Terrorism, Thomas Jefferson, and Barbary Pirates

Terrorism, Thomas Jefferson, and Barbary Pirates

 America’s 200-Year-War with Islam

Gary DeMar

barbaryvsAmericaThe Boston bombings, the Fort Hood shootings, the events of 9/11, and numerous international Islamic terrorist activities are only new to people who have no sense of history.

Most Americans are familiar with the first line of the United States Marine Corps hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma[1] to the shores of Tripoli” but most likely don’t know the source of the “Tripoli” reference. The line “to the shores of Tripoli” refers to the First Barbary War, specifically the Battle of Derna, that took place in 1805.
Our earliest founders were familiar with the terrorist ways of radical Islamists. Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty. Peace for an Islamist means surrender to Islam.

Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain, Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”[2]

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.”
Unless a nation submits to Islam — whether it was the aggressor or not — that nation was by definition at war with Islam. Jihad means “to submit.” A non-aggressing nation is still at war with Islam as long as it hasn’t embraced Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by the submission of one’s will or by Allah’s sword.
Paul Johnson writes:

barbary2“Koranic teaching that the faith or ‘submission’ can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.”
When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.

President Obama is not the first person who has tried to whitewash Islam’s history and sell us on the peaceful motives of Muslims. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, took his constitutional oath on Jefferson’s copy of the Koran. How ironic given Jefferson’s disdain for Islam’s double dealings.

Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been suffered [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”[4] Little has changed since Jefferson’s day.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

 

What the Left and Sharia Law have in Common

Rush Limbaugh

You know, minus the terrorism. Let’s look at the similarities. For the kind of Islamists we’re talking about, the Sharia Islamists, there is no authority but Islam. To the left, there is no authority but themselves. They respect and recognize no other authority. They don’t recognize the authority of elections. They don’t recognize the authority of public opinion. They don’t recognize the authority of the Constitution, even though they all swear an oath. Why do you think we require everybody in government to swear an oath to the Constitution?

‘Cause that’s glue, folks. That’s the glue that keeps everything together. The reason all of these oaths of office and oaths of naturalization require pledging fidelity to the Constitution is that that is supposed to be the compact that unites all of us. Winning or losing, we are united as Americans, defined by our Constitution. Swearing the oath announces the understandings based on which we become “we, the people.” If you have a huge movement in the country that’s not just rejecting but actively undermining the Constitution, then it becomes a real question.

And once that group becomes big enough — a majority of the population — then it becomes questionable whether we even have a “we, the people” anymore. And this behavior is very, very close to Sharia Islam. There is no authority but Islam. It’s a core tenet: The ruler must be obeyed as long as he complies and enforces Sharia. And if the rural abandons Sharia, they assassinate him like in the case of Anwar Sadat or Mubarak. Now, they don’t do assassinations here, but if the left’s leader abandons them, you know what happens to them.

They’re immediately forgotten, destroyed, cast aside, and ruined. But here, let me try it a different way. If Islamists are in the role of Democrats in my analogy, Americans assume the role of the GOP. We proclaim that our commitment to tolerance means that we have to make room at the table even for Islamists and people we disagree with. Notwithstanding that they deny our right to govern ourselves under our own principles. In other words, you’ve heard people say, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

RUSH: My point is to the left, the Democrat Party, the media — however you want to describe ’em — everything but what they believe and everything but who they believe is illegitimate. There is no crossing the aisle. There is no compromise. There is no working together to prove Washington or government works. There is only one way. When they are in power, they pretend it’s because their beliefs are a popular mandate. But that is disproven every time they lose. Their views cannot be the result of a popular mandate; otherwise, they would never lose elections. When they lose elections — when they’re not in power — their beliefs dictate that everything else must be delegitimized, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. Everything about this Russian collusion and everything about Susan Rice and all of these investigations and the leaking, it’s all about delegitimizing the duly elected, constitutionally legal president and Congress. It’s about delegitimizing that. It’s not about working with them. It’s not about them having a head case and not understanding yet that they lost. It’s not about that they’re gonna come to their senses down the road.

There is always a pretense that they represent the popular mandate, when they very rarely really do.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

 

 

History Heroes: Immigration Quotes

History Heroes:

Immigration Quotes

reagan2resizeA nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. ~Ronald Reagan

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have from for but one flag, the American flag . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. ~Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

 

Founders’ Wisdom

America’s Founders were joined in purpose: to pursue and protect individual liberty. But due to the left’s decades-long obsession with multiculturalism—because they find every other culture superior to ours—the unique, unified, successful American culture is being replaced by dysfunctional Third World attitudes. ~Rush Limbaugh

jeffersontyrannygovMay not our government be more homogenous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of a half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. ~Thomas Jefferson, 1787

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. . .it ha served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

The safety of a republic depends essentially on  the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

alexanderhamiltonForeigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments. . .The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend. . .to confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency. ~Alexander Hamilton

Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Another Huge Global Warming Data Scandal

Rush Limbaugh

global-warming-hoax1

RUSH: I need to tell you something that you’re not going to see in the Drive-By Media, and it’s huge. In setting this up, I want to remind you why I have spent so much time on the whole subject of climate change and global warming throughout the entirety of this program, 29 years.

A Front for Socialism

It is because that issue, climate change, contains every element of extreme liberalism and socialism that needs to be understood and opposed. Climate change, if they succeed in this, climate change is close to health care in terms of, if you get nationalized climate change, nationalized health care, then you are very close to totally controlling the way people live their lives.

You have succeeded in restricting people’s liberty and freedom in perhaps the greatest way you can. That’s why climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is of such paramount importance to me, because it’s not just a single issue. It’s every wet dream the left has encapsulated in an issue. It has government control, it has tax increases, it has the expansion of government, it has decisions and mandates of what kind of car you can and can’t drive, what kind of food you can and can’t eat, what you can do with your own private property. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of private property.

NOAA manipulated land readings

NOAA manipulated land readings

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

I mean, it’s just horrible. And it turns out there’s yet another scandal of totally fake data that was purposely made up and lied about right before the Paris accords that was designed to sway duped nations into spending, wasting millions of dollars in implementing policies designed to stop runaway temperature increases when there have not been any. And the fake data came from the United States. It came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the people that give you your weather forecast.

