The Last Days of the United States

June 12, 2008 RUSH: The Supreme Court ruled this morning that foreign terrorism suspects held at Club Gitmo have rights under the Constitution that challenge their detention in US civilian courts. It was a 5-4 ruling, Anthony Kennedy, the fifth vote, wrote the opinion, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the Supreme Court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at Club Gitmo. "It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al Qaida and the Taliban." As I said, a military lawyer for Bin Laden's ex-driver has sought dismissal of his case after the Supreme Court ruling this morning. Now, this is an abomination. This is just outrageous. Never before in the history of US warfare have we had to go out and Mirandize prisoners of war. That's what we're going to effectively have to do. We're going to have to read prisoners of war their rights just as we would a thief at the local convenience store. I'll tell you what this means. This means, don't capture 'em. There is a reaction for every action, and what this means is don't capture 'em. And if you're going to rendition 'em -- and, by the way, that's something started by Bill Clinton in the mid-nineties, rendition is where you send these people to unknown locations where they are held captive by the leaders of those nations who are your allies. Of course, an eager beaver press will be eager to find out where these prisoners have been taken as long as there's a Republican president. What's going to happen now, if these guys, these 270 guys now have access to the US Constitution as though they are citizens, these clowns at Club Gitmo, now the American servicemen and women who captured them going to have to be brought home for trial to explain their actions? I mean, a lot of unanswered questions here, but Ed Morrissey writes at the Hot Air blog, he says in our 232-year history, when have we ever allowed this kind of access to enemy combatants not captured inside the United States itself? These people have been captured in the battlefield. These people have been captured in Afghanistan and in Iraq, certain parts of Pakistan, they're brought to Club Gitmo, and now they are having conferred upon them US constitutional rights. So there is absolutely no limit now, no respect for the law anymore. The moral of this story is going to shake out this way. Take no captives. This is a victory for the enemy. It is a disgrace. It is inexplicable, but the Drive-Bys are happy. In fact, we'll start with Jeffrey Toobin at CNN celebrating this loss. And here's another thing. One of the things that really frustrates me about this, if you read the coverage, it was a loss for the Bush administration. It was another defeat for the Bush administration. Wrongo, Drive-Bys. It's a defeat for the United States of America. This is bad for the country. This is bad for US national security. Not just bad for Bush. But, of course, that's the context, and that's the action line, the narrative here, this is Bush's war. It's the United States of America's war, and it's bad news. Here's Jeffrey Toobin on CNN this morning. TOOBIN: This is really an extraordinary situation. This is the third time in four years that the Supreme Court has told the Bush administration, you're wrong, the system you set up, this time with the consent of Congress, is unconstitutional, does not give the detainees adequate rights to go to court and challenge their incarceration. What this decision sets the stage for is detainees having the opportunity to go to federal court and say, "Look, I don't belong here, federal judge, let me out."

RUSH: Yeah. Where are they going to find these courts? They're going to be bringing these people right here on the United States of America's home soil. That's what I'm saying, no limits, no respect for law anymore because this time the president had the consent of Congress, which establishes the law. The Supreme Court said this is unconstitutional. This is about military tribunals. You know what else? We've got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his other five cohorts and these guys who have admitted doing what they've done, they might have to be released. Or they may be allowed to petition for their release, even after having admitted it and seeking martyrdom by asking to be executed. This time with the consent of Congress, the Supreme Court nevertheless says it's unconstitutional. It doesn't give the detainees rights to go to court and challenge their incarceration. What it gives them the right to do is to go to the judge and say, "Judge, I don't belong here; let me out." Here's Pete Hoekstra this morning on Fox News Channel, Bill Hemmer talked to him and asked for his reaction. HOEKSTRA: My initial reaction is a great deal of concern. Remember, some of these folks that were going to be tried on these tribunals are picked up on the battlefield. If these folks now have access to our federal courts and have the same protections as American citizens under the Constitution, what does this say to an American soldier who captures one of these terrorists on the battlefield and may still be being fired at in terms of collecting evidence, rights of the person that he's captured and all of these types of things? Boy, I'll tell you I'm very concerned about what it means to our troops who are in harm's way on the battlefield as a result of this court ruling. RUSH: So Hemmer says, in a physical sense, does Club Gitmo close now, does it close down soon, and what happens to Rush Limbaugh's thriving licensed merchandise business there? HOEKSTRA: One of the reasons that Gitmo was in existence was that we believe that that was the appropriate place to hold them if they -- if it doesn't matter where you hold them and the court has ruled that regardless of where these individuals are detained or held, they are extended the rights of the US Constitution even though they are foreigners, it may be immaterial as to whether Gitmo exists or not. RUSH: That's absolutely right. So you better jump on board, get your Club Gitmo gear fast while there still is a Club Gitmo. We knew this was coming, and that's what makes it all the more frustrating. Levin, in his 2005 book Men in Black, had a chapter called "Al-Qaeda Gets a Lawyer." This has been a disaster in the making. It all started with the Rasul and Hamdi decisions in 2004. So this is what happens when you get leftists on the bench. It's plain as day for anybody to see what's happening. The key is finding ways to stop -- you can't -- what you do about a Supreme Court decision at this point in time with an administration entering its last months in office with the Democrat Party no doubt is going to be celebrating this left and right. And, of course, need I remind you where Senator McCain comes down on this? Would you like to know where Senator McCain comes down? I haven't heard him react today, but I know that he wants to close Club Gitmo, does he not? And why does he want to close Club Gitmo? He wants to close Club Gitmo 'cause he thinks it's unconstitutional. He could have been on the Supreme Court, and yet McCain promises us that he will nominate the right kind of judges for the Supreme Court, yet he's agreeing with the libs and Kennedy today on the court, so -- (laughing) -- (doing McCain impression) "I feel like I'm going crazy sitting here."

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• National Review: The Gitmo Defeat - Mark R. Levin • HotAir: Breaking: Supreme Court says Gitmo Detainees Must Have Access to US Courts - Ed Morrissey • AP: High Court Ruling May Delay War Crimes Trials

