva Convention says detainees can’t be placed in prisons with common criminals, 2) military brigs are for the common criminals who happen to have been in the military at the time of their crimes, and 3) it would spread the security concerns to those brigs.
So, what seems to be the plan?
Detainees change status from war criminal to federal defendant if charged under Article III. Thus, they can be housed in federal prisons and the administration has opened up 40 beds at Supermax.
The Navy brig in Charleston was toured in October by the Assistant Vice-Deputy Undersecretary of Semi-Defense for Detaining Overseas Operating Contingents (too much?) and those charged with war crimes and prosecuted by Military Commissions might go to a nearby national guard base that the brig there also controls. In other words, that part of the plan remains fuzzy.
Standish is still very much on the Category C table. If that is the decision, Obama will likely throw the town some money “from his stash” to keep the sewer system running in the black yet he will restore not one prison job to the locals as it will be DOD operated with DOJ oversight.”
I remain convinced that this possible move is a direct threat to the 1st District of Michigan, and the fact that Bart Stupak is all for it knowing what we know, means he is either clueless or evil. I was against this move when I first heard of it, I am even more convinced now that this move, though not inevitable right now, is the stupidest thing ever considered and is against both the nation’s interest and Michigan’s.
In the President’s weekly radio address, he said this, “In fact, there has not been a nominee in several generations who has brought the depth of judicial experience to this job that she offers.”
He also said this, “There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law. As a fellow judge on her court, appointed by Ronald Reagan, said recently, ‘I don’t think I’d go as far as to classify her in one camp or another. I think she just deserves the classification of outstanding judge.'”
Where to begin? Our President is a liar, simply put. What he describes as fact is indeed, a lie. There has not been a nominee in several generations? What is that, 80-100 years? Several generations? And he specifically states her judicial experience. The other side has no valid points right? The people who have actually read her decisions and noted her temperament and overturned her rulings to the tune of 80% the time?
But what is the most striking is Obama’s attempt to misguide the American public on just who is playing politics and which quotes by Sotomayor should be on trial here. When Obama says that the right is pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture, he doesn’t specify which comments he is speaking of. Over the weekend the lazy press kept putting the comments up on the screen of when she said she would make a better decision than a white man. But that’s not the meat and potatoes issue. I mean, obviously that is a racist and sexist comment, but to me, the more bellicose statement was in 2005 at a panel discussion in Durham, North Carolina at Duke School of Law when she said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know. (laughing)” This is the Constitutional fight we have on our hands, Ladies and Gents. I seem to recall 20 years ago in my senior year of high school when I had to take Government class. We all had to make a flow chart of how a bill becomes a law. We also made posters of the three branches of government and were asked to memorize all of it. If memory serves, and it always does, the Judiciary Branch is supposed to interpret, not make law or public policy.
I also have to say that the fact that the judge “appointed by Ronald Reagan” gives the reader or listener the impression that the “judge” shares the philosophy of Ronald Reagan. He doesn’t name the judge, he doesn’t provide us with anything but invokes the name of Ronald Reagan. We don’t know anything about that judge, but we know plenty about Sotomayor and how her judicial philosophy and President Obama’s are one.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Saturday, May 30, 2009
This week, I nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals to replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court. After reviewing many terrific candidates, I am certain that she is the right choice. In fact, there has not been a nominee in several generations who has brought the depth of judicial experience to this job that she offers.
Judge Sotomayor’s career began when she served as an Assistant District Attorney in New York, prosecuting violent crimes in America’s largest city. After leaving the DA’s office, she became a litigator, representing clients in complex international legal disputes. She was appointed to the U.S. District Court, serving six years as a trial judge where she presided over hundreds of cases. And most recently, she has spent eleven years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, our nation’s second highest court, grappling with some of the most difficult constitutional and legal issues we face as a nation. She has more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the past 100 years. Quite simply, Judge Sotomayor has a deep familiarity with our judicial system from almost every angle.
And her achievements are all the more impressive when you consider what she had to overcome in order to achieve them. Judge Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx; her parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. Her father was a factory worker with a third grade education; when she was just nine years old, he passed away. Her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for her and her brother, buying the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood and sending her children to Catholic school. That’s what made it possible for Judge Sotomayor to attend two of America’s leading universities, graduating at the top of her class at Princeton University, and studying at Yale Law School where she won a prestigious post as an editor of the school’s Law Journal.
