Is Limbaugh High on Painkillers Again?

After telling us repeatedly in recent weeks that the banks were NOT bailed out, today, 45 minutes into the show, Rush Limbaugh is quoting approvingly from Dan Hannan here at the UK Daily Telegraph, telling us capitalism hasn't been practised here for three years, what with all the bailouts and the like.

Talk about turning on a dime.

Rush's defense of the banks has been that American banks didn't need bailouts (TARP), took them and paid them back because they were intimidated by the Feds.

This continues to misrepresent TARP, and miss the scope of the bailouts, which were a series of massive, sustained behind-the-scenes loan operations at rock-bottom rates in the trillions of dollars. TARP was a puny fraction of the total loaned by the Federal Reserve.

The same pattern is now repeating in the EU crisis, with the Fed loaning dollars ultra-cheap to EU banks.

This is not a free market in banking, and it hasn't been since 1913.

Taxpayers shouldn't be backstopping any banks, who have been cut loose by Republicans and Democrats to play with your money, your bonds and stocks, and your mortgages. When they succeed, they pocket the profits. When they fail, you pay.

You are subsidizing the success of the business model of the banks, and accepting the risk for its failure. 

Rush appears to be too goofed up to grasp this, besides the fact that to do so means to repudiate the accomplishments of Republicans like Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich, whose power and influence were exercised to pass the legislation in the 1990s which has brought us to this pass.

Big Banks Got Rock Bottom Cheap Loans of $1.2 Trillion on Worst Day in Dec. 2008, and Limbaugh Denies They Were Bailed Out

TARP was meant as a diversion from the real action going on behind the scenes, and the diversion is still working on the dunderheads like Rush Limbaugh.

He continues to be fixated on TARP, but ignorantly so. TARP was at least 10 times smaller than the real bailout which put taxpayers at risk.

Just today we have learned that the biggest banks made $13 billion in profits from the Federal Reserve's emergency loans, profits which small, well-run banks all over America did not get to enjoy. In fact, contrary to Limbaugh, the well-run banks got the shaft, having to pay advance premiums for FDIC insurance to cover all the failures, which last time I checked have cost $80 billion, mostly on the backs of the customers of the banks, you and me, who will end up paying the bill as banks pass their cost of doing business on to us. Part of that cost of doing business has been subsidizing the bad behavior of the top five or six 800 lb. gorillas like Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

Our fascist government picked winners and losers both through TARP and the Fed's emergency lending programs. We do not have a free market in banking. And Rush Limbaugh aims to keep it that way.

What is more, TARP recipients continue to be delinquent in paying dividends under the TARP program, as reported here in The Chicago Tribune in October:

[M]ore than 170 U.S. banks ... have missed approximately $275 million in TARP dividend payments to the government through August.

It is a myth that TARP has been "successful" in the sense that everything has been "repaid". It has not. TARP funds alone still not repaid come to $93 billion as of right now. Add in $183 billion more for Fannie and Freddie.

I nominate these as Rush Limbaugh's most ignorant comments to date:

European banks are teetering on the edge. The Italians went out and they sold bonds and they can't pay them now as they're maturing. The euro might collapse. It is real trouble. And, meanwhile, US banks did not get bailed out. Not the big banks, not the Wall Street banks. They did not get bailed out. 

We have so many lies and myths being told that people believe. Most of the big banks were forced to take TARP money so as to avoid there being a stigma. The banks that needed TARP money were the local mom and pop banks all over the country that were in trouble. The big banks, Wells Fargo, these guys were forced to sign a paper agreeing to take X numbers of millions of dollars, billions, maybe, I forget the number, but whatever it was, just to make it look like everybody was in the same boat. But the big banks paid it all back. These Occupy people are protesting something that never happened. The big banks did not get bailed out. Taxpayers made a profit on the money they were forced to borrow. Other banks did get bailed out, the little mom and pops, but the big ones did not. 

Europe is teetering, Italy, Spain, you name it, and what do we get on the Sunday shows?