Peter Schweizer on Liberal Whiners

RUSH: Since we're on this basic subject -- and what is the basic subject? What would you say, Mr. Snerdley? I often ask the staff these questions and see if they're actually paying attention, folks, because I know that you are. What would you say is the basic theme of the program? (interruption) Well, okay, yeah, true, market economics, indisputable, market economics. But why are we having to explain market economics? (interruption) Right, which is leading to what? Gas prices, which is leading to what? People are whining. Don't take this personally. Certain people are whining, and when people start whining, especially Baby Boomers, the truth gets lost. When you start whining who do you whine to? You might whine to me, you might whine to government, or whatever. Peter Schweitzer has a book out that's a very long title. I'm gonna collapse the title here: Makers and Takers: conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, give more generously, blah, blah, blah, blah, than do liberals. And his column, a little excerpt from it here today: "'Modern Liberals, Whine Connoisseurs' -- Barack Obama is many things -- a senator, a gifted orator, and a charismatic figure. But he's also a whiner. ... Michelle Obama whines about the burdens of paying for piano lessons and summer camp for the kids, and the paying off the student loans for her two Ivy League degrees. ... But the Obamas' penchant for whining didn't begin with the presidential campaign. Michelle Obama, in her Princeton undergraduate thesis titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community', complains of 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society.'" It's a full whine. Now, here's the point. I do think that it would be politically potent and advantageous -- it would never happen -- for the Republican Party to actually target these people on the left for what they are. They are whiners. This is why the whiners are on the left, and Schweitzer makes this point. The worst thing about whiners is that they almost always expect other people to do what is necessary to make 'em feel better. They don't undertake these things themselves. For example -- and this is what I meant with my Baby Boomer reference mere moments ago -- here we have a gasoline problem. A lot of people, by the way, are worried about rationing -- according to polling data -- more than they're worried about prices. They're worried about another shortage. People lived through it back in the seventies, contrived shortage. There is not a shortage. So it would have been to be a contrived shortage. But we have all these Baby Boomers who have grown up spoiled rotten. I've always contended this. I am a Baby Boomer. I know this to be true. Baby Boomers have so much time on their hands that they can make their whole lives, every moment of every day, about them. They never had to learn early on in life or even now that there are things in life larger than they are, 'cause that's not possible. They are the center of the universe. Their parents raised them that way. Their parents really went through hell in order to give us the life that we have, so we've had to invent our traumas. Attention deficit disorder, all these other things, we've had to invent them to make ourselves think that we've had challenges, life's been tough. And, of course, these things are relative, but if you get an attitude that says this is impossible, this is tough, I can't stand the pressure, you're really feeling it, so it turns out to be real, but in a comparative analysis of what people lived through in the Depression and the Korean War, World War II and the Cold War, and defeated all those things, that was real pressure. They didn't want to have their kids to have to experience those things, so they grew up real fast, and they wanted a better life for their kids, and they provided it on balance. So here we are, things for us, Baby Boomers, have been plentiful, and in many cases, whatever we wanted, within reason, we got. Now all of a sudden it's getting harder to get some things. A bunch of liberal Baby Boomers say, "Fix it! Fix it! Fix it! I want my gasoline, fix it!" while at the same time joining forces with those who are standing in the way of finding more, refining more. So they whine and they moan, but they do nothing to alleviate the problem themselves. They will then turn around and vote for the people who have made them miserable, because the people that have made 'em miserable are blaming the other guys for making them miserable, and the other guys, "Oh, I guess we're Republicans, and we don't have a way to answer that." I've known golfers -- because I play a lot of golf, as you people know -- I've known golfers who whine about everything from the condition of the course to their equipment. But I've never heard one of them demand that the government tax everybody else to provide 'em with golf lessons, a new set of clubs, to go out and improve the course or give them a new putter. But that's what Michelle (My Belle) and all these liberal Baby Boomers do.

Read the Background Material...

• National Review: Modern Liberals, Whine Connoisseurs - Peter Schweizer

Obama: Gradual Gas Price Rise Would be Fine

Obama: Gradual Gas Price Rise Would be Fine

RUSH: Here's what Obama said. "Obama suggested that rising gas prices are not the problem. The problem, he suggested, is they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a 'gradual adjustment.'" So your Democrat Party presidential nominee is all for rising gas prices. He just wouldn't have had them go up this fast if he'd had anything to do about it. There would have been a more gradual increase

Heterosexual AIDS Pandemic Threat Was Myth

Heterosexual AIDS Pandemic Threat Was Myth

RUSH: From the UK Independent, the headline: "'Threat of World AIDS Pandemic Among Heterosexuals is Over, Report Admits' -- A quarter of a century after the outbreak of AIDS, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared." May I give you people a little hint? There never was one. It was made up. I know, Snerdley, you think I'm going to get in trouble. There never was a global heterosexual AIDS pandemic. It was a threat. It was a myth. "In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major AIDS organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de [sic] Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/AIDS said there will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa. Dr. de Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed.

"Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients." Sex workers? Is that like prostitutes? Is that what they mean? Or people that work in sex clinics? I think they mean prostitutes. So this little liberal organization here led by Dr. De Cock, he's saying that after 25 years, it's now recognized that outside sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS was confined to high-risk groups, including men who have sex with men. Not women who have sex with women. Well, it doesn't say that. It says men who have sex with men and injecting drug users and prostitutes and their clients.

Dr. De Cock said, "It's very unlikely there will be a --" if my name is De Cock and I ran this organization, I'd change it. I would change my name. "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia -- China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas. … AIDS still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined." Even the Iraq war. Yes, it's hard to believe, ladies and gentlemen, but AIDS kills more people worldwide than the Iraq war. I'm not making it up. This is what Dr. De Cock says of the World Health Organization.

US Senate Privatizes Its Failing Restaurants

US Senate Privatizes Its Failing Restaurants

RUSH: I'm going to read you a little passage here, ladies and gentlemen, a little quote from one of our heroes, Ronald Reagan, whom our own side is telling us to get over. He said: "We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people. And that the climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those 'permanent things' that we've always believed in. ... But Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories. It's also a company town, and the company's name is government, big government. ... In the discussion of federal spending, the time has come to put to rest the sob sister attempts to portray our desire to get government spending under control as a hard-hearted attack on the poor people of America."

To this day, we have a federal budget over $3 trillion. Any mention of cutting it is still said to be aimed at the poor, minorities and women, hardest-hit. We don't change anything in Washington unless a Reagan comes along. Obama isn't going to change anything. Obama is going to do what leftists and liberals have done for eons, and that's to try to grow the government to as large as it can, raise taxes on as many people as possible, and eliminate as much personal freedom and liberty as he can. There's nothing new about Obama. Reagan was change. "The climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those 'permanent things' that we've always believed in. ...

"But Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories." Does that not describe Barack Obama? We have all of these examples, countless examples of government failing in every mission it takes, be it fixing and restoring and maintaining levees in New Orleans, to reducing poverty, to streamlining healthcare. There is no evidence that government is fit to run it. In fact, the Senate dining room, wait until you hear this. Dianne Feinstein has ordered the Senate dining room to go private. It's losing money. It loses millions. The food's lousy and if they don't go private, Senator's lunch prices will go up 25%. The House already did it.

Here's the sad story, ladies and gentlemen, and this is in the Washington Post today: "Year after year, decade upon decade, the US Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another." We're talking about Senate restaurants. "The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month." Now, keep in mind, this is who we are told is best suited to manage our energy policy, to manage our healthcare. They screw up every major thing they try because they are not the best qualified.

"The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires. The House is expected to agree -- its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s -- and President Bush's signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts," for Senators to dine. "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Rules and Administrations Committee, which oversees the operation of the Senate, said she had no choice. 'It's cratering,' she said of the restaurant system. 'Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses.'" So they're going to privatize it.

"In a letter to colleagues, Feinstein said that the Government Accountability Office found that 'financially breaking even has not been the objective of the current management due to an expectation that the restaurants will operate at a deficit annually.'" Oh yeah, just like the federal government does. "But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that 'you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own.'"

You know, he's got a point. The Democrats are being a little inconsistent here. They argue against the privatization of anything in government that would make it run better, but now all of a sudden in the Senate dining room, a different story. You know what one of the key factors here is? Senate opposition to privatization melted when faced with this choice. "Feinstein made another presentation May 7, warning senators that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board."

These are the people that you are being told can best administer your healthcare? They can't even run their own restaurants at a profit and we have been paying for these people to eat? Do you know how many millionaires there are in the United States Senate, particularly on the Democrat side? Do you know how many? It's an astounding number. I know there are some businesses that are so large that they have cafeterias and restaurants for their employees. I, frankly, in my life, have never worked at a place that paid for any meal of mine unless I was on business somewhere. But I have never, ever, worked at a place that bought my meals. I take it back. I want to be factually correct.

When I worked at the Kansas City Royals during home games, the employees, certain of them, ate in the press room with the press because we were working. But when the season was over or when the team was on the road, they did not open that room and feed us. We got to go to the stadium club, but we paid for it. These people have been running their restaurant at a loss because it was just expected to run at a loss and we were going to pay for it, and these are the people that want to run your healthcare.

