Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

"Pearls of wisdom"

For those of you unfamiliar with Rush Limbaugh's show, you should know that he understands and explains the liberal news media better than anyone else out there (which is why he is regularly demonized by said media).  Prime example right here:

"The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News," which means the administration gave it to 'em, "provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens."
Remember all the grief that George Bush got for warrantless wiretaps on phone calls?  Do you remember that?  I remember when Bush was president, the American left was literally having conniption fits.
Does that mean Nixon coulda killed Bill Ayers?  It does mean that.  Bill Ayers or the Weathermen. He had an active plot against the US, bombed the Pentagon.  If Nixon had assumed the kind of power that Obama's assuming, he could have sent a commando team out to wipe out Bill Ayers.  You can't kill rogue leaders.  No, you cannot.  By law, we cannot assassinate foreign leaders.  We can now kill Americans, as long as we say they are related to Al-Qaeda somehow.  And that link isn't too tough.  Al-Qaeda hates America.  All you have to do is hate America and it could be said that you are an associated force. 
Remember all of the anger that the left had over waterboarding.  And look at this now.  I think I have this right.  Constitutional scholar Barack Obama is demanding the right to kill American citizens without making his case to a judge, as long as he thinks the American in question is in an upper tier of operations of Al-Qaeda or a related group.  But he can't waterboard the guy.  You can kill him, but we can't waterboard him.  We can kill the son of a..., but we can't torture him.  Have I got this right?  I think I do.  I thought you should know. 


 Take this, for another example:
Now, in this story, the New York Times cites a professor who says, quote, "Voting is one of the most sacred rights you have.  They should make it as painless as possible," implying that it's really painful now to vote.  It's really hard.  It's too hard.  The Republicans are out there demanding everybody have a picture.  The Republicans are demanding that everybody who vote actually be a citizen.  The Republicans are demanding that everybody who vote actually be registered.  That's too hard.  And it's undemocratic.  And the justices have gotta sweep all these restrictions away.  
Now, is voting any more of a sacred right than owning a gun?  Because these same people want to make that as painful as possible.  Same people, same people want to make owning a gun as painful as they can make it, and voting as painless as they can make it.  " "With studies suggesting that long lines at the polls cost Democrats hundreds of thousands of votes in November, party leaders are beginning a push to make voting and voter registration easier, setting up a likely new conflict with Republicans."  Now, what does voter registration have to do with long lines to vote?  Voter registration doesn't have anything to do with Election Day.  But it will.  Because if they get their way you're gonna be able to do both on the spot. On the spot registration, you register, then you go vote, same thing, same time.  Yep.  That's the next phase. 

And another:
Now, on health care law: Actually, the original number was $900 billion, and the Iraq war cost was a trillion. We were actually gonna "save" $100 billion by doing Obamacare. Now they're saying that the overall ten-year cost is $1.3 trillion, and that is going to escalate even more. Now, here's a piece in TheHill.com. I'm not gonna read a bunch of excerpts, but I'll just tell you this. If you read to the middle of this piece, you'll find all you need to know about this supposedly "nonpartisan" CBO.
Here's what it says: "The CBO has concluded that health care reform, in spite of its price tag, will ultimately reduce the deficit because of revenue-raisers within the bill."
Whereas, "A House GOP bill to repeal the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over about 10 years, the CBO said in 2012." You see? The cost of Obamacare, $1.3 trillion, will lower the deficit. But doing away with it would raise the deficit. I kid you not. That's what passes for "nonpartisanship" from the Congressional Budget Office, and it's what passes for news. So we're gonna spend $1.3 trillion that we don't have, and somehow we're gonna lower the deficit.


Rush Limbaugh is also a master of seeing the consequences and political reasons behind the moves of politicians and their policies. Take this, as yet another example (and for full context and explanation please follow the link):
"This brings us back to Kasich and his decision." Now, again to refresh your memory, remember Obamacare has a bunch of cuts. From Medicaid, it cuts $700 billion. See, they had to bring Obamacare in under a trillion dollars. They didn't have to, but they wanted to as a means of telling voters it wasn't gonna cost anything. The Iraq war... Remember these numbers? The Iraq war cost us a trillion dollars, and so they said, "We're gonna end the Iraq war, and we're gonna do health care. So it's a net wash in terms of money at present being spent. There no new money!"
This is what they said. But in order for them to be able to say that (with a wink and a nod), the number as scored by the CBO had to come in under a trillion dollars. Well, the way this was achieved, in part, was the federal government, via Obamacare, makes the states pick up all these Medicaid expenses. All of it. That was the only way to do it, because the states can't print money like the federal government can. They have to come up with the money.

No comments:

Post a Comment