RUSH: We Stand for Principle Over Politics and the Establishment Can't Stand It

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | December 21, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

We Stand for Principle Over Politics

and the Establishment Can't Stand It
December 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: "House Democrats tried Wednesday to force a vote on the Senate’s two-month extension of the payroll-tax cut, but Republicans gaveled the House closed
to prevent them from having a chance, as top GOP leaders huddled down the hall to try to figure a way out of the mess.
The House was set to hold a pro forma session, but two top Democrats, Reps. Steny H. Hoyer and Chris Van Hollen, demanded to be recognized to try to force a vote on the two-month extension.
House Republicans have blocked that deal, which is strongly backed by President Obama, and are holding out for an extension that covers all of 2012."

Remember, folks, how Obama and the news media fought a temporary deal during the debt ceiling debate.
He said the markets needed confidence, we can't do this temporary stuff.
He said we can't keep doing these continuing resolutions and these temporary debt ceiling increases.
We gotta do the whole thing here.
Now, all of a sudden, we got temporary, temporary, temporary,
and we do a two-month fix that cannot even be implemented.
The House Republicans, the freshmen, the Tea Party conservatives, the other conservatives in the House are holding firm on this on principle.
Even some in the media are saying the House Republicans are acting on principle, not politics.
Everybody else is looking at this through the optics.
And as I mentioned in the first hour the Wall Street Journal has an editorial that just excoriates the Republicans in the House
and essentially accuses them of losing the tax issue to Obama and guaranteeing that Obama is gonna end up being the king tax cutter in an election year.

Now, I'm telling you, with all due respect, the people at the Journal who wrote the editorial,
the House Democrats, the Senate Democrats, the Republicans, are all dead wrong on this, every policy and political level that I can think of.
If the Republicans want this tax cut extended, then they ought to fight to actually extend it for a year.
Two months doesn't do anything.
There's some conventional wisdom in the establishment circles,
"Oh, yeah, two months, Rush, that would be good, because then we come back and get to debate Obama on it all over again."
Well, how's the debate gonna change?
You still say Obama is gonna be leading the charge for more tax cuts, what are we gonna do, then agree with him?
This is the time to plant the flag.

Now, if they want to stop it, Wall Street Journal, Republicans,
if they want to stop this, explain what's really going on here.
Explain that this isn't a tax cut.
Since when did Social Security taxes, when were they actually called tax increases? These are contributions.
These are actual deductions from your pay that end coming back to you --
this is how it's always been sold
-- in your retirement years, in your golden years. Theoretically, it's your money.
All we're doing is defunding the only mechanism that funds Social Security.
If they want to stop this, then just explain
that this is draining money from Social Security without any of the necessary reforms.

Throw it right back on Obama and what he's doing here.
The worst possible position is the one supported by the Senate, Obama, and the Wall Street Journal.

What's really going on here, folks -- and don't doubt me -- including on behalf of the Wall Street Journal, [is] just anger at conservatives.
They're angry at the Tea Party conservatives, the Tea Party freshmen.
They're angry at conservative freshmen and conservative members of the House.
And they're simply trying to reject it.
Now, if you believe -- and I mentioned this in the opening hour
-- if you believe that our beloved country is collapsing due to government, why continue with these games?
Why continue with such things as two-month expansions of the debt limit?
Continuing resolution after continuing resolution instead of a budget?
A two-month extension of a so-called payroll tax cut. These are games.
This is style over substance.

If we are to stop this, if we are to reverse this, if we are to get anywhere, we need to start now,
make our case, we need to begin to reverse course.
We can't be so timid and scared and gutless that we jump every time Obama says jump.
Now, here's the problem.
These people on the establishment side of the Republican Party
are gonna have to resolve for themselves their position
that the nation is in dire straits with their policies of timidity and fear.
Now, I'm guessing they don't think the nation's in dire straits.
If they agreed with us that the nation's in dire straits
then they wouldn't be playing these political games
unless they do agree with us
but they think they have to play the political game in order to win the election and beat Obama.
You can do both.

