This is way big­ger than Rush . . .

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - David Lim­baugh

The Democrats, along with those on the right who seem more wor­ried about in­cur­ring the dis­dain of the wrong­headed left than of their fel­low pa­tri­ots, are fever­ishly pro­mot­ing their Saul Alin­sky-in­spired scheme to de­mo­nize and di­vide their most ef­fec­tive po­lit­i­cal op­po­nents.

What would be amus­ing, were mat­ters not so gravely se­ri­ous to­day, is the ut­ter ju­ve­nile trans­parency in the lib­er­als’ ef­forts to vil­ify Rush Lim­baugh.

They’ve been do­ing it for 20 years, but this time, they’re bet­ter-organized and have a broader pur­pose. So those who haven’t had the courage to stand by him should un­der­stand that Rush is not the ul­ti­mate tar­get here. We all are — those, that is, who op­pose their Marx­ist agenda and Stal­in­ist tac­tics.

Have you no­ticed their co­or­di­nated ef­fort to la­bel Rush the leader of the Repub­li­can Party? Do you think it’s ac­ci­den­tal that James Carville so de­scribes him? Do you think it‘s just co­in­ci­den­tal that Pres­i­dent Obama called Rush out per­son­ally and that the en­tire flock of main­stream me­dia sheep fol­lowed suit? Is it just serendip­i­tous that lib­eral Chris Matthews baits his guests nightly to cas­ti­gate Rush? Is it for­tu­itous that Mr. Obama’s, er, ABC’s Ge­orge Stephanopou­los de­mands his guests, such as Repub­li­can Rep. Eric Can­tor, to ei­ther de­fend or de­nounce Rush?

But again, they’re not just af­ter Rush. They want to de­stroy the Repub­li­can brand — as if they need any help do­ing that.

Rush is the tar­get be­cause he rep­re­sents the real op­po­si­tion. He’s the lead­ing voice for those who are re­ally stand­ing up for Amer­ica and its found­ing ideals. Too much of our op­po­si­tion is nom­i­nal only. Too much of our op­po­si­tion is un­aware we’re in a war for the very sur­vival of those pre­cious prin­ci­ples.

While some Repub­li­can leaders have re­fused to join in the White House-or­ches­trated con­dem­na­tion of Rush, a num­ber of oth­ers haven’t been so bold, pre­sum­ably pre­fer­ring to re­tain their cre­den­tials in po­lite/elit­ist so­ci­ety or afraid to in­cur the left’s wrath. No, let Rush have that all by him­self.

Memo to the feck­less on the right: When Rush said he hopes Mr. Obama fails, his mean­ing was very clear. He be­lieves the abun­dantly ob­vi­ous truth that Mr. Obama is try­ing to re­struc­ture Amer­ica in the im­age of the cen­tral plan­ners and so­cial nihilists: a rad­i­cal growth in gov­ern­ment and con­se­quent re­duc­tion in the pri­vate sec­tor and in­di­vid­ual lib­erty, a rad­i­cal re­lax­ation in the war on ter­ror and other na­tional se­cu­rity im­per­a­tives, a rad­i­cal push to di­min­ish Amer­i­can sovereignty in fa­vor of global en­ti­ties on en­vi­ron­men­tal mat­ters and in def­er­ence to United Na­tions man­dates on such dis­tinctly in­ter­nal mat­ters as how par­ents raise their chil­dren, a rad­i­cal empowerment of la­bor unions, a rad­i­cal boost to the rad­i­cal pro-abor­tion in­dus­try and death cul­ture, a rad­i­cal ho­mo­sex­ual agenda, and, ul­ti­mately, the ab­ject bank­ruptcy of Amer­ica.

Rush wants Mr. Obama to fail in his un­abashed ef­forts to per­ma­nently turn this cen­ter-right na­tion rad­i­cally to­ward the left. He does not want Amer­ica to fail. Rush is un­abashedly root­ing for Amer­ica. And any­one with the slight­est abil­ity or moral clar­ity to make men­tal dis­tinc­tions un­der­stands this.

Yet many have de­lib­er­ately twisted Rush’s mean­ing to sug­gest that he wants Amer­ica, un­der Mr. Obama’s pres­i­dency, to fail.

The dirty lit­tle se­cret is that many of the lib­er­als mak­ing this spe­cious ar­gu­ment are the very peo­ple who truly were root­ing for Amer­ica to fail when Ge­orge W. Bush was pres­i­dent. They were root­ing for us to lose the war in Iraq. Harry Reid de­clared the war lost, you may re­call. And they were talk­ing down the econ­omy, even when it was hum­ming.

Th­ese lib­er­als are sim­ply pro­ject­ing their de­plorable mind­set onto Rush and other con­ser­va­tives. Be­cause they wanted Amer­ica to fail un­der Mr. Bush, they just as­sume Rush and other con­ser­va­tives want Amer­ica to fail un­der Mr. Obama. Noth­ing could be far­ther from the truth.

So those of you on the right who are re­fus­ing to de­fend Rush by mak­ing this ob­vi­ous dis­tinc­tion bet­ter wake up. The peo­ple on the left mak­ing this point are the same ones who slan­dered Pres­i­dent Bush by say­ing he started the Iraq war for oil or that he in­ten­tion­ally de­layed fed­eral aid to New Orleans’ Ka­t­rina vic­tims be­cause a dis­pro­por­tion­ate num­ber of them were African-Amer­i­cans. De­struc­tive, li­belous rub­bish!

It’s time for you syco­phants to un­der­stand who is try­ing to stand up for the Amer­ica we be­lieve in and that your syco­phancy only en­ables those whose agenda can­not suc­ceed without si­lenc­ing the ef­fec­tive op­po­si­tion.

Re­mem­ber: To lib­er­als, this isn’t just about Rush — not even close. It’s about you, me and any­one else who loves and de­fends those things — the Con­sti­tu­tion, fam­ily val­ues, the unique Amer­i­can cul­ture, etc. — that make Amer­ica unique.

It’s time you rep­re­sented the op­po­si­tion, too, and di­rected your out­rage at those who would use the full power of gov­ern­ment to tar­get in­di­vid­u­als, whether they be Rush Lim­baugh or Joe the Plumber.

David Lim­baugh is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.