Limbaugh, Palin Right, Obama Wrong

Tomorrow (Thursday), I'll discuss Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million resident. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million provide 63% of the city's revenue. What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? It would do real harm to city services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do ? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people. Is Obama aware of such situations? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama.


Below: "Obama's success would be America's failure." That's why we don't want him to succeed. The MSM's absurd notion that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are simpletons while Obama is a sophisticated intellectual makes me apoplectic. The stock market has dropped 3,000 points since the election of Obama. Wall Street believes Hussein Obama is the simpleton, and it's correct.

[Note: If you'd like to honor me by being a follower of this blog, please do so, as many others have, by clicking on the sidebar to your right.]

Clearly, Barack Obama has no understanding of how the American economy works. His tax plan is an invitation to investors to sell their stocks. It's an invitation to American business to hoard cash rather than invest it.

But how could Obama understand the economy? The man has spent his entire life going to left-wing academic institutions, "organizing" communities, and running for ever-higher offices. He's spent a lifetime accepting handouts -- scholarships, grants, and payments for being a lazy, lousy legislator. Obama has had everything given to him. People like Palin and Limbaugh have had to earn all that they've gotten.

Frankly, if you want to know what's wrong with the economy and what must be done to fix it, don't go to Obama's web site. Instead, come here, where I'll offer simple explanations of what is going on and how we can help improve the situation.

First, however, a last word (for now) on Rush Limbaugh's amazing speech to CPAC: What Rush reminds us is that we don't have to "make nice" with people who try to smear Sarah Palin -- or who sling mud at Limbaugh. Being nice to deceitful, dishonest people ensures they will never get any better. We may not change their minds, but we can at least make them uncomfortable.

Frankly, in his LONG CPAC address Rush did not say offensive things. His goal was to defend responsible democracy and the American way of life. The accusations he made about Obama's socialist -- or vote-buying -- agenda happen to be true. Some of our Republican leaders are good people -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, even Michael Steele -- but they aren't forceful enough.

As Limbaugh indicated, when it comes to simple matters of right-and-wrong, "bipartisanship" is not the answer. When a public policy is bad, compromising on it doesn't make it "half-bad."

When Obama is taking steps that harm charities and further depress the housing market, we don't need a bipartisan compromise. When people tell us comforting lies, we need to tell the truth to the best of our ability.

Also, when investors feel gloomy about the stock market's prospects, we need to reveal the negative effects of Obama's efforts to increase the tax rate on capital gains and reduce people's capacity to invest. Finally, when Rush says that's what Obama's doing, is he being "mean" -- or is he just reciting some obvious, if inconvenient, truths?

As a society, we don't want to punish the most productive people in the economy and reward the least productive. Doing so harms the country. That's why many of us, including Rush, don't want Obama to succeed.

In fact, Obama's success would be America's failure. We don't want to become like Britain and France, with slow growth, high unemployment, and a social welfare scheme that reduces opportunity.

Barack Obama likes to talk a lot about Abraham Lincoln and, lately, Franklin D. Roosevelt. One historical individual Obama has never mentioned -- but should -- is Benjamin Franklin.

What's the best way to gain great wealth? Is it to speculate wildly on Wall Street, assuming that the market will always go up -- as you've noticed, it doesn't? Or is it to buy more house than you can afford, believing that the market will always trend upward and you can sell it at a handsome profit. Not anymore.

Benjamin Franklin took a more modest approach, one we might describe not as "get rich quick," but rather as "Get rich . . . slowly." He said, "The road to wealth, if you desire it [who doesn't?], is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both."

In the U.S., tens of millions of people have gotten wealthy by doing basically what Franklin advised. (In contrast, Obama got rich through two massive book deals for autobiographical volumes that were strong on hope and short on real accomplishments.) His wife got a rich person's salary primarily because she was married to an influential elected official.

Currently, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Obama's Illinois political associate, is trying to get rich in a hurry with a book deal of his own. If all else fails, as it did for Blagojevich if not for Obama, then write a book. For normal people, it pays to follow Ben Franklin's advice, sagacious as he always was.

[More tomorrow about what Obama doesn't know about U.S. business and economics -- and Gov. Palin does.]

Three Cheers for Rush Limbaugh

Last Saturday afternoon Rush Limbaugh delivered a remarkable one-and-a-half-hour speech to CPAC. It was broadcast live by FOX, CNN, and a few other outlets. The speech ignited a storm of commentary on the Sunday talk shows and throughout the country. In it, Rush said he "hope(s) Obama fails." Rush said he felt that way because Obama's policies, particularly in economics, are bad for the country -- and at variance with the traditions that have made this an exceptional country.

I watched the well-received speech on CNN, a network Limbaugh intentionally failed to mention in his speech (he mentioned FOX several times). The CNN reporter and news reader seemed miffed that Rush had omitted any reference to their network.

CNN also read several e-mails from viewers hostile to Limbaugh. One called him a "fascist"; another likened him to Hitler. Later, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "agitator" and "incendiary." (Subsequently, Steele apologized and praised Rush.)

Time out, folks. Limbaugh's could have been "A Tribute to America." He spoke in support of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, two documents he believes Obama is ignoring in his rush toward a nanny-state. Rush allied himself with the Declaration's commitment to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He called for a government that respects the Constitution, which Obama clearly does not. He saluted Americans' self-reliance and their belief in liberty and opportunity.

In short, the speech Limbaugh gave was one Barack Obama should have delivered -- but won't -- ever. There was nothing fascistic or Hitlerian about Rush's call for equality of opportunity and fairness. There's nothing dictorial about a love of democracy. Yes, it's possible to disagree with Rush on some issues -- and I do myself.

However, he cherishes dissent from his views, because he realizes that conflict draws attention., and attention draws radio listeners. As Rush suggested, if people want boring, they can tune into C-Span or PBS. If he didn't have an audience, he's end up like so many of us, basically talking to ourselves. When Rush talks, people listen, and that's the main goal of his profession.

If Limbaugh is an "agitator," then the nation could use a lot more agitation. If he's an "entertainer," as he has often admitted he is, Rush demonstrates that there's nothing wrong with being entertaining. Making a thoughtful statement on politics and society does not require one to be as boring as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Michael Steele.

Limbaugh is passionate about all the right things: liberty, equality, opportunity, innovation, and wealth creation. He's deeply rooted in American traditions and values. Other Republicans could learn a great deal from him.

In fact, part of Sarah Palin's great appeal is that she touches hearts. She doesn't confuse a political speech with a tedious repetition of facts in a graduate course in public policy. She feeds off her audience -- and this true of Limbaugh -- as it feeds off her. Her audiences, like Rush's tend to end up chanting "USA! USA!" Obama's mesmerized audiences often turn into zombies, mindlessly and metronomically intoning something meaningless ("Yes we can." Well, "yes you can . . . WHAT?)

Does Rush rely heavily on emotion? Of course, and he's wise to do so. Most Americans (70%? 80%? More?) don't on their intellect -- the rationality -- in making political decisions. Instead, they respond vicerally, emtionally -- with their hearts first and their heads second. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about issues. Other Republicans -- in general, we're an unexciting lot, alas -- could learn a lot from Limbaugh.

Rush's point -- and my point -- is this: We hope Obama fails in his effort to socialize the country. Insofar as Obama fails, the nation succeeds. Insofar as Obama fails, the Constitution will remain the foundation of our nation's greatness.