As scandal swirls, Obama focuses on the real cause of cynicism about government: Rush Limbaugh

Worked for Bill Clinton, why not for Obama …

Blame Rush for what telling the truth?

I suppose Rush did this as well … MORE COMPLAINTS: Journalism groups, lawmakers voice ire at AP phone records seizure.

 

 

Marco Rubio: Gang of Eight’s immigration bill can’t pass the House

And no it does not secure the border FIRST… Which means for me, that’s it, I am against it. There is no reason why we do not secure our border fisrt before any AMNESTY. Haven’t we done this before?

Who thinks AMNESTY, which trashes our economies low wage workers by undercutting their salaries will help our ailing economy? Then what will they do. Welfare.

And that is why businesses want it, because it lowers wages of all workers in the bargain.

Rubio says …

“The bill that’s in place right now probably can’t pass the House,” Rubio told Mike Gallagher, a nationally syndicated talk show host. “It will have to be adjusted, because people are very suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now.”

Read more:

WHO IS THE ONE CONSERVATIVE THAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS HAS EVERY DEMOCRAT ‘SCARED TO DEATH’?

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday said Dr. Ben Carson has the entire Democratic Party “scared to death” for several reasons.

“He is able to articulate and explain conservatism in a way that is persuasive, without raising his voice at all,” Limbaugh said. It sounds like your dad talking to you, not your dad, your best buddy talking to you.”

Should Carson ever decide to run for office, like his supporters want him to, the left would have a very hard time demonizing him, Limbaugh explained.

“Partially because of his race, but not just because he’s African-American,” he added. “You can say he’s all these horrible things, then you hear him, see him and listen to him and it doesn’t click.”

“He saves children with his hands. He saves their little brains.”

Did You Know

These are helpful tools for the low information voter, who may not know they are low information voter…

Rush Limbaugh: Why Totalitarians Release Prisoners

Just like Barack Obama, Nicolae Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro also released criminal prisoners.

Here’s the audio.

Rush Limbaugh slammed Barack Obama today for “opening up the jails” and releasing the criminals like fellow totalitarians.
From the Rush Limbaugh website:

RUSH: I tell you, I’m finding myself in a difficult situation here, because I know that certain words and phrases happen to turn people off in this country. For example — it’s been this way a long time — in this country and in the media today, if you say to somebody, “That person over there’s a communist,” you lose ‘em. That doesn’t work. So you say, “Okay, socialist.” Well, okay, that may make more impact. Call ‘em a totalitarian or a statist, they still don’t want to hear it.

But it’s challenging because that’s exactly what’s happening. Barack Obama is employing tactics that have been used by people like Nicolae Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro released hundreds of thousands of just the most horrible characters from his prisons and they infested south Florida in the Mariel Boatlift — and the same thing with Ceausescu and releasing his prisoners. Not all of them are political. Some of them were hardened criminals.

I mean, Ceausescu was trying to pollute Western Europe. He wasn’t sending a bunch of freedom fighters to Western Europe. He was polluting it. Castro was trying to pollute south Florida. He was trying to corrupt it, and the United States in general. Saddam Hussein was trying to corrupt Iraq and Baghdad by letting his most hardened criminals go. It was a punishment, a punishment to the citizens of Iraq for not supporting him, for being complicit in the forthcoming US invasion.

So what happens is, Ceausescu… Well, use the Mariel Boatlift. What happened in this country was the Mariel Boatlift — and, of course, the nice, compassionate people of America welcomed them in at first. “They’re escaping the dungeons of Fidel Castro! These are people seeking freedom, and we are people of freedom.” The same with Ceausescu’s release, and the same thing with Castro’s and Saddam’s. They end up corrupting the places that they go, and that’s the purpose of it.

Out of the Trenches …

Rush Limbaugh told his audience yesterday: “For the First Time in My Life I Am Ashamed of My Country”

You’re not alone, Rush. You’re not alone.

Here’s Rush Limbaugh from today’s show:

“Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To be watching all of this, to be treated like this, to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it’s being insulted? It just makes me ashamed. Seriously, man. Here we get worked up over $44 billion. That’s the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year. In truth, we’re gonna spend more this year than we spent last year.”

If some one does not represent the disaffected Conservatives, some one will.

Isn’t this exactly what a man called Abraham Lincoln did in the early 1860′s. And slavery fell down after a bloody civil war? Right now it’s as if no one is listening to the country’s class.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Drone Policy Means You Can Kill a Terrorist, You Just Can’t Waterboard Him

Makes a clean mess …

It’s an Obama world.
Rush Limbaugh went off on Barack Obama’s shocking drone policy on his show. Rush wondered out loud,

“Does this mean that Nixon coulda taken out Bill Ayers? Does this mean that Richard Nixon could have taken out the New Black Panther Party?”

This was classic Rush Limbaugh.
Via Greta Van Susteren:

Wouldn’t the waterboarding produce more and better intelligence, than a dead body.

Transcript from the Rush Limbaugh website:

If this provision had been in place back in the seventies, does this mean that Nixon could have assassinated the Weathermen? Does this mean that Nixon coulda taken out Bill Ayers? Does this mean that Richard Nixon could have taken out the New Black Panther Party? It doesn’t mean that? Well, “…’senior operational leaders’ of al-Qaida or ‘an associated force’ — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the US.

“The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News,” which means the administration gave it to ‘em, “provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens.”