These many years later, it was hard not to be moved by Judge Sotomayor’s mother, sitting in the front row at the White House, her eyes welling with tears, as her daughter – who had come so far, for whom she sacrificed so much – was nominated to the highest court in the land.
And this is what makes Judge Sotomayor so extraordinary. Even as she has reached the heights of her profession, she has never forgotten where she began. She has faced down barriers, overcome difficult odds, and lived the American dream. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, she will bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey – a journey defined by hard work, fierce intelligence, and the enduring faith that, in America, all things are possible.
It is her experience in life and her achievements in the legal profession that have earned Judge Sotomayor respect across party lines and ideological divides. She was originally named to the U.S. District Court by the first President Bush, a Republican. She was appointed to the federal Court of Appeals by President Clinton, a Democrat. She twice has been overwhelmingly confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And I am gratified by the support for this nomination voiced by members of the legal community who represent views from across the political spectrum.
There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law. As a fellow judge on her court, appointed by Ronald Reagan, said recently, “I don’t think I’d go as far as to classify her in one camp or another. I think she just deserves the classification of outstanding judge.”
Congress returns this week and I hope the confirmation process will begin without delay. No nominee should be seated without rigorous evaluation and hearing; I expect nothing less. But what I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past. Judge Sotomayor ought to be on the bench when the Supreme Court decides what cases to hear this year and I’m calling on Democrats and Republicans to be thorough, and timely in dealing with this nomination.
As President, there are few responsibilities more serious or consequential than the naming of a Supreme Court Justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure. They are charged with applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time. And the impact of their decisions extends beyond an administration, but for generations to come.
This is a decision that I have not taken lightly and it is one that I am proud to have made. I know that Justice Sotomayor will serve this nation with distinction. And when she ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the Supreme Court, bringing a lifetime of experience on and off the bench, America will have taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that is chiseled above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.
So far, the Obama administration has been true to it’s campaign promises.
He ran on change, and he is changing our nation, to be sure.
Ordinary, everyday people are mildly tiffed at his arrogance, his whining about the Bush administration, and his constant interruption of American Idol.
But what has become disgusting is his use of Lincoln.
Obama used Lincoln in his inauguration in such a dispicable way, that people you know actually think Lincoln was a Democrat.
For instance, I googled ‘Obama Lincoln’ and I just took a sampling of atrocious reports of how Obama compares to Lincoln.
During the campaign, he pledged to be a unifying leader. Good thing for Obama there are other presidents whose experiences he can draw on, including one, in particular, from his home state.
Two Presidential Historians Discuss The Leaders, Closely Linked But Separated By 150 Years
Jan. 17, 2009 | by Phil Hirschkorn CBS
By Ed Hornick
January 10, 2009 11:41 AM Jake Tapper ABC
Obama invokes the Great Emancipator for many purposes
Now, I can’t tell you how much I despise liars. It is beyond words for me to tell you how much I resent the reshaping of history by popular culture. However, what is most upsetting to me is the blatent, purposeful torture of truth that our current President is inflicting on this great nation.
The fact is, Lincoln was a republican, he ran his campaign on putting an end to slavery and he really did come from humble beginnings.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
I want it said of me by those who knew me best, that I always plucked a thistle and planted a flower where I thought a flower would grow.
Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
Obama is nothing at all like Lincoln.
|From Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, March 10,2009,
Rush: The people who listen to this program regularly have knowledge about me and this program. One of the things they know is that I love this country. Another thing they know is that I love people. All conservatives love people and we are colorblind. We don’t look out over a group of people and say, “Ooh, there’s a group of women sitting over there, and there’s a group of blacks, there’s some Hispanics, ooh, there’s some Walmart voters, ooh, there’s some people who think the era of Reagan is over.”
We love the country, we love people, and are in awe of the founding of this country and its blessings by God and the recognition in our founding documents that we were all created with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We conservatives see all three of those things under assault. We in this audience want the best for every American. We want everyone to succeed. We do not want our country to fail, and we do not want individual citizens to fail. Against that knowledge, understanding, and given, here we have an administration which is implementing policies that are anathema to the founding of the country, in our view, my view. We have an administration implementing policies that are destructive to the way this country was founded, they are destructive to the opportunities for happiness and prosperity that this country has provided for 230 years, and we’re alarmed by it. I see that a lot of other people are alarmed by it, too, but they don’t have the guts to say so per se because they are afraid of having happen to them what has been happening to me with the White House and the media trying to destroy them or ruin their reputations or what have you.
