Skip to comments.Liberals Can't Defend Their Corrupt Ideas, So They Create Phony, Divisive Distractions
Posted on 03/29/2012 11:39:57 AM PDT by servo1969
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, what happened this week at the Supreme Court is profound regardless the outcome. It was an eye-opening experience for millions of Americans that were paying attention maybe for the first time to this kind of thing. But the reason that I harp on this is... and I'm still struggling with a way to explain this to you. The reason I think it's profound is that the next time one of these events such as Hayward just reviewed in this horrible month for the Democrats, the next time the media and the Democrat Party get all exercised about something happening in our country or in our culture or in our media, and when they're all in unity on it, the reaction ought to be they're lying. They're making it up. There's a political agenda here. There is no real outrage, for example.
All these people supposedly calling advertisers of this program. There was no angry consumer outrage. It was all trumped up. The same thing was attempted with the Trayvon Martin case. To create a false reality, to make it look like the country is as agitated as the left is, but it never is. The country is never as roiled and as agitated as the left is. They can succeed in upsetting people. But the object lesson here is to, from this point forward, just don't believe them. Just understand with some sophistication the effort that's being made every time something seemingly falls in their laps that is on the surface made to order to get rid of one of their enemies or to get rid of opposition to an issue or piece of legislation or what have you.
They don't live in reality. They have no moral fiber or moral core. They are not smarter by any stretch. They're not as smart as you are. They have shut themselves off from learning. You and I, for example, can explain liberalism to somebody. They can't explain conservatism. They don't care. They're not interested. It doesn't matter. It's beneath them. As such they're not informed. It's like Geithner was up talking to some congressional committee about reducing the deficit. He said, (paraphrasing) "Well, we don't really have a plan. All we know is we don't like yours." But Geithner doesn't know what our plan is. He doesn't care what our plan is. The fact that it's ours is enough for him to reject it. That is arrogance, that's conceit, and that's who they are.
They're bullies. They don't know half of what they think they know. And when they are confronted with hard, cold reality as they were before the Supreme Court this week, their media members, their lawyers, their bureaucrats, when they're confronted with reality, they're lost. They can't explain themselves. They can't justify their issues. They're never able to do that. I'll give you a little illustration here, a couple of examples. There's a story here in the UK Daily Mail. This is the British media. "Sarasota Murder: Shawn Tyson, 17, Found GUILTY of Killing 2 British Tourists in Florida -- A sneering teenager, nicknamed 'Savage', was today found guilty in the shooting deaths of two British tourists after days of damning evidence.
"Shawn Tyson, 17, was charged with two counts of first degree murder for killing James Cooper and James Kouzaris in April 2011 and was sentenced to life in prison. The Sarasota, Florida, jury of eight women and four men only deliberated for two hours before coming to the guilty sentence for Tyson." The story is that these two Brits came over here to Disney World for vacation, and this guy tried to rob them. They didn't have any money, so he just killed them. They're white; he's black. You're not hearing about this in the US media 'cause this will not fit with what they're trying to make you believe in the Trayvon Martin case.
Now, the important thing about the Trayvon Martin case, we don't know yet who is it that's jumped the gun, who is it that's trying to make that story fit into their template. It's them. Who is it that's waiting to see what really happened and let just take its course? It's us. Now, this shooter is also 17 years old. The victim in the Trayvon Martin case, 17 years old. In one instance our president calls the media together and says: You know what, Trayvon Martin, if I had a son, that's who he'd look like. You will not hear him say of 17-year-old Shawn Tyson: You know what, if I had a son, that's who he looks like. Won't hear him say that. The answer, the reason why is because when you boil it all down, Obama's saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin is simply a way to advance the liberal agenda. That there is blatant racial discrimination. That this country has not advanced beyond days of slavery. That we are still immoral, unjust, and need to be transformed. I am repulsed. I have had it, folks. I love this country, and as I told you earlier this week, I am scared that we're losing it. We are on the precipice because of incidents like this. A reality exists, if it doesn't fit the political objective of the left and the media, the reality doesn't matter. A false reality must be created in which the country is to blame, in which the affluent are to blame, in which people, members of majorities, be it racial or ethnic or financial, whatever, are to blame. All for the express purpose of ripping this country apart. And I am just asking you the next time one of these incidents happens, and I'm gonna tell you when it is. They're easy as heck to spot. I'll tell you. And you'll hopefully be able to notice it yourself. Just don't believe them. Just reject it. Don't get caught up in it. If you do, you're living in a place where reality doesn't exist.
