Thanks, rwi.
I was looking all over.
Thank you RWI
whew .. I was about to go into withdrawals ... ;-)
Thank You! I was having a panic attack, lol. No Rush thread, and I start shaking. I guess I’m addicted.
pattyjo
I thought the content police might have made a raid.
INB4 the ping! yeah.
Thanks for starting it up.
Hey!
Hey! Ya’ll in the big cities! Does it really take you hours to vote? I just walk across the alley and matbe wait for one or two people on front of me. Even when I lived in San Antonio, there was NEVER a line out the door.
This registering effort reminds me of the UofM affirmative action debates a couple of elections ago. At that time I decided to do some research and try to figure out how the UofM impacted minorities lives by giving them preferential treatment for admission. Well, their actual graduation rates were terrible. I don’t recallt he exact percentages, but even with 20% of the incoming freshman class being black only about 5% of the graduating class was black.
Once again, results don’t matter with liberals, just the intention of the action.
HI, I am here too!
Rush says he will be watching O tonight, glad he will because I am not! I will listen to Rush tomorrow to hear his view of the “O’s” all important vote for M E speech.
Couldn’t find the Rush ping list, so I swiped RITM’s Hannity list.
Just in time...I was building a thread to post.
Thanks for the thread!
Here’s what I sent out to my email lists this morning:
The Utterly Orwellian Obama.
“..We may have laughed at deconstructionism and the many insane literary trends, usually originating from French Marxists, that swept the academy, but they were all essentially just laying the groundwork for what we are seeing today. Divorce words from reality, make everything subjective yet not even subjective on the part of the individual, but of a control structure that picks and choses the meaning of things, and you’ve taken over a society. I am always amazed at the way Obama can lie. He does it much better than Bill Clinton, calmly, no blinking, and without even pausing to think about it. But this is because he has been lying all his life and essentially severed the connection between words and reality decades ago.” 3
October 29, 2008
Negative Liberties and Obama Newspeak
By Bruce Walker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/negative_liberties_and_obama_n.html
The 2001 audio tape of Barack Obama describing the Constitution as a document of “negative liberties” reveals an utterly Orwellian Obama.
How can liberty be anything other than negative?
Liberty is the absence of external control.
Only in our age of collective thinking and untidy language could such a thing as “positive liberty” be conceived. The state power to coerce is not liberty.
Notions like “positive liberty” are part of the web of thought control by language manipulation which Orwell described in 1984.
[ Eric Arthur Blair was an important English writer that you probably already know by the pseudonym of George Orwell. He wrote quite a few books, but many believe that his more influential ones were “Animal farm” (1944) and “1984” (1948). http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934 ]
If Obama cannot think of “positive liberty” as a contradiction in terms, then he simply cannot think.
The conscious surrender of language to the needs of the party creates a self-made prison from which escape is, quite literally, inconceivable. These unguarded remarks by Obama display a mind trapped in a reality in which words are phantoms.
Obama could have spoken about the limited value of liberty. Government does some things which reduce our private rights and yet which increase the common good. Politics is all about where the boundary between broad notions of promoting the general welfare by state coercion and preserving liberty should be.
Politicians on the Left have often argued that liberty should be reined in more tightly so that “the people” can live better. But implying that more state power somehow increases liberty is beyond mere Leftism. It is entry into that dead realm of Newspeak in which language is pureed into nonsense, and then nonsense is presented as argument.
Obama could also have spoken about the private duty of charity, that moral imperative which makes the virtue of liberty pure. Charity, though, is private. True charity is always a free act.
That does not make the moral duty of charity any less, but it means that it is a function of liberty. But it seems as if Obama’s mind cannot grasp this sort of distinction.
Is the Orwellian character of Obama’s mind a surprise? No. He is a man young enough to have grown up in a cocoon of semantic babble. The subliminal contradictions of popular entertainment, the indoctrinary quality of his education, the pandemic use of “politically correct” language, the nonexistence in Obama’s universe of any need for critical thinking, his absorption into a parish filled with surreal anger which numb his conscience — almost every single aspect of the life of Barack Obama dovetails into someone for whom the word “liberties” has no authentic meaning.
This is the newness of Obama in our history.
Leftists like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter lived real lives. Both served in the military. Both seemed to have been genuinely religious. Both worked in private business. Both came from states that were conservative, and so they had to defend their political philosophies.
