[goldstategop]

Freedom? Why we can't have that! It'll make every one mad at us. And it makes the Left look like pipsqueaks. Here's Rush's brilliant think piece in which he lits into President Bush's critics. You'll never look at the Inaugural Address the same way again after you've seen it through the discerning mind of the Maha Rushie.

[AMadtes]

0nce again, Rush gets it right

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

An additional resource:

**************************************

Unholy Alliance
by David Horowitz
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526076X
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 2004)

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the “Great Satan” with America’s radical Islamic enemies. This Left, which once made common cause with Communists, has now joined forces with radical Islam in attacking America’s defenses at home and its policies abroad. From their positions of influence in the university and media culture, leftists have defined America as the “root cause” of the attacks against it. In a remarkable exploration of the “Mind of the Left,” Horowitz traces the evolution of American radicalism from its Communist past to its “anti-war” present. He then shows how this Left was able to turn the Democratic Party presidential campaign around and reshape its views on the War on Terror.

Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, writes John Haynes, the noted historian of American Communism, “is an insightful, brilliant examination of the mental world of the radical left. Horowitz shows how today’s radicals, unwilling to reflect on the internal flaws that destroyed Marxism-Leninism from within, have embraced an all-consuming nihilism in its place. This has led them to a hatred of American institutions and a solidarity with Islamic terrorists that makes the radical left more properly regarded as dangerous than loony.”

Unholy Alliance is an eye-opening book that should unsettle conventional assumptions and reveals why intellectuals and political leaders who applaud Michael Moore are no laughing matter. As Harvey Klehr, author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, writes, “The world Communist movement may be moribund, but its habits of mind and ideological fantasies have not disappeared. This is a fascinating and depressing account.”

Price: $19.01 - Click here to order:

[My2Cents]

I had the same thought last night -- when did the Democratic Party become the biggest opponent to the spread of democracy?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

It's time that Kerry signs Form 180.
Wake up Right Wing Main Stream Media.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325549/posts

[Soul Seeker]

Rush was on Fire today.

[Edit35]

Rush is correct, once again.

I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America should be willing to support those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.

[My2Cents]

Last evening, Alan Colmes I think it was, was throwing cold water on Bush's "spread democracy" doctrine, saying that "Bush really only has 2-and-a-half or 3 years to get this done...is it even feasible?" Colmes is a small thinker. He assumes that Bush can work at his objective while he's in office, and then the US can dump the policy and move on to something else. But what Bush articulated in his inaugural address is nothing short of the replacement of the Cold War policies. The effort to defend the western world from the threat of Soviet Communism lasted over 50 years -- Truman through Reagan. Every administration, Democrat or Republican, was dedicated to the policy. I think Bush articulated something that may take 20-30 years to achieve, maybe less, but it is something that the US should dedicate itself to, and work on into future administrations. He's articulating the next great endeavor for America, and candidates for president in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc., will likely be judged by how they will promote the policy. It's to the detriment of the Democrats if they think this is a short-term, Bush-only policy. History is on the side of democracy, especially over the past 20 years. It's time we did whatever we can to speed this process along.

[blackeagle]

bump!

[listenhillary]

WHOO HOO! What a rant!

[B-bone]

"How Did Freedom Become So Controversial?"

Rush didn't get to be RUSH without hitting the nail on the hear.

Freedom became controversial because Bush means what he says. If Clinton had delivered this speech, everyone would be gushing all over it because they know he won't do a thing about it. Bush frightens and confounds the Washington establishment because he actually means what he says.

What a concept.

That's why Bush resonates in fly-over country. If your word isn't good, you won't last long.

[26lemoncharlie]

Rush must have been reading my posts about the UN being FIlled with Gangsters, Murderers and Thieves!! I like his addition of Pimps though!! Rush hit the Nail on the Head.

Get the US, OUT of the UN and the UN OUT of the US!!

[GOP_1900AD]

Doncha know? Freedom obsession is just a fancy way of saying we will spread the neocon Bush "hitlerism" across the many peace loving, innocent, downtrodden nations of the world, where we are commiting genocide of, now say it with me now, EEEE-slam! Also, our ill founded hatred of Socialist World Revolution and empowerment of, now say it with me now, the PEEEE-pull, who, wanting nothing more than peace and social justice, have never posed a threat to the USA, demonstrates that the capitalist running dogs want to o-PRESS the prolitariat, and starve out the people of color. Yeah, I know all about this "freedom" - just like 1984 man, freedom means slavery, and, the World Revolution will set you free! /sarcasm ..... Bbbbbllllrrrcccchhhh....ulllcchh.... baaaaaaarrrrfsplaaattt.

(Sorry about that last little bit, I guess I made myself a bit ill trying to spew that screed out with a straight face! :=)

[The Real Eddie01]

To Summarize (IMHO):

With God, you have a belief that Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness are inalienable rights.

Without God, you lack clarity of mind to determine what is in your best interest and are therefore vulnerable to the schemes of charlatans.

In a nutshell, God's presence or lack thereof in the mind of the voter is the single most infuential factor in determining the balance of political power between those who would protect freedom and liberty and those who would seek to remove the institutions that protect freedom and liberty in hopes of securing forever, a tyranny.

The leadership on the left IS THIS calculating.

Eddie01

[Maigrey]

New tagline, courtesy of Rush

[Dustbunny]

Rush, telling it like it actually is.

[jellybean]

Rush was on fire today. Especially in the first hour of his show. Thank you for posting this. I can now save it for posterity.

[Captain Beyond]

Go Rush.

[PGalt]

Thanks so much for the post. I wasn't able to listen.

Rush Limbaugh at his best! He obviously untied the other half of his brain on this synaptic stream of FREEDOM.

OUTSTANDING!

[x]

It must work better on the air than on the printed page where it rambles or sprawls. Rush attacks big-spending liberal interventionist programs and the assumptions behind them until he gets to Bush's big-spending liberal democratization program.

So the message is you can do it on your own. But then it looks like building democracy isn't something people in the Middle East can do on their own. It turns out that they aren't up to it and need our help.

But if they aren't up to achieving much even with our help, if it's not what they want, what then? If we have to do that, that's one thing, but Rush doesn't convince me that he has made the best case for intervention.

The liberal comes to people and says "I am your savior, I have a program to help you," and it's horrible or ridiculous or oppressive or arrogant. We go to other countries with plans and programs to change their lives and nobody's going to think that horrible or ridiculous or oppressive or arrogant? Not that it is, but that's certainly a common impression in that region and around the world, and people's perceptions count.

I'm not saying Bush is wrong or that his policies won't work, just that Rush's argument doesn't necessarily add up. To be sure, the Marshall Plan worked, but our plans to win "hearts and minds" in Vietnam and elsewhere didn't always work.

The first generation of neocons were honest enough to admit that there was a certain amount of Harry Truman or John Kennedy liberalism in their approach to the Cold War, and their candor was admirable. In practice, though, the Reagan administration was more modest in what it actually attempted. The results were spectacular, but Reagan never bit off more than he could chew.

Rush wants to have it both ways: to tack his defense of a very ambitious program onto his usual skepticism about big government, and it doesn't hold up well.

[the invisib1e hand]

Rush absolutely rocks. Thank you again, sir.