Rush Limbaugh: Establishment GOP Wants to Purge Party of "Extremists"

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...878f177f50d90a Rush Limbaugh

Notice Nancy Pelosi is never an extremist. Harry Reid is never an extremist. Dick Durbin? Never an extremist. No, no, no. Hillary Clinton" Never! No, no. The only extremists are in the Tea Party, in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party is well aware.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=200&sh=200

Establishment GOP Wants to Purge Party of "Extremists"
RUSH: Tim Scott in South Carolina's a Republican in South Carolina and he was elected by Republicans and Democrats, thereby nuking one of the cliched talking points that the Democrats have popularized...
rushlimbaugh.com

Establishment GOP Wants to Purge Party of "Extremists"

November 05, 2014

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/images/listentoit.jpg http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/images/windowsicon.png
Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So it looks like we pick up eight seats in the Senate now with Alaska, and it could still be more, but it won't be less. The Republicans are going to have the greatest number of members in the House of Representatives since 1946, as they pick up net 10. Every member of Congress from Arkansas is a Republican. This sweep, this wave, this landslide was thorough, top to bottom, dramatic. It was heart stopping, and it was genuinely catastrophic for the Democrat Party.
Now, if you're just tuning in and you missed the opening segments of the program today, fear not. I'm not going to repeat them. But we already have them up and transcribed, the audio is available, too, at RushLimbaugh.com. It's even been linked to by Matt Drudge. It's on the front page of the Drudge Report.
And, you know, I'm unlike you. I have never had the thrill of listening to this program like you do. And the reason for that is that I'm hosting it, and I don't listen to myself after the fact. I've never liked it. I've never watched myself on TV. I hated it. I was never satisfied. I don't listen to myself on tape on the radio. So I don't hear myself like you do. I have missed that thrill.