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant  John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

It was exposed by a whistleblower in the organization who had seen enough, a scientist named Bates, a Dr. Bates, and he had had his fill of the lies and the distortions.

The Daily Mail on Sunday in the U.K. revealed a landmark paper exaggerated global warming. It was rushed through in time to influence the Paris Agreement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.

RUSH: To the global warming hoax. I want to remind you that Donald Trump is ridiculed to this day for claiming… All my little buddies on their tech blogs and many places on the left still ridicule Trump for claiming that global warming is a hoax started by the ChiComs to make American businesses uncompetitive. Now, global warming is a hoax. It is a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting population of the world who have been blamed for doing great damage to our climate through no fault of their own.

Liberal Lies

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

cartoon-global-warming-hoaxThe CO2 is pollution. The stuff that you exhale is pollution. Barbecue pits and driving around your SUVs emits the greenhouse gas. The earth is broiling! The earth isn’t gonna be habitable in another 35 years. But there is redemption, and that is if you let government take over and if you stop driving these behemoth cars and let government tell you what kind of car to drive.

Stop eating Big Macs, beef, and all this other stuff and agree to tax increases and globalization. Let the United Nations basically determine how nations can function; then you can redeem yourself. And for every Prius you see on the road — for the most part, not all, but for the most part — you see a dupe. You see somebody who actually thinks they’re saving the planet, doing good. Everybody wants their lives to have meaning — and if you can save the planet, man, can you feel proud of yourself! You feel like your life has meaning.

So you go out, you buy an electric car or you keep your thermostat at 79 or 80 in the summer, and at 65 in the winter — and you sweat your butt off and then you freeze — and you’re saving the planet and all that. It’s bohunk. We don’t have the power to stop climate change, which means we don’t have the power to affect it at all. We can’t stop it. Lord knows we’ve been trying. Anyway, the point of all this is that there’s enough clear evidence out there that it is a hoax, that data is faked, that data is forged. But the Drive-Bys will not believe ’cause it’s a leftist cause, folks.

The reason that I’m so devoted to explaining this issue over and over is because it contains practically every aspect of liberalism that is dangerous.

That’s why it is a seminal issue to the left. Everything they want is wrapped up in it. Every bit of power, every bit of control. You couple climate change and health care, and freedom as you have known it ceases to exist. It is that evil, and it is that dangerous. And I’m gratified most polling data today shows that we’re nowhere near a majority of Americans who accept it or believe it or even consider it to be crucial.

It doesn’t stop the media from portraying it is an issue that all the right people agree with, that all the smart people agree on. If you don’t see this, then you’re a denier, you’re a kook, you’re equivalent to people that didn’t admit the Holocaust and so forth. The first substantive indication we had that this stuff is all faked and phonied up was a hack of an email server at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. in which the whistleblower there was somebody within the climate change movement, the so-called scientific community.

By the way, there’s another reason that… It’s real simple how this is not science. All you have to hear them say, “A consensus of scientists agree.”

There is no consensus in science. Science is not a democratic thing. It doesn’t get a vote.

A consensus of scientists thinking the earth is flat, for example, it doesn’t make the earth flat. There is no vote. A consensus of scientists doesn’t mean anything. In this issue, it means that they found all the scientists who are being paid via the grant process to produce research that the sponsors want.

global-warming-hoax4-moneyAnd they get their consensus. Algore has become filthy rich off of this hoax. The emails at East Anglia indicated — emails from scientist to scientist back and forth, back and forth — indicated and illustrated how they were changing and faking data from the Medieval period. They have to show throughout history temperatures much lower than today in order to make people believe that there’s an unstoppable warming going on that can be tied to industrialization. You go back to the Medieval period when we didn’t have any industrialization at all.

There were no fossil fuels, for example, so the only thing putting CO2 in the atmosphere was cows via methane and humans exhaling. But aside from that, you know, ’til the railroads came along and the Industrial Age. Smokestacks, factories, and this kind of thing. So they want to try to tie this unstoppable, dangerous warming to the invention of the combustible-fuel engine and progress related to that, as a means of indicting capitalism.

global-warming-hoax5-leaders-dupedClimate change is basically an anti-capitalist, pro-communist enterprise.

 

Truth unreported

You haven’t seen it yet, and I doubt you will see it. I know you won’t see this in the New York Times, and therefore my little tech blogger buddies will never see it. You won’t see it at BuzzFeed, which means my tech blogger buddies will not see it. You will not see this in the Washington Post; you won’t see it on the ABC, CBS, NBC. It’s in the Sunday edition of the U.K. Daily Mail. Headline:Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data — The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming.

“It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change. America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.” In other words, the culprit in the latest exposing of the hoax is NOAA! They run all the weather satellites supposedly collecting all the temperature data.

FAKE NEWS:

chickenlittle1“The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 … never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.” In other words, up until this report came out, there hadn’t been any warming, and the climate change people were alarmed.

This report says the fact that there was no warming was a mistake, that there was no pause, that record heat breaking had continued to happen when everybody thought there was no warming taking place. And they said instead of the fact that no warming took place that in fact temperatures have been rising faster than anybody expected.

This report was “launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

TRUTH:

global-warming-hoax2-big-gov” The problem these people are all having is there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 to 18 years. Actually (sigh), even to say that gives their existence some credence. (sigh) But it has to be done to illustrate this.

There hasn’t been any warming! Their climate models said that by now temperatures would be X degree warmer and sea levels would be X centimeters higher.

None of it’s happened, and so they have to come up with an excuse for it. They have to come up with a reason for the “pause” in the warming. “The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data,” which is NOAA, “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

“A high-level whistleblower has told” the Daily Mail… This is an American scientist. His name is [Dr. John] Bates, he works at NOAA, and he’s fed up seeing what he’s seeing. He told the U.K. Daily Mail “that [NOAA] breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and [U.K. Prime Minster] David Cameron at the U.N. climate conference in Paris in 2015,” . . . .

which, by the way, Trump says we’re pulling out of and we’re not gonna live by, and thank goodness for that.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

chickenlittle2They made it up, just exactly what happened with the email chains and threads at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The report that was submitted to scientists and world leaders before the Paris meeting was never subjected to rigorous internal evaluation, the kind that this whistleblower himself had devised. This is the old peer review. They had not run the new report by anybody to let them review it, to make sure that it was right. It was not evaluated. Somebody just wrote it up and submitted it.

