RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Audio: RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Mark Levin talks about his new book with an expert panel on Hannity – The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin appeared on Hannity (on 08.16.13) along with a great expert conservative panel for a full hour special to discuss his new bestseller, The Liberty Amendments (Kindle), and the solutions for America covered therein.  For anyone who is not familiar with Mark Levin, he is an attorney, radio talk show host, Constitutional expert and served as part of Ronald Reagan’s team.  Great questions from the panel and a great discussion with Levin.

Levin said, “We are living in a ‘Post Constitutional World’”, but reminded us that the Founders of our country and writers of the Constitution gave us article 5… for just such a time.  Many conservatives have been afraid to go move forward with a Constitutional Convention to reclaim the Republic, but as Levin pointed out… what is there to be afraid of?  The other side already has and does what they want.  He said there are, of course no guarantees of the outcome, but he said he does know what the outcome will be if we continue going down the road we are now on.  Mark offers what he call the Liberty Amendments and a pathway for Americans to take to save the Republic.

Only 20% of America consider themselves to be liberals or Progressives.  40% consider themselves to be Conservatives.  And the other 40% are pretty much disengaged.  Yet the 20% are wagging the dog…

Watch highlights below:

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 1

Video:  Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 1

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 2

Video: Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 2

Video: Mark Levin On Neil Cavuto - Fox News - The Liberty Amendments

Human Events: Radio host Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, is one of the most focused, accessible, and aggressive political books you’ll ever find. Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair. After all, if the power of the legislature has been diminished relative to the executive, the executive has dispersed its disproportionate power into unelected bureaucracies, and the states are increasingly powerless vassals of Washington, then there is no way for the peoples’ representatives in Congress or state houses to draft laws that would correct the situation. The entire point of this century-long quest to centralize power was to remove it from the clumsy hands of foolish American citizens. We are spectators to a game show in Washington. We might be able to vote a few of the contestants off the show, but we have no control over the rules of the game.

Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.

A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever. The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process. One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.

Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.

Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.

I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.

The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?

If you want to bring the ship of state into drydock, instead of slightly adjusting its course, The Liberty Amendments provides an excellent set of schematics. Levin’s strategy is the only way for the American people to have a say on all the things we’ve been told we don’t get to vote on any more. Reading this book will help you appreciate the terrible magnitude of what we have lost, and the intractable nature of an arrogant system that dictates to us instead of representing us, appropriating the language of “democracy” to dignify what really amounts to quelling dissent against whatever the ruling class wants to do next. And if you’re not already a Constitutional scholar of Mark Levin’s caliber, you might be surprised to learn just how accurately the supposedly out-of-touch and obsolete Founders predicted everything happening today. Why, reading Chapter Eight of The Liberty Amendments, you’d think John Adams was taking daily delivery of the New York Times through a time warp. I suspect he and his peers would have little argument with Levin’s recommendations.

Rush: Levin's book can help save the country

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators

Levin, The Liberty Amendments, Book Signings

• Saturday, August 17, 12pm - Book Revue - Huntington, NY
• Sunday, August 18, 11am - Bookends - Ridgewood, NJ
• Saturday, August 24, 10am - Barnes & Noble - Tysons Corner, VA
• Saturday, September 7, 1:30pm - Reagan Library - Simi Valley, CA -  Mark Levin to give a lecture and book signing at the Reagan Library on September 7th.

Mark Levin’s Books

The Liberty Amendments (Kindle)

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (Kindle)

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (Kindle)

Technorati Tags: Books,Founding Fathers,Ronald Reagan,Constitution,education,Sean Hannity,Fox News,Mark Levin,Saving America,freedom,liberty,educate yourself,Liberty Amendments,Levin,new book,Fox,presidential libraries,Rush,Hannity,Constitutionalist,patriotism,standing up,Reagan

Honoring Margaret Thatcher – The Ultimate Progressive Hunter

And they still hate her for it… Evil always despises strength and Baroness Margaret Thatcher was holy water to the vampiric Progressive Left. The Lioness of the British Isles roared onto the scene with Ronald Reagan and John Paul II to fight Communism and oppression. The Iron Lady, depicted here by Meryl Streep from the movie ‘The Iron Lady’ [Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Combo), was a warrior for freedom and she will forever be admired by me and millions of others.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – The NoisyRoom

From Rush Limbaugh:

Some people call it a coincidence — I think it’s more than that — that at the same time in the world we had Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. During those years were the only time in my lifetime where the left was actually turned back. Not just stopped, but defeated and turned back. It was the only time in my life. Poland, Berlin, Moscow, the United States. Wherever. Those three leaders on the political stage, the world stage at the same time, did more for freedom and liberty for people all over this world than any three people since the founding of this country — and they all served at the same time, overlapping.

From Sara Palin:

Today we say goodbye to a towering figure of the 20th century. With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we’ve sadly lost the last living member of that great triumvirate that included Ronald Reagan and John Paul II – those giants who defeated the evil empire of Soviet Communism and allowed the liberation of its captive nations. We’ve also lost one of the great champions of economic freedom and democratic ideals.

The Grocer’s Daughter was indeed iconic and one of the greatest leaders of our time. She was not afraid to voice her opinions and go toe to toe with the Leftists – summarily wiping the political floor with them time and again. A debater that had no equal, she used facts and logic as her weapons of choice, burnishing their mortal impact with eloquent prose and stunning delivery. Thatcher was a titan spearheading accomplishment, while dragging Progressives kicking and screaming into the light of capitalistic success and growth:

She put those beliefs into action. Like Reagan, she was a leader for whom word and deed were one and the same. A leader of a conservative think tank behind the Thatcher revolution famously said, “We were not interested in political office for the Conservative party. We were interested in power for them to get things done.” And that’s exactly what Thatcher did. While others in her party were interested in holding on to political office and overseeing “the orderly management of [Britain's] decline,” she actually radically reformed a broken system and brought it back to free-market principles, leaving her country stronger, wealthier, and a leader in the world when just a decade before it had been dismissed as “the sick man of Europe.” Her push to privatize British industry and lower tax rates led to a substantial economic expansion and became a model for other countries shrugging off the yoke of socialism.

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady:

She knew what Ronald Reagan knew. That free markets and a free people are the best defense against tyranny and that peace comes through strength, not accommodation.

Prophetic in her vision for a stronger Britain as well as a freer world, Thatcher diagnosed the Socialist disease that plagues the globe and offered the cure of smaller government, lower taxation and economic expansion. Her enemies put forth wealth redistribution and equal misery for all with more taxation, regulation and government rule. It is small wonder her enemies celebrate her death in the streets, but all Americans and the world should reflect and hold in wonder the ideals of Margaret Thatcher, while reimplementing them before it is too late. Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Progressivism never succeed, they always fail. They end in massive death, poverty and misery. The world cries out for another Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher to deliver us from One World rule.

Will America once again follow the vision of Reagan and Thatcher? We do indeed stand at the crossroads of history — a choice between what the Founding Fathers saw in smaller government, less regulation, less taxation and the power lying with the States and the people vs. the horrific future of the Progressive Left with an all-encompassing Nanny State, never-ending regulation and government control, crony capitalism and dictatorial rule.