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//medi...OPTeaParty.jpg

But I do read my own transcripts, and this one I heartily recommend if you missed the first hour of the program. Again, what happened was a thorough slap down, smack down, if you will, a thorough and total rejection of liberal Democrat -- and not just policies. This was a smack down of liberal Democrat governance. And it was everywhere. It knew no demographic limitations, geographic limitations, gender limitations.
We've got Tim Scott in South Carolina who is the first black elected to the Senate since Reconstruction. He was serving out an appointed term, and he was elected for the first time. He's a Republican in South Carolina and he was elected by Republicans and Democrats, thereby nuking one of the cliched talking points that the Democrats have popularized about Republicans: racist, sexist,
bigot, homophobe, you name it.
There were Republican governors, women, reelected in droves last night. The War on Women meme was shot through the heart in Colorado and all over the country, although it won't go away, by the way. I disagree, if you've heard analysts on TV say that -- and Dr. Krauthammer said this, and don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here. I just don't think the Democrats give things up. It's not the end of the War on Women.
I mean, they're still claiming Republicans want to eliminate Social Security for old people. They're still claiming that Republicans want to kick old people out of their houses.
They are grabbing 50-year-old pages out of their playbook in this campaign. So they're not gonna give up on the War on Women. They're gonna keep trying it. That's all they've got. They cannot talk about their policies. Nobody wants their policies.
If Barack Obama had been honest about his policies, he would never have been elected in the first place and we wouldn't be here. Liberal Democrats have to constantly mask who they are and what they believe in, couch themselves in terms that are presentable and acceptable. The American people keep falling for it because of branding and the media and the notion of compassion and fairness and equality. The Republicans supposedly oppose all that, which, of course, is bogus and ridiculous, but that's the kind of success the myth makers have had.
But reality is an entirely different thing, and particularly in this election result last night or yesterday. The reality is that the American people don't want any more of what they've had, what we've had for the past six years. Now, the media has a responsibility, and that is to make you think something else. The media's responsibility today and going forward is to tell you that this election was about anything but the truth. And this election was about a total rejection of liberalism, policies, and governance. It was a total rejection of Barack Obama and Obamaism. The media, however, will continue to do everything they can to persuade you it was about something else entirely.
Let me give you an example. I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a piece from today's New York Times written by Jeremy W. Peters and Carl Hulse. "Republicans’ First Step Was to Handle Extremists in Party." The premise of this story is the Republican victory depended entirely on the Republican establishment silencing and eliminating any Tea Party candidates. Cory Gardner and Joni Ernst not included, and some others.
"It was late spring, and Republican leaders knew that if they wanted to win the Senate, they needed to crush the enemy: not Democrats, but the rebels within their own party.And Chris McDaniel, a Senate candidate from Mississippi who had a history of making sexist and racially insensitive remarks, was a problem."
Notice Nancy Pelosi is never an extremist. Harry Reid is never an extremist. Dick Durbin, never an extremist. No, no, no. Hillary Clinton, never. No, no. The only extremists are in the Tea Party, in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party is well aware. And the only way the Republican Party can win is to kill off the Tea Party, as epitomized by Chris McDaniel.
"Candidates like Scott Brown, running for the Senate in New Hampshire, called the National Republican Senatorial Committee to complain that if Mr. McDaniel was not stopped, he could drag the whole party down." This would be Scott Brown who lost again in a race for the Senate, this time in New Hampshire, to an absolutely corrupt woman by the name of Jeanne Shaheen who we have learned worked hand in hand with Lois Lerner to target the Tea Party at the IRS.
Jeanne Shaheen was one of the US senators, along with Al Franken and others, encouraging the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to Tea Party fundraiser groups. We couldn't mention that, of course; that would be partisan.
"In June, the party establishment -- just barely -- vanquished Mr. McDaniel, reaching a turning point in their dogged campaign to purge the party of extremists and regain power in the Senate." And again, it's funny, ladies and gentlemen, how we never hear of any extremists in the Democrat Party. We only hear of extremists in the Republican Party, acknowledged by other Republicans! We only hear of extremists as named by other Republicans.
We don't hear of one Democrat, even after they have just received another historic shellacking. But nobody ever dares suggest the Democrats need to dial back some of their extremists. No, no. Harry Reid can go make fools of himself all day long, and it's mainstream. And Pelosi and Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, who define radical extremist kook cases, are free to say and do whatever they want, and they're considered brilliant strategists.
Back to the New York Times piece: "Republicans’ impressive showing Tuesday night ... was the result of methodical plotting, careful candidate vetting and abundant preparation to ensure that the party’s candidates would avoid repeating the same devastating mistakes that cost them dearly in 2010 and 2012." Because, you see, only conservative extremists make mistakes.