Barack Obama, by contrast, has lived a life of utter sameness. There are no bumps or rough edges or hints of individuality at all.
It is not just his life, so marinated in rote theory, that makes Obama unique. He is an early prototype of a new creature in our lives: Orwell’s children, if you will. These are the people who can honestly believe that September 11th was an “inside job” or that the CIA invented crack cocaine to hurt blacks.
This is the generation which has grown up with no intellectual or cultural system of checks and balances.
Iron and dull control of education, destruction of the nuclear family, disappearance of religion in public life, degradation of art and entertainment into tasteless mush, and, most of all, the politicization of everything in life — these forces have created a new sort of human being, a person who lacks from life any tools of discernment or devices to describe life outside of the realm of collectivist political rhetoric.
There is something about Obama, many of us sense, which is different from any other politician.
Socialism is inadequate to explain Obama. He is both more and less than that. The Left with all its odd menagerie of causes and claims is not enough either.
Obama is part of that but part of something more disturbing. He is someone who can say “negative liberties” unaware that he is saying nothing at all.
*
Jonah Goldberg: Obama’s Not ‘New’ Back to the future.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDc0YzEzODIwOTVkMmE2ZDlkNjE1YjRjOWM5ODk5N2U =
EXCERPTs:
“...Dewey lives on in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers.”
There’s an old saying: The oldest word in American politics is “new.” Only in that sense is there anything new to Barack Obama.
Obama prefers the word “progressive” to “liberal” because it makes it sound like he’s shedding old liberal ideas. But if he is, it’s only to embrace older ones.
America first encountered the vision Obama espouses under Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president and the first to openly disparage the U.S. Constitution as a hindrance to enlightened government. His new idea was to replace it with a “living constitution” that empowered government to evolve beyond that document’s constraints. The Bill of Rights, lamented the progressives, inhibited what the government can do to people, but it failed to delineate what it must do for people.
The old conception of individualism needed to be replaced by a new system in which the citizen would “marry his interests to the state,” in Wilson’s words. This would allow the state to fulfill the progressive pledge to “spread the prosperity around.” Obama shares Wilson’s faith in a living constitution and has argued that Supreme Court judges should be confirmed based on their empathy for the downtrodden.
In a vital essay in the current Claremont Review of Books, Charles Kesler notes that Obama mentions Franklin Roosevelt in his book, The Audacity of Hope, more times than any living Democratic politician. That’s not surprising, given that FDR a veteran of the Wilson administration carried the progressive vision of government much further than Wilson himself.
In 1944, FDR proposed updating the Bill of Rights with a new “economic bill of rights” that would define freedom not as liberty from government intrusion but as the possession of goodies provided by government. “Necessitous men are not free men,” FDR proclaimed. It’s a statement Obama surely agrees with; his advisor, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book saying FDR’s “second bill of rights” should become the defining principle of American politics.
Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that “organized social control” via a “socialized economy” was the only means to create “free” individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems.
Dewey lives on in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. ... [snip] Click above link to continue.
*
Edward Whelan: Obama and the Supreme Court - What’s really at stake.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzAyNTQ3NGM3ODFlOGFkY2QwNmQ4ZGI1MzNkY2EwYTg =
If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president. ...[continue at above link].
*
Andrew C. McCarthy: Obama’s ‘Redistributive Change’ and the Death of Freedom - Beware the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY3ZDkyNWJiMThmNjNlN2RjOTczYTc1MWI5ZmEzOWU =
*
Michael Barone: New New Deal No Better Than the Old One - An Obama preview from history. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdhNjYwMTA4N2IwMmMzZjNmYzE3ODc0YTM1MGY5NzE =
bttt
Call The Rush Limbaugh Show program line between 12 Noon and 3PM Eastern Time at: 1-800-282-2882
E-mail Rush: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Fax Rush at: 212-445-3963
Write a letter to Rush and mail it to:
The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Ground Panic here, the Union has a meeting message for tonight that reads something like ‘show up, it’s your union’, can’t wait to hear what happens, but dought I would be welcome being I’ve been flashing my Al Franken mail as pest control, agreement abound
I emailed Rush via 24/7 about the LA Times Tape
Doug Ross @ Journal
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
RED ALERT Tip: Two quotes from the Obama-Khalidi videotape
He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/red-alert-tip-why-times-wont-release.html