Wright Stole His Wife from Parishioner

Story #6: Jerry Wright Stole His Wife from Parishioner

RUSH: Don't doubt me. I happened to mention to Snerdley at the top-of-the-hour break, in this hour, "Did you hear that Jerry Wright stole his wife from a parishioner?" And Snerdley, "No, I didn't hear that." I said, "Yeah, it's true, it was in the New York Post over the weekend. This couple in Jerry's church are having trouble, and Wright counseled them and ended up marrying the woman." And Snerdley told Dawn, and Dawn refuses to believe it, that Jerry wouldn't do that, of all the things that Jerry's done, Jerry Wright wouldn't do that. I'm sure Jerry could find a biblical precedent for this. Finds a biblical precedent for everything else he thinks. New York Post exclusive, May 4th: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's loose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner -- after the man sought Wright's help in saving his troubled marriage, the former husband told friends. Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife while Wright was counseling the couple at his Chicago church in the early 1980s, The Post has learned. 'That's exactly how he said it,' Reed's divorce lawyer, Roosevelt Thomas, told The Post. 'It looks like Delmer might have been right,' he said, because after Delmer and Ramah Reed were divorced, she got remarried -- to Wright. 'Either that or this was the biggest coincidence in the world.'

"Asked about the relationship between Wright and his ex-wife, Reed told The Post, 'Oh, the things I could tell you.' Initially, he didn't believe the rumors. 'People were telling me that my extremely attractive wife was seen with the pastor,' Reed said. 'But I didn't believe it. I thought, '"So what?"' Was he wrong in the end? 'Well, yeah,' he said. Asked if Wright broke up his marriage, Reed laughed, then said, 'I told my kids I wouldn't say anything to hurt their stepfather, so I'm not saying anything.' But he said he's been hounded by the press and 'offered money' to tell his story. A spokesman for the Wright family flatly denied the allegation yesterday. 'This story has no merit whatsoever and is not based on facts,' said George Lofton. 'They had problems throughout the course of their turbulent marriage, and the couple never received marriage counseling from Rev. Wright or anyone else.' But Reed, a former investigator for the Illinois secretary of state, told The Post he and his ex-wife went to Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for counseling when their marriage hit the skids over his demanding work schedule. 'I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months,' Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill. 'Her father asked me to go to counseling. We thought we'd be together forever. I decided to try to work this out.' Asked if he's forgiven the pastor, Reed nodded. 'I let it go,' he said. 'I don't want my kids to hear anything negative about their stepfather.'"

Don't doubt me.

Violence Over Food Prices Across the Globe

Story #4: Violence Over Food Prices Across the Globe

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, rising food costs have put turmoil on everybody's menu. Violence over food prices has been reported in Egypt and Haiti, and now at least two people have been killed in Somalia, where troops put down rioting over food. The Asian development bank is warning that over a billion Asians may sink back into poverty because of rising food prices. The bank, of course, says they want more money, but they're actually debating if India and China ought to foot the bill, not us, for a change. Meanwhile, the ChiComs have problems of their own. They're clamping down on food exports even as inflation rises along with food prices. North Koreans are still starving. Another American mission is over there trying to find solutions to their worsening food problem. I have the solution to all this, and that is, capitalism, born of freedom.

Obama Gas Guzzling SUV Hypocrisy

If gas guzzlers are so evil, why does Obama keep riding in them?

MichelleMalkin.com: If Gas Guzzlers Are So Evil, Why Does Obama Keep Riding in Them?

By Michelle Malkin • May 5, 2008 11:18 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/05/if-gas-guzzlers-are-so-evil-why-does-obama-keep-riding-in-them/

How John Adams Got His Unity

RUSH: How many of you are taking the time to watch the series on HBO called John Adams? It started Sunday night. There are seven episodes in total. They ran the first two. It's about John Adams, the first vice president of the United States, about his life, his wife Abigail, and their children.  The first two episodes were really about the steps leading up to American independence and the convention in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was written, primarily by Thomas Jefferson; where it was argued over, and hammered out.  I hope you're watching it.  If you're not, I hope that when they finish it and put it on DVD you get it, because this is the kind of stuff that is not being taught in schools today.  I'm stunned at the number of people I have talked to who have watched this who didn't know any of this, and they're my age.  What happened in that room, for all of those months, was a miracle.  It was a miracle that it happened.  Now, the reason I'm harping on this is because Norah O'Donnell is echoing one of the things that's part of the Obama campaign and is really something that the Democrats have been trying to bamboozle everybody with, and that is you can't solve problems unless you "unify."   Can I give you just a couple of examples of this?  I know unification sounds great, and can't we all get along and have the same objectives.  We do have the same objectives, most of us do.  It's how you get there that we argue about, and those arguments are substantive because we all want prosperity.  What is best way to do it: to earn it ourselves, or have the government hand it out to people?  You won't have prosperity if the government is in charge of handing it out to people, but that's what liberals want.  How can you achieve prosperity and independence and education when liberals who want to run the government, have contempt for the average person's ability to accomplish anything?  So they want to be the ones to provide all these things for people, whereas we conservatives think it's much better if people provide these things for themselves for a whole host of reasons, not to mention their own psyche and their own self-esteem, since liberals are concerned about that. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had no Republicans to speak of in the House of Representatives. What was it, 130?  I'll have to look this up; I keep guessing, but it was an insignificant number.   There was no way the Republicans were ever, ever going to be a majority in anything.  I mean, they didn't have even half the number of seats in the House the Democrats had.  Yet Reagan succeeded in reducing the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 28% over eight years.  Now, do you think he did this unifying with the Democrats?  Do you think he did this by virtue of unity with the Democrats in Congress? No!  That is not how it happened.  The Democrats didn't change their mind and all of a sudden think tax cuts were good, because if they had, we wouldn't be arguing about more tax cuts and we wouldn't be listening to Democrats continuing to talk about more tax increases.  So they didn't change their mind about anything back in the eighties.  They were just beaten, and the question is: how were they beaten?  Well, they were beaten by virtue of the fact that Reagan won 49 states on the specific issue of tax cuts, rebuilding the military, and wiping out communism in the Soviet Union.  He had the American people behind him, and the American people in this country get what they want.   Now, you might want to say that Reagan united the people, but he did it on the basis of policy. He did it on the basis of his personality. He did it on the basis of his patriotism. He changed people's minds, but he didn't change the minds of Democrats in Congress.  They had no choice.  They had to go along, and not on everything did they.  You remember the Iran-Contra situation and the Boland amendment and everything they could do in the second term to undermine Ronald Reagan.  They hated those tax cuts being passed, and they did everything they could to do to undermine him after that.  Yet they got it done.  It wasn't with "unity."  It was by perseverance, the idea triumphing in the minds of as many people as possible, leading a movement, teaching and explaining. Leadership.  It's what's absent today in both sides of this in the presidential race. We have no leadership from Hillary. Obama's not a leader. McCain's not a leader.  These are politicians seeking a promotion, pure and simple.  We don't have leadership.  And that's why everybody's filled with angst.  It's just sad, but it's the way it is.  So we get all this talk about unity, and we can't get anything done without unity, and who is it that's saying this?  Liberal Democrats.

