CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Democrats' sophomoric plot to demonize Limbaugh failing

By now you have most likely heard about the Democrats' conspiracy to demonize Rush Limbaugh, complete with carefully orchestrated attacks directed from the Obama White House and coordinated  with Obama's union supporters.

The Rush plot conspiracy isn't working so well for Obama and his minions. Limbaugh is embracing the Dems' attack:

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a 'story' I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office."

Rasmussen polling finds only 29% of the nation’s voters agree with the Rush plot conspiracy's mantra; "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."

If you have not heard about the Dems' Rush plot conspiracy, Jonathan Martin's, "Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan," provides the best description of the Democrats' sophomoric, but devious, plot to demonize Rush just as they did President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Governor Sarah Palin. 

The "tripwire" for the Dems' Rush plot was when Limbaugh revealed he doesn't want Obama to succeed:

I got a request here from a major American print publication.  "Dear Rush:  For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.

[. . .]

I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds.  We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.  Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.  

[. . .]

Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at?  See, here's the point.  Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say.  Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that."  Why not?  Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.  Why do I want more of it?  I don't care what the Drive-By story is.  I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails."  Somebody's gotta say it.  

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?  Why do we have to play the game by their rules?  Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed?  This is affirmative action, if we do that.  We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin?  Sorry.  I got past the historical nature of this months ago.  He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me.  We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids.  Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?  Why would I want to do that?  So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." 

Taken in context there isn't anything wrong with what Limbaugh said. But the Obama left-wing attack machine played it as if all Limbaugh said was, "I hope he fails." Martin details the Democrats' plot:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was the first to jump on the statement, sending the video to its membership to raise cash and stir a petition drive.

"We helped get the ball rolling on this because we're looking and listening to different Republican voices around the country, and the one that was the loudest and getting the most attention was Rush Limbaugh," explained DCCC chairman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank run by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, also pounced on Limbaugh's "fail" line, drawing attention to it on their well-read blog.

Soon after, Americans United for Change, a liberal group, was airing Limbaugh's statement in an ad aimed at pushing Senate Republicans to support the stimulus bill.

[. . .]

But liberals quickly realized that trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to the talk show host.

[. . .]

By February, Carville and Begala were pounding on Limbaugh frequently in their appearances on CNN.

Neither Democrat would say so, but a third source said the two also began pushing the idea of targeting Limbaugh in their daily phone conversations with Emanuel.

Conversations and email exchanges began taking place in and out of the White House not only between the old pals from the Clinton era but also including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Woodhouse.

[. . .]

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.

Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House.

Isn't there something wrong with the White House coordinating this demonetization conspiracy?

Regardless of the answer to that question, the Obama attack machine is making a mistake. The more attention they drive to Limbaugh the greater the number of people that are exposed to Limbaugh's articulation of conservatism -- one antidote to Obamaism.

Obama deficit spending interest - another $4.5 trillion

A hidden cost of President Obama's big government spending orgy is the interest that will have to be paid on all the money that must be borrowed so Obama can expand the size and role of government.

William W. Beach says the Obama deficits in this year's proposed budget will cost an additional $1.6 trillion on the national debt over 10 years. If we go back to the second analogy, that represents 50,701 years.

That's just what Obama added to this year's deficit for the so-called stimulus and other programs.

According to North Carolina Republican Senator, Richard Burr, the interest on the Obama deficit for spending in coming years is a whopping $4 trillion over the next 10 years - more than $1 billion in interest payments every day. Again using the second analogy, that represents 126,752 years.

In the following video, Jim Angle reports Senator Burr's $4 trillion figure is conservative. Obama's budget overview estimates that even if the Democrat-controlled Congress provide all of the tax increases Obama wants, the Obama deficit will cost $4.5 trillion over 10 years - equivalent to 142,596 years.

Watch the following video report:

Obama budget - more spending than anyone can comprehend

With his debt-busting budget which contains a $trillion tax increase, President Obama plans to have the Federal government spend 25 percent of the entire U.S. economy - one out of every four dollars produced in the U.S.

Obama's massive spending plan puts the Democrat-controlled Congress on track to double the national debt by 2010 - to $17.6 trillion, after just four years of controlling the national purse strings.

At FoxNews they tried to put $3.6 trillion in perspective:

• If you spent $1 million an hour, non-stop for 24 hours a day, you wouldn’t run out of money for 411 years.