But this isn't even a big issue.
This is what gets me. It really isn't a big issue.
We're talking about whether to extend a payroll cut one year or two months.
Nobody believes that two months makes sense in any substantive way.
Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, the pipeline issue is huge!
How about a standalone pipeline bill, Republicans?
How about delinking the pipeline from this?
"Well, they tried that, Rush, they actually think more political pressure could be applied to Obama."

Well, no, because the Republican establishment is undermining the coupling of the pipeline with the two-month payroll tax cut.
But the pipeline issue is huge.

The Iranians are cutting to cut off access to Middle East oil, the Strait of Hormuz. And that wouldn't take much.
Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, says that Iran getting nukes is a red line for us, meaning possible war. He's saying that.
I know Obama's not saying it but his secretary of defense is.
And yet Obama and the Democrats are blocking a source of oil from an ally
and are blocking the exploration and the use of natural gas and on and on.
Obama and his party are doing everything they can to keep this nation imprisoned in the dependence on foreign oil,
while claiming that they want to do just the opposite.

The prime minister of Canada is telling us,
if you won't buy our oil, fine,
we are going to sell it to the ChiComs, and we'll sell it to the ChiComs happily.
I have a story somewhere in the Stack, that a senior American official or two confided to Stephen Harper, the Canadian head honcho,
"Don't worry, don't worry, we're going to buy your oil."
They're not named, and the conditions under which we would buy the oil are not specified.
But clearly the message, if the reporting is true, the message is that we're whispering,
"Psst, psst," winking,
"Hey, Mr. Harper, look, we gotta play our political game here but,
when it's all said and done, we're gonna be buying your oil.
We just can't do that now. Obama needs to hold out here.
He's gotta placate his environmental base.
But we're gonna buy your oil. Just stick with us."
That's the message that we are under the table giving.

But once again, we are subordinating what's best for this nation to Obama's political whims, desires, and needs,
and we've got a Republican Party that's apparently willing to help him.
This payroll tax cut, it's chump change compared to the things that we face.
All of these people claim that they're conservatives when they run out and push their subscriptions
and ask for donations and promote all of their social activities and so forth.
But they don't act like it much.

The key line in the Wall Street Journal editorial is this.
"We wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest."
That's the key line in the Wall Street Journal editorial.
And a lot of blogs are picking that up and they're agreeing with the Wall Street Journal,
"Oh, no if these Republicans keep this up,
oh, my God, we're gonna go ahead,
we're gonna, for all intents and purposes,
we're gonna elect Obama before we even get to November."
That's the key line in their editorial:
"We wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest,"
because of not giving him his two-month extension on the payroll tax cut.

So what we have here, the Republican establishment is scared to death of Obama's class warfare campaign.
Is that right?
Has the Republican establishment now lost faith in the free enterprise system?
Is that it?
That we can't win that argument with Obama over the next year, in the middle of what he has done to this economy?
We are willing to say that we will cede the election to Obama if we don't give him his two-month tax cut extension.
So am I wrong here,
the Wall Street Journal believes that 11 months from now
the election's gonna turn on Obama draining tens of billions of dollars from Social Security?
'Cause that's what's happening.

I can't emphasize enough my whole life as a Republican,
and you, too, you've been hearing about all these horrible things we want to do to old people.
We want to cut their Social Security.
I heard Alan Cranston say in 1987 that we wanted to kick old people out of their houses by cutting Social Security.
I've heard other Democrats say that we want old people eating dog food and not having enough medicine.
Republicans are going to end Medicare
when it's the Democrats who are doing all of this,
and Obama right before our very eyes is underfunding, cutting funding for Social Security up to half a billion dollars.
Five hundred billion, put it that way, that's the correct way to express it.