JoshuaPundit:

What can you say about Margaret Thatcher’s accomplishments? She was a green grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s Prime Minister, who did her best to reverse what she clearly saw as her country’s decline, who led Britain in war and peace, who survived a terrorist assassination by the IRA that killed five people.This was someone who put principle first, who informed the people who wanted business as usual that this lady was not for turning. She literally scared Britain’s Socialist establishment witless by pointing out loudly and clearly what they were doing to her country and where it would ultimately lead.

America owes much to Margaret Thatcher, a courageous, principled leader who laid the foundations for Reagan’s revolution that brought massive prosperity to the United States.

Carrying on Margaret Thatcher’s Vision

Carrying on Margaret Thatcher’s Vision

I identify with Baroness Thatcher. I consider her my role model and I grieve her passing. Her legacy, however, will live on and so will our fight for conservative ideals and individual liberty. The fight will never end while Communism lives. While Constitutional Conservatives fight to regain America’s freedoms, Democrats are blocking a resolution to honor Lady Thatcher. How sick and twisted is that? It shows a dearth of character and a lack of morality. I guess they only honor commies these days. The death of morality presages the death of a country. Always.

The Moral Foundations of the American Founding:

Free societies demand more care and devotion than any others. They are, moreover, the only societies with moral foundations, and those foundations are evident in their political, economic, legal, cultural, and, most importantly, spiritual life.

We who are living in the West today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. Others before us have done so. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the wider world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom.

Heritage’s Nile Gardiner on the Passing of Margaret Thatcher

I intend to honor Margaret Thatcher by continuing the research into and the hunt for Progressives on both sides of the political aisle. You can see my research and work with Trevor Loudon over at KeyWiki.org. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, “Our job is to stop America from going Red.”

Quotes from the Iron Lady:

• To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.
• I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.
• We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
• My job is to stop Britain from going red.
• There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.
• They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.
• Socialists cry “Power to the people,” and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State.
• Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. … In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.
• Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.
• I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.
• Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.
• Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.
• Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people’s bills.
• Let us never forget this fundamental truth: The State has no source of money other than the money people themselves earn.
• Let me give you my vision: A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master.
• All corporatism – even when practised in societies where hard work, enterprise and cooperation are as highly valued as in Korea – encourages inflexibility, discourages individual accountability, and risks magnifying errors by concealing them.
• Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper.
• It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake.
• No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.
• Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.
• People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.
• When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality – other than equality before the law – that government poses a threat to liberty.
• Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.
• Socialism’s results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic – poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people. Against that doctrine was set a contrary, conservative belief in a law-governed liberty. It was this view which triumphed with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Since then, the Left has sought rehabilitation by distancing itself from its past.
• Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.

From: AskMarion:

“Margaret Thatcher was a freedom fighter, a lover of capitalism and promoter of free societies and the rights of the people; a symbol of strength for the world!! You either loved her or hated her, but nobody ignored her!! Had she not been suffering from dementia (caused by a series of strokes… and a stroke ultimately killed her) the past several years, like her good friend Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s the last years of his life, she would not have believed what has happened to America and the West and would certainly have been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration and many of the policies in her own country! ”

“Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady – Freedom Fighter and Icon Died at 87 but will live as long as there is a flicker of hope for freedom left in the world!!”

Books on Thatcher: Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady, The Margaret Thatcher Book Of Quotations, Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality

Margaret Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter who became Britain’s first female prime minister, is getting a funeral fit for a queen

Technorati Tags: Margaret Thatcher,The Iron Lady,tribute,conservative women,strength,conservatism,history,educate yourself,Ronald Reagan,leadership,courage,Rush Limbaugh,Sarah Palin,politics,remembering,freedom

Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady - Freedom Fighter and Icon Dies at 87

By Marion Algier

Lady Thatcher Pushed Back

“Margaret Thatcher was a freedom fighter, a lover of capitalism and promoter of free societies and the rights of the people; a symbol of strength for the world!!  You either loved her or hated her, but nobody ignored her!!  Had she not been suffering from dementia (caused by a series of strokes… and a stroke ultimately killed her) the past several years, like her good friend Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s the last years of his life, she would not have believed what has happened to America and the West and would certainly have been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration  and many of the policies  in her own country ”  …Marion Algier - Ask Marion~

British Prime Minister Cameron said Margaret Thatcher not only led Great Britain, she saved Her.  Thatcher took on the unions, turned her country around and helped change the course of the world.  She was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th Century.  Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thatcher’s global influence was immense.

RUSH/EIB: She was purely formal and sophisticated. I don't mean boring and dull and old-fashioned. She carried herself with a dignity and a self-respect and a seriousness that led no one to question who she really was. If you ever had the chance to be around her, you would know that she was in person as you saw her on television. She was committed, she was serious. She was formal. She was great woman, a great human being…

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Margaret Thatcher has passed away, and that will be the first thing we get into when we come back from the break. We've got some audio sound bites from Lady Thatcher. Lady Thatcher, I was very fortunate to know. Because of some friends of mine who knew her, I was often invited to social occasions with her. I must have spent quality time with Lady Thatcher on 10 to 15 different occasions, all in the 1990s. I've regaled you with some of the stories.

In every one of those instances -- every one -- she was identically the same. She was purely formal and sophisticated. I don't mean boring and dull and old-fashioned. She carried herself with a dignity and a self-respect and a seriousness that led no one to question who she really was. If you ever had the chance to be around her, you would know that she was in person as you saw her on television. She was committed, she was serious. She was formal. She was great woman, a great human being.

Some people call it a coincidence -- I think it's more than that -- that at the same time in the world we had Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. During those years were the only time in my lifetime where the left was actually turned back. Not just stopped, but defeated and turned back. It was the only time in my life. Poland, Berlin, Moscow, the United States. Wherever. Those three leaders on the political stage, the world stage at the same time, did more for freedom and liberty for people all over this world than any three people since the founding of this country -- and they all served at the same time, overlapping.

Lady Thatcher is the only one of the three that I met, and I got to know her very well.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's a little trivia question. Does anybody out there know who it was that decided to call Margaret Thatcher "the Iron Lady"? Any idea who it was? It was not Neil Kinnock, and therefore not Joe Biden. It was not a British politician. It was not an American politician. It was no one in the media, at least in the Western media. It was the Soviet news agency Tass that called her, that dubbed Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady, and the West's Drive-By Media gleefully picked up on that.

Tass did not mean it to be a compliment, neither did the American Drive-By Media, but of course it turned out to be one. Margaret Thatcher reminded me of my grandfather. My grandfather was serious all the time. He wore a jacket and tie every day of the year -- Saturday, Sunday, no matter what -- because he worked every day. Lady Thatcher was serious. She was funny, but she was serious. Everything mattered. One of the many things she said that I've never forgotten -- and there were a lot of them, but this one has always stuck with me -- was "Consensus is the absence of leadership."

Consensus is now the objective in this country.

To her, it meant no leadership.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, don't misunderstand when I say that Lady Thatcher was serious. I don't mean that she was boring and constantly talking about weighty things that only a few people were interested in. Quite the opposite. She was filled with self-respect and dignity. And she knew who she was. She's the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, this during the time I knew her. She was proud of that, but that meant something, that had requirements that she was never, ever going to lapse. She was always going to fulfill. She had a great sense of humor, and it was a very dry wit.

