RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Audio: RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline…

When I was young, we heard over and over again that America was on its way to going down the path of all great empires, like Rome, and the degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline.   Star Parker and Rush Limbaugh addressed two aspects of our journey down that road and a look at what needs to be done to turn America around.

Reprogramming our destructive culture

Star Parker, author of Uncle Sam's Plantation touts pregnancy centers that actually give women a 'choice'

With the convictions in in the case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell – three counts of murdering live babies and one count of involuntary manslaughter – abortion is back in the national discussion.

It’s pretty clear from the Grand Jury report that, during Gosnell’s 30-plus-year career, he likely murdered hundreds if not thousands of babies. But because of the difficulty in documenting it all, he was just convicted of three.

Reports now are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or over-regulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, they say, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable.

Poor women, according to this reasoning, desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get, turn to sleazebag doctors, who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law, or safety.

But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government-subsidized abortions.

There is another choice, but those who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider this option.

This option is called birth.

When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the personal responsibility of the rest of us toward that individual.

There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. Over 2,000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for and consult with these centers.

They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their child. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child, and, if need be, help with adoption services.

Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear and lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this.

The left, so called “pro-choice” activists, have an interesting concept of a culture of responsibility. That is to promote a culture that detaches sex from love and responsibility, that minimizes the central importance of family, that justifies youth sex, promiscuity and the “hook-up” culture. In short, a culture that encourages people to relate to each other in the same callous way as it encourages women to relate to the unborn children that often result from it all.

Then they want taxpayers, other people, to foot the bill.

Is it any wonder we live in a country in which we are drowning in debt that’s the direct result of this culture of entitlement?

Planned Parenthood, which rakes in hundreds of millions in the abortion business, actively discourages women from going to crisis pregnancy centers.

On the Planned Parenthood website, they call these centers “fake clinics … that have a history of giving women wrong and biased information.”

These crisis pregnancy centers are financed and run by committed Christian Americans where often women, for the first time in their lives, experience love and meaning.

The information they get, that Planned Parenthood calls “wrong and biased,” is that life should be chosen over death and that responsibility is a community affair.

It is not a given that we must live in a country of promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies and abortion. We do have choice.

We can reprogram the destructive culture we have created and in which we now live.

Rush Limbaugh ran the following segment on his radio show this week: Social Media, the Hookup Culture -- and the Insidious Quest for Fame

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: As you know, ladies and gentlemen, I constantly use the phrase "on the cutting edge of societal evolution." One of the things I mean by that is that if you are a regular listener to this program, in many cases, you will hear things discussed long before they reach the mainstream, long before they reach the popular culture. One of those areas that I have been -- I don't know if "warning" is correct, but at least I've been -- highlighting, is the phenomenon of social media.

One of the things that always bothered me about it was the pop culture's temptations. People, young kids are desperately wanting fame, doing anything they can to get noticed or to become famous, thinking that it's glamorous, that it's fun, that it will make them rich. It has, in fact, given rise to all kinds of gossip networks, television newspaper columns, you name it. Even though gossip's been around for a long time, it's now become mainstream.

Entertainment programs, starting actually with Entertainment Tonight and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, were programs that created an impression that if you became famous, that the world was your oyster. Everybody wants to be noticed and everybody wants their life to matter, and everybody wants to be cool, and everybody wants to be hip. So with the advent of social networks on computers and mobile devices, it became possible for young people to start connecting in any which way they wanted to.

It was a phenomenon I noticed many years ago. Young people were just giving up every bit of information about themselves they could. They were violating their own privacy, seeking fame, wanting everybody to know everything about them, publishing nude photos of themselves, lewd photos, you name it. As one that's concerned about the overall culture, I happen to believe that a society's culture is a harbinger of what kind of country you're going to be.

Now, I've always had to avoid and be cognizant of the fact that as people grow older and then look at other generations, they think, "Oh, my God, this is horrible! It has never been this bad, this raunchy, this debauched. The country's finished." You have to avoid that because every generation looking at young people thinks that. So you have to be constantly vigilant that you don't become an old fuddy-duddy when looking at these things. At the same time, you have to be honest about it.

I really am governed here by love as I do this show each and every day. When I say these things, I mean them. I want a great country. I want people happy. This has got to be a great country if we are to continue to provide the opportunity, both economic and spiritual, for freedom that this country has always provided, more so than any other country ever. A great country is only as great as its people, and at some point people have to get serious.