“Dr. Bates’ vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden –” He objected at the time, “You can’t do this. You can’t do this. We’re lying, it isn’t right.” But his superiors at NOAA overrode his observations in what he says is “a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Again, the Pausebuster paper is the paper presented to people like Obama and others before the Paris meeting is to say, “You know what, that pause that we think we’ve had for 15 years, it actually hasn’t been a pause. We have been setting heat records these last 15 years. We need to act even faster than we ever knew.” It was all lies. There was no truth to it.

science-fraud-money-not-truth“The whistleblower’s disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. … In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data.”

 This does not surprise me. I think this whole movement is fraudulent because I don’t think that they can accurately tell us what global temperatures were in the 1600s and 1700s, the 1800s, just not possible. The tree trunk data, tree ring data, ice core, it’s all made-up stuff to be beyond our ability to comprehend. They’re scientists, they wear the white coats, we, therefore, believe them.

Cooler Today

global-warming-hoax5-noaa-adjusted-readingsThe ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

The fact of the matter is it has been much warmer previous times on earth than it is today. That cuts against every theory they’ve got about industrialization and burning of fossil fuels creating CO2. But before you even get to that this whole thing is bogus to me because I don’t believe that we human beings are capable of doing what we are being accused of doing. Because if we were, we would be able to stop the process.

By the way, and I’m not convinced that the warming is bad, even if it is happening. And we know it is. The climate is never constant. You know, the big question for me, folks, is one about the vanity and the arrogance of all this. These people in the scientific community promoting this hoax have got everybody believing that the temperatures and the climate and everything as of this moment in the history of the earth is what’s normal, and any deviation from the present is a crisis.

 How do we know what is normal? You know, ice ages have lasted 10, 20, hundreds of years, and they ended. How did they end? What caused the ice to melt way back when before there was fossil fuel? Way before there was humanity living lives of progress, what ended ice ages? What brought about warming areas when we weren’t doing anything to cause it? The answer is, it’s way beyond our pay scale.

Hoax

global-warming-hoax3-swindleWe just simply don’t have the ability to do this. And the evidence is — to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 years. During those 15 years, why didn’t they say, “See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.”

Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, “Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –

They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/06/another-huge-global-warming-data-scandal/

 

Related Links

Gallery

Patriotism: American Culture Definition

Patriotism: American Culture Definition Rush Limbaugh Dear President Trump, Since the country’s birth, America has been the land of opportunity — welcoming newcomers and giving them the chance to build families, careers, and businesses in the United States. We are … Continue reading

History Facts: Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

History Facts:

Statue of Liberty not about Immigration

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration

Rush Limbaugh

statueofliberty-dec-of-independence2RUSH: It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information. I check the email, and there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration. It shows you how successful left-wing-created narratives have been. The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.

That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of statueofliberty3Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet. (Are poets anything other than socialists and communists?) Her name was Emma Lazarus, and her poem was called The New Colossus, and it included the lines, “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty. It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty. It came later. The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue’s pedestal. We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue. A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903. And yet there’s Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants as so that’s what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump’s executive order of the weekend. They have nothing to do with immigration. Zilch.

Liberals Rewriting History

obama-rewrite-historyRUSH: I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but I’m a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites of things because it’s lies and it’s designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country. And that’s essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact. Lester Holt last night on NBC Nightly News:

“Behind me, the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly 130 years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants,” is how he opened the program. The NBC Nightly News. However, he said, “But tonight she also stands as a symbolic flash point in a country in the midst of soul-searching over the limits of its generosity in an statueofliberty3-pedestalage of international terrorism. It’s total BS, folks. The Statue of Liberty was given to America by the French. Even now, I run into people that didn’t know that. It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.

It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution. It was supposed to arrive in 1876, but it didn’t make it. It was 10 years late, or eight years late, depending on how you look at it. It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal. They needed money for it, and they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote, and that line, of course is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and that’s all it’s taken.

That was not part of the gift.

The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled. Here’s Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state during the Clinton years — who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior. Here’s Madeleine Albright standing by the guy. She was on CNN this morning. Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn’t know anything I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, “You’ve got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning. What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madam Albright?”

rewrite-erase-historyALBRIGHT: Every part of it, Chris, because what it is is… In many ways it’s anti-American and what this country stands for. It is we are a country that has been, uh, created and, uhh, populated by people from other countries, and so, uhh, the Statue of Liberty’s message is, in fact, one of which open arms and welcoming people. And, umm, I, uh, do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.

RUSH: No. The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, statueofliberty2and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom! It doesn’t say, “If you’re from a war-torn area, come on in.” We have laws that deal with that! The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America. The Statue of Liberty does not say, “You want in? This is the way! Come right over here to Ellis Island, and we’ll send you through there.”

It’s not what it means. Now, I imagine some of you are saying, “Rush, did you get a little overboard on this?” No, folks. It may sound like I’m going a little overboard, but I’m a stickler for truth and fact here, and this is all being used to work up what is already deranged lunacy on the left. It’s fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and the hearts of these leftists who, in truth, are miserably unhappy.

The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration

History Facts, Homeschooling, and Rush Limbaugh Books

History Facts, Homeschooling, and Rush Limbaugh Books

Homeschool Mom Says Thank You for Rush Revere

keyIf more people had a thirst or a hunger for the genuine history of the founding of this great country, we wouldn’t have as many problems as we have today. ~Rush Limbaugh

05-rushrevere4books-5-booksCALLER:  Listen, I called to tell you thank you.  You don’t talk a whole lot about this, but I feel like somebody needs to be your voice, and just thank you so much for what you do.  We’re a homeschool family, and you do so much stuff for families like us for homeschool families.  We have all of your books. We use them in our classrooms.  When I go to homeschool conferences I hear families talk about how they use your books for kids that need inspiration reading, and the kids all of a sudden start reading voraciously.  I hear people talking about how they use your books like we do for launching pads for historical deep dives.

But not only that, I’ve never heard you talking about your website, Rush Revere and your team that Rush Revere has set up.  We use it in our classroom.  And it’s not just for homeschool kids, but it’s for any kids that are interested in history.  But it’s amazing, your website is amazing.  Not only that, Rush, but I want to thank you personally because our daughter is one of four of the scholarship winners that you picked this fall for your Rush Revere homeschool scholarship. That scholarship means the world to us, so I just want to thank you personally from the bottom of my heart for everything that you do. It’s wonderful.