We're just gonna sit around and let that happen?
Obama's gonna cut Social Security funding by $500 billion,
an amount that equals less than $20 a week for most people in the form of this middle-class tax cut.
If Americans can be bought for 20 bucks a week, then we may be in a hopeless situation anyway.
But let me just close this out by saying
the Democrats have insisted for 75 years that Social Security is an insurance program
that you are contributing a percentage of your paycheck into your own account,
which is part of a trust fund, to pay for your retirement benefit.
It is not, they insist, it is not welfare,
it is not an entitlement program.
It is insurance.
They've told us this for 75 years.
Like an annuity program.

Meanwhile, every argument they are making now strips bare the big lie that they've been telling for 75 years.
If this payroll tax cut is a tax cut, then Social Security is not an insurance program.
And yet we're gonna run around and let them have it both ways
because we're afraid of the optics
or we're afraid because Obama's African-American?
Is it a welfare or entitlement program
and the money people are having withheld from their paychecks
is not an insurance contribution, then it's a tax. Pure and simple.
But they've sold this as an insurance program
and all of a sudden now we're cutting taxes on this program?
It's a welfare or entitlement program.
The money people are having withheld from their paychecks is not an insurance contribution, [it's] a tax, that's what they're telling us now?
Okay, then you are being taxed to pay for somebody else's retirement.

Now, the fact that the Republican establishment cannot make that case and other arguments
tells me that they may have already surrendered,
and this is a big difference between us and the establishment.
They're in this defensive posture, I've told you,
I said on Greta how many times, a lot of people inside the Republican establishment secretly don't even believe Obama can be beaten.
And that's why they want Romney,
'cause they think at least Romney will help 'em take the Senate.
He'll lose less down the ballot than Gingrich or some conservative will.
But conservatives, you Tea Party activists, you don't want to give up
and you haven't given up,
and you don't want to accept this propaganda from the left.
We insist on challenging it, we insist on fighting it
'cause there's no other way to save the country,
and continually playing these games
letting the Democrats rewrite the language, change the definition of things,
get away with false accusations against us, never do anything about it,
constantly stay on defense.

Looky, all of a sudden Social Security at this point in time is not the third rail of American politics.
I'm gonna tell you something.
You put a Republican in the White House,
you let a Republican talk about cutting the funding of Social Security by the amount Obama's talking about,
and you watch utter hell unleashed by the Democrat Party.
They wouldn't get caught up in the two-month or one year tax cut, middle-class tax cut, payroll tax cut.
What they'd be focusing on is,
"See, the Republicans want to cut Social Security,"
and they'd be talking about,
"How can they dare,
this is the only funding mechanism of Social Security,
and they want us to give a tax cut to the rich."
That's what they'd be saying, that's how they'd be playing it.

We're accepting their terms, once again, we're accepting their premise and we're acting frightened,
"Okay, we gotta go along.
We gotta let Obama have this so the issue goes away
because otherwise he's gonna be seen as king tax cutter."
Well, but he's not.
Now, I mentioned earlier how this is actually going to be paid for, whether it's two months or one year.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Just a couple of more observations, and then we'll move on.
As you know, 47% of the American people pay no income taxes.
The Democrats, when you hit them with that, say,
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, well, those 47%, they're still paying payroll taxes.
Everybody pays payroll taxes, so they're still paying taxes."
Okay, fine. So now, look.
Obama wants to cut the payroll tax for two months, big whoop, for two months.
And pay for it from people who buy a house or refinance with a mortgage of $200,000 or more.
In a nutshell, this is all about the Democrats trying to get us to pay the Social Security tax for their constituents who already don't pay ANY income tax.

So not only are these people not paying any income tax,
they're now gonna get a payroll tax cut
and working people are going to pay for it.
And the Wall Street Journal says
let Obama have it,
if you don't let him have it, oh, God,
he could win reelection, oh, God,
you gotta let him have it.


END TRANSCRIPT




• Washington Times: GOP Shuts Down House on Dems’ Payroll-Tax Gambit
  
  
• Payroll tax cut bill boosts cost of new mortgages
  
  RushLimbaugh.com: Jake Tapper Scoop: Obama's Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Doesn't Work - 12.19.11
  
  

and they

[Yosemitest]

Rush, thank you. You're work is truly Inspired by our Heavenly Father.