Remember all the grief that George Bush got for warrantless wiretaps on phone calls? Do you remember that? I remember when Bush was president, the American left was literally having conniption fits.

Does that mean Nixon coulda killed Bill Ayers? It does mean that. Bill Ayers or the Weathermen. He had an active plot against the US, bombed the Pentagon.If Nixon had assumed the kind of power that Obama’s assuming, he could have sent a commando team out to wipe out Bill Ayers. You can’t kill rogue leaders. No, you cannot. By law, we cannot assassinate foreign leaders. We can now kill Americans, as long as we say they are related to Al-Qaeda somehow. And that link isn’t too tough. Al-Qaeda hates America. All you have to do is hate America and it could be said that you are an associated force.

Remember all of the anger that the left had over waterboarding. And look at this now. I think I have this right. Constitutional scholar Barack Obama is demanding the right to kill American citizens without making his case to a judge, as long as he thinks the American in question is in an upper tier of operations of Al-Qaeda or a related group. But he can’t waterboard the guy. You can kill him, but we can’t waterboard him. We can kill the son of a…, but we can’t torture him. Have I got this right? I think I do. I thought you should know.

Obama’s Gun Plan Takes Shape

What’s wrong with you ….

In an interview with the New Republic Barack Obama hinted at his gun control plans. Part of the plan is to undermine Republicans from the start.

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they’re really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can’t get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”

But here is the key portion

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

He said it’s understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

In Obamaworld owning guns is about hunting- and nothing more. If you own a gun not made for hunting it means you want to kill someone. If you own a gun and don’t hunt you are a danger. A threat to national security.

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are to blame.

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

democrats, naturally, are entirely reasonable:

The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

But will Reid “get stuff done”? Reid suggested he would allow a Senate vote on the assault weapon ban:

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, signaled Tuesday that despite earlier indications to the contrary, he may allow a vote on a possible ban on assault weapons.

Reid, a longtime gun-rights advocate from Nevada, recently indicated he would not permit a vote because the Republican-led House of Representatives likely wouldn’t go along with such a prohibition.

Powerful gun-rights groups oppose a ban on assault weapons and could seek to unseat any lawmaker who backs it, as they have tried to do in the past.

But after a weekly meeting Tuesday with fellow Senate Democrats, Reid told reporters he expects “to have a free amendment process” on gun legislation.

That process could result in other Democrats proposing a possible resurrection of a 10-year ban on semi-automatic assault weapons that expired in 2004.

But GOP Sen. John Barrasso doesn’t think an assault weapons ban can pass the Senate and Reid won’t bring it to the floor:

Backing up what others have indicated, Barrasso said he doesn’t expect Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring gun control bills to the floor.

“He has six Democrats up for election in two years in states where the president received fewer than 42 percent of the votes. And he doesn’t want his Democrats to have to choose between their own constituents and the president’s positions,” Barrasso said.

Reid won’t put his Senate colleagues in jeopardy by passing legislation that would not pass the House:

Reid said Wednesday he will bring legislation addressing gun violence — verbiage Democrats have adopted as more politically palatable than “gun control” — to the Senate floor. But Reid has balked at the prospect of making a strong push on a new federal assault-weapons ban because it would be a political liability and he doubts the House would pass it.

“Let’s be realistic,” Reid recently told PBS’s “Nevada Week in Review.” “In the Senate, we’re going to do what we think can get through the House, and I’m not going to go through a bunch of gyrations just to say we’ve done something. If we’re really legislators, the purpose of it is to pass legislation.”

Obama, via Feinstein, is going to seek the ban of all semi-automatic weapons- including hand guns. His position will be that hunting is the only reason to own a weapon and only hunting weapons need be permitted.

Deceit And Lies, Rush Goes There

Yep thats about it, our LYING PREEZY …

HE will do anything and say anything, just like some third world dictator. He doesn’t deserve the honor of the office he has.

Learned from the dreams FROM his father…Read his book…

Rush is not afraid to report on Obama’s campaign of lies, something the Drive-by media has ignored.

Rush Limbaugh blasted Obama on running a campaign of deceit. The State Department website even scrubbed a memo that was posted on its website before 9-11 announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11. Obama is running a campaign of lies

MICHAEL SAVAGE LEAVES RADIO SHOW AFTER LEGAL WIN

Free at LAST …. Michael Savage’s talk show left the airwaves Thursday after the conservative host won a legal battle with his longtime employer, although his attorney said discussions with new networks are already under way.

Savage posted a message on his website Thursday evening under the headline “Free at Last!” that said he was free to work with any station or network from now on. He said he “will not be heard on the radio for some time.”

His attorney Daniel Horowitz said Savage left Talk Radio Network after obtaining a favorable ruling in arbitration Thursday afternoon.

More than 8 million people listen to Savage’s show each week, placing him behind only Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in ratings, according to the magazine Talkers. The immediate effect that his abrupt departure would have on companies that advertise on his show was unclear.

An email sent to Oregon-based Talk Radio Network was not immediately returned. Savage’s bio and name already have been removed from the company’s website.

Horowitz says Savage has been fighting the network for two years to get out a contract that was 10 years old and prevented the host from switching employers. Horowitz said the agreement lacked protections afforded to artists and entertainers under California law, and tied Savage to Talk Radio Network indefinitely.

Horowitz said Savage spent more than $900,000 fighting his case but was awarded more than $1 million in arbitration. The agreement also calls for Savage to be able to obtain all archived tapes of his show.

We don’t have a station in our area that carries his show…