RUSH:  Thank you very much.  I occasionally, when I talk about the book series, and we had a new one out in November, I often suggest that people go to the Revere website or the Revere Facebook page because we have a great relationship with a lot of the readers. They send pictures of the books arriving from Amazon, say the box-opening videos and the kids that get into the characters and dress up like them.  But you’re right, I probably don’t talk about them enough.

CALLER:  They’re spectacular.  And the challenges, you guys put challenges on there to get the kids involved, and it’s absolutely amazing.  We’re blessed with two kids that love, love, love history, and I hear about families whose kids don’t, and it’s your website and it’s your books and your stuff that actually is able to the turn page in those families’ homes, and we need it so desperately. We need kids that understand the Constitution and love history and want to go in and find the truth.

RUSH:  Amen.  That’s exactly why we do it, and that’s why you’re making my day here.

CALLER:  I can’t thank you enough.

RUSH:  One thing I do not talk about very much at all, and it’s simply because it’s not why we do this, is to be talked about, but we have an extensive involvement, relationship with the entire homeschool community.  We have a presence in, I don’t know how many, homeschool conventions during the year. And we donate books to some associations and some libraries because, you’re right, if more people had a thirst or a hunger for the genuine history of the founding of this great country, we wouldn’t have as many problems as we have today.

Here’s Why this Genuine History is so Needed: Millennial Ignorance

Homeschool Mom Says Thank You for Rush Revere

History Facts: Critical Thinking for Millennials—Defining Federalism, how the Electoral College Makes Your Vote Count!

History Facts:

Critical Thinking for Millennials—Defining Federalism, how the Electoral College Makes Your Vote Count!

Why We Need the Electoral College

Rush Limbaugh

keyClass is in session, PAY ATTENTION! Here is a conversation between Rush Limbaugh and a caller, in which Rush teaches us all about the brilliance of the Electoral College. Bottom line—without the Electoral College, if you live in any of the 45 + less populated states, your vote, your voice, would never count! Once again, we can thank the Founding Fathers because they cared so much about little people like us, and because they had the brilliance to make freedom available to all of us! ~C.D.

millenial-explainer-electoral-college-cHelping Millennials understand the Electoral College

RUSH: Here’s Lynn in Noblesville, Indiana.  Great to have you.  Glad you waited.  What’s up?

CALLER:  Thank you so much.  I’m glad to finally get through to you.  I have a question on behalf of a house full of Millennials, I should say.  I have four children 18 to 24 and a plethora of their friends.  The majority of them are Bernie Sanders fans, and they’re having a hard time understanding this whole Electoral College thing, no matter how much we try to explain it.  My question is this.  What is the negative side to what looks like the positive side of distributing the Electoral College votes the same way we do in some states during the primary?

In other words, if you have 40% of the vote, then you receive 40% of the electoral votes.  Because it seems to me the pro side of that would be you would have the candidates campaigning in what are traditionally… Let’s say Trump would campaign in California, which is traditionally Democratic, because he now can get a percentage of votes I would think that you would have a greater voter turnout because now people who live in states that tend to go one way or another would have more of an impact because their votes could be contributed by percentage instead of all going one way.  And it would also seem like it would help to deter the possibility of voter fraud if they don’t know where to target like they do currently.

millennialsRUSH:  Okay.  Let me recast this, and you correct me if I get anything wrong.  She has four kids, among them some Millennials — old enough to be Millennials — and they have been questioning the value of Electoral College. Why doesn’t the popular vote matter? It seems like that ought to be the way we elect the president, not state by state.  They came up with an idea that we would apportion states like we do in primaries. In the Republican primary, if Trump wins a state, he gets whatever percentage of the delegates in that state according to the vote he got and so forth and so on. Because that would make every state count, you say. 

CALLER: Right.

CALLER:  Well, I think it’s got more to do with the fact that they’re bombarded with a lot of their friends in an education system and a media system that doesn’t give them the actual historical facts.  What I have been telling them is the purpose of the Electoral College as the Founding Fathers had put it together, was designed to make sure that heavily populated areas did not overwhelm the more rural areas or the needs of people who didn’t live in densely populated portions of the country.

And that in doing so, it ensured that everyone had a say regardless of your demographic and that the possibility of voter fraud or rigging the elections… Because they would never know where to target because they didn’t have to… You know, they had to worry about everybody, was the main concept that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made the Electoral College a part of our election process.

RUSH:  All right, and your kids rejected that because they…?

CALLER:  Well, they don’t understand why the popular vote doesn’t matter. Especially, as I said, I think it’s more the bombardment of the media and how they’re making it sound.

RUSH:  Well, there’s no question.  But the reason the media and the bombardment of their friends is able to work is that when they were in middle school, they weren’t taught about the founding of America.

revere_book_5They Weren’t Taught about the Founding Fathers

RUSH:  They weren’t taught about the Founding Fathers. They weren’t taught about the concept of federalism.  You can’t understand the Electoral College unless you know what federalism is, and federalism is one of these terms that, in many cases, means the exact opposite of the word as it’s currently applied.

The Meaning of Federalism

The word “federalism” you might think that means federalism trumps everything; federalism means federal domination.  It does not mean that.  It means the exact opposite, in fact. 

It means the states are sovereign and the federal government cannot tell ’em what to do in so many different ways.

cartoon-electoral-collegeTwo States—California and New York—would Dictate the Rest of the Country

But I think you are very close with your assessment of population centers.  The founders did not want population centers to dictate to the rest of the country.  They had already seen that happen in Europe in their day, and they had seen the kind of people that gravitate toward various areas.  I mean, even in the early days of the country when it was largely an agrarian or agricultural, farmer-type of economy.  There were still cities; there were still elites. 

There were widely different ways of thinking, and there were various different power locations and power points, and the popular vote was considered a way of relegating a lot of people to irrelevance based on population center and the fact that the country is always changing and always shifting.  The primary purpose of the Electoral College is to maintain the power of the states and to support the idea that the election is decided by the states.  It’s not decided by the general population, and it never was.