I got to thinking about this. The Federalist Papers and the constitutional convention debates are rife with arguments about the separation of powers. Now, stick with me on this, because this is a fundamental point to try to explain, especially to those of you who are new to the program, what it is that guides me. The whole theory of the separation of powers, meaning legislative branch, judicial branch, executive branch, was ingeniously based on human nature. Our Founding Fathers had studied history, and they knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we divide power. We divide power between the states and the federal government. We divide power within the federal government. And we further divide power among three separate branches of government. We give each branch a different set of powers and incentives to protect their own prerogatives so they can keep an eye on each other. These are called checks and balances. And the liberals love talking about checks and balances very much.
|The underlying assumption of this whole system is that the country functions better if everyone is of a skeptical bent of mind. That’s what keeps the next guy honest. The whole reason that we have divided government instead of a king is that the issue is not about one government official succeeding. This country was not founded on the principle that the president is a king and above all the king must succeed. In fact, the system is designed to ensure that the president fails when he is wrong. That’s the whole purpose of checks and balances. The whole purpose of dividing power, is to ensure the president fails when he’s wrong. The Framers wanted the country to succeed, just as I do. If they wanted the president to succeed, they would not have saddled him with Congress, they wouldn’t have saddled him with the courts, they wouldn’t have saddled him with the free press, and they wouldn’t have made him face reelection every four years. They would have made him a king who no one could oppose.
If our nation was all about a single individual succeeding simply because that individual must succeed regardless, we wouldn’t have the form of government that we do. Now, conflating the president and the country — and by that I mean, assuming that the president is always the country, assuming that the president always has the country’s best interests at heart, such as the founders did, turns a functioning democracy into a robotic cult. I fear that that’s what we have right now. We have a cult of fear and celebrity, robotic cult, that is epitomized in Warren Buffett, it’s epitomized by Jack Welch, it’s epitomized by Barton Biggs and Jim Cramer and anybody else who knows what they see is devastatingly wrong, is horribly wrong, but because there is a fear to oppose because the assumption is that Obama is the country, that Obama equals the best interests of the country simply because he’s Obama, that’s what gives you a cult. The worst part of it is that many of these people who are making hay over this Limbaugh-wants-Obama-to-fail garbage know full well, ladies and gentlemen, that what I just told you is the case.
This is not an honest debate going on here, as we have demonstrated in the first hour of the program with the Warren Buffett sound bites and the Barton Biggs sound bites and the Jim Cramer sound bites. It’s not an honest debate. What’s happening here is the most cynical kind of down and dirty politics by people who not only wanted George W. Bush to fail, but worked night and day to ensure that he failed. I say to you again, if the Founders wanted a situation where the government was about one official succeeding, then George Washington would have accepted the role he was he offered as king. But we have separation of powers. We have division of powers. All of this is designed to ensure that a president fails when he is wrong. The Framers wanted the country to succeed. Let me add to this, Byron York today writing at the DCExaminer.com: “‘Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama’s Plans to Fail’ — James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document — one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the US Constitution — it’s clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history. Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a ‘great opportunity,’ as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that ‘great opportunity’ to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop.
“In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, ‘may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.’ For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63: ‘There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?'”
Let me translate this for you. There are going to be times demagogues are going to come along, there are going to be times that people who are power hungry, who are going to take advantage of a crisis, to say they’ve got all the solutions, and they’re going to ram all these things through. The solutions have nothing to do with the crisis. They’re just selfish desires of the demagogue. The people, because of the crisis, are going to go along with it, even though in rational moments they would reject it all. We need an element to stop this. We need an element to protect the people from the kind of leaders who would abuse them, mislead them, and, ergo, one of those devices was the United States Senate. “Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senate’s job is to delay action on them until Obama’s power to stir popular passions fades.”