At some point when they grow older and mature, they have to get serious, and certain things have to be revered, including certain cultural things. There have to be "guardrails," to borrow a term that I once saw on a Wall Street Journal editorial about just out-of-control pop culture. Morality, the sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility, all of those things are fundamental. Who teaches that? The schools are not.

Social media is, of course, obliterating those concepts. It's just exact opposite. The role is more important now than ever, and it's really up to parents. If you happen to believe, for example, that the culture is out of control, and if you would phrase it in a way to say, "The genie is out of the bottle," how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You don't. You never can put the genie back in the bottle.

But what you can do is start anew with a certain generation and try to raise them/educate them in ways that send them in different directions than the temptations that exist now. And they're always there. I don't want to be misunderstood. This kind of thing has gone on as long as the country has. But, however, there are factors now that exist that didn't. I've always been... Without being able to put my finger on it, I've been worried about what is going to happen to people who just dive head first into this anything-goes, no-judgment culture where there is no more privacy.

There is no concern for it, and people just want everybody to know everything about them every minute of the day -- what they're doing, what they're thinking, where they're going, when they got there, how long they're gonna be there, when they're leaving. There are apps for such things for people's mobile devices, and one of the things that has been around for a while (I first heard of it way back in the nineties) was the notion of "hooking up," something that scared particularly mothers like crazy.

It's just the notion of having meaningless sex -- and not even for the sex, not even for the enjoyment. It's just to say you've done it, just to be able to brag about it and so forth and taking meaning out of it. These kinds of things take place when you're young, and as you get older and grow up, everybody looks back on things when they were younger. Some people get embarrassed. Some say, "Gee, I wish that didn't happen. I wish nobody knew that." That's gonna be tougher and tougher for people to pull off. Because as young kids get exposed to all the social media, they're telling everybody everything they're doing.

I mean, we're getting to the point now where I think it's gonna be common that candidates for political office will have posted nude photos of themselves (or worse) on social websites. The first known example of that that I can recall is a woman that's now a cohostette on MSNBC. Her Name Is Krystal Ball. She may not be the first but she's the one that comes to mind. She ran for office. She lost, but there are nude photos (sic) of her that she had posted. Her opponent decided to use them and she was outraged that such things would be used.

Anthony Weiner --- who, by the way, is gonna run for office again. He's gonna run for mayor of New York, and you ought to see the New York Post. Their Web app, if you have an iPad and you get the New York Post... This is not on their website, and I don't know that it's in the newspaper. I don't read newspapers. It may be in the printed edition, but I know it's in the iPad version. There's a column by Andrea Peyser on Weiner, who is the husband of Huma Weiner. Hillary's Huma.

She just rakes him over the coals as most everybody's doing, and then there's a sidebar called "the Twitterati Response," and it's people on Twitter issuing comments about the potential reemergence of Weiner. It's hilarious, some of these comments. I didn't print it out. I'll do it; I'll share some of it with you. Well, the reception is all across the gamut. He's getting a warm reception in some places. Everybody's happy. "Weiner's rising again!" All the typical things.

But the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, is lamenting, "Oh, my God! Woe is us if this guy wins. Oh, it's our bad if this guy wins." Why is he saying that? Anthony Weiner is a perfect liberal. Anthony Weiner is an ideal liberal. He's a combative liberal. He will take conservatives to the back alley and beat 'em up every day. If he hadn't posted the nude photos of himself and his member to the babes, he'd be right in there. He'd be on the ladder cruising to the top of liberalism.

But why do they care? This is the kind of thing that normally launches liberals to great heights. This kind of embarrassment or failure is a resume enhancement for these people. But it isn't, you see? This is my point. Even for liberals it isn't. He's gonna have his problem here. Krystal Ball had hers. It's gonna become more and more frequent. Folks, look, I'm not an old fuddy-duddy. It just concerns me, only from the standpoint that you want serious people.

You want at least 5% of the population being serious. That five, 6% of the population carries the rest of the people. You've heard that old axiom: 5% of the people pull the wagon; 95% are in it. You need five or 6% of the population serious about things: Their jobs, their careers, the country, understanding it. You need that. I'm just all for anything that continues to teach that, and cause people to respect it and to revere it. I cringe... I mean, I laugh, too, but I cringe when I see videos of these man-on-the-street interviews that Leno does. People are clueless. They don't know diddly-squat about things.

