Monday, June 10, 2013

Rush Limbaugh: "America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat"

Yep. A peaceful one, so far, but a left-wing coup. Systematic, illegal, unconstitutional.

Rush:
It's a point that I've made here about the IRS. They say, "Well, you can't link it in to Obama." You don't need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who's doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There's not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don't need a smoking gun to know where this administration's doing what it's doing. 
Obama puts people in positions that mirror him. Eric Holder, you name it, they're doing Obama's bidding. Everybody. Susan Rice and Samantha Power, they are Obama, and there's a context for what's happening. Herbert Meyer, if I may quote him again, asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a million artistic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration.
You must read the whole thing. Brilliant. Rush nails what is happening to our country.

Rush:

How does that sound now, by the way: "I hope he fails"?

Let us pray that Obama fails. I'm not sure he will.

One thing has really bothered me about these scandals: they are so blatant, so easily discovered. Obviously these gangsters knew that they couldn't keep what they were doing quiet for long. But they did the stuff anyway.

Could it be because they know that they have already won, and there's nothing really that we can do about it?

27 comments:

  1. Nobody has canceled any elections. I’m sure you’ll do fine in the mid-terms. Stop being a hyperventilating scared little girl.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no, no, no, KW. Let the tinfoil-hat brigade went their frustration. It's entertaining because they really mean it.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. ^^ This fool is so intellectually dishonest. He knows, as well as you and I do, that having regularly sceduled elections is not what liberty is about, and elections are no guarantee of the preservation of liberty.

      Of course, 'fool' just means "intellectually dishonest person".

      Delete
    3. Half of my comments have begun to disappear lately. Obama's army of censors must have invaded Blogspot. It's the only rational explanation.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. No, they just took away my right to vote on same-sex "marriage" because it's a "civil rights issue" and we don't vote on that. Can't wait to see which other things we aren't allowed to vote on. I've asked this question many times and never really received a satisfactory answer. Assuming for a moment that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue--highly dubious--where is it written that we don't vote on civil rights? Who made up this rule? Isn't voting a civil right?

      You "liberals" are all a bunch of bullies.

      TRISH

      Delete
    5. TRISH,

      They vote on our civil rights all the time. Gun control, for example. I mean of course real civil rights as enumerated in the Constitution, not civil rights that they made up.

      We've been in the midst of a slow-motion left-wing coup d'etat since the days of FDR.

      Ben

      Delete
    6. Hyperventilating girl? KW is obviously sexist.

      Ben

      Delete
    7. Who cares what the results of the midterm elections are when Obama runs roughshod over Congress? He just does whatever he wants to do, exercising far more executive power than ever seen before. Congress is a useless appendage. Sorry if I sound sexist, but the hyperventilating scared little girl here is KW.

      The Torch

      Delete
    8. Hoo,

      I think it safe to say Obama is not the man (oligarchy, actually) in control here. He is just the salesman selling you the 'new deal'.
      You're not a stupid fellow. Not even close.
      We may not agree on much on here - although I do think we could be friends or at least friendly in a different environment.
      I suspect you find this Orwellian creep (maybe a bit more like Philip K Dick's nightmares?) just as offensive as the rest of us.

      Privacy is a prime concern for all free men, no matter their political stripe, their religious beliefs, or their background. REAL security does not need to compromise the general privacy if there is a real and transparent oversight.... that is the issue here. The current apparatus was/is designed for abuse.

      As for the comments vanishing, it is also happening to me on several blogs and sites. I am not so sure that is censorship, but probably incompetence on the part of the software designers.
      However, just this past weekend I was informed my blog-radio site has been disabled and will remain so until I am willing to provide a ridiculous amount of personal information - a three page form!

      I have, needless to say, switched providers to one located in my own country that allows for a reasonable degree of privacy.

      Delete
    9. KW, Obama allows elections because they are meaningless.

      Look at what he did in Libya. Do you remember a congressional resolution authorizing it? Neither do I. He never sought one. Furthermore, he the mission exceeded the 60 day mark permitted by the War Powers Act of 1973.

      This is the most power hungry administration I have ever witnessed. Nixon had nothing on this guy, and Nixon was bad. He just wasn't this bad. Now if the reporters would do their damned jobs we might be able to hold this man to account, but I'm not betting on it.