I was just talking about this with Mr. Snerdley because we were in his office at the top of the hour, and there’s Obama out there making his health care initiative today. Snerdley is getting all worked up about it, “My gosh, every day it’s a new initiative, it’s health care here, card check there, this and that and the other thing, where’s the bill?” I said, “Snerdley, you’re missing the point. There need not ever be legislation on this. Don’t you understand what’s happening here?” Let me tell you people. He goes out and says, (doing Obama impression) “I’m going to take advantage of this opportunity to do health care reform. Health care reform will get you a job, health care reform is one of the reasons the economy is tanking. You need better health care.” Who doesn’t? “Obama is going to get us health care, Mabel, Obama is going to get us health care! Obama, why, he’s going to educate our kids better.” So the approval numbers stay up. All the approval numbers need to stay up is the right rhetoric from Obama. He doesn’t have to do anything, even though he’s going to try to ram a lot of stuff down our throats, he doesn’t have to. As long as he keeps the approval number up, then Warren Buffett is going to back down and Jack Welch is going to back down and Barton Biggs is going to back down, and everybody else is going to back down ’cause they’re going to be afraid. So we have to remember, folks, we don’t have a king. We have separation of powers. We have a system designed to ensure that the president fail when he should.
RUSH: So you see, ladies and gentlemen, all I want and all we want is success for every American. If there’s any worship on this program, it is not of a single man, it is of our Constitution and our other founding documents, and the Founding Fathers who gave them to us. Certainly not of a mortal human being today. I just wanted to go through this to explain it because I know for a fact the tune-in factor — our cume, which is the total audience (they actually showed it to me yesterday) — is literally geometric in its increase. As such, the people listening here who haven’t heard before who come to the program with all of these erroneous misconceptions that they’ve been filled with by the critics of this program for all these 20 years.
Even offers to put him up at a 5 star resort, send a fleet of SUV’s to get him from Airforce One, serve him wagu beef at a hundred dollars a pound, all so President Obama can debate Rush to prove that Rush is wrong.
Of course, Obama won’t take him up on the offer, because like Al Gore will not debate global warming, he will not debate the economy because he is wrong on the issues.
And Rush is Right.
It is a very stupid thing for Obama’s administration to try to keep up the strategy they are currently using with the Republican Party. They believe it is bad for the Republican Party if they tie Rush to it as it’s leader. Dumb move, Rush is the defacto leader of the Republican Party, and the more press time he gets, the more people will hear his message of common sense. Not only that, but it is inspiring everyday folks who listen to his program to enter into the political realm and speak up.
The following is what Rush had to say yesterday:
RUSH: Let’s go to the tape, let’s give you an example of how the White House is encouraging reporters to stay focused on me. And don’t tell us that those Rahm Emanuel, Stephanopoulos, Carville, Begala secret phone calls every morning don’t have meaning. The question is from Ed Henry, CNN, of Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman: “The president has spoken a lot about bringing the country together.” Ed, you’re a butt boy. You know, my fertile brain, I’m exploding with reaction just to one phrase of the question from Ed Henry. Just so you know, Ed, the American people want the country to come together. The American people see it being divided. The American people want the stock market to succeed, Ed. They want their neighbors to succeed. The American people want free enterprise to succeed. President Obama is proposing policies that are destructive of these purposes. I want the people to succeed. I want the country to succeed. You don’t hear me talking down American history. You don’t hear me talking down our enterprises. You don’t hear me talking down our economic system, and you don’t hear me talking down the traditions and institutions that made this country great.
It is Barack Obama, Ed, who talks all of failed nation. I talk of a failed ideology that is being advanced. You know, Ed, you people in the media, you ought to be paying some attention to what Obama’s policies and comments are already doing to the economy. Obama’s administration’s predicting more economic problems for a long time, a contracting economy, while at the same time they’re advancing their ideology to remake the nation. And Obama admitted it this morning. There’s a disconnect here between helping the economy grow and helping to create jobs and the ideological agenda of Obama, which is destructive to those ends. Where is the intelligent reporting on this, Ed? All of you in the White House press corps, except Jake Tapper. Jake Tapper is the one guy that’s outside the butt boy bubble in the White House pressroom. But there’s a huge disconnect here, Ed. Ed, have you seen what’s happened to your 401(k) since Obama was elected? The disconnect between helping the economy grow and helping to create jobs and the ideological agenda of Obama which is destructive to those ends, there is no intelligent reporting on this.