Anyway, I've gotta take a break here.  I have a couple of sound bites I want to play because this is finally now reached mainstream media.  My point about being on the cutting edge of societal evolution.  I've been warning, talking about this for at least 20 of the 25 years that I've been doing this program here at the EIB Network.  I bring to it a certain experience.  I have lost my anonymity.  I know what it's like to lose your anonymity and I know what it's like to have no privacy.

I know what it's like to not be able to go anywhere and do anything anonymously.  And I'm telling you, when you lose that and you can't get it back, that's a huge regret, and there are a lot of people that want that.  And I don't think it's healthy, and I think it leads to distorted values and distorted decisions that people make about their lives and a number of other things that are not healthy for them and the country the large.  Now, again, do not confuse me with an old fuddy-duddy like my parents who thought the world was coming to an end because the Beatles had long hair.  That's not where I'm coming from here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A minor correction.  And this, by the way, feeds into my point.  I got it wrong about Krystal Ball.  She did not pose nude.  The Krystal Ball photos were not nude.  The photos depicted her doing sexually suggestive things at a party.  Well, my memory was that the controversy was over nude photos.  This is how things get wrong or made wrong, and then amplified as wrong and then, "No, no, it wasn't a nude photo, gosh, can't anybody get it right?" You people that want all this fame, get used to everybody being wrong about you.

At any rate, just a correction here.  They were not nude photos of Krystal Ball on her website, for her blog, whatever it was.  They were just photos of her doing sexually suggestive things.  I have no idea if they're still online.  Literally no idea.  You know what?  I'm not interested.  This is my point.  What, are you sitting in there all excited now to find the pictures?  Well, I'm not the least bit inspired to go try find them.

At any rate, this morning on Fox Martha MacCallum had a guest who has written a book about this phenomenon called hooking up, and the guest was Donna Freitas.  And I think that's how she pronounces the name.  Her book is: "The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy." And Martha MacCallum said, "Where do we go from here?  How does this affect, or does it affect these kids' relationships as they go through life?"

FREITAS:  One of the things that I think we really need to talk about as a culture is what is the meaning of sex, given hookup culture.  You showed those words that students will use, "regretful" and "empty" and "ashamed," you know, that 41% of students, you know, and how they respond to hooking up.  But there's another middle group, about 30% of students, who are really ambivalent.  And I think that group is getting bigger because I think students are getting much better at hooking up, which means they're getting better at having ambivalent sex.  The sex isn't about fun or even really about pleasure.  It's about getting it done and being able to say that you did it.

RUSH:  That's right.  And that last part is the key.  What are you frowning at?  Snerdley said, "So what? What's wrong with this, people having sex, who in the world could be upset with that?"  Is that what you're saying?  Well, she went out there and she did surveys of these students.  She talked to the students, I guess. (interruption) Well, I don't know, she did a book on it, Snerdley. She talked to the students and the students told her, and that's what she based her book on.  Any, here's what Martha MacCallum said in response it.

MACCALLUM:  That's the whole thing, just documenting, 'cause we live in this media culture where it's like, you know, the numbers and just doing something just to say you did it or to take pictures of the event and then put it out there online so you can prove to everybody that you're having a great time.

FREITAS:  They're getting better at hooking up.  You know, when they're better at being able to walk away and say, "You know what, I don't feel a thing. I don't want to see that person again. It didn't really mean anything to me."

RUSH:  Now, this has been going on, this hookup business, for years, folks.  And it is meaningless, and it is just a belt notch.  But you know one of the most dangerous things about all this social media is?  And I think it's gonna be a big challenge for anybody that has to deal with kids and young adults.  It's not just this quest for fame and giving up all the privacy.  Most kids are insecure, it's safe to say.  And when they read all of this social media, what they are really seeing is all the stuff they are not doing.  They see all the stuff other people are doing and they say, "I'm not doing all that," and they're gonna get inferiority complexes over this, which creates its own set of problems.  They're gonna set out trying to fix this.  It's a snowball effect.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I tell you, all this stuff is not good, folks.  Look at what feminism has done for women.  Look what feminism's done for everybody.  It's just confused everybody and made most people miserable.  We got more.  We'll be back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to close the loop here on the hooking-up business, but for me it's much more than that. The hooking up is just one characteristic of the phenomenon that's happening. The hooking up business has been going on a long time. Tom Wolfe wrote a nonfiction book called Hooking Up in 2000. He said a lot of kids that are hooking up don't know each other's names. So it's not just this babe that talked to the students, Snerdley. It's Tom Wolfe. Are you gonna tell me Tom Wolfe doesn't know what he's talking about?