The friends of mine who made it possible for me to know her are great people here in Palm Beach, Gay and Stanley Gaines, and they'd known her for many, many years, and Lady Thatcher was entirely willing to attend dinner parties with their friends. Many people would beg off something like that. "Please, I don't want to hang around a bunch of people I don't know. Please, Gay, I came to see you." No, there would be dinner parties with ten people, 25, 30 people. And whatever was asked of her, she attempted to comply, every question. Everybody that wanted to ask her about something was given her full attention. I remember one particular evening, it was the end of the week, it had been a long week for me, and I showed up, cocktail party, dinner. I sit down at dinner and Gay immediately says, "Okay, Rush, what's the latest in..."

I said, "Gay, I'm tired. I just don't want to talk about politics right now." Of course the table looked, "You don't want to talk politics? Do you understand who's sitting here?" She was seated next to me. And I said, "No." At the time I just didn't want to be on stage. I was exhausted, I was worn out, and I just wanted to listen. And Gay kept trying to urge me, and Lady Thatcher said, "Gay, he doesn't wish to speak about politics. So let's talk of the rule of law," and, bam, there we are off on a discussion, the rule of law. She loved the founders. She absolutely thought they were the most brilliant people, 'cause they were Brits, don't forget. Our founders were British. She loved them.

She loved Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was it. But she loved them all. She knew the history of this country better than most people in this country do, and she revered it. She was one of the greatest Americans, quote, unquote, that I've ever met.

Let's go to the some audio sound bites. First up, we have her appearing with William Buckley on Firing Line, 1977. At the time she's a member of parliament, Conservative Party leader. She's not the Prime Minister yet. Buckley said, "What is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism?" This is important. At the time, British socialism was in the process of crumbling, 1977. Of course today it's back with a vengeance, with its tentacles more deeply hooked than ever. But in 1977 it was collapsing. It was on the way. She finished the job.

"What is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism; and what, in fact, has been learned from the failure of British socialism? In a recent speech, Mrs. Thatcher said, 'We observe what happens elsewhere and draw lessons from it, but we are aware that different national traditions, experience, and religious values affect the total political and economic situation.' Question: Does the failure of British socialism have the same meaning for the United States as, say, for Venezuela?"

Video:  Margaret Thatcher - Capitalism and a Free Society

THATCHER: There are two ways in which any government can proceed. One is a way based on what you and I would call a free society, which is enshrined right at the heart of the American Constitution. The other one is a way which allows only one view both of economics and politics and which almost everything is either owned or controlled by the state, including the media, including the ideas, including freedom of discussion and everything. There is no freedom of discussion. Now, between those two ways, the free society and the totally controlled society, there are, of course, variations. I think what we've learned in Britain is that we've gradually, over the last certainly 12 or 13 years, with perhaps a little interruption, gone slowly further and further away from the free society towards something else.

RUSH: So she was in a way disagreeing with Buckley, who was asking about the failure of -- well, not really disagreeing. He was talking about the failure, but not the demise that had yet to happen, and it didn't begin to happen until she became Prime Minister. So after pointing out that Britain had moved further away from a free society in 1977, she continued with this.

THATCHER: At the same time we've found -- I don't find it strange, but some other people do -- that we have stopped creating wealth. We've had a large number of increasing restrictions. And you've been finding two things: First, that we are more and more concentrating on redistributing the wealth we've got, rather than creating any more. To create more, you need a slightly freer society, and you need an incentive society. Naturally when I see that happening, I look with very great alarm to societies which have gone even further left. That is, they've tried to redistribute even more and haven't had the incentives for people working hard on their own account, doing well for their families and often then being able to create jobs for others, they've produced a much more prosperous society than we have. But by and large you've got the two broad, different economic and political approaches.

RUSH: Here we are, 1977, and again, the value here, not just an illustration of who Lady Thatcher was, for those who don't know, but rather in 1977 it was known what is known today. And it was being executed then, as it's being executed now. And in 1977 it failed, i.e., the redistribution of wealth, the stoppage and the creation of wealth, which happens at the same time. The moment a society becomes redistributive, it stops creating wealth. She was cataloging current circumstances in Britain in 1977. And this was, of course, to set up her eventual triumph as prime minister.

But, you see, it serves to illustrate that the left is always what it is. There's nothing new about it. Its failure is commonplace. It has never worked. It has never succeeded. The left, after destroying one free society after another, has to keep finding another to run their experiments on because each time they try, they destroy. They destroy the creation of wealth. They disincentivize the creation of wealth with the redistribution of wealth by creating more and more recipients for having done nothing. And so they create a vicious cycle, spinning in onto itself, which is self-destructive, and it's happening here now. It's happening throughout the world. The thing that is most difficult for me to understand is it's never succeeded. And yet people turn to it still with as much hope as they ever have.

So what's the allure? It's never worked. It never will work. But in the short term, it does work for those who don't wish to work. That's the problem. It does work temporarily for those who are the beneficiaries of all this. In America today, 90 million people aren't working, 90 million. Last month, folks, talked about this on Friday, 633,000 people stopped looking for work. The labor force participation rate grew by over half a million people, in one month. Those are jobs that have vanished. Every one of those people is eating, and pretty much what they want to eat. Every one of them has a cell phone, and every one of them has no trouble getting around. They all live somewhere. And so to them, you say, "Well, it's not working."

"Well, it is for me; I don't have a job, and I'm doing well. It's working fine for me."

And this is how they sell it, catalog it, success. They're never around when the total implosion takes place. And while a society is crumbling and imploding, an implosion and crumbling that they are causing, the people on the left, they succeed in blaming their opponents for it, which is where we are now. Republicans are responsible for everything rotten happening in the country. It's all part of the left's tactics. The thing is, my friends, the people on the left know it's going to fail always, too. They are not -- I mean, you've got maybe some young leftists coming out of college with rosy scenarios of their future, rose-colored glasses, and they think they're onto something here, utopia.

But the left, the adults know it isn't gonna work, never has worked, that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to enshrine them as elites. Its purpose is to gain them power. But in terms of a workable way of governing a country, it fails, has failed, every time it's tried. Brief time-out. More Margaret Thatcher sound bites when we come back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: November 22nd, 1900, House of Commons in London, Margaret Thatcher delivering her final speech as prime minister. During the speech, she yielded time to a member of Parliament, Mr. Simon Hughes, who said, "There is no doubt the Prime Minister has in many ways achieved substantial success. But there is one statistic that I understand has not, however, challenged you, and that is that over her 11 years, the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in this country has widened substantially.

"How can she say at the end of her chapter of British policies that she can justify many people in the constituency such as mine being relatively poorer, much less well housed, much less well provided than it was in 1979? Surely the gentlelady accepts that it is not a record that she or any prime minister can be proud of," and of course there were the hoots and hollers, and this is what she said, again, delivering her final speech as PM...

Video: Margaret Thatcher - "They'd rather have the poor poorer!"

THATCHER: He would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That was the liberal policy! Yes, it came out! He didn't intend it to, but he did. I give way to the honorable gentleman.

MAN: The prime minister is aware but I detest every single one of her domestic policies and I have never hidden that fact..

THATCHER: And I think that the honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who have experienced them. I think I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies are they'd rather have the poor poorer. Once they start to talk about "the gap," they'd rather the gap was that, down there. That. Not there. But that. So long as the gap is smaller -- so long as the gap is smaller -- they'd rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, that's called push-back. That's called standing up for what you believe. That's called standing up for your principles. It's called not being shouted down, not being a coward, not being afraid, not worrying about what is said about you. Which, by the way, she also detested: People who were consumed with what other people thought about them. She said, "They will never amount to anything, and we will never know who they truly are," but she called these people out.

