The Screed #2, Rush Vs. Obama

A good friend, a liberal, asked me if Rush Limbaugh’s recent battles with the Obama White House and the liberal Republicans, capped by his speech at CPAC the other day, was the downfall of the opposition, or the resurgence. He directed me to this article.
Here’s what I told him. (Note: Kristy’s his wife, also a lib, who says trickle down economics didn’t work because there were large budget deficits, proving once again that libs know nothing about macroeconomics).

What strikes me in that article is that the only people quoted are the so-called conservatives who disagree with Rush, and that’s exactly his point. It has become acceptable to call just about any Republican a conservative. Believe me, David Brooks is no conservative.

I am decidedly NOT a social conservative, although I do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, particularly as it pertains to no parental notification for minors and partial birth. And if gay people want to get married, who gives a s – - t? And you know my complete disdain for religion. But social issues aside, let me state that Reagan’s basic premise that lower taxes, less government involvement in the economy, removal of the barriers to entrepreneurialism and risk taking, a strong dollar, and reducing the incentives not to work (welfare) absolutely, positively and inarguably work. If you want to be critical of Reagan because he let the Dems in Congress spend too much, feel free, but that was the price he had to pay to rebuild the military that Carter decimated. But you can’t argue with almost twenty years of uninterrupted economic growth and the creation of tens of trillions of dollars of wealth and the lifting of living standards everywhere, and not just here. It happened all around the world as formerly communist and socialist countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, South America and eventually even Western Europe adopted Fredrick Hayek’s and Milton Friedman’s economic theories, which came to be known as Reaganomics. (That’s called trickle down, just ask Kristy!! lol)

Rush’s point as I understand it is that Obama and the liberals in Congress are attacking that system, literally waging a direct attack on capitalism and entrepreneurship. His policies will make this recession worse and last longer than it otherwise should, and will eventually lead to serious inflation and/or much higher interest rates. He has no economic recovery plan, unless you call taking the federal government from one fifth of GDP to one third, assuming ever increasing control of the banking, automobile, pharmaceutical, health care, housing and mortgage, construction, energy, and media industries (I’m sure I left some out), and raising taxes on everyone either directly (especially the small and medium sized business owners who actually create jobs) or indirectly (cap and trade) an economic recovery plan. It’s not, it socialism, or more accurately a form of fascism before it became a totalitarian system. It’s been tried, many, many times, and has failed miserably every single time. I challenge anyone to dispute that.

But what Rush is also saying is Obama is trying to fundamentally change our way of life, breaking down what made this country great (with all of its flaws). Like it or not the United States has been the economic engine for the entire world for almost 100 years now, and has used that to export liberty and self determination to almost a hundred countries and billions of people. The underlying theme is ‘equality of opportunity’, based on the rule of law and the greatest governing document written in the history of mankind (that would be the Constitution to you liberals out there). It recognizes that some will achieve more than others, that’s human nature. It’s also human nature to assist those who need help to achieve, and to take care of those who are truly needy and can’t (not won’t) take care of themselves. We also abhor tyranny, and have sacrificed millions of lives to combat it.

In Obama’s world you achieve ‘equality of outcomes’ by pulling the successful down to the level of the less successful. Tyranny is just another political philosophy, worthy of dialogue and debate. Obama’s agenda is an attack on liberty, freedom and personal choice, substituting those with dependency, disdain for the rule of law, and the redistribution of wealth. Here’s what will happen if it continues. People respond to stimuli. As more and more of what they earn is transferred to the takers, the more productive will stop trying so hard because they get less reward, or they’ll refuse to pay any more and move towards an underground economy. Eventually the system breaks down as the dependent outnumber the contributors. (We’re almost there now, which is how Obama got elected in the first place, that and GW’s economic failures. I’ll save the media’s abject dereliction of duty and failure to vet this guy for another day.) Eventually, because everyone gets one vote, the takers outnumber the contributors and the system becomes permanent. The economy collapses, and the ‘only answer’ is even more government. (Sound familiar?) Obama’s no fool. He knows this. Hell, he’s been SAYING it! Listen to him!! Beyond that, watch what he’s doing. He’s trying to create a permanent ruling party based on redistribution of wealth and dependency on government.

So, 500 words later, the answer to your question is I think, and HOPE, Rush and his supporters are the resurgence. I don’t know if it will be successful, and am terrified that it might not. Like I said, the dependents almost outnumber the contributors now. My hope lies with the American people, in whom I still have great faith, but fewer and fewer of them understand what’s happening, aren’t well grounded in the our history or the values that made us great (thank you fifty years of liberal public schooling). Rush has to first win the battle with the appeasers, those Republicans who think they have to compromise with the liberals. The Liberal Democrats are scared to death of him because they know he’s right. That’s why they’ve launched a full scale media and propaganda campaign against him, even enlisting so called moderate Republicans who have gone to the other side. They FCC will soon enact a law that requires radio stations (not cable or television networks or newspapers or magazines) to run balanced political programming, in the ‘public interest’. Even though every time they launch a liberal talk radio network it fails because no one listens, which is why they need government subsidized NPR. It’s a back door way to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine. It’s called suppression of the opposition and political free speech. Dictatorships do it all the time.

The Libinator, a.k.a BigJBo