I do think that it's a phenomenon. I don't question that it's happening. Look, Bill Clinton didn't ask Monica her name 'til the sixth date. This hooking up can happen. It's happened throughout. I know. The sixties, the free love and the free sex. But look what that begot us. That's my whole point. I mean, we are living some of the trash that happened in the 1960s, and some of those people -- many of them -- assumed office, political office, high power in the Clinton years. It's demonstrably problematic. There's no question that it is.

The disintegrating values? The idea that the IRS, all these institutions can be used to intimidate political foes? That stuff has roots in the sixties. That's actually a very good point about this. But I want to bring it down even more locally than that, and not just tie it to what happens when people end up into politics from this. I'm actually more concerned just about their lives in general. I'm telling you, this willingness that these kids have to just vomit everything about themselves to everybody and give up their privacy, and give up their anonymity...

It's not so much just that; it's why they're doing it. This quest for fame, I'm telling you, it is insidious to me. It's copycats. You know, fame by itself is how you get Kardashian. Now, people who become famous after having done something -- a major achievement, major accomplishment -- that's one thing. But fame for its sake is a pursuit that is empty, and it's endless, and it's never satisfying. But the big problem with all of this social media in addition to the obvious, and I think one of the most dangerous things about it...

Look, I don't have kids, but I've got nephews and nieces. More than that, I really do care. All of this concern for me is about country. When I tell you that I want a great country, I mean I want self-reliant, rugged individuals taking care of themselves and their families. That's how you get Norman Rockwell communities and neighborhoods and towns. That's how you get decency and respect and a common, valuable culture. I think that you have that crucially important.

Yeah, it may sound old-fashioned and it may sound like I want to go back to the fifties and the Donna Reed shows. No, no. That's not what I'm talking about. The stuff I'm talking about is timeless, and these characteristics are the things that used to be commonly taught. Honor, valor, honesty, integrity. That's all I'm talking about. It's things like this that people laugh at today, but people are just willingly abandoning any hope, any chance of having those characteristics about themselves.

The debasement of the language is part of that; you see that now in prime time TV. The debasement of the language is happening really quickly. Taken in isolated chunks it isn't any big deal. But the cumulative, year-after-year impact of this is not good for the country. That's always been my concern. It's my concern with politics: Its effect on the country and the people. The people of the country are what matter to me. Having the continued opportunity to do what they want, to fulfill their dreams.

Have the desires and dreams be things of importance and substance, rather than fleeting, fly-by-night things that really don't offer any substantive satisfaction. It's a real change for parents today, I would think. I'd think it would be a real challenge, especially for parents of young girls. I just think it would be an absolute nightmare out there today, constant concern, worry. You start talking about hooking up stuff, just one thing. But the biggest danger, I think -- or one of the most dangerous things -- about all this is not just this quest for fame and the giving up of all privacy.

Add to this that most kids are insecure, and then add another human characteristic, and it is this: The grass always looks greener. Everybody. I don't care who you are, you always think everybody else is happier. Everybody else is more normal. Everybody else doesn't have the problems you do. It's just a natural thing to think. A lot of people think this way. And when you start reading social media or watching television shows and you see depictions of people in certain ways, and you know that that doesn't in any way depict you?

Then what does that make you feel like if you're not emotionally secure? I think that all the social media just adds to this. You add up this natural insecurity that everybody has, particularly amplified in kids, and this idea that the grass is always greener and that somebody else's life -- everybody else's life -- is more fulfilling and better than yours or whatever. It's just a fact of life for most people. When young kids read all of this social media... There's tons and oodles of it out there.

When they read all this stuff and they see all the stuff they're not doing... My dad used to tell it to me this way. He said, "Son, all your friends bragging to you about all the things they're doing are lying to you. All they're doing is telling you the things they wish they were doing, and they're just trying to impress you," and that's social media. How many people are lying about where they are every night going to these clubs or whatever it is they're doing that they think is fun.

You've got these kids sitting at home not do all this stuff, reading about it -- and, man, all they're seeing is things that they're not doing. Compared to everybody else who seems to be really having a ball out there. "Gosh, my life is boring at hell! Look what all these people are doing!" What's it gonna make 'em want to do? Kids lie about their social achievements like everybody else lies about their social achievements: To impress everybody.