The Electoral College has been with us since the first days of the country.  The reason for its founding… I mean, some people would even tell you that the Electoral College was established to protect the country from the votes of a bunch of ignoramuses and people uninformed out in the sticks who didn’t know what they were doing.  I mean, there were people even tell you that that was one of the original thought processes involved in establishing the Electoral College.

RUSH: But it is a way of having a flat-out popular election without calling it that.  If you didn’t do this if you didn’t have the Electoral College — we would be at the mercy of how state legislatures draw their electoral districts, and we would have electoral districts drawn strictly for the purposes of winning presidential elections and not for the purposes of state and local representation.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  But the short answer to this is almost identical to why every state has two senators but a different number of members of the House based on population, and it is to make sure that there is equal representation across the board.  There are some states based on population that would not even have a senator, if the Senate were not established the way that it is.  Some practical examples.  If the popular vote elected the president today, two states —

CALLER: California and New York. Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: — California and New York — would be all you would need.  And that means campaigns would occur only there and campaigns would focus only on issues relevant to those people in those states.

RUSH:  And there wouldn’t be anything national about it.  There wouldn’t be anything that would lend anybody any evidence or enlightenment as to what candidates were gonna do as president because they’d all run in these various states — and there might be three, might be more than California and New York.  You might put Texas in there.  But the point is it’s always changing.  The population’s always changing.  Look at… North Carolina was never a battleground state until recently. Now it is, and it’s because of migration from the Northeast.

People that live in the Northeast are leaving the Northeast for a whole host of reasons.  They’re relocating in Southern states and Midwestern states — no-income-tax states, milder climate states — and it’s affecting the balance of power in those states.  North Carolina used to be reliably red.  Now it’s a battleground state.  The Electoral College guards against all of this.  The Electoral College protects state sovereignty.  It actually is one of the most brilliantly conceived electoral mechanisms ever.  Let me ask you a question here, Lynn.

CALLER:  Yes?

What is a Democracy?

quote-democracy3RUSH:  We are not a democracy.  I think if your kids understood that — and most people don’t. We are a representative republic.  We’re not a direct democracy.

CALLER: Right. Correct.

RUSH:  And most people don’t know that, particularly young people.  They think we’re democracy.  Tell your kids this.  “If we lived in a democracy, if this house were a democracy and…?” How many are in your house?

CALLER:  Well, currently three, but I have one in the Navy.

RUSH:  Let’s pretend six people live in your house.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  And you propose that only four people get to eat every day, and you put it to a vote.  If four people vote that only four people get to eat, two people don’t, that prevails.  That’s what a democracy is.  It’s strictly majority-minority rule.  We do not have that.  We have what’s called a representative republic.

CALLER:  Correct. Well, so what would be…? For the people that are, you know, petitioning and complaining that we need to go to popular vote — and I understand the Electoral College — what would be the benefit or the possibility of, as I said, doing the Electoral College based on the number of votes, the percentage of votes an individual candidate received? For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes.

RUSH:  Because it would dilute the power of the states.  The state sovereignty is key here in the Electoral College —

CALLER: Okay.

quote-democracy1Don’t Destroy State Sovereignty

RUSH: — and if you’re going to start divvying up the power of each state’s elections, you are destroying state sovereignty.  You cannot —

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  You cannot, in a national election… It’s not a primary.

RUSH:  Now, I mentioned earlier in the program that I found something yet again that is bubbling up, it’s effervescing out there, and it’s not yet broken the surface in a national way.  It’s about, the story, this Harvard lecturer who wrote in October out of fear that Trump would be elected, that our democracy is unstable and rife for being eroded and torn apart, and his theory is because Trump is going to just rip everything up and do it his own way.

Democracy is Fragile

obama-rejected-aHe’s an autocrat and so forth. It’s deeper than that, but this would be an ideal time to get into this, although I don’t have the time to do it right now.  But before the end of this week I’m gonna delve into this stuff.  The story is basically how stable are democracies, and this guy is a Harvard lecturer, and it’s in the New York Times They’re convinced that (sobbing), “Our democracy is so fragile! It — it — it’s only one election from being torn apart, and Trump’s gonna do it. Oh, my God!” And this article even misses the point.  Why is it the United States is the longest-lasting government of its kind in human history? 

quote-democracy2Our Representative Republic is the Most Stable Free Government in All of History

I mean, why haven’t we crumbled already?  Why haven’t we been felled by internal corruption already?  Not only longest-lasting. It’s one of the most stable governments where the population is free.  You can find eons of dictatorship and tyranny, but I’m talking about our way of life. It’s precisely because we’re not a democracy that we have survived! It’s precisely because majority rule does have checks and balances on it It’s precisely because this is a representative republic that we have survived. 

So this guy’s article is all about how stable are democracies?

Democracies are not very stable, but we don’t have one when you get right down to it.  A lot of people think that this is a conspiratorial point of order.  But it isn’t.  It’s genuine.  There’s a big difference in a representative republic and a democracy.  We do not have a democracy.  There are elements of democracy in votes here and there.

But in the actual structure of the government, we’re a representative republic.  The primary reason we’ve survived is that we have had leaders who’ve respected the Constitution, feared it and the rule of law, and we’ve been very lucky there.

 

History Facts: Real Story of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving Stories the Teacher is not Teaching our Children

History Facts: Real Story of Thanksgiving

key “Here’s the part that’s been omitted…”  I’ll come back with the part that is omitted from modern day textbooks for young children in the schools. ~Rush Limbaugh

plymouth-colony-AA group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. “After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from?

bible1“From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford’s detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote.

“There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims — including Bradford’s own wife — died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.” For a long time, many of them continued to live on the Mayflower. There was nowhere else to live. “When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!

“This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives,” and teaching them to grow food and eat and all that, “rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.” The Bible. Remember, these were religious people. They set out on a journey to a place that they had no idea of, and they just found barren wilderness.

thanksgiving1stThe very idea that they survived — even before they began to prosper, the very idea that they just survived — was what gave them pause to thank God. That was the original Thanksgiving, and that’s not taught. The original Thanksgiving is taught as, “If it weren’t for the Indians, Pilgrims would have died. The Indians saved their bacon! The Indians saved them.” It’s an understandable effort here, but that’s not what happened, is the point. “Here’s the part that’s been omitted…”  I’ll come back with the part that is omitted from modern day textbooks for young children in the schools.