Well, I'm sure they would love to us to unify with them, by giving up what we believe, by compromising on our principles.  Sure! They love that kind of unity!  John Adams.  When things started out in 1770, the British were running this country, and there were a lot of people living in the 13 colonies who were all Englishmen. They had all emigrated; they were all Brits.  It's why Margaret Thatcher loves them. I heard Margaret Thatcher one night at dinner speak so glowingly and so eloquently of our Founding Fathers.  She loved 'em.  She thought they were some of the most brilliant, marvelous individuals that have ever walked the earth.  I thought, "No wonder she thinks that, they were Brits," and they were, and not all of them wanted independence.  They were Englishmen.  They didn't mind being under the crown of old King George.  So the Brits had their army.  The Redcoats were all over Boston and places, and to shorten the story -- they started shooting people. They basically started a war.  It was fascinating to watch, and this was nonpolitical presentation.  When we finally get to Philadelphia, to Convention Hall, and the representatives of the 13 colonies are there, John Adams was hell-bent on seeing to it that he had a unanimous vote for independence.   He wasn't going to settle for a 9-4 vote. He wasn't going to settle for just a simple majority.  He needed it to be unanimous.  But there were elements from Pennsylvania and New York and New Jersey who had no desire for independence.  To listen to them speak, "No, this is the time for caution," while the Redcoats are firing and murdering innocent people. Essentially the war had already broken out in Boston, and these people from Pennsylvania -- not Ben Franklin, but Dickinson from Pennsylvania; a guy from New York, Howe -- they're all saying, "This is the time for caution. This is the time for restraint," and I'm watching the screen, and I'm just smiling.  We've got those same kind of pansies today, and they wanted to send a proclamation to King George demanding that King George stop taxing their tea and stop taxing them exorbitantly on a number of things, to basically stop squishing them and squeezing them.  So Adams says, "All right. If you want to do that, go ahead.  I'm going to still try to convince you, but you do what you want to do. It's going to be months before we hear back, and I can tell you what we're going to hear back, but if it will make you feel better, go ahead and do it."   So they did it.  All the while, Adams continues to try and arm-twist and persuade.  Finally they get the answer from King George, and King George says, "How dare you ask me this! Now you guys are really in for it. We're going to kick your butts." So the moderates say, "Oh, further caution is required here," and then we got eloquent speeches about, "We don't need bloodshed and we don't need warfare, and this is not the way to go about this," because some of these people did not want independence.  They were Englishmen.  So Adams... This thing shows how difficult it was, how almost impossible it was.  It's why it was a miracle, for John Adams to craft unanimity from 13 colonies who had 13 different special interests. These Founding Fathers as I said they were not all hell-bent for independence. They considered themselves Englishmen.  It took a lot of time. It took a lot of persuasion. It took strategy. It took negotiation. It took compromise. It took manipulation to get the necessary unanimity.  But how did he get it.  His objective was independence, pure, 100% independence.   He got his unity not by watering down his version of independence, not by watering down his way of getting it, the timetable for getting it, the procedures.  It was masterful to watch them portray this because it was amazingly historically accurate.  It's based on David McCullough's book, by the way, on John Adams.  One of the things that Adams did to get unanimity, the biggest opponent to this independence was Dickinson in Pennsylvania.  He was the dove. He was the anti-war hawk. He couldn't abide any of this.  But he was very persuasive, and these were very reasonable talks that they had, and Adams was very reasonable and understanding, too -- although they had knock-down, drag-outs about it.  But they talked privately after a session one day.  It was decided then Dickinson just wouldn't show up the next day for the vote and that New York would abstain rather than vote "no."  This was done so that Dickinson would not have to compromise his principles of anti-war and so forth, but he knew the jig was up because he knew what the votes were.   They had finally persuaded Virginia and Maryland. Of course, the interesting thing here about Virginia -- the reason why it took a lot of time and persuasion and strategy, negotiation, compromise, manipulation, all of this to get unanimity -- is the wealthiest and most influential state or colony at the time was Virginia, and Virginia was a slave state.  Virginia stood to lose a lot of wealth and a number of other things here, especially being a slave state.  It's ironic, by the way, how this plays against the reality of Barack Obama.  The point is, these 13 people got -- well, there were more than one per state, but these people got together. John Hancock was chairing the whole thing, and they got together, and Adams finally got his unanimity.  But he achieved it with one abstention from New York and the Pennsylvania guy being out of the room so he wouldn't have to vote. But it took him months to persuade.   He never compromised what he wanted at all, and they ended up with unification, unanimity. You could call it unity, but he did it in a way that was not at all weakening of his desire and passion -- and, of course, George Washington is portrayed here, too. Colonel Washington becomes General Washington.  Now, the next episodes of this are going to be bloody because that's what the fight for independence began.  This is just the Declaration that they went through.  But, gosh, it sent tingles up my spine to watch how this country actually came together.  It's why I think what happened there is a miracle.  In fact, Catherine Drinker Bowen has written a book called The Miracle at Philadelphia.  It really, really was a miracle -- and we didn't take a little bit of the people that didn't want independence and shove it into the pro-independence side.  The people that didn't want independence lost.   They were given something for it, but not at the expense of those who wanted independence.  So be very, very careful when you hear Obama or any of these other liberals start talking unity and that we can't get anything done until we have unity.  We got this country done without unity.  It happened without unity.  New York abstained, and, of course, Mr. Dickinson from Philadelphia was not even there on the day of the final vote.  Now you might say, "But, Rush, it sounds like there was unanimity. You keep using the word."  Yeah, there was, just like there was close to unanimity in Congress, as close as you can get on Reagan's tax cuts.  But it's because one side maintained and fought for its principles and didn't cave.  In this case, it was John Adams.  You don't hear a whole lot about John Adams, the first vice president. You hear more about Hancock and Thomas Jefferson, which is why this book of McCullough's is great and why the HBO series, surprisingly, is a very active and accurate portrayal here.