• If you took 3.6 trillion one-dollar bills, and placed them end-to-end, that line of bills would reach from Capitol Hill to the sun and then back to Capitol Hill and then back to the sun — and then almost all the way back to Capitol Hill again.

The uncontrolled spending binge Obama and the Democrats are on -- the $800 billion so-called stimulus, the $410 billion spending bill under consideration in Congress, the tax and borrow Obama budget spending plan, and a doubled national debt -- is an incomprehensible amount of money.

Think of a trillion in terms of seconds. We all know how long a second is. A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Think of the ongoing spending orgy in terms of seconds and perhaps we can grasp what Obama and Democrats are spending and borrowing:

• 0.410 trillion seconds (Congress' proposed spending bill) is 12,992 years.
• 0.634 trillion seconds (Obama's down payment on health care reform) is 20,090 years.
• 0.787 trillion seconds (Obama's so-called stimulus) is 24,938 years.
• 1.75 trillion seconds (Obama's proposed deficit) is 55,454 years.
• 3.27 trillion seconds (the actual cost of the so-called stimulus)
• 3.6 trillion seconds (Obama's budget) is 114,077 years.
• 8.67 trillion seconds (the national debt the Democrats inherited) is 274,735 years.
• 17.6 trillion seconds (the projected 2010 national debt under Obama's budget) is 557,709 years.

A trillion here, a trillion there; sooner or later you run out of time.

Democrats on track to double national debt by 2010

The Democrat-controlled Congress, with help from President Obama's big government vision, is on track to double the national debt in four years.

USA Today published an interactive chart that provides annual revenue, spending, deficit and national debt numbers. The most frightening number is the national debt.

When the Pelosi/Reid left-wing Democrats took control of Congress, the national debt stood at $9 trillion.

Based on Obama's overview of his $4 trillion $1.75 trillion deficit budget, the chart predicts that, by 2010 -- after the Democrats have controlled congress for only four years, the national debt will stand at $17.6 trillion. That is very nearly double the $8.67 trillion debt the Democrats "inherited."

Dems cave after Feinstein defection

The Senate Democrat Leadership can't take it.

After California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, broke with President-elect Obama and her Senate colleagues and decided to support Roland Burris in his effort to assume Obama's now vacant U.S. Senate seat, the Democrats now "plan" to seat Senator Burris.

The Associated Press has learned Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.

[. . .]

Knowledgeable Senate officials in both parties said the saga was widely expected to end with Burris being seated. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for Senate members.

The likelihood that Burris, a Democrat, will eventually prevail increased Tuesday after a key chairwoman got behind the former Illinois attorney general, driving a crack in what had been a united front by Senate Democrats against a Blagojevich appointee.

Did the Democrats cave in exchange for a Burris promise not to run in 2010? If so, would that not mean that all the Democrats ethical-sounding talk about any appointment by pay to play scandal-plagued Illinois Democrat Governor Blagojevich was just a cover for the Democrats' real concern -- that Obama's Senate seat might be lost in an election?

Feinstein breaks with Obama and Democrats again, backs Burris

California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, broke with President-elect Obama and her Senate colleagues again Tuesday to support Roland Burris in his effort to assume Obama's now vacant U.S. Senate seat.

"The question is really one, in my view, of law," Feinstein told reporters in a Capitol hallway.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? The answer is yes. Does that affect his appointment power? The answer is no, until certain things happen" she said.

Failure to seat Burris "has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," she said, describing him as "a senior, experienced politician."

Obama said he agrees that the Senate Democrats cannot accept the appointment of Roland Burris:

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat.  I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it.

Feinstein also broke with Obama over reports Panetta is going to be Obama's CIA director, even though Panetta is not an "intelligence professional."

Feinstein's defection is significant because she the outgoing chair of the Senate Rules Committee that soon could take up Burris' case.

The appointment of Burris, and the accompanying racism charges is embarrassing Democrats. Illinois Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush, accused the Senate leadership of racism:

"While they might not be termed racist, their action is racist," Rush told FOX News. "I think that if Roland Burris hadn't been an African American, then he would have been allowed to accept the appointment and become a senator."

Majority Leader Reid's office didn't appreciate the Rush accusation:

Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau called Rush's comments "outrageous and over the line."

Rush was more blunt last week:

"I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer and separate the appointee from the appointer," Rush said.

In the end the Democrats will be forced to seat Senator Burris. But first, Obama must find a way to save face after, in yet another exercise of his poor judgment, Obama agreed to punish Burris for the alleged crimes of Blagojevich.