You've got this wild collection of insecurity and kids reading all this. In addition to the complex they could develop, because they think they're missing out on all this cool stuff, that creates its own set of problems. Either depression or a madcap desire to catch up and experience all these things that they think are cool, that people really aren't doing but they think they are. Now, none of this is new in a psychological sense. I'm not saying any of this is new and hasn't been the case before, but the sheer volume of all this stuff that they can expose themselves to could be overwhelming.

I've always had a bad feeling about it.

I don't even have any kids, but I've always had a bad feeling about it, knowing in my own limited way what losing your anonymity means, what it really means, and whole business of fame. Nothing is ever what you really think it is. When you're young -- when you're any age -- and you're imagining a promotion at the job or you're imagining new place to live or whatever? When you finally get there, it's never really entirely what you think it is. There are always things about it you didn't consider. It's just... I don't know. It's a problem for parents, and I think it just becoming more and more intensified.

In fact, I have call. Let me grab a call on this. This is Jeff in Goshen, New York. Hi, Jeff. I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks so much for having me on.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I heard your comments on social media, and I had to call in. You hit the nail on the head. These kids have no idea what they're giving up in way of their privacy when you put this stuff out there. I'm actually the director of the IT department for a manufacturing group. So I've done a... I thought I did a good job at educating my kids. I have four kids: Two girls, two boys. The girls being the oldest. One's a teenager, and she dabbled in social media.

She kinda went around my back a little bit to dabble in it, and when I found out, I showed her with just her e-mail address all the information I can pull up -- on her Vines account, her Instagram, her Ask.fm -- and I said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it." These days kids don't know what they're giving up, and I think what's worse is the parents don't know what their kids are doing or what their kids are giving up. And we're doing a terrible job in the schools. They're not educating kids.

RUSH:  Well, that's another aspect because the kids are so far ahead of parents on what you can do online.  Parents have no concept.

CALLER:  No.  And Facebook, I know a lot of the teenage kids today, they don't want Facebook 'cause mom and dad are on it.  So they're finding other things, and my only advice to parents is, "Know what your kids are doing. Talk to them about it."  You know, I use the stuff.  I like social media for its positive aspects.  But Rush, you and I know, you can take the best tool in the world that's made for good purposes, and turn it for evil things.  And that's what happens with the social media sites.

RUSH:  That's a good point.  I'm not preaching.  I don't want anybody to think I'm preaching, and I don't want anybody inferring that I think this stuff should be shut down.  Far from it.  That's not at all a possible solution, not even something I contemplate.  It's a reality that has to be dealt with.  You're right, it's a challenge for parents in raising kids.  It just gets harder and harder to do.  There are just more and more distractions. More temptations, and do what you can to provide a solid moral foundation.  And after a certain point, you're done. There's not much you can do, and then, it's true, people have to live. They have to live their lives. They have to make mistakes to learn from 'em, and you hope that the foundation you gave 'em is sufficient that when they do screw up, have embarrassing things happen or whatever, that there is a foundation from which they can learn from it and not repeat it.  Anyway, Jeff, I appreciate the call.  I really do.

When we come back, folks, I just wanted to get into this because it's finally reached the pinnacle here of the pop culture, the mainstream culture, talking about this, and you've been on the cutting edge. We've been talking about this for many, many moons now.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related:

You Cannot Honor What You Don’t Know Or Miss

Americans 'snapping' by the millions

FOXNews: 'Shame on Us': New York Gov. Cuomo Rips Anthony Weiner Comeback Bid

FOXNews: The "Hook-Up Culture": Dates Are Dead, Sex Is Alive?

Weekly Standard: Weiner: More Lewd Photos Might Come Out

New York Post: Anthony Weiner Hides from the Tough Questions and Serves Up Pizza for Reporters

Impeachment: Rush is wrong this time

Technorati Tags: saving America,social media,culture,indoctrination of our kids,indoctrination of our children,manipulation of the public,dumbing down of America,the family unit,parenting,grandparents,values,tradition,history,Rush Limbaugh,Star Parker,Dr. Kermit Gosnell,abortion,welfare,Anthony Weiner

Marco Rubio, His Chief of Staff Cesar Conda, Amnesty, George Soros and the Grander Plan

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

FireAndreaMitchell.com: Cesar Conda, Marco Rubio’s Chief of Staff previously worked for George Soros. Conda recently made his Tweets private (protected) so the general public can’t ready them. Cesar Conda has been pushing amnesty for illegals on Twitter and elsewhere as Marco Rubio’s PR agent. Conda, who is an immigration lawyer, went to work for George Soros before becoming Rubio’s Chief of Staff. Cesar Conda worked on the editorial advisory board of the George Soros magazine, The International Economy Magazine.