If only conservative extremists make mistakes, then Joe Biden must be the biggest conservative out there because he's one of the biggest extreme radical dummkopfs that we have. But when he does it, it's just old Joe, you know, that's just Joe. Making fun of the Indians at 7-Eleven, that's just old Joe. There's not a racist bone in old Joe's body. "In interviews, more than two dozen lawmakers and strategists described the meticulous efforts."
Why in the world are Republican establishment wizards of smarts going off to the New York Times to explain their brilliant strategy of limiting "extremists" in their own party? Why aren't the wizards of smart in the Republican Party going to the New York Times and describing the extremists in the Democrat Party and explaining to the New York
Times why the Democrats just lost?
Instead of explaining, "Yeah, you know why we won? Because we kept people like Todd Akin out, we kept people like Chris McDaniel out, and we kept people like Sharron Angle out. We got rid of the wackos. We got rid of the extremists! We shut the Tea Party up. That's why we won." And you know what it means, New York Times? Republican leaders in this story are telling the New York Times that the meaning of the election is: The voters want us to work together to solve problems.
"Party leaders managed to elbow aside insurgents like Mr. McDaniel and Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who had planned to challenge Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming on the grounds that he was insufficiently conservative." Liz Cheney is a dangerous extremist, in the New York Times piece. Liz Cheney is a dangerous extremist, as called out by Republican leaders in this piece?
But Nancy Pelosi isn't, and Harry Reid isn't, and never has been? And Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz is not an extremist? Dick Durbin's not an extremist? "But in the end," says the New York Times proudly. "In the end, the disciplined approach by the Republicans worked. No Republican imploded with the kind of fatal campaign gaffe that crushed the party's hopes in the last two elections.
"Every establishment candidate prevailed in the primaries. Republicans credited this to their rigorous training program. The fake trackers would even surprise candidates at the curb outside the airport when they flew into Washington to meet with National Republican Senatorial Committee officials..." Do you know this happened? Let me explain. Can I tell you what happened here?
All these potential candidates are flown to Washington to meet the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. They come in together on flights, and they got their bags, and they're out on the curb waiting to get in a car, and a bunch of Republican leaders pretending to be reporters come up to 'em with microphones and cameras and start shouting questions to them about abortion and rape.
It was a training exercise to see if they could discover that any of them were Todd Akin or would say something stupid, or if any of them were Chris McDaniel and would say something extreme. Fake reporters -- Republicans -- would come up to these newly arrived, chosen candidates and ask 'em, "So tell me, rape's okay, right? You think rape, in some cases, it's a natural part of existence? If somebody gets pregnant from rape, it's okay, right, right?"
These arriving candidates think it's the media asking them this, and it turns out it's just a training exercise. But this was how thorough the Republican mainstream establishment was in ferreting out the potential danger in candidates who would say radically stupid stuff, and this is why they won, because of the brilliance of the Republican strategists who figured out how to keep the Tea Party from being involved. That's the media's job this week.
The media's job this week is to give everybody a totally wrong-headed, incorrect reason why the Republican victory took place, and it wasn't because they kept out the Tea Party, and it wasn't this or that. It doesn't matter what the Republicans stood for. They were the other guys, and the American people want these Democrats stopped. The Republicans were not elected because they kept the Tea Party out.
They weren't elected because they want people to work together. They weren't elected because of compromise. They weren't elected because they weren't conservative, 'cause they didn't have any idenity. They weren't elected... Nobody knew what the Republicans were on a national basis. I'm gonna say this over and over again because the Republicans stood mute. They didn't tell anybody anything about themselves.
They didn't articulate one policy. Individual candidates did, but the national Republican Party had no identity. Purposely! So they've won, and now they're telling themselves in the New York Times: The reason is the right people kept the right candidates in and kept the Tea Party out of it. There weren't any embarrassing statements that we had to defend that limited our fundraising, and that's why we won.
You really think that people went to the polls yesterday, and as they're marking their ballots or pulling the levers or whatever, do you think people are actually saying, "You know what? I'm gonna vote for Republicans this time because I don't remember any stupid things some guy in Missouri said. Yeah! Yep! Yep! That's it. Vote Republican. I don't remember anything." This was not on their minds.
They walked into the polling place, they walked up to the ballot box, and the only thought on their minds was: "This is our only chance as stopping what is happening to our country," and they weren't thinking about rape, and they weren't thinking about War on Women, and they weren't thinking about climate change. They weren't thinking about anything else. They were thinking about stopping what is happening to our country, and that means stopping the people who are causing it.
That happens to be Barack Obama and the Democrats.
And that's all this election was about.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• NYT: Republicans’ First Step Was to Handle Extremists in Party