The same argument here.

"Under your policies the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer." No, under your policies the poor are getting poorer and everybody's getting poorer and that's all you care about. If the poor get poorer, that's fine with you as long as the rich do! That's what she was shouting back at this liberal. One woman against all these liberals in the House of Commons. There is no such leader in America today. There is no such push-back. There is no one defending the founding, conservatism, whatever. The concept of private property, wealth creation. Not publicly, not defiantly, not pushing back. It doesn't happen.

Here is her tribute to Ronald Reagan, February 3rd, 2004, Simi Valley, California.

Video:  The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan's 83rd Birthday [1/5]

THATCHER: You strode into our midst at a time when America needed you most. This great country had been through a period of national malaise bereft of any sense of moral direction. Through it all, throughout eight of the fastest-moving years in memory, you were unflappable and unyielding. You were not only America's president, important as that is, you were a great leader. In a time of average men, you have stood taller than anyone else.

RUSH: Margaret Thatcher, Simi Valley, California, February 3rd, 1994. This was at a birthday gala for Reagan. Here she wraps it up, praising Reagan's toughness...

THATCHER: With a toughness unseen for the long time, you stood face-to-face with the Evil Empire, and with an unexpected diplomacy which confused your foes -- and even some of your friends --

AUDIENCE: (rippling laughter)

THATCHER: -- you reached out to that empire, perhaps no longer evil but still formidable. You met its leaders on their turf, but on your terms.

RUSH: That's Reagan's 83rd birthday gala in Simi Valley, California.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Lady Thatcher really was transformative in the true sense of the word. She transformed the UK, during her time, from socialist left to a free market, wealth-creating free society -- and she is hated and reviled today in her own country, by the media, much as conservatives in this country are, but there's the no denying what she accomplished, what she achieved, and how she did it.

END TRANSCRIPT

Margaret Thatcher Bio

Thatcher was born on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England, Margaret Thatcher became Britain's Conservative Party leader and in 1979 was elected prime minister, the first woman to hold the position. During her three terms, she cut social welfare programs, reduced trade union power and privatized certain industries. Thatcher resigned in 1991 due to unpopular policy and power struggles in her party. She died on April 8, 2013, at age 87.

Politician and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was born as Margaret Hilda Roberts on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England. Nicknamed the "Iron Lady," Thatcher served as the prime minister of England from 1979 to 1990. The daughter of a local businessman, she was educated at a local grammar school, Grantham Girls' High School. Her family operated a grocery store and they all lived in an apartment above the store. In her early years, Thatcher was introduced to conservative politics by her father, who was a member of the town's council.

A good student, Thatcher was accepted to Oxford University, where she studied chemistry at Somerville College. One of her instructors was the Dorothy Hodgkin, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Politically active in her youth, Thatcher served as president of the Conservative Association at the university. She earned a degree in chemistry in 1947, and went on to work as a research chemist in Colchester. Later, she worked as a research chemist in Dartford.

Two years after graduating from college, Thatcher made her first bid for public office. She ran as the conservative candidate for a Dartford parliamentary seat in the 1950 elections. Thatcher knew from the start that it would be nearly impossible to win the position away from the liberal Labour Party. Still she earned the respect of her political party peers with her speeches. Defeated, Thatcher remained undaunted, trying again the following year, but once more her efforts were unsuccessful. Two months after her loss, she married Denis Thatcher.

In 1952, Thatcher put politics aside for a time to study law. She and her husband welcomed twins Carol and Mark the next year. After completing her training, Thatcher qualified as a barrister, a type of lawyer, in 1953. But she didn't stay away from the political arena for too long. Thatcher won a seat in the House of Commons in 1959, representing Finchley.

Clearly a woman on the rise, Thatcher was appointed parliamentary under secretary for pensions and national insurance in 1961. When the Labour Party assumed control of the government, she became a member of what is called the Shadow Cabinet, a group of political leaders who would hold Cabinet-level posts if their party was in power. 

When Conservatives returned to office in June 1970, Thatcher was appointed secretary of state for education and science, and dubbed "Thatcher, milk snatcher," after her abolition of the universal free school milk scheme. She found her position frustrating, not because of all the bad press around her actions, but because she had difficulty getting Prime Minister Edward Heath to listen to her ideas.  Read Full Bio HERE

16 of the Greatest Margaret Thatcher Quotes

Cold Warriors: President Roland Reagan, Blessed John Paul II, & Baroness Margaret Thatcher (The Blaze)

There must be a great reunion going on in Heaven right now!!

Thatcher, Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Gorbachev ended the Cold War

Daniel Janin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images  -  Prime Minister Thatcher greeted residents who gathered to see her in Moscow during a visit in 1987. More Photos »

We’re deeply saddened at the loss of Margaret Thatcher. While the Iron Lady is sadly gone, her iron will, her unfailing trust in what is right and just, and her lessons to all of us will live on forever. She was a trailblazer like no other. We lost an icon, but her legacy, as solid as iron, will live on in perpetuity. ~ Sarah Palin

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." ~ Margaret Thatcher  Hmmm… Sound like anyone we know?

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were political partners and ideological soul mates, as written about in Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage & Reagan and Thatcher: The Difficult Relationship, and many feel that torch has been passed to Sarah Palin, who considers them both her mentors and idols.

Meryl Streep recently played the ‘The Iron Lady’ [Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Combo). Although political opposites, Streep found Thatcher a remarkable woman and a leader in the role of women in politics!  Although the film was hailed as a success, garnering Streep her third  Oscar win, Margaret Thatcher’s family was appalled at the depiction of the former prime minister as a dementia sufferer looking back at her life with sadness… as usual a little too much artistic license and looking at a Conservative who reforged her country from a Progressive perspective.  It is a film worth seeing, but not to be taken as the gospel.  Watch it, but do your homework and read about this remarkable woman!!  It was not only filmed from a sad and uncomfortable perspective but was full of historical inaccuracies… like two other  recent examples of based-on-a-true-story films: "Lincoln" and "Zero Dark Thirty"

Books on Thatcher: Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady, The Margaret Thatcher Book Of Quotations, Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality

Meryl Streep, left, and Margaret Thatcher (Photo: Weinstein Company/Getty Images)

Related:

• Gorbachev says "exceptional" Thatcher helped end Cold War
• SkyNews: Margaret Thatcher Dies After Stroke
• UKDM: Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher Dies Peacefully In Her Suite At The Ritz After Suffering A Massive Stroke. She Was 87
• UK Telegraph: Margaret Thatcher Dies: Latest Reaction
• New York Times: Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Who Reforged Britain, Dies
• UK Independent: 'A Heroine And A Hate Figure': Indifference Wasn't An Option When It Came To Lady Thatcher
• Washington Post: Margaret Thatcher: In Every Sense A Leader
• No state funeral for Margaret Thatcher
• Britain's "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher dies
• Thatcher Video: Why Socialism Fails
• ‘The Iron Lady’: What Meryl Streep and Co. Got Wrong About Margaret Thatcher
• For Thatcher and Reagan, it was a very "special relationship"

Technorati Tags: Margaret Thatcher,freedom,Iron Lady,strength,freedom fighter,remembering,Ronald Reagan,EIB,Riush,Rush Limbaugh,Capitalism,free society,Britain,England,Free World,irreplaceable,Sarah Palin,Meryl Streep,sadness,icons,Cold War,Cold War Warrior,Barroness Margaret Thatcher,John Paul II

90 Million Americans Permanently Unemployed

RUSH: Some of them out there are actually trying to pump up 88,000 new jobs as a sign of Obama's robust recovery and his expertise. Others are saying it's bad news and it's the fault of the sequester….