The fact is Obama is killing the economy, doing so on purpose, while he’s expanding his power and that of the federal government. Isn’t that a news story, Ed? You got a bigger news story than me? Isn’t what’s happening to people’s lives and their jobs and their homes and their futures, Ed, isn’t that a bigger story than me? Why don’t you ask Robert Gibbs about that? “Mr. Gibbs, isn’t the economy and the Wall Street collapse and people losing their jobs and their homes, isn’t that a bigger story than Rush Limbaugh?” You think Rahm Emanuel could talk about that, some of his talking points to George Stephanopoulos and Carville and Begala? Is it not worth coverage what’s happening to the US economy? Barack Obama’s already failing when it comes to the economy. He is succeeding however in empowering himself and the government. So Obama is killing the economy, he’s expanding the government, and we’re all supposed to stand up and give him a standing O? We’re just supposed to stand up and cheer this like you butt boys in the White House media?
Let me ask you this, Ed, or Chuck, or Helen, or, well, hell, I can’t remember any other names in the White House press, they look like they came outta cookie molds. But let me ask you a question, maybe you ought to ask Gibbs — I know I’m pipe dreaming here, but here’s a question — maybe Jake Tapper should ask Obama or Gibbs, “What would you like Rush Limbaugh to succeed at? Don’t you want Rush Limbaugh to fail, Mr. Gibbs? Aren’t you interested in Limbaugh failing? Mr. Gibbs, what does President Obama want conservatives to succeed at?” Or you could ask it another way, “Jake, you could say Mr. Gibbs, is Obama trying to permanently defeat conservatism so it’s not a viable force anymore? What part of our policy, agenda, philosophy, does Obama want us to succeed at?” I’m plenty happy to talk about what I hope he’s trying to do fails. But I’m also at the same time the one guy in this country talking about success and my desire that everybody have it. Here’s the thing, Ed, if we haven’t lost you yet. We have a man who is systematically trying to destroy his opposition with his policies, and we are debating my defense of our policies as obstructing him?
Barack Obama is trying to destroy his opposition, not just me, the whole Republican Party, the whole conservative movement, with his policies. And you entertain this White House-led debate that says I, defending my policies and myself, is obstructing Obama? I’m getting in the way of the authoritarian? When I listen to you people in the White House press corps and on cable TV, I actually come to the conclusion that you think that we’re just to surrender, surrender everything we believe in, surrender everything we have, surrender it all so Obama’s remaking the nation becomes a reality. That’s the way you sound, as butt boys in the Obama administration. Whatever Obama wants, he’s going to get, and whoever’s in the way has got to be defeated, wiped out, or they must surrender. Well, I’m not giving up, and nor are any of the people on my side.
RUSH. A quick phone call before the Robert Gibbs sound bite that I promised you. Chris in Reading, Pennsylvania. Hi. Nice to have you here.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I just wanted to express my amazing kudos to you for, you know, sticking up for the conservative side. We’re out here. We’re listening. We’re waiting for somebody in the political world on the Republican side to say what you’re saying, and nobody is saying it. They’re trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, and when the Democrats are picking on you, it’s giving somebody an opportunity to express the conservative side and articulate it. All our politicians do is say, “We need tax cuts. We need lower government, smaller government,” but they never say why. They never express the benefits. They never give a vision. And it’s just refreshing.
RUSH: They’re not in that frame of mind. That’s why I touched on this at CPAC in my speech. What we should be all about right now is just what you said: philosophy. We’re caught up in policy. We’re caught up in letting the Democrats establish the agenda or the premise of any issue, and then we debate it as though Obama is just another Democrat to come down the pike. This is far worse. This is far more than an average Democrat down the pike. This is an authoritarian who wants to take as much control for himself and the Democrat Party of this government, the economy, as he can. It’s silly to start playing around the edges here with policy and simply discussing votes and this and that. We can’t stop anything he wants.
That’s why this is an ideal time for Republicans to set the stage for 2010, and to start running around talking about philosophy and principles. Because you know something, folks? When you live by your principles — and, by the way, everybody falls off the train now and then. Nobody’s perfect. We’re not demanding perfection from anybody, but when you live your life by your principles — conservative principles in this case that we’re talking about — the policy comes naturally. Now, Obama, he has to calculate policy. He has to. We don’t. But this is a perfect time to be selling conservatism, to contrast Republican conservatism with Obama. They’re not there yet. They’re still shell-shocked, and they’re still caught up in the process of policy. But they’ll get there. As this goes on and we get closer to Election Day and this stuff keeps up. They’ll catch up, hopefully, ’cause this is the only way we’re going to beat this stuff. We’re not going to beat this with Democrat Lite. It ain’t going to happen.