Cesar Conda had been spinning lies about the amnesty bill about how illegals wouldn’t get welfare, wait more than 10 years for citizenship, etc. Those lies have been completely debunked. So has the sham of border enforcement.

Another Rubio spokesperson, Alex Conant, recently compared illegal aliens living and working in this country to the institution of slavery.

So now you understand why Marco Rubio is so gung ho for amnesty. He surrounds himself with a George Soros monkey like Cesar Conda and other idiots like Alex Conant. Sad that Rubio is turning to be such a huge disappointment. At this point, he doesn’t seem much different than Charlie Christ and Rubio’s eligibility is also in question.

Even the left wing media is in love with Conda. Check out this gushing review of him by leftist biased National Journal:

Conda has one of the toughest jobs in town right now: He has to help Rubio negotiate an immigration bill with the rest of the Gang of Eight that will be palatable to Republicans and not damage his boss’s conservative credentials in the process. “That’s a tough circle to square, but I think Cesar is the right man for the job,” said Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the pro-immigration reform group America’s Voice. “Rubio is really lucky to have Cesar Conda as his chief of staff.” Conda, known among colleagues for his even temper, has been working on the issue since the early 1990s when he was part of a group of young, libertarian-minded, pro-immigration conservatives. His government experience runs deep: He worked for former Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and was an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He also spent time in the private sector as a lobbyist and analyst for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and founded the Washington office of a consulting firm called Navigators Global.

The left must think of Cesar Conda as their Hispanic Obama or something.

After reading the above… it suddenly makes a lot of things much clearer… Ding, ding, ding… RINO ALERT or worse!!

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of time analyzing Obama's speech to the students in Mexico City. That’s right, students of Mexico City. One of the aspects of his speech in Mexico to the students at the Anthropology Museum, was about Mexican sovereignty and American sovereignty and how we've pushed our sovereignty on them. He was talking about the fact that too many Mexicans still consider Southern California theirs, parts of New Mexico and Arizona theirs. He was agreeing with them (imitating Obama) "Well, I understand how you feel. We've pushed our sovereignty. We're gonna change all this."

Then on CBS Sunday Morning, their correspondent Mo Rocca did a report about the impact of the Mexican-American War on today's debate on immigration reform. Mo Rocca is a comedian, but he is Dead Serious that greedy America stole half of Mexico in an unjust war and is peddling that message. I guess he became known to people on The Daily Show, but this is a straight news story and it's aimed right at America's low-information voters. He went to Mexico to explain the Mexican-American War and he made the case that the United States had no reason for the war, that we're guilty. There was no reason for us to go conquer Mexico. There was no reason for us to shed blood. It's fascinating. The low-information voters in this country, or as the former USSR propaganda paper, Pravda, called them… the Sheeple, are being conditioned to believe that California really is Mexico; that it's not right that it's America. And the same thing with New Mexico and parts of Arizona.

Add President Obama’s speeches to students in Mexico and on campuses throughout the US, where he tells them to ignore "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective, to Rocca’s campaign and you have the making of an insurrection.

We are being maneuvered into a box by the leftist lemmings in the complicit U.S. media, the RINO’s and globalists in both parties, and the policies of the Obama White House who are manipulated by people like George Soros.  The goal is a Progressive Democrat victory in the Senate and the House in 2014 and a maneuvered choice of globalist-agenda presidential candidates from both sides to take us to open borders. Big Government everywhere and a new economic world order. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton seem to the globalist frontrunners, at least at this time, for 2016 giving Americans no choice at all and giving America the final push into oblivion.

It is time to connect the dots and share what you learn with everyone you know.  If there was ever a time to get involved and stand-up for freedom and sovereignty it is now… for it is almost too late.

Related:

Lew: Prepare for New World Order if US Defaults

Report: Average legalized illegal would receive $592,000 more in benefits than they pay in taxes

Sessions: Gang Of Eight Bill Would Surge Low-Skill Immigration, Hurt Working Americans

Amnesty – Solidifying the Marxist Control of America for Decades, If Not Permanently

Obama Tells Ohio State Grads to Reject the "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective

James Carville Correctly Explains the "Limbaugh-ian" View on Amnesty

Elites on the Left -- and the Right -- Would Be Happier If This Show Didn't Exist

Rubio Opposes Independent Investigation into Benghazi Consulate Attack

Kissinger in 2008: There Will Be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever is Elected President

THE ELECTION OF 2012… And the Future

2016 – The Election of the First Female President of the United States? – Hillary Doesn’t Deserve Our Admiration or Another Shot at the Presidency

Quote of the Day:  “The only upside to the Amnesty Bill, Benghazigate, the Obama-Boston Bomber connection and the like is that it separates the journalists from the haircuts.”