RUSH: We are back with the original, the true story of Thanksgiving, as written by me See, I Told You So, Chapter 6: “Dead White Guys, What the History Books Never Told You, The True Story of Thanksgiving — “Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors…” in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community,” all 40 of them, “was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. “

Mayflower-compact-hero2-AIt was a commune. It was socialism! Because they wanted to be fair. “They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. “It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ’60s and ’70s out in California — and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way,” in case you’d like to know. “Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives,” and half the people weren’t carrying their weight, didn’t have to.

“He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage,” and they got to keep the bulk of what they produced, “thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That’s right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work! … “What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!

“But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years … the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. ‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years,'” meaning it was tough for a long time, “‘that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing — as if they were wiser than God,’ Bradford wrote.”

Meaning: We thought we knew, but we were wrong.

“‘For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.'” So what happened was, the hard workers began to see a bunch of slackers. Even in the first Pilgrims, they had a bunch of slackers, and they said, “What the hell are we doing? If everybody’s getting an equal share here and half of these people aren’t working, to hell with this!” and they threw it out.

William Bradford wrote about it in the journal. “The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford’s community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work,” and they were permitted to use it as they saw fit, “and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? ‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'”

bradfordwilliamThey had surpluses. You know what they did with the surpluses? They shared them with the Indians. Capitalism, as opposed to socialism, produced abundance, the likes of which they had never experienced. They remembered the help they got when they first landed from the Indians. They shared their abundance. That’s the first Thanksgiving: A thanks to God for their safety, a thanks to God for their discovery, and a thanks to the Indians by sharing the abundance that they themselves produced after first trying what could only be called today Obamaism or Clintonism or socialism.

That, my friends, is the real story of Thanksgiving.

It’s not taught. It is not explained anywhere. The original story of Thanksgiving stops where the Indians saw these newly arrived, struggling Europeans who did not know what to do, and showed them how to plant corn and all that. Meaning the first Thanksgiving is: “If it weren’t for Indians…” So that has led us to today where Obama says the Indians are the only ones that have any real right to be offended at immigration. I try to tell this story every year on the day before Thanksgiving on the EIB Network. I do. And as I say, we’ve written an entire book for children about this featuring time travel with Rush Revere and his talking horse, Liberty, that take children back to Holland.

They make the journey with the Pilgrims across the Atlantic Ocean.

They’re there and get to know Bradford and so forth.

It’s the way we decided to teach history, by actually taking these young readers to these events and making them part of them. Kathryn and I are abundantly thankful for all of you for making our lives and the lives of our families so rich and rewarding. The true story of Thanksgiving for us is how fortunate we all are to have people like you in our lives and compromising this audience. We hope you have a great Thanksgiving with your family. We hope that it’s everything that you want it to be, hope you’re able to get there if you intend to go. But regardless, if you’re able to make it or not, we hope that your Thanksgiving gives you time to pause and give thanks for the great fortune we all have to be Americans.

Culture Wars: Establishment Elite, Abuse of Power, and their Corruption—Definition

Culture Wars:

Establishment Elite, Abuse of Power, and their Corruption—Definition

The Establishment Elite— Definition

keyPower corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~Edmund Burke

Rush Limbaugh

RushCountryClassruling-classThere’s so much more than has been reported, for example.  There are emails to Podesta from other powerful people begging him to get their kids a job, begging him to get their daughter a job or their wife a job or get them a job or get them a free flight on some Saudi billionaire’s jet somewhere, and it all happens.  And none of it is merit based.  It’s all based on membership in this club, which, again, has nothing to do with merit, it has a little bit to do with ideology.  It has more to do with your resume. You know, where you went to school, where you work, who your parents were, legacy things like this. 

So many people are so fed up because the last thing this group cares about is the country.  They don’t care about what’s good for the country.  That falls by the wayside in the wake of considerations of what’s good for them.

cartoon-hillary-corruptioncorruptopus

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for this absolutely brilliant cartoon

“Of course, the Clintons are not only corrupt but cynical as well. They accept that the progressive media, the foundations, the universities, the bureaucracies, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley honor power more than trendy left-wing politics; they well understand that their fans will, for them, make the necessary adjustments to contextualize Clinton criminality or amorality. Sexual predations, the demonization of women, graft, and unequal protection under the law are also of no consequence to the inbred, conflicted, and morally challenged media — who will always check in with the Clinton team, like errant dogs who scratch the backdoor of their master after a periodic runaway,” wanting to be let back in.”

It just dissects everything that is the Clintons: Clinton, Inc., Clinton friends, how the Clintons managed to go from paupers to multi-, multi-, multimillionaires without producing anything, without generating anything.  It’s a story of Clinton graft, Clinton graft, Clinton corruption.  It’s everything that you know, so well-crafted as to be undeniable.  So those are two long-form pieces I want to call your attention to.

Corruption Definition

Clinton-Cash-Graphic-Novel-Panel“Of course, the Clintons are not only corrupt but cynical as well. They accept that the progressive media, the foundations, the universities, the bureaucracies, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley honor power more than trendy left-wing politics; they well understand that their fans will, for them, make the necessary adjustments to contextualize Clinton criminality or amorality. Sexual predations, the demonization of women, graft, and unequal protection under the law are also of no consequence to the inbred, conflicted, and morally challenged media — who will always check in with the Clinton team, like errant dogs who scratch the backdoor of their master after a periodic runaway,” wanting to be let back in.”

It just dissects everything that is the Clintons: Clinton, Inc., Clinton friends, how the Clintons managed to go from paupers to multi-, multi-, multimillionaires without producing anything, without generating anything.  It’s a story of Clinton grift, Clinton graft, Clinton corruption.  It’s everything that you know, so well-crafted as to be undeniable.  So those are two long-form pieces I want to call your attention to.

hillaryclintoncash2-1SCHWEIZER:  Well, and, you know, Rush, what I tell people is you look at this Clinton corruption, this model they’ve set up with the Clinton Foundation and with these speaking fees. They’ve created a model to take hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign entities that are looking to curry favor.  They can’t give to their campaigns ’cause that would be illegal.  It’s a way around the law. And here’s what we know in Washington.  The Clintons are doing this now.  If this is allowed to continue and they are allowed to get away with this, this is going to be imitated by political figures from both sides of the aisle.