Rush, I want to add so much to this.
First, Damn those "Establishment Republicans" for caving on this issue!
As someone recently reminded me, and I quote:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, ...
he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds..."

Let's battle this evil together, including the evil of the "Establishment Republicans".

Let's remember that the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF, Barack Hussein Obama II is a Fascist, a Fabian Socialist.
We need to remind people just how dangerous Fascist are, their crimes and their hand in the start of World War I and World War II.

Watch and read MUST WATCH: C-Span Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) Exposes Obama's $100B Plus $260 Billon Social Security Trust Fund Cut.
Then let's remember:

Only idiots and the evil vote for Obama.
It's not our fault that DEMOCRATS raided the Social Secureity Trust Fund.
Let's remember ...

Oh, and for the record...


Not ALL are to blame for the empty lock box.

It's the Democrats Communists.

Let's take a deeper look.

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS need to shut up!!!




Lets review:
Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion?

...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...

Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.

Who was it that moved Medicare Trust Funds out of the "trust box" and into the General Revenue, replacing them with Government I.O.U.s?
"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)
So Democrats,
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM,
and now YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

Sen Mark Kirk's statement Thursday, Dec 1, 2011 ...
"There are 55 million Social Security beneficiaries that will see little or no extra cash from this 2012 tax holiday; instead, the dedicated payroll contributions meant to pay for future benefits are being diverted from the Trust Fund
and replaced with Treasury debt that does not even have a AAA credit rating.
Social Security was designed to be independent and free from the danger of Congressional manipulation,
and maintaining the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general government funding is the best way to maintain the solvency of this important program.
Neither bill protects the Social Security Trust Fund
so I voted no. "

Now, someone once asked:

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain was my second.
Now ... Newt is my second choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum, third.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

It may be worth it,

[scooby321]

The King has spoken. Why no Politician never discuss this as generational thief is beyond me.

If I see the Mc Cains on TV again I will puke that I voted for him no matter if Sarah was his running mate.

[Las Vegas Dave]

FYI..!

[EQAndyBuzz]

TERM LIMITS!!!!

How do we get it on the 2012 ballot?

We should make every republican candidate sign a pledge and hammer that into Americans for the next year. Commecials, Commecials, Commercials......

[Ripliancum]

Since when is Gingrich principled, Rush?

[JakeS]

No Rush, standing on principal is what the signers of the Declaration of Independence did.

"WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

That is standing on principal.

[exit82]

No Rush, standing on principal is what the signers of the Declaration of Independence did.

That's right--their very lives were on the line for treason against the Crown if they were captured during the Revolution.

Boehner,McConnell,Rove and the establishment GOP in DC can't even risk their Christmas vacation to save America from another financial boondoggle.Never mind being afraid of the then overwhelming power of the British Empire, instead our guys are afraid of one editorial writer in the Wall Street Journal.

We should be going into 2012 with the strongest political hand since 1989. Instead, with the field and leadership we have, we will lose the 2012 elections--because they have no principles.

[sodpoodle]

The beauty of the TEA party is that it has no ‘power base’ of self-appointed ‘leaders’.

That is also its weakness.

Had there been an organization in place - for vetting, recruiting and promoting a ‘pure’ conservative candidate for the past two years - he/she would be well financed, familiar and have a huge base of support.

We still have to depend on the candidates who have the gonads to put themselves in harm’s way under the GOP label with all the pros and cons it entails.

[SueRae]

Outstanding.

[sickoflibs]

Principle?? The same ones that caved last night and announced surrender?

I see the above is from Wednesdays show.