It is the ignorance of the Tea Party about state-sponsored banking and the bailouts which has allowed Occupy Wall Street to occupy the vacuum the Tea Party has left about this most important of unresolved attacks on American capitalism. Unfortunately the attack on American style capitalism is now a two-front attack. On the left are the socialists of the Democrat Party who want effectively to nationalize the banking system and outlaw risk. On the right we have the liberal consensus from the era of Franklin Roosevelt which is an ad hoc echo of European fascism which pretends that banking is free enterprise while making the taxpayer responsible for its many and frequent excesses.

Too bad for America that the demagogues of both the right and the left keep you from hearing the truth.   

Rush Limbaugh Again Claims US Banks Were NOT Bailed Out

About 45 minutes into today's broadcast.

I'll have the link to the transcript later.

The funniest part of Rush's defense of fascism is that Bloomberg just today had a huge article on the Federal Reserve's emergency lending program to US and foreign banks during the 2008 credit crisis, pointing out that banks took $7.7 trillion in loans at deeply discounted rates. These loans were deliberately kept secret while everyone obsessed on the paltry by comparison $700 billion TARP bailout.

The article is noteworthy for repeating the discredited notion that failure to pass TARP caused the stock market to tank. It never mentions how the market tanked in most spectacular fashion after TARP passed.

As long as the monies were paid back, to Rush this means it wasn't a bailout.

But the new Bloomberg article points out for the first time that the banks made a profit off these loans amounting to about $13 billion:

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

Now repeat after me: The banks were NOT bailed out . . .  the banks were NOT bailed out . . . the banks were NOT bailed out . . ..

The Big Fat Idiot Establishment Republicans Like Rush Limbaugh Won't Replace Your Tax Deductions

When deductibility of interest expenses in a wide variety of vehicles was eliminated for income tax purposes in the tax reform act of 1986 under Ronald Reagan, those deductions ended up being replaced by deductibility of interest if incurred through HELOCs (home equity lines of credit) shortly thereafter.

Deductibility of interest expense on consumer loans, car loans and credit cards went the way of the dodo, only to be shifted to HELOCs. It was a fateful decision which made overleveraging of housing as routine as taking out the trash. But that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

In 1987 Congress quickly acted to expand deductibility of HELOC interest expense because the 1986 act cut people off at the knees and they didn't like it one bit. It was a consumer society accustomed to deducting credit card interest, and it didn't like the new rules at all. The 1986 act quickly proved to be a futile attempt to curb consumer spending and encourage savings. The political fallout was so great that the interest expense from HELOC borrowing was dramatically expanded to fill the gap the next year.

I quote from The New York Times, here, February 2, 1988:

BORROWINGS AGAINST EQUITY: In addition, homeowners will be allowed to claim mortgage deductions for up to $100,000 in borrowings against the equity in their house - no matter what the loan is used for. 

A veritable chorus of voices today on the right and left, including Rush Limbaugh who is simply phoning it in these days, is appealing to this period to urge the country to get behind a Republican Super Committee plan to raise revenues by closing loopholes like the mortgage interest deduction for wealthier taxpayers, "just like we did in 1986."

Oh yeah? What's in it for us?

Once the camel gets its nose under this tent in the name of making the rich pay more, you can bet the precedent will be used down the road to deprive the middle class also of the deductibility of interest on a home mortgage.

And you'll get nothing to replace it except an empty promise to lower your overall tax rate, which the next Congress will rescind in a heartbeat. Few of you remember that the top tax bracket from 1988 to 1992 was 28 percent. Bill Clinton and the Democrats made short work of that.

Real conservatism is about using federal tax policy to promote property ownership, ordered existence and family formation. The current crop of establishment Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, is a bunch of phonies. Rush can't even remember 1986:

The Republicans are offering a plan which would take away itemized deductions for anybody making over $174,400 a year. In exchange for that they would lower the top tax rate from the current 35 down to 28%. We've done this before. We did this in 1986. This was part of Reagan tax reform except the top marginal rate then was 50. Wait a minute. No. All itemized deductions for people who make the... Stick with me on this. All itemized deductions for everybody who makes $174,000 or more -- home mortgage interest, charities, all of that, gone in exchange for a lowered rate from 38, 28%. Now, we've done this before.  Back in 1986, top rate was 50, took it down to 28, there was a bubble of 31 percent for few people, and we got rid of some deductions.

There will be no future America without the traditional family.

Too bad Rush Limbaugh has never had one.