So what we’re really talking about here is a fundamental transformation of the whole problem with money in politics.  But the problem’s not gonna be Wall Street or, you know, Big Oil or labor unions.  The money’s gonna be Russian oligarchs, Nigerian businessmen who are corrupt, Chinese government entities.  That’s what we’re talking about.  We’re talking about losing control of our political system and who really has the ear of our political leadership.  Those are the stakes.  This is about more than Bill and Hillary Clinton.  It’s about a whole new mode of corruption that is global in nature.

History Facts: Fall of Berlin Wall was a Victory for Liberty

27th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall a victory for Liberty

 

November 9,  1989

It would not have happened but for a miracle . . .

berlinwallreagan“Shortly after Reagan was first elected, someone tried to kill him. The killer shot the president under his left arm; the bullet drove through his body and stopped within an inch of the president’s heart. If that bullet had penetrated his heart, Reagan would have died instantly.

            Miraculously, at the hospital where Reagan was treated, every doctor needed to save his life was present. Reagan’s life was saved; he served his country for eight years, during which he led the free world to defeat the Soviet Empire.”[1]

[1] Chris and Ted Stewart, Seven Miracles that Saved America

More about Ronald Reagan

Communists not held accountable for millions killed

Rush Limbaugh

berlinwallhammerThey’re afraid to appear partisan.  They are afraid to gloat.  They are afraid to behave in triumph.  And a great example is Bush 41 when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union fell.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  Not to humiliate communism.

The point is that there was never an accounting of the Soviet atrocities their system made inevitable.  There was never an education for the American people of the rotgut that is communism.  There was never a detailed explanation complete with body counts, deaths numbering in the millions, the imprisonment of free people for doing nothing more than thinking their own thoughts. 

He did not call for an accounting of the millions of lives ruined, the millions killed.  He did not define why the Soviet Union imploded.  He just called it the evolution of democracy.  The good vibes of freedom finally overcame.  Reagan said that the Soviet Union would eventually implode because of the weight of its own immorality.  We won the House, 1992, the midterm elections there.  Didn’t gloat.

RUSH: I got a note from a friend of mine last night.  I’m going to spend time on this, not right now, but I don’t want you to miss this.  I got a note from a friend last night who was really happy, really ecstatic, because he believes, or he did until he talked to me, he believes that we are on the threshold here of a major American reawakening.  He thinks that we’re on the cusp.  He can’t put his finger on it.  He’s a well-known writer and he thinks that all of these things happening here are going to open the American people’s eyes to just how devastatingly damaging, destructive and corrupt liberalism is.

Today: Indifference to Liberty is the Default

I keep asking myself, “Why, after years and years of demonstrable conservative triumph and success…?” Such as the eight years of Reagan, when we reduced deficits, we reduced unemployment, we grew this economy like it hasn’t grown since. We were producing jobs.  We were producing careers.

We took down the Soviet Union.  We were advancing technologically.  We were just rolling.  Reagan won in two landslides, and I’ve asked myself: How does it happen that after eight years — and Reagan was demonstrably conservative, and Reagan made no bones about being conservative. And Reagan, better than anybody else, articulated conservatism as he was executing it. 

This is what I wrote my friend back.  I said, “Here’s the problem:  Liberalism has been rejected many, many times.  The Democrat Party has been rejected many, many times.  But the mistake that we all make is thinking that conservatism is being affirmed at the same time.  Conservatism or the Republican Party is being accepted at the same time.”

Here’s my theory, folks.  And you may have stumbled across this yourself years ago.  If so, I apologize.  It just hit me.  This election that we’ve got coming up is a great illustration.  Conservatism is a protest vote, not an affirmative vote.  If the Republicans win big in this election, it’s for one reason.  People are fed up with the Democrats.  They’re fed up with Obamacare and foreign policy. They’re fed up with everything. They’re going to vote for the other guys.  They’re not voting for conservatives.  By necessity they’re voting Republican, but they’re not voting ideologically.

berlinwall2I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this.  Eight years of Reagan and yet the voters are easily fooled to returning to liberalism.  There was no protest when the liberals came along and started raising taxes, making everything worse, destroying jobs, what they always do, wrecking the culture.  No protests.  People voted for it.  And my conclusion is that voters never, other than Reagan, the lone example, never affirmatively vote for conservatism because it’s never really presented to them.  It’s presented to them by me and Fox News on some occasions and other so-called new media, but it’s not presented to voters by the Republican Party.

So why, after eight years, are people able to so easily forget it and return to voting for liberal Democrats? It’s something that’s amazed me and made me curious for years, many years.  It happened again.  It’s happened a lot of times.  It happened again in 1994. The Republicans win the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.  They did it with a substantive agenda, the Contract with America.

It was made up of ten agenda points that they intended to do, and they were substantive – balance the budget, reduce the deficit, reduce spending, all those things — and they set out to do them.  But it wasn’t many years later that voters went right back to voting Democrat. They embraced Bill Clinton all over again and I was left scratching my head.  I was asking how is it that these voters forget?

Now, don’t think I’m ignoring something here.  I know what the media’s role in this is. I’m not downplaying that. The media, even during those eight years, was telling people it wasn’t real.  And during the first term of George W. Bush they were telling people it wasn’t real.  The media is out there trying to create as much negativism as they can and they’re beating up these conservative Republicans.  I know all that.

But nevertheless, people lived it, and yet it didn’t seem to have much impact, not lasting.  The words of the media — the smears, the lies, the distortions — carried more weight than actual real life. At least when it came to voting, results at the ballot box.  Here’s some headlines today.  Politico.com: “Poll: Obama Hits Lowest Approval Ever.”  ABC News/Washington Post poll: “Obama Hits Lowest Approval.”

He’s down around 40 in this poll and that’s lower than he has ever been. From TheHill.com, as well: “Where Did It Go Wrong for Obama?”  They just can’t figure out where Obama went wrong. He’s such a great guy; he’s so smart; he’s so articulate.  He’s the first black president! How did it go so wrong?  What happened?  Of course, it can’t be the state of the country.