Technorati Tags: George Soros,watch the other hand,connecting the dots,RINO,Marco Rubio,Amnesty,Amneyst Bill,Gang of Eight,George Soros network,Alex Conant,Network,NWO blueprint,global elites,secure the border first,secure the borders,Obama's agenda,smoke and mirrors|,Gang of 8,Cesar Condo

Amnesty Rubio Style?

As everybody in Washington is watching the fall-out and drama from the marathon, and is hopefully paying attention to the latest amazing series leaks from the FBI, DHS and the White House about their involvement,2016 Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio appeared on a series of TV gigs promoting the gang of eight’s immigration bills, which is slowly being dubbed “Amnesty Rubio-style”. Did he convince the American people that he did not break his Senate campaign promise in 2010 that he would oppose amnesties for illegal aliens? It is not appearing so.

The front page of the Washington Post trumpeted:

Rubio takes big risk on immigrant legislation

Senator's endorsement of bipartisan plan could prove costly in 2016

Getty Images

On the cusp of introducing a new immigration bill, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared on five Sunday morning news shows and strongly denied that the proposal will offer amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Amnesty is the forgiveness of something. There will be consequences for having violated the law,” Rubio said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “No one who has done it the wrong way will get in before [legal immigrants]…in no way will having done this the wrong way be a reward.

Instead, Rubio said the bipartisan deal being proposed by the so-called Gang of Eight “gives people access to the legal immigration system.” Under the process, those in the country illegally would need to come forward and pass a “rigorous background check.” If they pass, they would pay fines and application fees to receive a guest worker permit allowing them to stay and “work, travel and pay taxes.” After 10 years, they would qualify to go through the existing legalization system.

He said the agreement modernizes the legal immigration system to make it more merit-based and jobs-based, rather than dependent on whether you know someone already living in the U.S. It will also put in place more effective enforcement mechanisms, Rubio said.

He said that while “obviously there’s political ramifications to everything in Washington, that certainly isn’t the reason I’m involved in doing this.”

Arrested Illegal: "Obama Will Let Me Go":

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The captured illegal said to the Border Patrol agent, "I don't care, go ahead and capture me. Obama is gonna let me go." It's reminiscent of 2009 after Obama was inaugurated and they had all those town hall meetings. "Don't worry, Obama is gonna fix my kitchen." Well, the illegal arrivals crossing the border in Texas are not sweating it because Obama is gonna let them go.

RUSH: It was our radio affiliate down there, WOAI radio in San Antonio. Here's the audio sound bite. This is during the correspondent Jim Forsyth's report, Brooks County Rancher Linda Vickers said this about what a border patrol agent had recently told her while detaining an illegal immigrant.

LINDA VICKERS: He was (the Border Patrol agent) loading one up, and he said the illegal in Spanish told him, "Obama's gonna let me go."

RUSH: Well, that shouldn't surprise anybody. I mean, all we're talking about here is amnesty and so-called border security. By the way, the border security push, there's a little confusion about this. Folks, I have to tell you, I'm being inundated with details from the offices of various members of the Gang of Eight. And then I have a New York Times story here which says that Chuck-U Schumer is all on board for border security, but get this. This is right from the New York Times.

"The bill allows a period of 10 years for the Department of Homeland Security to make plans and use resources to fortify enforcement at the borders and elsewhere within the country before it sets several broader hurdles that could derail the immigrants' progress toward citizenship if they are not achieved."

Now, everybody thinks that border security -- well, we're being told border security is gonna happen first and if it doesn't happen the rest of the bill doesn't happen. But apparently some factions here are pushing for 10 years to secure the border after everything else in the bill being agreed to. Now, this is all still up for grabs, I think. I don't think any of it's etched in stone. There will be some hearings on this. I don't know how many. We'll just have to wait and see. "The bill allows for a period of 10 years." All this talk of amnesty, for one thing, you know darn well it's gonna increase the influx of people trying to cross the border. And then all this talk of border security, that's gonna increase the influx. There's gonna be people trying to get in and beat that, which is what's happening.