Why Morality Matters in Politics

Why Morality Matters in Politics

March 11, 2008 RUSH: Bob in Lakeland, Florida, welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Dittos, Rush. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: Hey, I've always wondered why the conservative part of my beloved Republican Party has always felt a need to enforce their values and morals. Why do you have to put your morality on top of us? RUSH: Wait. Are you asking me that personally, why do I have to put my morality on top of you? CALLER: Conservatives. RUSH: Are you a conservative? CALLER: I am not, I'm a Republican. RUSH: Okay, so you want to know why conservatives insist on a morality in a political party and political candidates who are Republicans? CALLER: Not just for the party, but as a whole. RUSH: Well, do you really mean that? Are you confused about this? CALLER: I guess I'm one of those Jell-O-minded -- RUSH: Moderates. CALLER: -- moderates that you call, yeah. I despise the Democratic Party. I am a hawk. I also want you to stay out of my pocket. But also I want you to stay out of my bedroom. RUSH: Wait a second. You're making this personal. You're saying you think I, as a conservative, want to be in your bedroom? CALLER: Not just you, Rush, I'm talking about the entire conservative branch of the -- RUSH: I don't care what goes on in your bedroom. But the question about morality, it's rooted in decency, it's rooted in human dignity. CALLER: Rush, I have a very good sense of self-worth, and I also know what is wrong and what is right. But I mean a public official is one thing, they're a higher standard, so this entire Spitzer thing is wrong. But if I'm single and it's Friday night, there's nothing wrong with a prostitute. RUSH: Well, that would be a Libertarian view. CALLER: Yeah, but this -- RUSH: Wait a minute. Wait a second. What about if you're married? Now, if morality is not that big a deal, why do you have to be single in order to feel guiltless in paying a prostitute? CALLER: Because when I said my vows to my wife -- RUSH: Well, without morality the vow doesn't mean anything. CALLER: That's your own -- RUSH: No -- CALLER: That's your own sense of honor. I should not be forced -- RUSH: This is not my construction. You know, morality is not defined by individual choice. This is the problem. Morality is what it is, and people have a problem with that. We all sin. There is not one of us that doesn't. We are all immoral at times, some of us all the time, some of us very rarely, but some of us are immoral. The political answer to your question is that there is a huge voting bloc of Republicans to whom it matters in their leaders, because they believe that leaders set the example. And these people are sick and tired of seeing what's happening when no morality exists in the production of television shows or movies or music or what have you, and they see literal filth that their kids are subjected to that is being put out there for profit because there's no morality. The same gunk that these executives are putting out in the marketplace, they wouldn't dare let their own kids watch or listen to. CALLER: Yes, sir, but where does it say in my Constitution that it should be legislated? RUSH: That's not the point. CALLER: I thought that was the point. RUSH: That is not the point. In a political sense, these people are a large voting bloc, and the reason why the Republican Party pays attention to them is because they vote, and elections are about being won. Look, I'm going to continue this after the break here, because I've got a hard break that I can't miss here. Thanks, Bob, for the phone call. I mean that. BREAK TRANSCRIPT Let me just ask you a question. Go back to the nineties. You know how frustrated we all were back then, Clinton was getting away with everything, all the lies, all the interns, everything. The public opinion poll numbers kept him in the mid-fifties, the low sixties. The press was back there marveling, and the Democrats circling the wagons. Did you ever think that you would see the day where at least half the Democrat Party is dumping on these two? I never thought there would be this many Democrats alive to do it. I never thought there would be this much courage in the Democrat Party. The press was the first to turn on the Clintons, and now others, Greg Craig and all kinds of Democrats are turning on the Clintons, and it tells me that there has been a pent-up frustration for a long time over the fact the Clintons have been running the Democrat Party show and now that there's an opportunity to take 'em out, there are a lot of Democrats that want to do that, and don't think the Clintons don't know it. Now, about this morality business. Our last caller wanted to know -- he's a Republican, but he doesn't like this morality in politics, it's not in the Constitution. Actually, it is in the Federalist Papers in the section in which the criteria for the president was being written and debated about, the number one aspect in the Federalist Papers, I think it was John Adams in this case -- I think it was John Adams writing number-one, most important thing in the executive was character. If there was an absence of character in the executive, then the republic, the country would have big problems. Now, what is character if not morality? So it's easy to say you don't find the word morality in the Constitution, but if you're not familiar with the Federalist papers, if you haven't read them, you don't understand the importance that the founders placed on morality, character, integrity, these kinds of things. It was crucial, it was there. Leadership by example. There are ways that society stays cohesive. There are ways that society stays strong and evolving. When there are no guide rails, no guardrails, for example, on the highway, the opportunity for you to drive off is easy and get into big trouble. Morality is simply guardrails on behavior. By the way, the thing about the law, a lot of people get very upset when you say that law descends from morality. People just don't like hearing that. But the fact of the matter is that the law and morality are linked in our society and in our country. They may not be direct descendants, but in fact they do have a lot to do with one another. Human dignity, this is something that is rooted in morality, because everybody has choices. You can choose not to live as best you can, you can choose to be a reprobate or what have you. Reprobates are not the kind of people we want leading the country or holding elective office. And, by the way, making something legal does not make it moral. Don't misunderstand. How does making something legal make it right? How does making something legal address the destructive effect, for example, of prostitution that it has on the family and therefore society in general? To look at prostitution as a mere commercial transaction is to reject the entire moral belief of conservatism and the structure of conservatism, because there are attitudes that lack a moral belief structure. The law is intended to reflect the standards of a society. Presumably those standards include moral attitudes of the society. So how can one say, for example, that it's okay to legalize prostitution even if it is morally repugnant to the society, and even if everybody knows it's wrong? What was it that Moynihan said? He had a phrase "defining deviancy down." Senator Moynihan, a Democrat, by the way, looked out over our culture over the course of his life, and he saw a degradation, and he saw a cheapening, he saw a coarsening of the culture. He saw morality going by the wayside, and he said the way we're dealing with it, rather than trying to straighten it out and fly right, we're simply saying, "Okay, it's no longer a crime." So what used to be immoral and what society had judged as destructive, we can't stop it, so we just legalize it, we no longer make it illegal. So we define deviancy down. Now, some people may like that, but the fact is the standards by which a society governs itself and defines itself can go by the wayside. By the same token, if an elected official does not have the integrity to do what's right in private -- and, by the way, you can define character, integrity, one of the best definitions of it is "doing the right thing when nobody is looking." A lot of people can do the right thing when everybody is looking at them. A lot of people, when they have an audience and they know people's eyes are on them, they'll do their best to do the right thing. Character, integrity, is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. So if a public official, elected official doesn't have the integrity to do what's right in private, then how do we know that his lack of respect for what's right won't carry over into his elected office? He can do whatever he wants, but we can say no thanks, we want to elect somebody else next time because you've done this. We have standards. Now, the political equation on the presence of morality in the Republican Party is simply this. A lot of morality is rooted in religion, and the Republican Party is the home of the Christian right. Not just the evangelicals, but just Christian people who are conservatives. It is one of their standards, it's one of their measuring sticks. They're gonna judge people on that basis and vote for them on that basis, then that party is gonna pay attention to it. Problem is that too many people, elected officials, mouth the words but don't live the life or walk the walk. Then again it's impossible for any of us to walk the talk and be clean and pure as the wind-driven snow 100% of the time. It's impossible for us not to sin. You know, it's a tough question. But if somebody's not even trying, if somebody's making no effort whatsoever -- we all have a little voice inside ourselves, folks, call it the conscience, call it whatever you want, we all have a voice inside ourselves that when we're about to embark on something we know is wrong, we know is wrong why? Because the little voice is telling us, conscience, our upbringing, we know it's wrong, and yet some of us still do it. If people would just listen to that little voice inside them, they could spare themselves a whole lot of trouble. For example, you can't convince me that Spitzer didn't know what he was doing was wrong. He knew full well it was wrong. Now, you can go the Dershowitz route and say, "Yeah, but he wasn't thinking with his brain, he was thinking with the male sex organ." Yeah, is that an excuse? A lot of men would love for it to be. I have whole different theories about this. I think you've got a guy like Spitzer, there's no question arrogance is his number-one characteristic. I think he believes that he's insulated from the standards that would apply to everybody else, and I think people like him think, "If I get caught, I can get away with it. My wife will stand by me, I'm a Democrat, the voters love me, New York needs me," who knows what kind of things these people tell themselves. But somewhere he knew it was wrong and yet still did it. I'm convinced he knew that what he was doing trying to ruin people on Wall Street was wrong, and yet he still did it. Why? Power. It wasn't just the desire to acquire it and hold it. It was an obsession to use it. Having power is one thing. Using it is another. Spitzer used it in ways that were clearly immoral and wrong, unfair, and what have you. But he had the power of being the attorney general behind him, the power of being governor behind him. He threatened people left and right. John Whitehead, who used to run Goldman Sachs, wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal, defending Hank Greenberg when Spitzer was going after him. Spitzer was going after Greenberg and AIG, threatened to indict AIG. When you indict a company, that's the end of the company. Spitzer said to Greenberg, "You quit and I won't indict," and the board of directors said, "Hank, you gotta go." To this day, Maurice Hank Greenberg's never been indicted for anything, nor has he been apologized to. Whitehead writes a column, writes a letter defending Greenberg; Spitzer gets hold of Whitehead, "I'm coming after you, that letter is going to be the biggest thing you regret in your life." Nothing happened, but that's the kind of guy Spitzer is. I have some golf buddies, who haven't done diddly-squat, who have been targeted for ruination by Eliot Spitzer. I was on the golf course here in a place out in West Palm Beach back in November. I bombed the drive to the fairway to the left, I went out there and all of a sudden as soon as I got out of the golf course some guy drives up and said, "You have a name for a good criminal defense attorney?" "Why?" "Eliot Spitzer is after me." Part of this stuff going on in New York involving Joe Bruno and -- look at that episode, too. This is who the guy was. So clearly you're looking at somebody that morality didn't matter. So if you want to say, "Why does morality matter in politics?" look at Spitzer, look at Clinton. Are these the kind of people that we want setting the standards of leadership for everybody else? That's why it matters. These guys aren't even trying. It's one thing if somebody falls off trying to do right and be as good as they can, but these people weren't even trying. They didn't care. They were invincible, they were untouchable. So what they're doing in private is an indication what they'll do in their public life. If Spitzer's out there essentially treating his own family with disgust and disregard, might he do that in his job? He did, with the way he went after people he thought were his enemies. I gotta take a brief time-out here, folks. A little long in this segment so the next one is going to be appropriately shorter than normal. You have been warned. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: It was James Madison. Actually, he wrote one-third of the Federalist Papers, the forerunner of the Constitution. He also was the principal author of the Constitution. It was James Madison in the Federalist Papers who laid out the requirements for the executive, number one being character. It's crucial, and we've seen what happens when we have elected officials without it, and if you... (interruption) Well, it did call for an informed public, and we're working on that, Snerdley. The public in this program is informed. Now, let me take this a step further, all right? Let's take this character stuff, let's take this morality stuff that some of you don't like. It makes a lot of people nervous because it's judgmental. If you have morality, you're going to be judged, and some of us don't want to be judged, because nobody else is perfect. But just because people do something wrong doesn't mean they're disqualified from knowing what's right. We all make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes we make help us and inform us, and we can become better coaches, better parents, advisors, teachers, because of the mistakes we've made. But libs want to say whenever you make a mistake and fall off the moral wagon, "You're disqualified from ever being able to talk about it again," because they don't like the judgmentalism of morality, which is why they have none, or why they subscribe to none. In your wildest dreams, would you think that any group of people, smart or not so smart, could come up with a plan as incompetent as this so-called Democrat primary race? Could any group outside the funny farm, the cuckoo nest, come up with a scheme that is this inept? We're not talking about ordinary people, here. We're talking about the smartest people in the room, people that got the best grades at the best schools, the liberals who care more about your needs than you do, supposedly. And this is what they give us? This is what they begat? I mean, we've had our fun watching these liberals suffer through the mess that they alone created, their Uncivil Civil War. What they do to their own party, what they do to their own voters is their business. But I want to drop the other shoe on this. I don't care what they're doing to themselves. I'm interested in what these same inept boobs want to do to us. These people that can't even manage their own primary, these people that try to come up with a scheme to get somebody coronated, and it's all falling apart on them, and now it's an absolute joke and there's chaos throughout their party. These are the same people that want to design your health care. These are the same people that want to manage your health care, control and ration your health care. These are the same people that want to run the oil companies. They want to run retail businesses. These are the people that promise a universal health care utopia, and they can't even run their own business in a way that makes any sense whatsoever! BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, I just sent this up to Koko. We're going to link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. Eighty-five Federalist Papers, number 69, written by Alexander Hamilton, The Character of the Executive. I want you to read it when we update the website this afternoon, this evening, to reflect the contents of today's program, because it was said earlier here today that, "I don't see the word 'morality' in my Constitution." The Federalist Papers informed the Constitution, same Founding Fathers that wrote the Constitution participated with the Federalist Papers. They were forerunners of the Constitution, and so it's not accurate to say that morality is not part of the Constitution. Now, back to the Democrats and the same theme here. I mean, here we have a bunch of people who cannot even run their own business. They have gunked up their own primary. They can't blame this on Republicans; they can't blame this on voters. They might try, but they can't. They goofed up their own business. Now, the Democrat hierarchy, when this whole shebang started, put these primaries together in order and in a concentrated fashion so as to coronate Hillary Clinton on February 5th, and that she would have all the rest of this year to hone her message, learn how not to screech, go out and raise a bunch of money, and be able to pummel whoever the Republicans nominated. It's gone all haywire. Nothing that's happened here has been planned. Nothing was anticipated. In other words, Mrs. Clinton was so certain of her own coronation by February 5th, she didn't have campaign organizations in any states following February 5th. And yet she lied to her own people, "I knew it was going to come down to Texas," she said a day or a week before the Texas primary. These are the same people who want to run your health care; they want to manage your health care; they want to tell you when and where you can go get health care; they want to design your health care; they want to control and ration it. These are the same people that to want run Big Oil. They want to take their profits and throw 'em into alternative energy sources, or whatever other gunk that they describe. These are the same people who buy into the global warming hoax. These are the people, if you look at their enemies list, it is every successful US corporation and business in this country. You know why they hate Wal-Mart? It's not because Wal-Mart's not unionized, although that's a factor. They hate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart does more for the American people than the US government and liberals combined have done. Wal-Mart brings products at prices people in the middle class and lower classes can afford. Democrats can't do that. All they can do is try to give it away and create dependents and so forth. They despise people that do what they claim to do better than they do it. They try to destroy those people so there's no competition. Liberalism does not like competition because it will lose on a level playing field. So now we're back to morality. Now we're back to integrity. Why, the Democrats said that if Florida and Michigan went ahead and ran their primaries prior to when the national committee said they could, that their delegates wouldn't be seated. I guess that's out the window now that Mrs. Clinton needs them. So if they can change the rules on Florida and Michigan, can't they change the rules on examinations and procedures when it comes to health care and so forth? If they can't decide what a winner is in Texas, how can they decide what good health care is in your hometown? How can they decide whether or not Big Oil is being fair with you? But see, here's how Democrats get around this, we're back now to morality. There are no rules, and if there are no rules, they can't be broken. There are only traditions, there are customs. I'm not making this up. You watch. They're not going to be breaking any rules here. By the time this all happens, if Florida and Michigan have these primaries with write-in or mail-in ballots, they're going to be talking about the fairness of it all. They're going to be talking about disenfranchisement and how the Democrats don't stand for that, that's what Republicans do is try to disenfranchise people, but we Democrats, we think every vote ought to count, twice. But they're going to be breaking their own rules, even though there aren't any rules. This is how they get around it. If you are a person without integrity and character and morality, how can you have rules? Rules are simply a way, a life, a game, a contest, a business, governed and administered not for fairness alone, however that is a factor, but that doesn't matter here. I wish I could say I came by this whole analogy of rules and no rules versus customs and traditions on my own, but I can't. This was pointed out to me some years ago when talking to a friend who is a member of a famous golf club in this country, and it's not in the southeast, so don't get any ideas. When this man was newly asked to join, he went in, and he was assigned somebody to explain to him how things worked at this club. And he said, "What are the rules here?" They said, "Why, we don't have any rules at this club. We only have customs and traditions." "Well, how do I know what I can and can't do?" "Well, there's nothing you can't do unless it violates a tradition or custom. You know what the traditions and customs are." The point is, the concept of rules is something the club didn't want because it didn't want to be seen as restrictive. I'm telling you, the Democrat Party, when it comes down to all this, doesn't have any rules. There are no rules here. They're not going to be breaking rules as a result. They're just going to be maintaining the great traditions and customs that every vote counts, twice, that every vote matters. Now, what's happened with all this? What's the upshot of all this? "Rush, what's the morality, what's the integrity?" Well, where are we? According to the rules of the Democrat primary system, we've got a winner. On the pledged delegate side, there is no way Obama can lose this. But wait a minute. We've got these superdelegates, and those superdelegates, by definition, go to whoever they want, so what does it matter, these pledged delegates for Obama? How about all these people who have voted for Obama whose votes may never count? We're not talking the Electoral College system here. We're talking a superdelegate system that dates back to the McGovern era because that was such a debacle that the Democrat Party said, "We have to find a way to protect ourselves from the idiocy of our own voters." So they don't nominate somebody as hapless as McGovern, again, we've gotta have a system whereby we can go in and overrule 'em. Morality, integrity, character, you won't find it here. What you're finding is a bunch of schemes. "But, Rush, this is politics." That's my point. Exactly right. Politics. It's exactly what the Democrats have made of politics, is what liberals have made of politics. Unless we are prepared to take them on in this way -- I'm not suggesting we become them, but if hypocrisy is a crime only we can be accused of committing, it's time they got a taste of it because they're engaging in more hypocrisy here with their own stupid primary system that is inept and it is incompetent, it has been blown sky high and these are the same people that want to run your life and every aspect of something you consider the most important thing in your life outside your family, and that's your health care. And I ask you to look at what they've done with their own business and ask yourself then what makes them qualified to run something they really don't know anything about. Is it not frightening that so many dummkopf Americans will be willing to turn over the administration of something as massive as one-seventh of our economy to this bunch of klutzes, this bunch of power-crazed klutzes, who don't care about your health care, who don't care about your health. They care about their power, acquiring it and using it is what they're all about. Hello morality, character, integrity, don't tell me it doesn't matter. If this bunch is willing to take away the decisions of their own voters and give them to their superdelegates, what's to stop them from taking your health care away from your doctor and giving it to a doctor they prefer. What's to stop them from telling you, you can't go to that doctor, you can't use that procedure, you can't spend this much. And, by the way, you have to buy insurance and you have to do the government program, if you go private you're really screwed. If the liberals and Democrats can screw up something as simple as a primary contest, in their own party, imagine what they can do with something as complicated as national health care. Imagine what they can do trying to punish the oil business. Imagine what they'll do in the whole field of energy. You can talk about your health care and all that, yada yada yada. The last I looked, we're not dropping like flies in this country. Life expectancy is getting better and longer, general health is improving. We want to punish the drug companies that have helped contribute to that, by the way. You let them get their hands on the program of energy creation, development, and usage in this country, and you watch what happens. You think that you are losing a little liberty here and there and a little liberty now, you wait 'til these people have a chance to get hold of the energy program via global warming and that hoax. I am warning you, it matters whether somebody has integrity, character, and morality, knowing full well that nobody's perfect, we all sin, but there is a difference between people who try and those who aren't trying when it comes to morality and integrity and character, and we don't want any part of those who aren't even trying, folks, trust me. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Background Material... • Federalist No. 69: The Real Character of the Executive