We Are Living in a Dying Country

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I don't know how else to categorize this. We are living in a dying country. I don't know how else to categorize what's happening -- 88,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate, because of a terrible statistic, is down to 7.6%. The number of people in this country who are not working is shameful. Ninety million Americans are no longer in the workforce. Ninety million. People not in the labor force grew by 663,000, and now 90 million. That's the labor force participation rate. This is 1979 levels. The only difference is that we don't have an election around the corner to fix it like we did in 1979. We had that election last November, and we blew it.

In addition to payrolls only adding 88,000 jobs, an additional 81,800 went on disability in March. We're now up to 8.8 million Americans on disability. We had nearly as many people go on disability in March as people who found jobs. I think it's official. We have a dying country. There is literally no way that our entitlement programs and our safety net and our absorption of immigrants, legal or otherwise, can be supported this way. This simply cannot be sustained. I don't know how else to describe this. The unemployment rate of 7.6% is ridiculous.

The U-6 unemployment rate is still around 15%. That is the unemployment rate you get if you add people who are out of work and looking for a job and people who are out of work and have given up looking. Those people have been out of work for a long time. They've had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and they've given up looking, so they're not counted in the reported unemployment percentage of 7.6%. If they were counted, the number would be 15%. And if there were not the demographic weighting -- the 7.6% number is arrived at by estimating certain factors as being in existence or being true based on demographics. There are assumptions made about employment, unemployment in the Hispanic community, with women, black community so forth.

This is from Jim Pethokoukis, our buddy at the American Enterprise Institute. If you take out all of the demographic weighting -- let me give you another example of weighting. Let me use radio numbers for it. In local markets, there are minority-owned-and-operated radio stations. This goes way back, by the way. For the purposes of affirmative action, the audiences of minority stations were always bumped a little beyond what the actual ratings were. It was part and parcel of recognition of past discrimination. It was part of making amends. It was part of affirmative action, and it was accepted. Nobody complained about it. It's the way it was. People did business that way, but nevertheless it existed. You agree with me on this?

(interruption)

What? Well, there's a whole bunch of reasons. Yeah, the ratings didn't reach minority people, was one of the explanations, the old diary system. Now it's the one-eyed, one horned flying purple people meter, whatever it is, but they didn't reach these people. So it was just estimated that audiences to minority radio stations were much higher than they actually ended up being reported as being. That's called weighting. Well, the same thing is done in employment, unemployment numbers. And Mr. Pethokoukis' point is if we just dealt with what the real numbers are, as Bob Johnson was the other day, unemployment in the black community, 15%, black teenagers, 25%, if you deal with those numbers, his point is that the U-3 number or the 7.6% number would actually be 9.9.

If we just took the data and just reported the data as it is without any demographic weighting, then we'd be at 9.9%, not 7.6%. It's like yesterday we had the report on the number of applications for unemployment compensation, which skyrocketed back up 388,000. Much higher than what was expected by the experts. And, of course, that number will be revised upward even more in a couple of weeks. You have to work really hard to find that revised number, but it will be around 400,000. In the meantime, while all this is going on, the regime's running around talking about our economic recovery and why we've gotta start making loans to people that can't pay 'em back again to boost the home market that's recovering.

It really is obscene. There is no housing market recovery to speak of. There is no recovery anything to speak of here. Now we're gonna start making loans to people who can't pay 'em back. Banks are being forced to do this by the regime so those people are not left out of this housing boom. Folks, it's utterly ridiculous, 7.6% unemployment weighed against 90 million Americans not working. The labor force participation rate also includes the number of jobs that have disappeared. They're no longer in existence. They're not there to be filled by anybody. The regime does that to get that number down to 7.6%. If the universe of jobs available shrinks, then the percentage of people out of work will be smaller, by definition. I can't tell you how many months I had to go through fisticuffs, practically, to get people who are telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, to convince them that I did. But if your universe is a hundred percent and your unemployment rate's 7.6%, then what do you figure? You got 93% or whatever of the people working.

Well, what if your universe shrinks to 80% but you still call it a hundred percent? That's what's happening here. There aren't a hundred percent anymore. It's shrunk. The number of jobs that are available, the number of businesses which are open, the number of businesses which have jobs to fill, plummeting. We're a dying country. Everybody knows it. Even Ichabod Goolsbee, who is a former economics guru in the regime, now in the private sector making legitimate money, Ichabod Goolsbee said, "This is like a punch to the gut." And we've got some sound bites and news stories here where all these experts just can't believe this. Why, this doesn't make any sense, and of course they're blaming the sequester for this. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, the sequester, because that means it's the Republicans. Except the sequester's got nothing to do with this.

This all started January 21st, 2009. That's when the intense trend began with the immaculation of Obama and the mythical stimulus package. We're a country in decline, and the president is presiding over a country in decline. So he's gotta budget that he's gonna be presenting soon, we're told, and one of the things that the president is going to do to generate revenue -- 'cause, see, that's the problem. Do you know in the midst of all this what the big problem is? The government does not have enough money. It's not that the country doesn't have enough jobs. It's not that the people of this country aren't earning enough salary, wages, whatever. No, no. The problem is the government doesn't have enough money.

So the president is going to trying to get more money by placing a $3 million upper limit on tax preferred retirement accounts. So he's going to take even more money from the so-called rich under the guise they're not paying their fair share. Because the government's running out of money, and we cannot have that. So payrolls grow by 88,000. Eighty-two thousand new Americans on disability in March. A total of 8.8 million Americans on disability, and every damn one of them feels justified. And I'll tell you something else. All of the people -- 90 million Americans -- ladies and gentlemen, 90 million Americans are not working, but they are all eating, and they're all using cell phones. And they are all watching television. And most of them are driving.

I don't know how this can be sustained. A blogger at ZeroHedge.com, a guy named Tyler Durden, which is a stage name, says things just keep getting worse for the American employee, and by implication, the US economy, where, as we've shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks than to work. The best manifestation of this, the number of people not in the labor force, which in March alone grew by 663,000. They want to tell us that there were 88,000 new jobs in March, when the number is 663,000. Over a half million people dropped out of the labor force. That means they either lost their jobs or stopped looking for one.

What is this 88,000 people found work? Compared to the 663,000 who dropped out. A record 90 million Americans are no longer even looking for work. I don't even want to get into whether it's their fault or not. Folks, everybody has to eat, and they are. The Democrat Party's seen to it. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January of 2012, when the Bureau of Labor Stats did its census recast of the labor numbers. Even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged to the lowest level since 1979.

But, in a perverted way, that many people leaving the workforce shrinks the universe, and it makes it possible to say that unemployment's improving. I'm not kidding you. Even Mr. Durden makes the point. If you shrink the universe, then the percentage of people not working gets smaller, and you can say, "We added 88,000 jobs, not like we want, but we're working at it. We're adding 88,000 jobs. The unemployment number is coming down." And as far as low-information Americans are concerned, that's it, and that's all there is to know.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Drive-By Media, State-Controlled Media is either pretending that the March jobs report is good news -- some of them are. Some of them out there are actually trying to pump up 88,000 new jobs as a sign of Obama's robust recovery and his expertise. Others are saying it's bad news and it's the fault of the sequester. If you want to say it's the fault of anything and you want to get that specific, you'd have to look at the payroll tax holiday ending first.