[silverleaf]

Our principled GOP leadership caved to the marxist in chief, gave Dingy Harry his loopy 2 month tax goodie bag, and is heading home for a months vacay

while barry heads off on his 4 million dollar vacay with frostie the wookie to sip slurpies, romp in the surf and spike the football as the tough black man who stared down the evil grinch rasist republicans

Merry Christmas

And while they are gone, before this den of thieves hypocrites and cowards all returns, will some patriot please wrap the US Capitol in yellow tape as a crime scene?

[sickoflibs]

RE:"Since when is Gingrich principled, Rush?"

He is guided by the principle that serves HIM at the MOMENT. The next moment may be the opposite principle.

[Yosemitest]

Maybe it's time to remove John Boehner as Speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

[SunkenCiv]

[FastCoyote]

Rush is still the Man.

[EBH]

Rush has no principles either. When it comes down to it...he will vote the establishment in Novemeber. AND he will encourage all us to do the same for the supposed good of the country.

[central_va]

Boehner keeps going limp.

[xkaydet65]

Obama’s reelection means bigger ratings, greater ad revenues, and more notoriety for Rush. A GOP win, and even more, a conservative win, will have Rush’s numbers drop and some stations replace him. He exists as a force only as long as he has big targets to snipe at daily. An Obama reelection is almost as important to Rush as it is to Obama and the Dems.

[Yosemitest]

From what I hear on the radio, read in the transcripts, and believe ... Rush is trying his level best to get rid of "Establishment Republicans".
But given a choice between "Establishment Republicans" and DemocratsFabian Socialists ... Rush will vote for the lesser of two evils, even though they are evil.

For more information on today's problems, read this from August 4, 2008.

Topic: Collectivism

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True

---

The gradual revolution of the Fabian Socialists is quickly becoming a reality in America.
by Republicae (libertarian)
Monday, August 4, 2008

The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution.
At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation,
but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change.
In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto:

"When I Strike, I Strike Hard".
Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.

The Fabian Plan for gradual Socialist Revolution was as definitive as it possibly could be, to say it has been a conspiracy is simplistic in the extreme.
It instituted a widespread educational program for its leadership and its minions,
as time progressed, it opened schools, such as the London School of Economics, and the New School of Social Research.

One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State,
which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State.
It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity.
Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn't advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land,
instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance
such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit.
The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however;
it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

If you look at Britain, you will see that they accomplished their goals with ease
and while American has been more difficult, the goals are the same
and they have made enormous advances toward those goals, as we all know.
Much of their accomplishments have been realized without using that dreaded word: Socialism.
They have brought the Fabian Dream to America through an extremely brilliant system that has been openly accepted by the voters of this country
without the hint of suspicion on their part that they were voting a Socialistic system into place.

Now, make no mistake about it, Fabian Socialists are Statist, they are absolutely authoritarian in their philosophy.
Their long-term goal has always been a Socialistic Dictatorship with full-imposition of a very legalistic society where the individual is simply a part of the collective.
An example of this can be found in the writings of one of the founders of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw
speaking of the Socialist Utopia, he said:
"Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor.
You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.
If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble,
you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner;
but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

Of course, all of this would be in the best interest of society as a whole and the whole made up simply of parts,

individuals merely cogs in the machine of social justice.
This idea of social justice is the biggest selling point and perhaps the easiest to peddle to the people.
Programs of social reform, incremental at first, allowed for the tempering of the people;
allowing for them to grow accustom to the intervention of the State in the affairs of the individual.
Of course, such reforms are never an end unto themselves
only stepping-stones to a greater Socialist construct of society.

Regarding the great strides made toward these goals, Max Beer stated with confidence:
"There was no reason for Socialists to wait for revolution.
The realization of socialism had begun the moment when the State became accessible to social reform ideas."
Indeed, the revolution was already half realized at the moment when the State stepped over the threshold of progressive social construction
and intervention into the private lives of the people.