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20..._of_extremists

Get Ready for the Judas "Knife in the Back Trick" the Kleptocrats in the GOP Establishment has in store for Merica

this is a Coup d'état of the 1 Percent and the GOP Establishment Elite are now going to show you who they are

Kleptocracy
Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often with pretense of honest service.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

Rush Limbaugh: Midterms Wouldn’t be Close if the Republican Party Had Embraced the Tea Party

November 4, 2014 By Matthew Burke

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploa...-Tea-Party.jpg
Rush Limbaugh said during his popular radio program on Monday, that the 2014 midterm elections should be a blowout win for Republicans, and there wouldn’t even be any close races, if the GOP had embraced the Tea Party, as had mostly been the case in the 2010 Tea Party-led landslide for the Republican Party.

Referencing a piece in Politico titled, “Mainstream GOP Sees Tipping Point vs. Insurgent Candidates” which he called a “hit piece aimed at conservatives,” Rush breaks down the article, saying that, “The insurgent candidates, for the purposes of this story, are Tea Party candidates.”

Assuming that the GOP does, in fact, take control of the Senate, the Politico piece insinuates that Republican Party leadership will be celebrating not just that they’ve ousted Democrat Senate Majority Leader from his perch, but that the GOP establishment has effectively stifled the Tea Party wave.

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

“But the Politico story says no, the real celebration in a victory over Tuesday would not be taking control of the Senate. No. And of course you know what’s next. “With growing confidence as Election Day approaches, Republican leaders are preparing to argue that broad GOP gains in the House and Senate would represent a top-to-bottom validation of their party’s mainline wing.” And what that means is that Republican leaders are preparing to argue that a broad Republican gain in the Senate, a broad Republican gain in the House, would represent a total repudiation of the Tea Party. And that, ladies and, is what these people — this is a Politico story, but the Politico wouldn’t have a story if it weren’t for sources talking to them. And I don’t think these particular sources are Democrats here.”

Rush went onto say that with 92 million Americans out of work, the destruction of the U.S. healthcare system via Obamacare, Obama’s crushing of U.S. influence around the globe, and a terrible economy, the real argument shouldn’t be whether the Republicans are going to win the Senate, but whether the Democrat Party can even survive.

While almost all polls predict Republican Party victories, including taking control of the Senate, most races are close according to polls, usually within the margin of error. Rush contends that if the GOP establishment had embraced their natural grassroots, the Tea Party, instead of trying to crush it, the 2014 midterms wouldn’t even be close.

If the Republican Party had embraced the most amazing political event of our lifetime, and that’s the rise of the Tea Party — ah, you might want to say the fall of the Berlin Wall, but that also had foreign policy connotations. But out of nowhere this massive political movement rises. Out of nowhere in 2010 it arises precisely because of its opposition to the Democrat president, the Democrat Party, and what they are doing to the country, and to this day the Republican Party has refused to embrace it. In fact, it’s the opposite.

They’ve [GOP establishment] attempted to diminish and impugn the Tea Party to the point now we’ve got a Politico story, which says that the real thing the Republicans are gonna celebrate if they take the Senate is not taking the Senate but vanquishing the idea that the Tea Party is needed for Republicans to win.

Rush predicts that if there is a Republican wave on Tuesday, the media and Republican establishment will assert that, “The Tea Party is dead.”

He strongly disagrees.

“If there is a wave election tomorrow [Tuesday, November 4], it’s gonna be because the Tea Party shows up,” Rush said on Monday. “…if there’s a big wave tomorrow, it’s gonna be because of the Tea Party,” he contends.

“It’s not about stopping the Tea Party, for crying out loud! It’s about stopping Obama,” he shouted.

Please share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree with Rush Limbaugh that the GOP should stop attacking the grassroots of its own party.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/04/rush-...the-tea-party/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...878f177f50d90a Rush Limbaugh

Obama said, "My policies are on the ballot." Yep. He knows. This election was about stopping this, not compromising with it, not working with it, not crossing the aisle and getting along with it.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=175&sh=175

Obama Knows What This Election Was About
I said, "I don't need 400. I can do it in four: 'I hope he fails.'"
rushlimbaugh.com

Obama Knows What This Election Was About

November 05, 2014

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/images/listentoit.jpg http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/images/windowsicon.png
Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Even President Obama knows that this election was all about him. Even President Obama knows that the electorate said yesterday they want Obama stopped. And if you doubt me, let me take you back to October 2nd and Roll Call. "Obama: My Policies Are on the Ballot -- 'I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle's pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot.