Famous Serial Monogamists of Conservatism

(source)

Progressive Taxation: What Would Jesus Take?

The short answer is: all of it.

The long answer is more complicated.

Rush Limbaugh was a little ticked off a while back because liberals were asserting that Jesus would raise taxes, especially on the rich, which is, of course, a complete caricature of Jesus' teaching. Jesus wouldn't just raise taxes. He'd have made them completely irrelevant. For everyone.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus advocated complete liquidation of one's assets as a condition of discipleship. And after one did so liquidate, one would have no job to tax, either, because one would have to leave one's job to follow him.

Read the famous story about the rich man in Mark 10, paralleled in Matthew 19 and Luke 18, whom Jesus instructed to "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." Liberals like to stop right there, with the obligations this story places on the rich.

Few like to reckon, neither liberals nor Christians it must be said, with Luke 14:33: "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Or with the calling of The Twelve Disciples, who left all and followed Jesus at his command, wandering around Galilee and Judea for something between one and three years until Jesus met his coup de grace, leaving their families unsupported for the time and becoming deadbeat dads in the process. A fine lot, they.

The truth is Jesus had only these 12 takers, and all of them proved to be something of a disappointment in the end, to say the least. Everyone else he called to discipleship found it a bit of a stretch, and followed at a distance, as it were, especially if a miracle feeding looked to be in the offing. The analogy would be to the Jewish proselytes to whom Paul preached his gospel, which they found rather more attractive than that whole circumcision thing required to become Jews.

Jesus' radicalism makes a certain kind of sense if the end of the world and The Final Judgment is just around the corner, which, of course, would make practical concerns beside the point. "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." "Some of you standing here will not taste death before you see the kingdom of God come with power."

This is the sort of stuff from which progressive liberalism, inspired by 19th Century liberal Christianity, tried to salvage something, denuded as it was of its supernaturalism and its apocalypticism. Inappropriately inserting their interpretation of a timeless Christian religion into American life, the progressives advocated a moral sensibility based on an unhistorical reading of the history of the religion, pretending all the while that only fundamentalists sought to impose a theocracy on America. In view of the high rates of taxation they came to advocate starting from 1913 (see here), one would almost gladly settle for the fundamentalists' theocracy with its tithe. What rich man in America wouldn't kill for a 10 percent tax rate?

Progressive taxation is a Christian heresy, arbitrarily ratcheting up the cost of discipleship citizenship the richer one gets, but never quite taking all the money, and never really justifying the varying costs in any given year, nor from year to year. Why is the price of entry at a lower rate for a relatively poorer rich man than for a richer rich man? Oh, progressivism tries to pretty this up with sayings of Jesus such as "To whom much is given, much is required" and the like, but at the expense of the full record which shows that Jesus demanded the same from everyone: a complete turning of one's back on one's former existence, no matter how great or how small by human standards of measurement. The Christian conception for this turning was summarized in a single word: "repentance." By contrast the paying of taxes in America is merely with reluctance.

In addition to this heresy, progressivism offers a related one which asserts that a better, improved future is just around the corner for all, if only the rich pay their fair share. This promise of an immanentized eschaton is a bastardized version of Jesus' belief in the coming sudden end of the world and of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. But the reality is, like the prediction of the end of the world before it, the progressives' expected bright future never arrives, no matter how much money they throw at it.

The message of Jesus was much more stern and demanding than you will find in any church in America, or in the tax-writing committees of the Democratic caucus for that matter. Jesus' message was both much more pessimistic and much more undemocratic than most Americans would care to hear, which is why you don't hear it. It assumes that though many may be called, few end up being chosen. "Narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it." (Note to Rev. Rob Bell).

To a significant degree, that pessimism about human nature naturally animated the American founding generation, which ever sought to restrain human evil by recourse to divided government and divided powers within it. They were as familiar with the weaknesses of human nature through their reading of ancient history, literature and philosophy as they were through their reading of the Gospels and St. Paul.

They knew better than most men before them or since that you can't make men good simply by passing laws.