March 11, 2008

What is Liberation Theology? Barack Obama

Question: "What is Liberation Theology?"

Answer: Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950's when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model (gained in the turbulent 1950's), the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

As a result of its Marxist leanings, by the 1980's the Catholic hierarchy, from Pope John Paul on down, had criticized liberation theology as practiced by the bishops and priests of South America. As a result, they have been accused of supporting violent revolutions and outright Marxist class struggle by the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This perversion usually is the result of a humanist view of man being codified into Church Doctrine by zealous priests and bishops and explains why the Catholic top hierarchy now want to separate themselves from a Marxist doctrine and revolution.

However, Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among Blacks in America. If the church in America recognizes the falseness of Black Liberation Theology as the Catholic Church did in the South American model, Black Liberation Theology will suffer the same fate that the South America Liberation Theology did, namely it will be seen to be the false doctrine of a humanist viewpoint dressed up in theological terms.
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

OTHER SOURCES...

An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology
http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm

Looking at Obama and black liberation theology

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jon/080219

The March to Communism

The March to Communism

February 13, 2008 - 14:20 ET

We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It’s not just a fear slogan to say ‘democrats are communist’ – just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself.

$1.5 trillion

Number of dollars over the years, state and local governments have promised, but not paid for in retiree health care and other non-pension post-employment benefits.

Feds up to their ears

The federal government is in no position to bail out these states and local governments because their unfunded future liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as is widely reported is an estimated $50 TRILLION.

But even that isn’t the FULL story because that $50 TRILLION dollars only projects unfunded liabilities for the next 75 years—unless the government knows something we don’t—a lot of people are still going to be around after 75 years--if you project the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the infinite horizon MEDICARE’S UNFUNDED liabilities shoot from $33.9 TRILLION to a present-value unfunded obligation of $74.3 TRILLION—and that’s just MEDICARE!

Democrats (and some R’s) Solution? Spend!

Spend more, lots more! Hillarycare Part II would cost and estimated $110 BILLION a year with Obama’s plan coming in at $60 BILLION annually.

2008 proposed federal budget allocations:

To get an idea just how much the 08 crop wants to spend, here’s what some existing programs already cost.

United States Secret Service 1.4 Billion

Customs and Border Protection 8.8 Billion

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 4.8 Billion

United States Coast Guard 7.3 Billion

The ENTIRE Department of Homeland Security proposed budget for 2008 comes in at $43 BILLION (less than either Hillary’s or Obama’s health care proposal).

Clinton’s other campaign promises:

$$

Spend $1 Billion For The Development Of Affordable Housing Through Housing Trust Funds. “In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, Sen. Clinton will establish a $1 billion fund to support state, county, and municipal housing trust funds

$

Sen. Clinton Has Introduced Legislation And Campaigned To Create A U.S. Public Service Academy, At A Cost Of Approximately $200 Million Annually; Multiplied By 4 Years = $800 Million.

$$$$

Sen. Clinton Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion

$$$

Sen. Clinton’s Baby Bond Proposal would give $5,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year, totaling $20 billion per year, multiplied by 4 years = $80 billion.

$$$$

Clinton wants to create a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" to develop new sources of fuel and has proposed paying for it by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. Edwards has outlined a similar program and would eliminate the oil company subsidies as well as establish a cap-and-trade system requiring companies to pay for emitting pollution.

Obama’s other promises

?

Credit Card Consumers’ Bill of Rights—“stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices…”

$

Credit Card 5 Star Rating System—similar to the Department of Homeland Security’s Color coded threat assessment rating system; Obama, if elected will implement a 5 star rating system for credit cards “which will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards…” Senator Obama previously introduced such a bill and put the price tag at $10 MILLION annually

$$$

Foreclosure Prevention Fund. In over your head; bought a home too big for your budget? No problem—Senator Obama is proposing a fund to “assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels…”; estimated FIRST year cost? $10 BILLION.

$$$$

Proposal to create 5-E Youth Services Corps (the 5 “E”’s stand for energy, efficiency, environmental education, and employment) as well as a Green Job Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth in the all things Green.

$$

Supports requiring employers to give all employees 5 days of paid sick leave

$$$

Supports “encouraging the diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.” Can you say FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or perhaps public funding for Air America?

Totals

$286.999 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals

$218 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals

$7 BILLION

Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals

$54 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s proposals

$150 BILLION (in savings)

Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

What this spending does

1. Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can’t afford it;

2. Reflect a particular paternalistic approach to governing—a true NANY STATE

3. Each proposal increases the absolute RAW power of government

March into Socialism/Communism

Other socialist countries (even Russia in some ways) are decentralizing their form of national healthcare---Obama and Clinton seek to increase government’s role in our medical care and treatment decisions and options; worse yet they plan on burying us in debt in order to do it;

Socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes have always focused on harnessing the youth into national organizations. Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate.

We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year—most likely without any government incentive for doing so. Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton’s US Public Service Academy or Obama’s 5-E Youth Services Green Army?

Glenn sums it up this way:

‘If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive. Go back and read about these people. They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. They don't believe in local level. This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up. These people, all believers in Marxism. They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective. Mussolini was not hated for much of his term. In fact, he was idealized by the left here in America. They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right. That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition! It wasn't good for you to drink. It wasn't good for society to have alcohol available. And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained. And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests. Does any of this sound familiar? Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming? Starting projects, little armies of the youth! Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth.

Depressing Summary

We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!
Glenn Beck.com

MORALITY & ATHEISM

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/09-18-07.asp

Atheism cannot account for morality.

I did not accuse him of being immoral, but I did accuse him of borrowing his choice of moral living from the Christian worldview, the very worldview he denounces.

Like so many atheists, is an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything they use to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off His throne

Incredibly, Harris seems to be oblivious to the fact that atheists—which he considers himself to be—have perpetrated far more evil and suffering in this world than hypocritical “Christians” ever have.
================================
Morality’s Reality

http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html
Atheists generally claim that morality is either derived form nature or is a human invention. This may be better stated as a human concept derived from nature through evolution. Deriving one’s morality from nature is a very dangerous thing to do. This natural morality would teach us that we are to fight our way to the top of the pack by tooth and nail (as some people do). We may even eliminate anyone who gets in our way. We would also murder other people and take what they have. Cannibalism and infanticide would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, cannibalism and infanticide is perfectly acceptable to some people.

Atheists besmirch Christianity for the dark episodes of its past, and rightly so. However, they must borrow Judeo-Christian morals in order to do so. Atheists generally believe that morals are completely situational, individually decided, or decided upon by a general consensus.