But this is all happening because of the policies the president. There's no argument about that. I mean, I know that people still want to blame Bush, and I know that the president -- the Limbaugh Theorem -- is running around still trying to fix all this. None of this is his. People don't attach his policies to this. Amazingly, the low-information population still views the president as working tirelessly to fix all this, trying to come up with something that'll work, 'cause he cares about everybody. But this has nothing to do with sequester. It has nothing to do, really, with the payroll tax cut.

END TRANSCRIPT

“The president’s policies continue to make it harder for Americans to find work. Hundreds of thousands fled the workforce last month and unemployment remains far above what the Obama administration promised when it enacted its ‘stimulus’ spending plan,” Boehner said in a statement. He urged the president to “follow the House and outline a balanced budget next week – one that includes entitlement reforms that are not conditional on enactment of more tax increases, which will suppress growth instead of encourage it.”  But the leaked White House’s plan to blame everything on the Sequester and the Republicans tells us that things are right on course… according to plan!

Video: Trump on the slowing economy, unemployment rate 

'The Donald' takes on the new jobs report, its bleak implications and why he believes the unemployment rate is higher than what's being revealed

Related:

Exclusive: Disney to begin layoffs in studio, consumer products - sources

PM Note: Sequester Furloughs Quietly Start, Obama Apologizes to AG, Fisker Layoffs

Disney to shut LucasArts games studio, lay off workers

Technorati Tags: unemployment,jobs,Sequester,Rush Limbaugh,blame Republicans,Donald Trump,Obamaland,smoke and mirrors,debt,layoffs,blame game,blame Republicans game

It Finally Hit Me: Barack Obama Will Never Be Held Responsible for Anything

The EIB - – h/t to TLA: February 13, 2013

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So yesterday I was openly complaining, some might even say whining, that I was gonna have to watch the State of the Union show. It was gonna be sickening to listen to what was being said and then to watch members of Congress stand up and essentially applaud the destruction of the country. And I talked to a bunch of people who said, "I'm not watching. I'm not gonna watch it. Not gonna spend any time on it." And I said, "Well, I have to." It reminds me of the days when I was in school and everybody told me they weren't doing their homework, so I didn't, either. Turns out they were lying. They all did their homework and I got D's and F's. Well, everybody that told me they weren't gonna watch the State of the Union ended up watching it.

I'll tell you what I thought of it, folks. I disagreed with everything the president said pretty much, in terms of his policies. I disagreed with everything he said, but it was a great speech. I liked the speech and you know what I really liked? I liked that part where he said that we all have to get along and work together to help people. I really liked that. That really scored with me. And I was watching the Frank Luntz focus group after the State of the Union speech and after Marco Rubio's response, it was on Hannity on the Fox News Channel. He had this focus group, and, if you didn't see it, it's too bad. If you did, you were looking at the very definition of low-information voters. It's amazing. They had the same reaction I had.

They disagreed with pretty much everything Obama said, policy-wise, but they supported him, and they thought it was a great speech, and they liked the part about everybody working together to get along. They liked the fact that he's gonna tackle the deficit. They liked the fact that he's gonna create jobs. They didn't agree with how he was gonna do it, but they liked that he's going to. They liked that he's gonna reduce the deficit. They liked the fact that he's gonna bring the debt down. They liked the fact that health care costs are gonna come down. Did you know that? Health care costs are already coming down and I found myself agreeing. I thought it was cool. I disagreed with, you know, how the president said he's gonna do it.

Look, I had a bit of a problem with the president on global warming where he basically said that if Congress doesn't act, he will. But I do think we need to deal with global warming. Everybody knows that. I didn't agree with much, but I liked the speech. I was very, very supportive. And Obamacare, the costs are coming down. That's good. I'm very happy about that. The debt, deficit is coming down. We're already over halfway to the targeted debt reduction of $4 trillion. So at least somebody's working on this stuff and somebody's trying to make it happen. I wasn't crazy about some of the things I heard the president say on taxes, but I had to acknowledge that the rich have been getting away with murder all these years. It's about time somebody tried to make everything fair, and who could oppose fairness.

You know, yesterday we had the Gallup poll, and on every issue except one -- and I forget what the one issue was -- every issue, every policy, by vast majority numbers, the American people disagree with Obama. A vast majority disagree with Obama on every policy. I mean, it's not close. In some cases, the numbers of people that disagree are in the 60 percentages, and the people agree with Obama are in the forties. But they liked the speech last night. They thought it was exactly what was called for.

Now, the New York Times has a story today. "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country's Direction, but Support for Obama's Agenda -- Just ahead of President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, new polls find continued public dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, yet support for several of the policies the president has said he will push in his second term." And that's what I saw in the focus group last night on Frank Luntz. They don't like the way the country's going but, man, they love what Obama's doing about it. Well, I know folks, don't ask me. I'm just telling you what I saw, what I heard, and what's in the news. It's a little conflicting. The Gallup poll people do disagree with Obama issue by issue by issue.

The New York Times says there is support for Obama's agenda but dissatisfaction with the way the country's going. See, those are two separate things. This is what we are going to have to learn to understand. Obama's agenda doesn't have anything to do with the country's direction. As far as the low-information voter is concerned, they're two separate things: support for Obama's agenda but dissatisfaction with the country's direction.

Now, you and I might say, "Well, wait a second now. The country's direction is precisely related to Obama's agenda." But no! We would be terribly wrong. Obama's agenda has nothing to do with the country's direction. Obama's agenda is about fixing it, and people support it. Now, this is also a mendacious media at work because this is exactly the opposite of what Gallup reported the day before that we discussed.

According to Gallup, the American public disapproves of every Obama policy except for his handling of defense. But the New York Times has this story that's just the exact opposite. Polls show dissatisfaction with country's direction but support for Obama's agenda. Two separate things. The Frank Luntz focus group was pretty much the same thing. They pretty much disagreed with what they heard last night in policy, but they liked the speech and they like what Obama said.

They like that somebody's working on it and they want everybody to work together. The Obama claim that the Affordable Care Act is already slowing health care costs? Now, you and I would hear something like that that the president said that last night... "Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." I know your reaction was probably the same as mine when you heard that. It's just another bald-, bold-faced lie. The truth of the matter is that Obamacare has not even been fully implemented!

How can you give credit to Obamacare for slowing health care costs when it's yet to be enacted? What is slowing health care costs, to the extent that they're slowing down, is the recession -- and that's even debatable. But, you know, in a couple of isolated areas, not very many, you can see where health care costs a little bit less than it has been costing. But that's due to the recession. It has nothing to do with Obama. But this is way too much information to the low-information voter. You can't persuade them with that.

So what I decided to do, ladies and gentlemen, is we got hold of Paul Shanklin and we decided to do a condensed version of last night's State of the Union. This is an honest, condensed version of last night's State of the Union...

JOHNNY DONOVAN: (Hail to the Chief) And now, the honest, condensed version of President Obama's State of the Union Address.