And these guys are being caught, this is what the rancher down in San Antonio told our affiliate down there, WOAI, "Obama's gonna let me go." Not worried about it. Just one. But how commonplace must it be?

END TRANSCRIPT

And will it change or stop after the Gang or Eight’s plan goes into effect?? Most think not…

ANN COULTER: IF RUBIO'S AMNESTY IS SO GREAT, WHY IS HE LYING?:

When Republicans start lying like Democrats, you can guess they are pushing an idea that's bad for America. During his William Ginsburg-like tour of the Sunday talk shows last weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio was the Mount Vesuvius of lies about his immigration bill.
Here is how Rubio explained the powerful border-enforcing mechanism in his bill on "Fox News Sunday," which he denied was merely a meaningless goal:

"Basically, Homeland Security will have five years to meet that goal. If after five years, Homeland Security has not met that number, it will trigger the Border Commission, who will then take over this issue for them."

So the water torture awaiting the Department of Homeland Security if it fails to secure the border is ... ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WILL BE CREATED! Take that, Homeland Security! Ha -- we have you now!

The only thing more frightening than "another government commission" is a "strongly worded letter."

Rubio said his comprehensive immigration plan isn't amnesty because "amnesty is anything that says 'do it illegally, it will be cheaper and easier.'" But, he assures us, it's "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home and wait 10 years" -- as the law currently requires -- "than it will be to go through this process that I've outlined."

Then why is he doing it? If it's "cheaper, faster and easier" for illegals to apply for citizenship under current law, what exactly does Rubio's plan accomplish?

Is it to encourage illegals to go home and apply through normal channels? You know, since that's so much easier. Then why does he oppose enforcing the law on the books now? He dismisses enforcement of current law as trying to make "life miserable to them so that they'll self-deport," which he claims won't work.

Does his plan make them just a little bit miserable so maybe some of them will "self-deport"? (Which doesn't work, according to him.) Or is he lying about it being "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home"?
Rubio keeps trotting out the canard about the bounty of taxes we're going to collect from millions more minimum-wage workers when illegals are legalized, stoutly asserting: "In order to keep this legal status, you must be gainfully employed and you must be paying taxes."

It's as if he's talking to someone who has never been to America and is unfamiliar with its tax system.

By "paying taxes," Rubio means "filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit." Another term for what Rubio calls "paying taxes" is "receiving welfare" -- which newly legalized illegals will start receiving right away under Rubio's plan. The only tax they'll pay is the same tax they pay now: sales tax.

But, incomprehensibly, Rubio swore up and down that the newly legalized illegal immigrants won't get government benefits: "And then they don't qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare."

How on Earth does Rubio plan to enforce this "important point"?

Just three weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted down a proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under Obamacare. At the time, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez sneered at Republicans opposing Obamacare for illegals, saying, "This is not a great way to try to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community."

Forcing Republicans to spend the next two decades arguing that poor Hispanic children shouldn't have access to government benefits like health care and food programs sounds like a terrific way to win over the Hispanic vote!

Is it going to be easier or harder for Republicans to deny welfare to 20 million newly legalized illegal aliens than it is for them to simply say that people who have broken our laws should not be on a fast-track to citizenship?

Also, is Rubio planning to stop his newly legalized illegal aliens from having children? The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

(It seems that, after the Civil War, what the framers of the 14th Amendment had at the top of their agenda was not invalidating the Dred Scott decision and confirming the citizenship of former slaves, but ensuring that, a century hence, the children of any foreigners who manage to sneak into the country illegally and give birth would become full-fledged U.S. citizens.)

As I've noted before, Hispanic women have a higher illegitimate birthrate than any other ethnic group in the country, including blacks. Currently, 71 percent of illegal immigrant households with children collect federal benefits.

In California -- which will be America if Rubio's plan goes through -- 82 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant are on welfare, as are 61 percent of households headed by legal immigrants, according to the March 2011 Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.

If you think Republicans are Hispandering now, wait until the children of 20 million illegal aliens start to vote. Rubio's amnesty isn't just bad for America, it's the end of America.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER  -  TRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Technorati Tags: Rush Limbaugh,secure the borders,Amnesty,illegals,undocumented workers,illegal aliens,Obamaland,Senator Marco Rubio,wake-up America,immigration Hispandering,gang of eight,RINOS,Ann Coulter,ObamaCare,smoke and mirrors

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