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//medi...aPolicies2.jpg

"'Every single one of them,' Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University." As all of these Democrat candidates were begging him not to go anywhere near them, as they were begging him to stay away, as they were denying even having voted for him... And, by the way, do you realize Alison Lundergan Grimes was never, ever even viable in that race?
Do you realize that Wendy Davis never stood a chance? She was never in that race. She lost by 20, and yet the pollsters all told us, "Why, McConnell might end up losing!" Alison Lundergan Grimes was never a viable candidate. That's the extent to which this stuff was misrepresented, and we know why it's done. It is done to try to shape public opinion.
Well, while these people were all out there trying to keep Obama far away, what was Obama doing? Undermining their effort. Obama was saying, "Hey, you know, these are all my buddies, and I wouldn't be where I am if it weren't for them. They've all voted for my agenda, every one of these people that doesn't want me around.
"I understand how reality is, I understand politics, but they voted for my agenda." And he says, "My policies are on the ballot." Yep. He knows. All you have to do is listen. This election was about stopping this, not compromising with it, not working with it, not crossing the aisle and getting along with it. It was about stopping it. And even Obama knows it.
Here's Terry in Columbus, Ohio, as we meet the objective of getting a phone call in in the first hour. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey. Thanks for allowing me on. I remember back when you made a statement that I thought was very harsh when you said you hoped Obama and his policies all failed.
RUSH: Mmm-hmm.
CALLER: I remember everybody jumping on you and running you down, and I even began to think maybe you were just a little bit harsh. But, by golly, now I know that you were not only not harsh, you were not harsh enough! I'm telling you, I'm glad what you predicted happened, because now we can see the before and the after. And we know the before was much better.
RUSH: I appreciate that. You know what? It takes a big man to call and say what you said -- I mean, to admit that you thought I'd gone too far but now you think maybe I didn't go far enough. I appreciate that, Terry. Folks, let me... He's talking about what I said on January 16, 2009. The Wall Street Journal had asked a bunch of nationally renowned famous people to write 400 words on their hopes for the presidency of the first African-American president.
I said, "I don't need 400. I can do it in four: 'I hope he fails.'" I said this on January 16th, and I have to tell you something. One of the greatest attributes of somebody that hosts a radio show like this is empathy. You have to have empathy for the audience. I consider this relationship that you and I have almost to be familial.
I've been here 26 years, and those of you who are lifers, I mean, you know what this program's about and I'm about. I figure everybody understood what I meant, and I don't even think it's harsh. It's no different than saying, "I oppose socialism." I don't want socialism to succeed. "I hope he fails." I didn't want the presidency to fail. I didn't want the country to fail.
It was just the exact opposite. I wanted him to fail implementing his policies, and he didn't. We are where we are. By the way, what in the world...? Isn't trying to save, Mr. Brokaw, the country from socialism...? Isn't that a big idea? You tell everybody we're caught up in small, irrelevant things here, compared to your day? Stopping the country from going socialist, that's a huge deal, and that's what the election was about.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So I'm just scanning the news during the break here, and I see that Howard Fineman, formerly of Newsweek (until it went out of business) and then formerly of MSNBC -- well, he may still be there. But the source I saw was the Huffing and Puffington Post. Howard Fineman says, "The Era of Obama is Over," and it is not. The era of Obama is not over. Obama has not been stopped.
The election last night -- and I'm gonna keep saying this. You know the old saw: You have to say things over and over again for it to set in, for people to finally hear it -- particularly the spoken word, which is here and then it's gone into the ether. This election has a mandate, and the mandate is big. I don't think the Republican Party even is aware. They may be now, but it's not something they were conscious of.
They tried to win this election by practically being invisible at the national level, and because of this election they have been elected to stop Barack Obama and his agenda. They were elected to put the brakes on it. But Obama has shown -- and he's even in the midst of all this out there huffing and puffing and bragging about doing amnesty this Christmas.
The way he's gonna do it is to delay forever deportation of four million illegal immigrants in the country already. He'll start with a "small" number. Four million. Everybody thinks there are 12 to 20 million in the country. So he'll start with four million number. He's not gonna say it's granting amnesty. He's just gonna suspend deportations. They're never gonna be sent back, which is amnesty by another name.
He's gonna do it by hook or by crook, and why would he not? What is it about? What is amnesty? What is Obama's primary purpose in granting citizenship to millions who, at this moment, can't get it? It's a voter registration drive. There's no reason he would not do it because of the election results. The election results are not gonna stop him. That's why the era of Obama is not over.