Obama: 'Trillion-dollar deficits for years to come'

President-elect Obama predicts "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

"We're already looking at a trillion-dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion-dollar budget deficit, and that potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point," Obama said.

The federal deficit was about $455 billion for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2008.

If the Democrats keep the deficits to a trillion-dollars a year that will at least slow the rate at which the Democrats increase the national debt.

Democrat controlled Congress increased national debt 23%

When the Democrats regained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 -- that's $8.67 trillion.

In the two years Pelosi and the Democrats have been in charge, the national debt has grown to $10,699,804,864,612.13 -- that's $10.70 trillion.

Since Pelosi and the Democrats regained control of Congress $2,029,208,621,639.09, or $2.03 trillion, has been added to the national debt. That is a 23% increase in two years the Democrats have controlled Congress.

The Democrat controlled Congress gets the credit for the soaring national debt because under the Constitution Congress controls the purse strings:

Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Be sure to thank your Congress critters for a job well done -- a 23% increase in two years.

Just Wait until Congress adds Obama's $800 billion bailout boondoggle to our $10.70 trillion national debt.

The worst case scenario

Fred Barnes writes about what he sees as the "Worst Case Scenario" - an Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress:

If this scenario unfolds, Washington would become a solidly liberal town again for the first time in decades. And the prospects of passing the liberal agenda--nearly all of it--would be bright. Enacting major parts of it would be even brighter. You can forget about bipartisanship.

Start with "card check." It would permit organized labor to unionize the private sector without winning a certification election by secret ballot. It's easy to get workers to sign cards saying they want a union, but it's hard to get them to vote that way when labor organizers aren't hounding them. Card check is labor's last hope for more dues-paying union members.

Unions simply aren't popular and neither is card check. But it passed the House last year, only to be blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. In 2009, with Washington controlled by Democrats, it would sail through Congress and President Obama would sign it. After all, neither Obama nor congressional Democrats have bucked organized labor even once.

In his speech in Virginia Beach yesterday, Senator McCain took on Obama's knee jerk support for big labor:

"Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections."

CNN Political Ticker did a fact check on McCain's statement:

The Facts

McCain is referring to a plan supported by labor union leaders. Currently, workers must get a majority of their colleagues to sign an authorization form to ask for union representation — then hold a secret-ballot vote to finalize it. The change Obama supports would let a union be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board immediately after a majority of workers sign the authorization.

Supporters of the change, including the AFL-CIO and other unions, say it would cut down on the ability of employers to pressure their workers to vote against a union. Business groups, meanwhile, say the opposite — that the secret ballot allows workers who don't want to unionize to publicly sign off on the plan, pleasing union leaders, then privately vote against it.

The change is part of the Employee Free-Choice Act, which Obama co-sponsored. The plan is designed to make it easier to create unions in the workplace, and both supporters and opponents agree it would increase the number of union members in the United States. Backers say it will lead to better wages and benefits for workers and increase the size of the middle class, while opponents say it will hurt businesses by costing them more at a time when profits for many are already thin.

The bill passed the House last year by a vote of 241-185. It was also supported in the Senate, 51-48 — but that didn't reach the 60 votes that would have been needed to survive a filibuster on a final vote. That's also not enough to override a veto by President Bush, who is against it. Obama and running mate Sen. Joe Biden voted on June 26, 2007, to move the bill forward, while McCain voted against it.

Verdict:

True. McCain accurately represents Obama's stance, although the candidates disagree on the merits of the plan. Organized labor backs Obama's position, while business groups and some non-union workers support McCain's.

McCain isn't the only one upset about the effort of big unions and Democrats to take away the right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections. Even the Democrats' former presidential nominee, George McGovern, thinks it's a terrible idea.

Watch the following video, in which McGovern explains why he opposes with what the Democrats have the nerve to call the "Employee Free Choice Act:"

Callous Dem Big Wig Laughs At The Evacuation Of New Orleans

Don Fowler, former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, thinks it funny that Hurricane Gustav is forcing the battered City of New Orleans to be evacuated.

My RedState colleague, Absentee, caught the uncaring Fowler laughing at the fact that the dangerous category four hurricane might hit the New Orleans area at the same time President Bush is scheduled to address the Republican National Convention. Watch the following video:

Shame on Fowler!

Well done Absentee.