A couple of other examples. Headline from an opinion piece of The Politico today: "Moment of Truth for Justice Roberts." Roberts has a chance to rise above politics on the Supreme Court with the health care case. Roberts. Notice you never read about any liberals being asked to rise above the politics. Because, you see, there is no higher calling than being a liberal. You can't be any better. You can't be any more proper. You can't be any smarter than be a liberal. So it's not possible to rise any higher. But it's a different matter entirely with lowdown, dirty conservatives. So Mr. Roberts, Justice Roberts, time to rise above politics here and forget the reality that just happened this week and side with the president anyway.
The New York Times is already selecting a scapegoat in case the court strikes down Obamacare. And it's not Verrilli. The New York Times headline and lead from this morning. Jonathan Gruber, health care's Mr. Mandate, Jonathan Gruber, professor at MIT, helped persuade the regime that everybody should be required to get health insurance. See, it's Gruber's fault now. They tried blaming Verrilli. It didn't work. Why didn't blaming Verrilli work? I mean the entire left wing blogosphere, half of the Democrat Party and the media tried to blame what happened this week on the government lawyer. Why didn't it stick? Because he had something that is indefensible to defend.
The left will never admit the deficiency of their ideas. They will not admit that they sent him up there with an impossible job: to defend the indefensible. How many years have they had to defend? Folks, they have had decades to plan a defense for their idea of Obamacare. Because Obamacare is not really Obamacare. Obamacare is the utopian dream of American leftists for 50 or more years. They know and have known for five decades what they want to do with the American health care system.
You would think after those 50 years that they would be able, when questioned by anybody, to defend it. After 50 years of desire -- 50 years of tasting it, dreaming it, 2,700 pages written and passed by Congress -- they can't defend it. What does that tell you about it? They can't defend it. And the truth is they can't defend anything that they've done. They can't defend Social Security. They can't defend Medicare. All they can do is act as tyrants and say, "We don't have to explain ourselves. You look at our intentions! You don't examine our results. We tried. At least we have big hearts. At least we care. You don't! You're racist, bigot, sexist, homophobes, but we care. Look at our good intentions."
Well, I'm sorry. Their good intentions don't matter a whit to me, just like the fact that the first black president's a historic thing was a one-day deal for me and then I started caring about his policies. Because that what matters to me. I said earlier this week, "Obama's not black to me. He's a far-left, neo-socialist whatever intent on transforming this country in a way they don't want to live in. That's what he is to me." Michelle Obama is not a black woman. She is a far-left Democrat activist who wants to take control over every aspect of our lives. That's who she is to me. And it's the same with every other liberal opponent I have out there.
I don't care what they look like.
I don't care where they go to the bathroom and how.
None of that matters to me. What's in their souls, what's in their minds, that's what matters to me. They've had 50 years to defend this, and they can't. And if you don't like the 50-year analogy, they've had two years. For two years since this thing was passed into law, they knew it was gonna be challenged. There have been arguments at the circuit and appellate court levels. They still can't defend it! So they try to come up with a scapegoat, "It's Verrilli's fault! That lousy law review guy, lousy government lawyer. Look at that! He's stuttering, drinking water. What an embarrassment!" He had something impossible to defend. So now the New York Times says it's Gruber's fault. John Gruber at MIT, he came up with the mandate; it's his fault.
The left will throw people away. The left will trample on people, their own people. They'll throw 'em overboard, they'll throw 'em under the bus, whatever's necessary to save their morally corrupt ideas. They'll destroy anybody or anything in order to protect their immoral and corrupt ideas because they can't sell it. They can't win. In a representative republic where people are free, their ideas will never win. They have to be implemented with the use of force governing against the will of the people. That's why I'm afraid for the country. We're hang on a thread here, and we're waiting on, basically, the decision of one man. I don't care who it is. The fact that we're waiting on the decision of one man, in a nation of 311 million where only 15 million don't have health insurance, and those 15 million don't want it?
We're doing this for all of that, and one man hangs in the balance.
How did we ever get here?
RUSH: This has been an amazing week, a very uplifting week, and I want to review some of the things here. How amazing is the US Constitution? How amazing is it? It's thought out, written, worded, designed so well that 236 years later it still can protect us from an attempted tyrannical takeover. Stunning! And, of course, the left hates it for that very reason. "It's a living, breathing document!" Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, "No, don't use the US Constitution," to Egyptian students, when drafting their own. No, no, no. It's a brilliant, blessed document. Look how long and hard the left, socialists, whoever, have been trying to overthrow this Constitution, and it triumphs. It's still rockin', it's still there.