RUSH: Yesterday at the White House during the press briefing, Ed Henry of CNN… Get this question. “Bob, the president has spoken a lot about bringing the country together. And after the stimulus fight, there was a lot of pandering in both parties about bipartisanship. What’s the White House’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh saying again that he wants the president to fail, specifically on his economic plans, and how does that bode for bipartisanship in the future working with the Republicans?” Ed, you’re a journalist. He’s not working with the Republicans! He’s making a show of working with the Republicans. Pelosi is not working with the Republicans. She wrote the stimulus bill. Nobody read it. Nobody saw it. Nobody debated it. Some people asked her about it today.
“Don’t you think you coulda let the Republicans in on this a little bit more?” and Pelosi said today, “They ought to be lucky they got what they got. I could have fast-tracked this. I could have made this happen a lot sooner than it did. They ought to be lucky with what they got.” Remember: bipartisanship. This is kind of like war. The only time you get peace is when one side is defeated. Bipartisanship only occurs when one side is defeated and loses and caves in. Ask the Japanese about bipartisanship! Ask the Germans about bipartisanship! So it’s a silly, stupid question. (sobbing New Castrati impression) “Oh, no! What does this do for our wonderful president’s notion of bipartisanship, Mr. Gibbs! What can we do? What can we do?” And here’s Gibbs’ answer.
GIBBS: The best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda f-fail? You know, I — I — I’ve been there a number of, uh — of guests on television throughout the day and may be into tomorrow who can let America know who — whether — whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. He doubled down on what he said in January in, uh — in, uh — in — in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country. I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to, uh, what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas.
RUSH: Ed, did you hear what Gibbs said? He said, “I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said we want failure in the country or our endeavors overseas.” For God’s sakes, the Democrat Party not only wanted failure, they proclaimed it! Everybody knows the Democrat Party wanted defeat in Iraq. They were dissing the troops. “Oh, we support the troops; we just don’t support the mission.” It’s like me saying, “Well, I support the president; I just don’t support his policies.” I would be so sophist as to say that, but this is incredible. The Democrat Party for six years tried to put this economy into the crapper! The Democrat Party for six years tried to orchestrate the failure of George W. Bush at every turn.
That’s politics. But now all of a sudden we have The Messiah, and we’re supposed to lie down! The Messiah is too crucial, too important, too big to fail. We must sit idly by, surrender everything we believe so that The Obama Messiah can succeed. And then you hear him say, “It would be charitable to say that Limbaugh doubled down on what he said in January, wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.” Now, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, folks. My income is derived from economic success. My business model requires economic success. Advertisers have to have healthy businesses — not just at the national level, but at the local level — to support local radio stations.
I have preached. I have taught. I have prayed for economic success for everybody. Hey, Bob? I have investments. I’ve seen ’em dwindle in value. My business partners have investments. My listeners have investments. You guys in Washington, you’re going to get paid regardless what happens, Bob. You’re going to get paid, you and Emanuel and Obama, regardless of the success or failure of the economy. You don’t have any skin in the game, Mr. Gibbs. You skim off the top. We could have 25% unemployment. You’re going to get paid, Mr. Gibbs. You have no skin in the game. I’m using the term a lot today because I actually think it fits. You butt boy media people in that White House pressroom, do you listen to what this man says to you? Do you actually believe I want economic failure?
Don’t you understand that Obama’s policies equal economic failure? Obama’s policies destroy the ability for the private sector to create wealth and prosperity and opportunity. That’s all going to be transferred to the government, which will pick winners and losers. And he’s gonna tax and punish wealth, achievement, starting at $250,000 a year. He is going to offer disincentives for people that work hard, Mr. Gibbs — and Ed? You people in the media, that’s why I’m calling you butt boys. You haven’t the slightest bit of curiosity about any of this? And you think I’m supposed to shut up and lay down? I don’t want to see the wealth of this nation destroyed. I don’t want our economy to fail. What is so hard to understand? Well, it’s not hard to understand.
They are purposely distorting all of this for a multiplicity of reasons. Gibbs also said… There was something else in this piece. Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da-da. “Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on TV throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Limbaugh said this weekend.” So the White House is directing and leading reporters in what to say, what guests to get, and what questions to ask them. This is a teachable moment. That’s not what I said. The White House needs a press release or some kind of direct communication, maybe another open letter to the president. Maybe I should write another op-ed or something.