It can’t be the economy.  It can’t be Obama.  It can’t be anything substantive. What is it?  “Where Did Obama Go Wrong?”  They can’t figure it out! Next, we have this from the Washington Post: “The Democrat Party Hits a 30-Year Low.”  Now, the Republicans are even lower in this poll but that doesn’t obviate my point.  Democrat Party, 30-year low.  Obama, lowest approval ever.  “Where Did Obama Go Wrong?”

Then we’ve got a sound bite from John Harwood on CNBC in which he claims that Obamacare — despite how bad it is, despite the absolute mess, despite premiums rising, despite coverage being cancelled, despite policies being cancelled, despite co-pays going up, despite the mess that’s HealthCare.gov — has fizzled as a campaign issue for the Republicans.

Now, when Snerdley heard that today, he said, “No it hasn’t! No it hasn’t!”  Yes, it has.  It may end up being something people vote against Democrats for but they’re not voting for Republicans on it.  Now, in the midst of all this I got a note last night from a famous, nationally known and acclaimed writer.  It says, “Rush, just positing here. I’m at least a column or more away from verbalizing it.

I’m wondering if we’re at some 21st Century version of Lexington/Concord, or Fort Sumter, or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or Hitler’s invasion of Poland, or Reagan defeating Carter. In other words, Rush, are we on the cusp of an event or events that abruptly tips the balance of something that’s, in fact, been long in the works?”

He was just thinking out loud, sending me his thoughts.  What he was saying was: Are we on the verge of a tipping point where finally the American people wake up, once and for all, and understand what a demonstrable failure liberalism is and how bad it is for the country? That’s what he sees.  That’s what he thinks is going on.  He thinks that we’re on the verge of that tipping point.

This note from him kind of crystallized this for me because, like I just mentioned, I have been asking myself left and right: “How in the world can people live eight years and arguably 12 because the Bush…?” Well, I was going to say Bush 41.  He campaigned as the third term of Ronald Reagan, and he got elected on that basis.  He got elected on the basis that he was going to be the third term of Ronald Reagan.  It didn’t last but two years.

So let’s say 10 years.  And the Reagan revolution, the Reagan economy continued and boomed all the way through the Clinton administration.  Clinton’s out there taking credit for it, but he didn’t do anything but slow down what was already roaring, slowing it down with his tax increases and everything.  So again, how does this happen where people live through the horrors of liberalism like now, live through the demonstrable prosperity and successes of conservatism, and yet predictably return to voting liberal Democrat, how does it happen?

Now, I know why this happens, by the way.  I know what you’re thinking.  “Okay, Rush, that makes sense, but so what?”  Well, I think what I said is exactly right and I think I know the reason for it.  Even conservatives who are good at making our case are afraid to declare victory when we show the monumental failings of liberalism.  And this election is going to present us another opportunity.  This campaign presents us an opportunity.  And we’re not doing it.  We are not utilizing the opportunity that’s been handed to us on a silver platter.

People are fed up.  They are mad.  They are angry, and it’s time we told them why.  It’s time we told them why the country’s in the dumps.  Why they can’t get a job.  Why their healthcare is being screwed up royally.  It’s time that we told them it’s because of liberalism, and we name names.  And then when we win, we declare victory and we explain why the American people voted the way they did.  We demonstrate and point out the monumental failings of liberalism. 

appeasementThis is what we do not do.  Look at Bush 41.  Look at how Bush 41 treated the fall of the Soviet Union.  I know he was not very conservative, but he was still with a lot of Reaganites around him at the time.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  He went out of his way to say this was an evolution of democracy, not a final defeat of an evil totalitarian system.  We had to be nice.  We had to accommodate.  We had to be polite.  We had to show that we weren’t mean.  And we never hammer home the final nail.  

 

Maybe Obamacare wasn’t enough to do it.  Maybe the job situation, the economy, all that, but this, this rampant incompetence on how to deal with a killer disease, it’s just patently obvious that we don’t have competent people in charge here.  ISIS, add that on top of it.  We’ve got this big plan here to wipe out all the terrorists and all they’re doing is getting stronger, supposedly on the verge of taking Baghdad, for crying out loud.  There probably is a lot of awakening going on, and the awakening is because people are breaking through the illusion of government competence.

Now back to my point here.  Nothing wrong with a protest vote.  But the protest vote is not like the protest vote that founded America.  The protest vote this time around is people just fed up with the Democrats.  They tried them for six years.  They were fed up with Bush and tried the other guys.  Fed up with Democrats and it’s not working.  But they don’t know what they’re voting for.  They’re just voting for the other guys here.  They don’t know what they’re voting for because the Republican Party strategy is not to define themselves. They’re afraid of defining themselves for fear people won’t like them, and so don’t upset the apple cart, just take advantage of people voting against Democrats. 

But I mean it.  I know why this is happening.  It’s happening for a reason.  And I can name names.  I’m not going to here, but even conservatives, as I said, who are good at making our case are afraid to declare victory.  They’re afraid to hurt feelings.  They’re afraid to appear partisan.  They are afraid to gloat.  They are afraid to behave in triumph.  And a great example is Bush 41 when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union fell.  He went out of his way not to humiliate Gorbachev.  Not to humiliate communism.  He said instead that it was an evolution of democracy. 

He didn’t portray it as a resounding final defeat of an evil totalitarian dictatorship system.

Meanwhile, similar treatment does not come our way.

The point is that there was never an accounting of the Soviet atrocities their system made inevitable.  There was never an education for the American people of the rotgut that is communism.  There was never a detailed explanation complete with body counts, deaths numbering in the millions, the imprisonment of free people for doing nothing more than thinking their own thoughts. 

 

None of that was explained.  To this day communism is not considered to be that big of a deal.  It’s just another way of organizing government. Not one Republican stands up and says, “Why are you doing this?  Do you not see what’s happening in Cuba?  Why are you doing this?  Why do you want to try what failed in the Soviet Union?”  They’re not made to explain it.  They just go on their merry way implementing this stuff, while we worry about demographics and diversity.  We let them define what we ought to care about.  It’s the same, my friends, with failing social welfare programs.  Republicans, even lots of conservatives, are the same way. As these programs implode, one after another, after they fail one on top of another, what did we do?  We seem more interested in conceding the good intentions of the people who tried than in demonstrating that these programs will inevitably fail.

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/15/on_the_cusp_of_a_great_american_awakening