We still have the bounty on George Zimmerman in Florida. That is so stunningly shocking, I still can't get my mind around it. The utter silence from anybody in authority, in the media, the White House, law enforcement compounds my anger over this. Spike Lee finally has apologized, I think, for his tweet. We have Elena Kagan. We know through e-mails that she cheered the enactment of Obamacare as a regime political appointee. She was personally assigned the top deputy in the Justice Department to defend the law in federal court. There's no way she should be sitting as a justice on the Supreme Court. Yet she is, hearing arguments.
She's given no indication that she would recuse herself. Of course she's not gonna recuse herself. I talked to a judge last night. Well, I never "talk to" anybody, folks. I e-mail people because I hate the phone. I can't hear. I despise the phone. So when I say, "I talk to somebody," I'm chatting with them via electronic communication. I chatted with a judge last night who set me straight on the issue of severability and what it really means and what the rule really is. And I dare say, I misunderstood it because of the way it's been explained and I think a lot of people do.
Indeed, this needs to be stated over and over again.
Any time someone plays the race card, or the woman card, the gay card, or the elderly card -
“liberals can’t defend their corrupt agenda, so they bring up distractions like you just did.”
Generally, they do it by accusing conservatives of exactly what they, the liberals, are doing.
Rush is right on.
Thank you, Sandra Fluke, for getting our guy fired up. And thanks for driving so many curiosity seekers to his show for the first time. Nothing like a good controversy to boost ratings.
The worst thing that could happen would be for the USSC to reach some sort of “compromise” on their ruling, out of their desire to be a non-influence in the upcoming Presidential elections.
Did Rush explain the details of the severability issue that he learned from the judge?
Marxism in all its numerous shapes and guises and forms has had well over a century to demonstrate its superiority. Its greatest "accomplishment" was the murders of over 100 million people by their own government during the twentieth century. The rest of the record consists of poverty, oligarchy, dictatorship, political prisons, show trials, more poverty, shoddy engineering and manufacturing, and special treatment for the vanguard of the revolution.
The road is paved with distractions. It’s like a magic show, you don’t want the audience seeing what you are really doing so you give them something else to look at.
My response there would apply here.
This comment on Justice Breyer's nonsensical musings, when combined with those of Justice Kagan, should alarm every citizen who cherishes the Constitution's underlying principles, as articulated and explained by America's Founders and Framers of that Constitution's protections for liberty.
My post from another thread related to Kagan:
"Kagan: "'The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?
"'In other words, the federal government is here saying: were giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.
"'Its just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor peoples healthcare. It doesnt sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.'"
This statement tells us everything we need to know about Justice Kagan's concept of "coercive power" versus "individual liberty" and the Constitution's protections for the latter.
America's Founders viewed "government" as "coercive" by nature.
America's Founders understood that "government" creates no money, has no money, and cannot "gift" money without first "taking" it from someone--a "coercive" act in itself.
Besides, this "boatload of money" is not "federal money." It is "the People's" money, and who is naive or uninformed enough to believe that "taking" it from the people, sending it to Washington, and then doling it out to the States is an efficient way to provide "poor people's health care"????
Oh, how far we have come from the genius and wisdom which gave birth to America's Constitution, America's liberty for all, and America's prosperity and greatness!!!
I hope that these members of the Supreme Court will understand that future generations of Americans and individuals all over the world, given the new technologies which enable them to study the Founders' ideas, will judge them by the Framers' standards, not by the standards of the so-called "progressive" politicians in this Administration.
"Ideas have Consequences" (Weaver). America's Founders' ideas produced freedom, opportunity, prosperity and plenty for hundreds of millions of oppressed people.
The "progressives'" ideas of redistribution (socialism) have produced approaching tyranny and oppression, mediocrity, and want, in every society where they have been tried.
my question too...
This is SOP for socialists before a revolution
Are those Kagan’s real words?
Rush is right - liberals are bullies. And that crap liberals do with the MSM ( their BIG MSM brother who will beat you up if you don’t get in line - their line) - it’s all crap. Millions of Americans don’t stand with them - look how many people have dropped their newspaper subscriptions - look at the numbers who quit watching network news. Quit buying liberal magazines. The country is fed up - the smartest know and they’re spreading the word - young people know and they’re rebelling against the liberals. People trust used car salesmen about on the same level as your local (once respected) newspaper editor). What is happening to our world?
Just finished looking at the live thread, and it appears he did. I posted a request for some details. If I get a response I’ll let you know. If you see anything, please let me know.
Oh! I got linked on Gateway Pundit! Hot diggity!
Rush’s ability to PAINT the PICTURE clearly and honestly is a Godsend.