PAUL SHANKLIN AS OBAMA: My fellow Americans, fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy said something profound at his State of the Union. I... will not. Thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there isn't enough progress to my agenda. Corporate profits are evil, and we need a middle class to tax. It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country: The idea that if you work hard, you can get ahead no matter whatcha look like or how you sneaked in or who you love in a cheap motel -- or whether you have a thing for feathers, high heels, or wigs with bangs.

Now, the American people don't expect us to solve every problem. I haven't solved any, so don't worry. But they do expect us to put the nation's interests before our party. You first! In 2011, Congress passed my plan to have sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts called a "sequester" that would jeopardize our military readiness, and would most certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. So let's set party interests aside, and work to pass a solution to end the sequester crisis I manufactured right here in America.

The biggest driver of our long-term debt is old people. The Unaffordable Care Act is slowing their access to medical care, but not fast enough. We must do more! Now, our government shouldn't make promises we can't keep, but we must keep the ones we already made -- unless it was to turn a budget in on time after four years. Every day I ask myself three questions about this nation: "How do we attract more jobs to our shores?" "How do we equip our people with skills they need to get those jobs?" and "How to do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?"

Well... Well, how do we?

We now produce more oil and gas right here in America, so we must do more to combat climate change -- and if Congress won't act, I will do what I want, whenever I want. Why does Congress even exist? We need more infrastructure like roads and bridges! (Sorry. Heh, heh. I couldn't help myself.) Today, too many families with solid credit are being turned down for home loans because of unnecessary regulation, and I just now noticed.

So, uh, free pre-school for everybody! Now... Now, we all know what needs to be done. Send me a comprehensive immigration bill, in Spanish, and I will sign it. There are still places in America where you can't get ahead, like Chicago. America will run away in Afghanistan and declare victory no matter what happens. Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 -- no, not Benghazi; the other 9/11 -- is a shadow of its former self.

Cyber attacks are bad. There are many places where people live on little more than a dollar a day. Ask my brother George. Now, women deserve combat duty. And honestly, people: Just give up your guns and we'll protect you about as well as we can protect a small child on a playground in Chicago where they have plenty of gun control already. In closing, my fellow Americans, we are citizens. Honest. I have the birth certificates for both of us! God bless you, and God help the United States of America, because I won't.

(Hail to the Chief)

Thank you.

RUSH: And there you have it, my friends, our State of the Union condensed version for those of you who missed it last night. (interruption) No, I'm being entirely serious. Snerdley is scratching his head, saying, "What are you up to?" I'm not up to anything. I'm telling you exactly how the speech was perceived last night. A majority of Americans, depending on where you look, either do or don't like Obama's policies.

But they really liked the speech and they liked that he's working on this stuff. They like that he's attacking the deficit. They like that he's fixing health care. They like that he's doing all this and they hope everybody works together on it. That's what they really want. They want everybody to join hands. I saw it in the Luntz focus group. They want everybody to work together -- everybody come together -- get along and fix these problems, because we have a debt problem.

Obama's working on it, and that's good. We've got a health care problem and Obama's working on it. We've got a unemployment problem. Obama's working on it. He's got a program for it. But the thing that you gotta take away, the thing that you must understand about last night that defines everything: There is massive dissatisfaction with the country's direction. The vast majority of the American people do not like the direction in which the country is going, while at the same time there is overwhelming support for Barack Obama's agenda.

Which means that, to the vast majority of American voters, there is no relationship whatsoever between Obama's agenda and the direction of the country.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I realize in the opening segments of the broadcast that I had a little fun with this, but I do want to tell you something here that has been sort of an eye opener for me. Now, it may have been something that you understood long ago. It may have been something you put together long ago. I must confess that I only just realized this today. And it's about trying to understand how could so many people say they disagree with Obama's policies and yet reelect him. I know that you and I have expressed our puzzlement and our curiosity over the great disconnect there is in this country. The people that vote for Obama don't like where we're going, the direction of the country, the policies of Obama, yet he wins elections.

So we've all been taking our stabs at trying to explain why. Well, he won reelection because he did such a good job of demonizing Romney that he made everybody afraid to vote for Romney and they settled and just voted for Obama, vote for the guy who's already there, at least he's a known quantity. But the New York Times story today finally opens my eyes to what we're dealing with, at least for me. And, as I say, you may have understood this long ago. "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country's Direction, but Support for Obama's Agenda."

Now, you and I, in what I would call the high-information voter sector, understand what a giant disconnect that is. How in the world can people be dissatisfied with the country's direction while at the same time support the very agenda that's causing it? This just doesn't compute to you and me. We recognize that it is Obama's agenda which is leading to the problems this country has and thus the dissatisfaction that people have regarding the country's direction. But the majority of people who vote, there is no connection of those two things whatsoever. They support Obama's agenda, and they are terribly unhappy about the direction of the country, and, therefore, they do not associate Obama's agenda or his policies with the direction of the country.

They do not associate Obama's policies with what has happened to the country. They don't associate all the spending and all the debt with the lack of jobs. They don't make that connection, they don't see any connection, they don't see it at all. Now, to me this is an eye-opener, and it's going to force me to assess exactly how to go forward here in dealing with these people. The idea is to persuade them. I mean, they are the low-information voters.

Now, if they're unhappy with the economy, if they're unhappy with jobs, if they're unhappy with the debt, if they're unhappy with the housing market and yet support Obama's agenda, then they obviously do not connect Obama's policies as being in any way related to or responsible for the country's direction that they don't like, which means a number of things. It means that they see Obama as working really hard to try to fix everything, rather than Obama as the reason for things worsening. They just do not see that. And to you and me it's a slam dunk. It's one plus one is two. These are people, outcome-based education, two plus two is five and we'll give 'em an A for trying. They don't see it.

So Obama is not at all connected to the tragic destruction of this country. He is seen as somebody who wants to fix it. It's the same thing as people seeing Colonel Sanders as a guy running a hospital to save chickens. Wouldn't compute. It wouldn't make any sense. But that's how he's viewed. Now, maybe one reason is that he's successfully blamed Bush all these years and the exit polling data last November, vast majority of people still do blame Bush for the economy, but it's more than that. It's that Obama never, ever, allows himself to be seen as governing. He is constantly campaigning.

Obama is constantly seen as in competition with what's happening in Washington. It is though there are straw men. There are men behind curtains. There are invisible, evil people doing all this to the country. He's trying to expose them and he's working very hard. Romney is one of them. Bush was one of them. There are a bunch of other people, we don't know who they are. But Obama is trying to find them. He's trying to expose them and trying to fix all this. Obama is not seen as the guy behind the curtains pulling the levers. Obama is not seen as the guy who does not like the way the country was founded and is trying to take this country in a different direction. He's not seen at all in the way he really is. It can't all be because of the media.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You may have figured this out long ago, but it just hit me -- and if you figured it out long ago and you've been trying to get through here and tell me, I wish you'd have gotten through. For those of you who figured it out and I didn't, I'm just now getting to it. I apologize for being a late arrival to the party, but now -- now -- it all makes sense. For five years Obama has never once allowed himself to be seen as governing.

He is constantly campaigning against mysterious forces who have ill intentions trying to harm you and this great country. There are these figures behind the screen, behind the curtain. Romney was one. Bush was one. There are others. Obama's trying to expose them. Throughout history dictators, for example, have never really been blamed for the bad things that happened in their countries. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, none of them were blamed by the rank-and-file citizenry.

They were, instead, the leaders of the revolution!

