Rush Vs. The Party Of Soros

Politics: Democrats say Rush Limbaugh is running the Republican Party. Better Rush than George Soros, who is running the Democrats. At least Rush believes in freedom, capitalism and letting you keep what you earn.

The cover of the March 7 issue of Newsweek shows a picture of conservative icon Limbaugh with a piece of tape covering his mouth and the word "Enough!" So much for disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it. Voltaire could never be a contributor to Newsweek.

But David Frum is, and his inside cover story, "Why Rush Is Wrong," savages Limbaugh and praises President Obama in a way that makes one wonder if tingles are running up his leg like they did for MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
Frum describes a debate with, on one side, "the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims."

Never mind that Obama helped create the recession when the second-largest recipient of campaign funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac behind Chris Dodd helped pressure banks through his association with ACORN. The banks then made the very kind of risky loans that caused the mortgage meltdown.

On the other side, Frum places Limbaugh, with "his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history."

The perfect and athletic Mr. Frum forgot to blame Rush for inciting the Oklahoma City bombing, as many others on the left did.

This is what passes for public discourse these days as the mainstream media see their readers and viewers flee.
Over at MSNBC, where viewership is at microscopic Air America levels, the tingly Matthews over the weekend described Limbaugh as "a human vat of vitriol." He then ran a clip from "You Only Live Twice," where a James Bond villain pushes a victim into a piranha tank. Subtle.

"Do you know what he does?" Matthews says to the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page. "He defends capitalism." Horrors! Hide the children. To which Page responds that "ever since Reagan we've been on a trend of taxing lower-income people and giving breaks to the upper income."

Page et al. rewrite history into a lie agreed upon. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts went to those who pay taxes, to those who pull the wagon rather than those riding it.

They were not given anything. They were allowed to keep their own money. No wealth was redistributed or spread around unlike Obama's plan. The fact is that "ever since Reagan" the rich have borne an ever-increasing share of the tax burden while the poor have been removed entirely from the tax rolls.

A study for the National Center for Policy Analysis shows that from 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1% of income earners grew by nearly half, from 25.8% to 36.9%. Over that same time, wrote study author Michael Stroup, an economist and associate dean of the Nelson Rusche College of Business at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas, the burden of the bottom 50% of earners was almost halved from 6.5% to 3.3%.

The Tax Foundation has noted that in 2000, a year before the first tax cuts under Bush, roughly 30 million tax returns had no income tax liability. Every dollar those earners made they kept.

By 2004, a year after the second round of cuts was passed, 43 million returns had no tax. It estimates that, in all, more than 25 million Americans have been wiped off the federal tax rolls just by President Bush.

Yes, Rush wants Obama's socialism to fail just as liberals and Democrats wanted Bush's defense of capitalism and freedom to fail.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters taken Aug. 8-9, 2006, asked this question: Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" Fifty-one percent of Democrats said no, they did not want Bush to succeed.

Another Fox poll taken Jan. 16-17, 2007, asked respondents about the surge in Iraq: "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?" An astounding 34% said they did not want the surge to succeed. Among Democratic Party leaders the percentage was probably close to 100%.

If, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says, Rush Limbaugh "is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," it is only fair to ask: Who is his Democratic counterpart?

Our nominee is George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire and former Nazi sympathizer who helped fund MoveOn.org, the radical group that smeared Gen. David Petraeus with its "General Betray Us" ad last fall.

Through his Open Society Initiative and personal contributions Soros has funded many liberal causes and many Democratic candidates with the intent of undermining democracy and capitalism. His ultimate goal is to create a global socialist collective where we hand over our money and/or freedom and sing "Kumbaya."

For our part, we'll take Rush over Soros.

Rush believes in the Constitution and the First Amendment. He believes in freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. He believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms to protect all our freedoms.

He believes in securing our borders and taking the war on terror to the enemy and winning. He believes that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any stable society.

He believes that taxes should be low and are to fund the constitutional functions of government. He believes that government should work for us and not the other way around.

Rush does not believe, as Soros and the Democrats do, in open borders, confiscatory taxation, redistribution of wealth, a gutted military, appeasing despots or being forced under penalty of imprisonment to pay through our taxes other people's mortgages.

And, unlike George Soros and the Democrats, we will defend to the death his right to say it.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
March 10, 200

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321575363666179

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Posted March 10, 2009 06:51 PM
Read more on Articles - IBD ~ Domestic Issues and Politics