      JQ

      Delete
  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    It's not just Limbaugh. Here's Glenn Greenwald's take:

    What the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so warped and distorted and it vests themselves with such extremist surveillance powers over the United States and American citizens that Americans, in their words, would be stunned to learn what the Obama administration is doing.

    This Administration has raised itself to Nixonian levels of paranoia and beyond. In Ken Salazar's (outgoing Sec Interior) words, it's the "boot on the neck" Administration that wants to "crucify" and "make examples" (in the words of a high-rnking EPA official) their enemies.

    Why bother to read between the lines? Just listen to their deranged rhetoric:

    Voting is the best revenge.
    --- Barack Obama

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Civil rights' are precisely the sort of "rights" that can be voted upon, for they exist by social-agreement amongst the members of a given society (hell! the name itself is a tip-off). 'Civil rights' are the privledges we collectively give one another within the context of our mutual society.

    'Human rights' are the sort of rights that cannot be voted upon by any man, as they come from God.

    Leftists like not just to conflate the two, but to reverse them (all the while denying there is any such thing as a 'God-given right') -- to be more precise, they like to insist that whatever enormity they're presently pushing is a 'God-given right', but as they deny the very existence of any 'God-given right', they call the outrage a 'civil right'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not just Limbaugh, it's also GWU law professor Jonathan Turley who condemns Barry and his "Creeping surveillance state" in today's USA Today.

    Turley concludes (harken, all ye Obots):
    In his press conference, Obama repeated the siren call of all authoritarian figures throughout history: while these powers are great, our motives are benign. So there you have it. The government is promising to better protect you if you just surrender this last measure of privacy. Perhaps it is time. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr Egnor,

    I completely understand your dismay, and find Mr Limbaugh’s argument compelling. I would only add/emphasize that this 'coup' spans more than one administration. This is not a red/blue issue.

    I would however offer some words of hope. This 'outing' of the creeping techno-tyranny is actually fortuitous. It offers the opportunity to confront this mechanism from the inside. We need to take a page from the age old tyrant's playbook here: Do not let this crises go to waste. Keep pushing. Give all the other would-be whistle blowers the incentive to reveal the rest of the iceberg lurking beneath.

    Also, the source of the 'leak' is heartening.
    What this whistle blower shows us (among many other things) is that even the young agents on the job have very deep issues with what they are seeing. This velvet/magenta 'coup' could very easily be countered with an actual shift from the security people themselves, who are very quickly becoming aware that they are politically and literally expendable; and that the 'machine' they work for is being guided by extremely cynical and power hungry minds. Add to that the obvious fact that many of the people in the 'business' signed up because they love their country.

    Believe me when I say, there is a VAST silent cheer erupting all across the military intelligence community for what this young man has done. The attempts to vilify him by the civilian agencies are nakedly dishonest. Somehow we are supposed to believe our enemies and adversaries did NOT know we had the facilities and capacities - when the justification for such technologies is precisely that they DO know. Not only will that not wash with the public, it is apparent to all the REAL intelligence people on the 'inside'.
    Pathetic.

    For the public, now is the time to make themselves heard and to seek accountability. Time to resist the machine.
    This is the first real opportunity, and it should be taken. I am surprised that I have not heard the idea floated yet, but there should be what I believe is called a 'constitutional convention'.
    The federal government need to be reigned in. It is up to the states, the people, and - if, God forbid, the need presents itself - the military to make that happen.
    This 'game' is far from over, and the seeming victory here is actually a blatant foul.
    Don't lose hope, Mike.
    This can still be stopped, and still be stopped peaceably. All it takes is the will of the people to focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 9:22 AM

      FWIW, I'm cheering for young Snowden, myself.

      Give that man a see-gar.

      Delete
  6. I never thought we'd fall this far. Obama has bribed us with our own money to give up our rights, and we have allowed it. We reelected this man. We said, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  7. I never thought we'd fall this far. Obama has bribed us with our own money to give up our rights, and we have allowed it. We reelected this man. We said, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  8. If we where to cancel the NSA program now, and some months or years from now some fundamentalists explode a nuke in Manhattan, we’ll be kicking ourselves in the ass for stopping this program. Besides, all the data that the NSA is collecting is already in the hands of private corporations that have no oversight and every reason to make as much money with the data that they can.