Paul in particular had written that sin was not counted where there was no law, but that when the law came, sin revived, and he died. The analogy from the tax world is similar: If you want to witness tax evasion, multiply the taxes. So funding the new government was going to be at best a tricky business. Which is one reason I think the founders decided to export the sorry business of taxation the way they did, imposing tariffs on foreign trade to generate government revenues, instead of taxing the population directly. They knew it was better to raise the ire of the alien who could be kept at bay than the ire of the countryman who could not.

It's a lesson we need to relearn, and fast.  

Rush Limbaugh, Boob Extraordinaire, Attacks The Basis of Western Civilization

In a long, truly embarrassing, tirade against studying Greek and Latin and all things Classical, here. 

Calling all that useless and worthless because some student studying Classics is worried her degree will prove to be so and said so at Occupy Wall Street:

Now, do you think somebody going to college, borrowing whatever it is in this case, $20,000 a year to get a degree in Classical Studies ought to be told by somebody at a school that it's a worthless degree?

In this Rush is the typical American utilitarian, for whom any field of study which doesn't get you a job and a career in that field is useless and worthless.

The lumpen barbarians aren't just occupying Wall Street.

The Republican Establishment Has Taken the Tea Party to the Cleaners

So said Lawrence Hunter, here, of the debt-ceiling fiasco:

[T]he problem with the direction the country is headed is the Republican Establishment, which has made a long career out of snookering and hoodwinking conservatives into believing the Republican Party is the party of small government, low taxes, freedom and prosperity at home, and peace abroad.  Republicans are, in fact, the very opposite.  To paraphrase Pogo, “We Republicans have met the enemy and he is us.”

Republicans are the stern, conservative side of the Janus Faced welfare state at home and empire abroad.  The GOP is Twiddle Dum to the Democratic Twiddle Dee.  And dear Tea Partiers, they just took you to the cleaners the same way they have been taking the American people to the cleaners since FDR rolled around the Oval Office. Welcome to the Nation’s Capital. ...

Until the Republican Establishment is replaced to a man (there are no women) with serious people devoted to restoring America, rather than just getting themselves re-elected time and again, no progress will be made toward winning this epic struggle for freedom, peace and prosperity.


Compare Rush Limbaugh here on October 13th, who keeps maintaining that the Tea Party must take over the Republican Party, but who on issues running the gamut from bank bailouts to taxes and tariffs to George W. Bush to spending to free trade adopts the alloyed rhetoric of the very establishment he decries:

The Tea Party is under assault from the Democrats and the Republican elite, and now the battle has been brought full fore in the pages of the New York Times Magazine.

There's some quotes from various people in this story.  Bill Kristol on the Tea Party:  "It's an infantile form of conservatism."  Scott Reed, veteran strategist and lobbyist:  "I think it's waning now," talking to the reporter of the story about the Tea Party's influence.  "Party leaders have managed to bleed some of the anti-establishment intensity out of the movement, Reed said, by slyly embracing Tea Party sympathizers in Congress, rather than treating them as 'those people.' Did he mean to say that the party was slowly co-opting the Tea Partiers? 'Trying to,' Reed said. 'And that’s the secret to politics: trying to control a segment of people without those people recognizing that you’re trying to control them.'"  This is a Republican consultant talking about how to neutralize the Tea Party.

John Feehery, a lobbyist who was once a senior House aide I think to Denny Hastert, is also quoted.  "The thing I get a kick out of is these Tea Party people calling me a RINO. No, guys, I've been a Republican all along. You go off on your own little world and then come back and say it's your party. Well, this ain't your party."


Rush should spend more time reading Forbes and less time The New York Times.

Newt Gingrich Admits Romney Got Idea of Individual Mandate for Massachusetts from Newt and The Heritage Foundation Conservative Think Tank

Story here at The New Republic.

It's episodes like this which just prove how few genuine conservatives exist in today's Republican Party.

But go ahead, sign up with Heritage anyway, you mind-numbed robots of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

That's just one of the big reasons Rush has worked so hard to co-opt the Tea Party and prevent a third party challenge from developing.

Rush is thick as thieves with the enemy. 

Rush Limbaugh Says The Banks Were Victims, The Bailouts A Success!

And the Tea Party got all hot and bothered over what, exactly?

Santelli's rant against the $75 billion mortgage bailout program called HAMP on CNBC? Noboby heard it!