Some atheists argue that if morality is absolute why is it that all people do not follow the same morals. In fact, why is it even that not all Christians follow the same morals. These facts only prove that it is a personal free choice that determines whether people will follow the moral law. These facts do not prove that there is no moral law. It is illegal to drive through a red light (with the exception of emergency personnel) but people still run red lights. Does that mean that it is not illegal to run red lights? No, it merely means that people purposefully choose to break the law.

Moreover, does it really stand to reason that naturally occurring morals (or are they instincts?) would be to not steal, murder, lie, etc.? How would such actions give us an evolutionary edge? I could certainly succeed more in life if I simply stole whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, from whomever I wanted. I could lie to people in order to deceive them for my own personal gain. I could simply eliminate my competition—in procreation, in business, etc.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html

Succinct Statements On Atheism
There are various sects within atheism. Generally speaking, atheism is a faith based belief system that holds to the belief that God does not exist.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/succinct-statements-on-atheism-there.html

In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Atheism’s Faith Based
Dogmatic Beliefs

There is no authority higher than the individual; the individual is qualified to judge all things by his own wit.

There are no absolutes, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, no God, no supernatural, etc., etc.

Morals are relative or situational, except that which the individual atheist has concocted as a moral standard (since atheism is amoral they must borrow moral concepts from theistic worldviews).

http://www.squidoo.com/atheismsuccinctly

===============================
Your code is just Judeo-Christianity without the God

Hey Atheists … Get Your Own Moral Code.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2007/05/26/hey_atheists_%E2%80%A6_get_your_own_moral_code

The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems as if you have bellied up to the Bible and are treating it like a buffet . . . passing up on the worship of the person and work of God, while taking second helpings of His moral principles, you duplicitous, little, evolved monkey, you.

One of my old seminary profs used to say that although such muddled atheists would never verbally affirm the existence of God, they would live according to some ethical standard, some moral capital they have milked from us theists.

If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn’t exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored—I sure as heck wouldn’t be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life’s glide path.

That’s what I appreciate about the atheist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Freddy is one of the few atheists who told his fellow atheistic buddies that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it, too. Nietzsche understood that we can either have God and meaningful morality, or we can have no God and thus, all life is meaningless and without any trace of hope . . . it officially sucks.


Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference in this March 4, 2003, file photo. Secular groups applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, they said, makes the California Democrat the highest-ranking elected official _ and first congressman _ to publicly claim to be an atheist. The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post on Tuesday, March 13, 2007, congratulating Stark's stance. (AP Photo/Terry Ashe, file)

Nietzsche came to the conclusion that if there is no God—or God is dead, as he put it—then he’s not going to live “as if” God is alive and His moral principles mattered. Yes,

claiming the title while schlepping to Judeo-Christian principles.brass-balled Friedrich said that the opposite of how the Bible says to live is the way we should live.

Once again, if I did not believe in God and I believed that the 10 commandments were BS and that faith, hope and love is for “the herd”, and that I came from nothing and I’m going to nothing and there is no ultimate eternal accountability for my actions—then I am sure not going to live like I did. Why do you do so, Mr. & Mrs. Atheist?

So what’s it going to be, my obstreperous amigos? Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don’t ‘cha? Don’t live by the Ten Commandments. Don’t live by the Golden Rule. Don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s our stuff. That’s the Judeo-Christian way. Get your own commandments that are logically deduced from the “no God” hypothesis, write your own unholy book and form your own civilization. Then let’s see how appealing it is, how it betters the planet and how far you’ll get.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/06-18-07.asp
The Atheist Bible of Quotations

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/05-07-07.asp
The Atheist Debate
====================================
Founding Believers:
Examining the Faiths of the Founding Fathers

What were the religious beliefs of the founding fathers? Although it might appear to be an issue of only minor historical curiosity, that question is at the heart of many of the most contentious debates in the blogosphere. Countless arguments are centered on claims that the founders were either God-fearing Christians or Deistically-inclined secularists. But while historical documents are often mined for justifying quotes, few people bother to muster historical evidence to shore up their claims.

In his new book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, historian David Holmes fills that void by providing a useful methodology for examining the relevant evidence. Holmes outlines four areas that can help us laymen determine whether the founding father was a Deist, an orthodox Christian, or somewhere in between:


1. Examine the actions of the founding father in the area of religion (e.g., Did they attend church regularly?).

2. Examine the participation of the founding father in a church’s ordinances or sacraments (e.g., Did they have their children baptized? Did they take Holy Communion?).

3. Comparison of inactivity versus activity in regards to religious involvement.

4. Examine the religious language used by the founding father.

Using these criteria, Holmes claims that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers can be broadly classified as:

Non-Christian Deists: Deists who rejected all sacraments and rarely attended church services.

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Held Deistic beliefs, attended church regularly, but rejected the Lord’s Supper and confirmation.

Orthodox Christians: Accepted orthodox Christian beliefs, attended church regularly, participated in the sacraments and ordinances.

Let us apply the four areas to the pre-eminent founding father, George Washington:

1. Although he was raised in the Anglican Church, Washington was never confirmed.

2. Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”

3. Washington was active in the Episcopal Church, serving as both a vestryman and churchwarden. He attended services with some regularity (about once a month).

4. Washington consistently used Deistic language in reference to God. Although he often used such terms as “the Deity” and “the Supreme Being”, in his correspondence he only uses the name “Jesus Christ” once (in a letter to an Indian tribe).

A careful examination of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that Washington was, using Holmes taxonomy, a “Deistic Christian.”

Applied to other founding fathers, the list could be roughly delineated as:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon

With the exception of the handful of orthodox Christians, the majority of the founding fathers subscribed to a religious view that we would nowadays classify as Unitarianism. A rejection of Trinitarianism clearly puts one outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. We should not, therefore, claim that a historical figure is a “Christian” when we would consider someone who held those beliefs today to be a heretic. The leaders during the revolutionary era may have subscribed to a Judeo-Christian view of morality, but few of them were orthodox believers.

While we Christians can claim few founding fathers as fellow believers, the atheistic secularist can claim none. Not one of the significant leaders was an atheist, much less subscribed to the modern idea of secularism. Most appear to have been held to the classic “five points of Deism”:

1. There is a God.
2. He ought to be worshiped.
3. Virtue is the principle element in this worship.
4. Humans should repent of their sins.
5. There is life after death, where the evil will be punished and the good rewarded.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003358.html
=====================================
My post, not used.
<>So, over 200 years ago some of the founders were deists and some were not.<>
And yes it makes a difference in how we understand what motivated, influenced and helped shape this country. As I said, atheists can not afford to give any credence to Christianity, it would not be good for their agenda. See post 307.

Ahhh Thomas Jefferson! The patron saint of secularists and atheists.

The anti-religion crowd act as if he "alone" authored the Constitution and no other delegate had any imput or influence in the makeing of the document.

Even Thomas Jefferson who was certainly not a trinitrainn, or a believing orthydox Christian beleived that man and the state were not to be the finial abortors for securing out rights . With the influence of Christian doctrine Jefferson posessed a Chirstian worldview that by passed fallen, flawed man/state, and appealed to a higher power for securing our rights. The belief in God helped give us all the Bill
==================================
The "religious right" certainly inspires a lot of repugnance, but I don't think it's their general religious views (of the kind you discuss above) that is the reason. Rather, it's the hostility they express through those views, and their insistence that everyone else has to live by their (rather extremist) beliefs, that angers people.

With such a confident and sweeping statement you no doubt have dozens of solid, convincing examples of how this is true... right?

The point most conservative Christians have regarding the founding fathers is that they all held a philosophy and worldview that was strongly, powerfully founded on and informed by Judeo-Christian theism, which is in great opposition to most modern thinkers.
========================================
Christian Reconstruction
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0496.html