    As long as the NSA program is as narrowly focused as described, with Judicial review to look at records, and further judicial review to look at content, all narrowly aimed at “connecting the dots” to find terrorists, then I have no problem with the program. If it moves beyond that, then I have a big problem. I wouldn’t trust a president Cruz any more than you trust president Obama.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KW,

      "As long as the NSA program is as narrowly focused as described,"
      What description did you read? The whitehouse press brief?

      "...with Judicial review to look at records, and further judicial review to look at content,.."
      FICA secret courts. Hardly a judicial review. More like a star chamber, actually.

      "...all narrowly aimed at “connecting the dots” to find terrorists,"
      Connecting dots? Goodness me. You have an extremely simplistic view of intelligence gathering. Where did you get your training? Mission impossible movies?

      "...then I have no problem with the program. "
      Of course not. You think it's fine, so long as your political team says so. What a shock it will be for you, when you one day discover the 'teams' are illusory.

      "If it moves beyond that, then I have a big problem."
      It already has, by LIGHT-YEARS; hence the whistle blower(s) and the scandal that is erupting. Do you even read the news?

      "I wouldn’t trust a president Cruz any more than you trust president Obama."
      The fact that you would 'trust' either administrations with such micro-managerial control over every single private communication and transaction that the populace could possibly make clearly illustrates naivete.
      Perhaps a directed (Pavlovian?) pronoia?
      I also note you did not even consider a President Paul.
      Why is that? He too 'white bread' for your taste? Maybe afraid of losing a job?
      Never mind. Keep hoping for Hillary. After all, she is blameless on Benghazi, right?

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      No kidding, Popeye. Why, heck, terrorists might even try planting bombs at the Boston Marathon! Anything could happen!

      Yeah, we better be keeping an eye - narrowly focused, of course!!! - on those folks in Spud, Idaho and Peachpit, AL who send texts with the word "liberty" in them.

      Delete
    3. KW, your partisan hackery is breathtaking. There is nothing narrowly focused about it. It is the most intrusive and most comprehensive surveillance program in the history of the world. And you're for it because if you were against it you'd have to take a position opposite your hero, Obama. You really make me sick. Show some principle.

      You saw how the IRS abused the public trust by releasing confidential tax information of political groups to their opponents. And you want the government to know about every phone call and email, every credit card transaction? Why, cause you know that as an administration loyalist it will never be your information that's released?

      This is Big Brother stuff. You should have enough balls to say this is wrong.

      JQ

      Delete
  9. Hey KW, Egnor, Limbaugh, Greenwald, and Turley aren't the only "hyperventilating scared little girl[s]."

    Add to that list Daniel Ellsberg who writes: “I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case”.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM

    If you want to know why some Progressives are defending the Surveillance State, you need look no farther than the film, The Lives of Others. You can view the trailer, here. It won the Academy Award in '07 for Best Foreign Film.

    There are always people who benefit from paranoid regimes. Our very own Mathoo and Popeye the Sailor Man typify such people; servile supplicants of the State will always bend over and perform whatever loathsome little tasks the State asks of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Admiral:

      [servile supplicants of the State will always bend over and perform whatever loathsome little tasks the State asks of them.]

      An excellent point, which I have long pondered. Totalitarians succeed because they have enough "little people" getting the job done. Why the little folks cooperate in manifest evil is a profound question. Hannah Arendt ("the banality of evil") tried to answer it, and in many ways she did a good job. For a future post.

      Delete
  11. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    You can watch a live interview with Mr Snowden here.

    As you watch, focus on this phrase: false positive.

    Even if the false positive rate is only 0.0001, if you surveil 100,000,000 citizens, you will falsely "detect" thousands of "terrorists". The ACLU estimates there are over one million names on the regime's "watch list":

    The uncontroversial contention that Osama Bin Laden and a handful of other known terrorists should not be allowed on an aircraft is being used to create a monster that goes far beyond what ordinary Americans think of when they think about a "terrorist watch list."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can watch the interview of Mr. Snowden without the German subtitles here.

      Delete
  12. Edward Snowden should go to jail, as quickly and for as long as possible.

    Yoo

    ReplyDelete