The interventions bailing out private corporations like GM, Chrysler, and AIG, etc? Why, totally meaningless! Didn't happen!

This gag never appeared anywhere:

Nearly 400 failed banks haven't failed.

The FDIC hasn't had to pay $80 billion because of it.

1000 more with $400 billion in assets aren't really in danger.

Taxpayers aren't on the hook for $160 billion and rising for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

$10 trillion in taxpayer funds weren't really lent to every Tom, Dick and Hairy Bastard in the world at rock-bottom rates by the Federal Reserve!

The New York Times is simply mistaken that TARP will end up costing the taxpayers $37 billion. The CBO estimate of $25 billion is also quite simply wrong.

Partial transcript here:

RUSH: Will in Amanda, Ohio. You're up first. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey thanks, Rush. Hey, don't you think the one common denominator between the Tea Party and the protesters on Wall Street is a lack of justice? And what I mean by that is the lack of criminal prosecution from anybody from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street, the banking industry, or even our own government officials.

RUSH: Um, okay --

CALLER: Not one prosecution, Rush.

RUSH: You want prosecution? Oh, "not one." I'm trying to understand. What's the correlation to the Tea Party?

CALLER: Well, the Tea Party gathered great strength after the bailouts that they tried to stop, and I think without the prosecution of anybody for crimes that have brought this country to its knees --

RUSH: Okay, name for me a crime and who you think should be prosecuted. I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know. Obama was asked this question today.

CALLER: Rush.

RUSH: Somebody asked him today, "How come there haven't been any prosecutions?" Who? And for what?

CALLER: I have to untie the other half of your brain for this one. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

RUSH: Okay, when I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: But look at the collusion that's taken place between Wall Street and the banking industry and selling the mortgages -- or giving mortgages to anybody -- 'cause we know we can sell 'em off over here and we don't care if they're qualified or not.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: Do you think there was a lack of fiduciary responsibility from a lot of people?

RUSH: No! I think there was fear of government.

CALLER: The what?

RUSH: I think there was fear of government. You talk about all these mortgage-related projects. Why did they exist?

CALLER: That doesn't justify crime.

RUSH: I'm not saying it does. No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. (sigh) I'm not trying to justify crime, but when you have the... I don't know. ...

Now, it's risky saying this because I sound like I'm coming to the defense of bankers. ...

They were forced to accept the bailout. The banks have paid back their bailouts with interest. The government has made a profit from the bailouts.

Sarah Palin Quit a Governorship, and Bails Out of a Race for President

Americans don't like quitters. Just like they don't like bailouts, unless they get one. All the Wall Street occupiers would go home tomorrow if you just gave them what they want: cancellation of their student loans. Political protest? I call it extortion.

I'm guessing the polling in the aftermath of Palin's Sept. 3 "crony capitalism" speech didn't look very good, either, otherwise Sarah would be getting ready to run right now, not announcing that she's quitting before she's begun.

I don't think anyone really believed her on Sept. 3, seeing how she defended the bailouts after McCain's defeat. She got the religion against bailouts long after the fact, then didn't press it home consistently as the number one issue and got sidetracked by all kinds of other stuff, only to find at this late juncture that the issue has, unhappily, lost its intelligibility among the electorate.

Government intervention in the financial sector has been too bewilderingly thorough-going and complex even for the experts to explain, even when they've been against it. Which is why people end up accepting facile explanations, which boobs like Rush Limbaugh excel at explaining and which elites are happy for people to believe as the surest way forward to business as usual.

One day after declining to run, here, Rush Limbaugh is telling his listeners that the bank bailouts were a big success, that TARP has been repaid, and that the banks are on the side of free-market capitalism, so don't be deceived and fall for occupywallst.org.

Too bad we haven't really had any free market capitalism since FDR, just big shots who stand to gain the most because they are the first in line for the money, which other big shots need at preferred rates to do business.

Try to remember that every time Rush takes an obscene profit center time out.

The rest is just entertainment.

Rush Limbaugh's Mission Accomplished: Tea Party Absorbed by Republican Party

Otherwise, Rush would not have tried so hard today to disagree with a caller who suggested the Tea Party was born of outrage over the bailouts. He even repeated the MSM mantra that TARP has been repaid in full by the banks, even though the program will end up costing taxpayers $37 billion.