The first step in any Socialist plan is the reform of capitalism,
when the capitalist system is sufficiently neutralized the rest comes relatively easy.
The first step to an efficient plan of capitalist neutralization is control over the money supply
and for that a central bank is required along with a fiat monetary system,
in this country that was initiated with the advent of the Federal Reserve.
Later, of course must come effective controls over major infrastructure and services,
all accomplished through the New Deal.
The New Deal accomplished substantial feats toward the Fabian Socialist construct
with numerous price controls, quotas, subsidies, inspections, regulations, licenses, fees, penalties
and massive government interventions into what was formerly private enterprise.
Although you would never hear politicians of either political party to admit to support the ideals of socialism,
they nevertheless not only support such measures, but also promote them.


We have recently seen a greater push toward socialism, though few realize it.
The government is assuming more and more responsibility for and authority over the economy,
all under the guise of protecting the people from potentially unscrupulous free marketeers.
We are being moved yet another step closer to the dream-society of the Fabians.
Of course, these are simply steps, essential parts to a much broader agenda,
one that is authoritarian in nature and execution, even the centrally planned economy is a mere step, not the end product.
It is all carefully crafted, manufactured to ensure the most popular support possible for "people-friendly" solutions
while instituting a fraudulent system of central control over the unsuspecting public.
The system has been marketed to the public, one specific component at a time,
each component essential to the completion of the whole
and that is the brilliance of this gradual imposition of Fabian Socialism in this country.

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the system of private ownership and free enterprise,
it is the cornerstone of our system of government
and without it our freedoms and liberty are in jeopardy.

Central economic planning is, in a very basic sense, the keystone to Fabian Socialism,
for in order for it to succeed, central State planning and control must replace the system of free enterprise.
While it was not necessary for the State to actually own or directly control all the elements in the economy
it is enough for the State to have the right to assert itself in any area that it deems necessary.
The Fabians called it "the democratization of economic power", in other words socialized and centralized control over economic direction within the country.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" [link to 82.795 MB pdf copy of book] spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind;
the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.


1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart.
The Fabian Socialist Revolution began in earnest in this country in 1933 with the imposition of the Welfare State and has been steadily progressing since.
Those who are promoting this system, whether in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, are nothing less than Traitors,
guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty for such treachery.
Listen carefully to the propositions of both McCain and Obama;
I suspect that you will quickly find both of their positions are not only similar,
but propose in essence and detail the Fabian Socialist construct.
The system that these marauders are imposing upon us will ultimately alter our system of government beyond recognition.

It is all accomplished with the utmost respectability of course,
they would not dream of such an imposition without popular support
and they will make sure that they have popular support.

In 1933, they proposed that private enterprise had failed
leaving the jobless to starve,
hope to fade
and that the State must step in to save the country
and protect the people from the dangers associated with the inherent problems of free enterprise.
Today, the call is very similar, the State must step in to protect the people.
The Corporate State is, in the minds of Fabians, the ultimate protector of the common man, the provider of security on all fronts,
but it requires our complete compliance and the relinquishment of our liberty in exchange.
The State is to ultimately be the only one allowed wealth,
the problem is that wealth is the people's wealth confiscated in exchange for their hard labor.
It is, in essence, a plan for a modern feudal society of peonage
and the people are the peons.

Proofs of a Conspiracy?
Look around...

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae-Seditionist

Wake up people! Look what the Democrats have done!

[EBH]

Ping!

Yosemitest, thank you for posting this.

And it is this settling for whatever the party proposes, that has been the very undoing of the GOP and the rest of the country.

The GOP is not the lesser of two evils any longer in my sight. They are actually more evil as they are snake oil politicians. And this article illustrates exactly what I mean. They are deceivers.

While this is from 2008 and about McCain vs. 0bama, the same is true of a Romeny vs. 0bama run.

There is no difference and to delude ourselves into believing there is, is our failure to the nation and the ideals & principles to which ‘conservatives’ claim.

In the grand scheme of things one’s vote doesn't matter. And as more people realize the ballot box has been invalidated, except for some ceremonial representation of our history...it will lead to the other kind of box.

The passion for this candidate or that candidate or party to party will fade, as we come to realize, we have nothing to contribute to the process.