They were the great figures trying to change all the evil that was happening to everybody. Here's Obama. Let me prove this to you. I have for you a little sound bite, 36 seconds, of people from the Frank Luntz focus group on Fox last night. Every one of these people voted for Mitt Romney. These are swing voters in Santa Monica. Now, Santa Monica's a liberal hotbed, but every one of these people that you hear voted for Mitt Romney, and they are talking about their perception of last night's State of the Union speech.

LUNTZ: From the Romney people, what did you like about Barack Obama's State of the Union Address? A couple of you...

WOMAN: I liked his immigration that he talked about putting people at the back of the line and so that they didn't get preferential treatment just because they were here.

MAN: I think education, the reform he was talking about -- affordability and making it efficient -- I think that's gonna... Education all starts from education, really.

LUNTZ: One more...

WOMAN: I like how he spoke of bipartisanship and working with Congress and moving the country forward by working together.

LUNTZ: Does he mean it?

WOMAN: I believe he means it.

LUNTZ: How many of you believe he means it, that he's gonna be more bipartisan this term than he was before?

WOMAN: He means it!

RUSH: Those people all voted for Romney, and they -- even the people that voted for Romney -- do not associate Obama with any of the problems in the country. This is what you and I are gonna have to learn and learn fast. No matter what is said, no matter what evidence happens, no matter what's reported, it will not be possible to connect Obama to the negativity that's happening in the country today because he's campaigning against it himself. That's the reason for the perpetual, never-ending campaign. It is why, in eight years, he will never allow himself for even one day to be seen as actually governing or presiding over any of this.

He's always going to be running against the very things he's doing.

END TRANSCRIPT

America – Land of the Mis, Under and Low Informed

Video: Mr.L: Sarah Palin Dismantles Obama SOTU on Twitter #SOTUGottaBeKidding 

Sarah Palin exposes the fraud of Obama’s SOTU Address

If you missed President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, you didn’t miss much – especially if you watched any of his past four State of the Union addresses.

We heard the same recycled rhetoric, and we heard his Orwellian declaration that the cornucopia of new federal programs he proposed, as well as his intention to eradicate world poverty, wouldn’t “increase our deficit by a single dime.”

Of course, he glossed over the inconvenient facts. He boasted about job creation, but didn’t mention that real unemployment is higher today than when he took office. He touted all those still undiscovered “clean energy” jobs without mentioning the tens of thousands of real jobs the Keystone Pipeline will create if he would simply allow it to be built. He sang of new energy development, but didn’t mention that new offshore leases for oil and natural gas drilling have declined a decimating 61% under his administration.

He talked about “helping” to build “a thriving middle class,” but didn’t address how the middle class is actually faring under his economic stewardship. This is important – his deception must be addressed: under his leadership, middle class families have seen the average price per gallon of gas increase 96%, the average cost of family health care premiums rise 24%, the annual cost per household from federal regulations rise to over $15,000, and real median household income decline $4,520. If this is what happens when he “helps” the middle class, then please, Mr. President, we implore you to stop “helping” us.

He talked about a “balanced approach to deficit reduction” without mentioning that $5.9 trillion has already been added to the debt since he took office. We’re $16.5 trillion in debt and he keeps digging the hole deeper! He didn’t mention his record trillion dollar deficits or the fact that his last proposed budget would add $9.2 trillion to the debt through 2022. His Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years. That’s obviously not “responsible” or “balanced.” He said, “We can’t cut our way to prosperity.” Well, we definitely can’t get there by borrowing and spending money we don’t have on his “investments” that don’t work. If indiscriminately borrowing and spending money led to prosperity, then bankruptcy would be a sign of economic strength. But it isn’t.

A State of the Union address should give us a true picture of the direction in which we are headed. But we didn’t get the truth last night. And it WAS Orwellian.

What is the true state of our union? Though this may sound harsh, I’ll speak the truth here. We are a country going bankrupt to fund a bloated, distant, and often corrupt federal government led by venal politicians more concerned with paying off their campaign cronies and consolidating their own power than in preserving the constitutional republic that so many have fought and died for (including our brave men and women in uniform who were barely mentioned last night).

We are a country with an economy being stifled under the weight of a bankrupt and voracious federal machine demanding more taxes and burdensome regulations. Job creators are the ones stuck with the bill when Obama calls for “new revenue.” Their businesses bear the brunt of the nearly 87 million paperwork hours imposed by federal regulations in 2012 – annually costing them $1.75 trillion. And I haven’t even mentioned Obamacare yet, which looms like the dark cloud it is over our private sector. Is it any wonder why our economy is stagnant or why job growth is so anemic? President Obama’s “solution” to these problems is to make the federal government more intrusive, bankrupt, and controlling.

If we continue down the path Barack Obama has us on, the long-term forecast of the state of our union is not a pretty picture. Yet he merrily rolls along it, deceiving too many Americans into thinking that these are intelligent, economic, and ethical proposals.

Our President wasn’t candid with Americans about our forecast, but, interestingly, in a Q&A session last week, Paul Krugman, one of President Obama’s economic cheerleaders at the New York Times, was remarkably candid about where we’re headed.

When asked about our federal debt, he admitted that “eventually we do have a problem” especially because “the population is getting older” and “health care costs are rising.” So, what does he see as the solution to pay for all this? He admits that your taxes will rise. And worse:

“Surely in the end it will require some middle class taxes as well. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes, not a huge one, but some increase in taxes on the middle class, maybe a value added tax. And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care – not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So, the snarky version I use, which I shouldn’t even say because it gets me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.” (But wait, I thought there’d be no such thing as “death panels,” liberal liars?)

Mr. Krugman tried to portray this brave new world in the gentlest possible light, but it’s going to take quite a lot of “sales taxes” to meet the payments on the ever-increasing multi-trillion dollar debt we’re burying our kids and grandkids under. And with health care costs rising under Obamacare, obviously a lot of care will be rationed and even flat out denied by panels of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions for you and your loved ones. This is the long-term forecast for the state of America under Obama’s failed policies: middle class taxes and death panels.

Does that sound good to you? It doesn’t to me. So, we better get motivated to do something about it. We’d better get out of our post-election funk and wake up to the radicals’ reality being created as America gets “fundamentally transformed.”

Here’s the good news: President Obama is in many ways a lame duck president. None of his ridiculous ideas will come to pass via the legislative process. Of course, he may try to force them down America’s throat by imposing them through other means. But they can be undone if the right people are in position to undo them. He is very bold right now – some would say cocky – because of his November win, but there is another election around the corner, and we can check his boldness at the ballot box by electing constitutional conservatives. We must continue to affirm the fact that growing our bankrupt federal government is NOT the solution. Most of what the federal government does could be handled better on the individual, local, and state levels.

Our country didn’t weather a Revolution, two World Wars, a Civil War, a Great Depression, and countless other political and economic storms, just to be sunk by the dangerous policies of this current administration. We’re stronger than this. As President Reagan said, “I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”

So, do something. 2014 is just around the corner. Get motivated! Get organized. America, don’t retreat. In the words of yet another White House program, “Let’s move.”

- Sarah Palin

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,Campaigner-in-Chief,watch the other hand,smoke and mirrors,Rush,Rush Limbaugh,Cloward and Piven,puppet,low-informed voters,Frank Luntz,SOTU,State of the Union,educate yourself and others,Epiphany