It is apparent Rush now discounts Santelli's galvanizing rant against HAMP on CNBC in February 2009, which first floated the idea nationally of a Tea Party at Lake Michigan in August.

The nascent Tea Party didn't wait for summer.

The reason, of course, is that it is now safe for Rush to spin all that, with Palin and her cronyism message safely out of the way, since she announced yesterday she is not going to run.

Rush doesn't want the troops confused by an anti-bank message now that the left and the unions in league with Democrats and George Soros are in the process of co-opting the original message of the Tea Party. Rush is clearly aware that the Tea Party doesn't have the edge anymore, is politically leaderless, is inured to the problem, and just plain old too tired to mount a new charge against government bailouts. Most of us are graying baby-boomers, after all, taking naps in the afternoon, or wanting to. And some of us are broke.

Besides, Republicans have their mits all over the banking crisis, with New Gingrich and Phil Gramm leading the charge to overturn Glass-Steagall in 1999. Better now to emphasize the private, capitalist character of the banking industry as a target of the socialist left, rather than its dependence on and compromised relationship with the public, government institution called the Federal Reserve Bank, with its phony money and monetarist mission.

Rush Limbaugh the chameleon turns on a dime once again. 

Rush Limbaugh Slams Obama's 'Peace is Hard,' Forgets Bush's 2004 'Hard Work' Remarks

"We don't elect presidents expecting them to tell us how damn hard the job is." 

-- Rush Limbaugh, Thursday, September 22, 2011, reacting to Obama's comments to the UN that Mideast peace is hard.

I guess Rush doesn't remember these lines from George W. Bush from the first 2004 presidential debate with Senator John Kerry:

"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.

"I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. It's the hardest decision a president makes.

"There's a lot of good people working hard.

"I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work.

"And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens. We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are. And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan's helping train police, UAE is helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there. And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress. It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free. But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place.

"You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife. You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

"There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

"We've done a lot of hard work together over the last three and a half years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace."

Wasn't George W. Bush re-elected shortly after these debate remarks?

Obama is Engineering the Decline of the American Republic

Rush Limbaugh said it, right?

No, Pete Wehner, here.

Rush Limbaugh: "Agreement between people does not make something true."

On the show, Friday, June 10, 2011.

Sarah Palin, Their Only Hope, is So Vulnerable That Both Limbaugh and Hannity Feel Compelled to Defend Her Indefensibly Stupid Caricature of Paul Revere's Midnight Ride

Sad, but true.

This is an indicator of how desperate things really when it comes to finding a truly acceptable conservative Republican candidate for president.

There isn't one, and they both know it.

Good thing for Palin that Anthony Weiner changed the topic.

. . . Especially if the US Navy Seal Shot "bin Laden" in the Back of the Head

"It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool."

-- Obama, quoted here

A caller to Rush Limbaugh today suggested, on the analogy of the headshot to JFK, that the exit wound is the problem here, not the entry wound.

"Bin Laden": Arabic For "With Lead"

Inspired by Rush's "can't fill your tank with bin Laden":

Rush Limbaugh Can't Think Before 1913

"Look, in a classic sense, Trump's not a conservative, folks.  You don't promise to raise tariffs on the ChiComs 25%.  That's not conservative.  (interruption) People understand this, Snerdley.  You remember when George W. Bush threatened to raise tariffs on imported steel, there was an outcry.  No, you don't raise taxes, period.  That's not the way to deal with it.  That's protectionism.  Smoot-Hawley.  It's a death wish.  This is why I'm always worried about populism.  Populism is not conservatism."

-- Rush Limbaugh, 27 April 2011 (here)

"Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes."

-- "Tariffs in United States History" (here)

"The magnitude of the tariff shock in the Smoot-Hawley legislation . . . was simply not large enough to trigger the kind of economic contraction experienced after 1930."

-- Douglas A. Irwin (quoted here)

The baneful influence of doctrinaire libertarianism on conservatism continues . . . in the voice of Rush Limbaugh.

America's Biggest Pair of Boobs

the left one is bigger

the right one just thinks it is

             



               Notice the wide

               cleavage→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→