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//medi...maDictator.jpg

Obama has shown, he's demonstrated and he continues to threaten to govern outside of the will of the people, against the will of the people and outside the Constitution. I think these next two years portend some of the greatest danger yet. I think these next two years hold... (sigh) It's scary to think about it, because we have a man who's committed -- he is, by virtue of his own existence, he is committed -- to transforming this country, for whatever reasons.
We can debate from now 'til the end of the day what it is about America that Obama doesn't like and wants to change, but it doesn't matter. We know that he doesn't like certain things and he has resented them for a long time -- and by God, by golly, he's gonna fix it before he goes. He's got two years, and it's everything to him and it doesn't matter to him what he has to do.
The Republicans have already promised him that they're not going to legally stop him. They've taken impeachment off the table. They better be very careful about talking about how there won't be a government shutdown or, "We're not gonna withhold funds." They better be very careful about that because all they're gonna do is send a message that he has a free reign.
That he's got a free road ahead of him to do whatever he wants to do, because when it comes to it they aren't gonna stop him, and that's the only reason they were elected. There can be no other. Voters don't send people to Washington to compromise. Voters send people to Washington to dominate. Voters send people to Washington to persevere, to win, to bring about things they believe in. They don't send people to Washington to cave on core principles in the name of compromise.
That's not what happened yesterday. The American people who voted, loud and clear made it plain and simple: "Stop it. We don't want any more," and the Republicans are the only ones who can. And so, in the midst of all this, here's Obama, "Hey, bud, you know what? I'm gonna continue on with my executive amnesty," because he needs and the Democrat Party is seeking total dominance of the American electoral system.
This election result's not gonna change his mind about it. Public opinion doesn't matter. The American people show up in droves to say to the country and Obama, "Stop!" That doesn't matter to him. He's gonna keep on. When you understand why, it makes total sense. He wants all of these illegal aliens to someday be legal,Democrat-registered voters, pure and simple! It isn't complicated whatsoever.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Ed in western Pennsylvania. Ed, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: Hi. How you doing?
RUSH: Good. Thank you.
CALLER: I reached my 15 minutes of fame talking with you.
RUSH: Well, hubba hubba. I'm happy to hear it.
CALLER: Well, I think Obama injected himself into the elections by saying his policies were on the ballot.
RUSH: Yep.
CALLER: So Republicans could come in and fix the problems in the country, and then he can claim that success for himself. Because otherwise he knows as well as everybody else does that the country is in shambles, and what else is he gonna put in his presidential library besides Saul Alinsky's book? Absolutely nothing.
RUSH: Besides the what? Oh, the Saul Alinsky book.
CALLER: Saul Alinsky book.
RUSH: So your...?
CALLER: What else is he gonna put in his library?
RUSH: Okay, your theory is that Obama may not be upset that the Democrats lost because the Republicans now are a natural enemy, and anything that doesn't get done he can just blame them. "They're not working with me. I gotta take steps on my own. They're just obstructionists."
CALLER: That's right.
RUSH: "They're just doing gridlock. They're not helping me." I think this has always been a possibility, and it could well be. Ed here thinks that Obama undermined the Democrats on purpose. (impression) "Hey, you know what? They're lying. My policies are on the ballot, and every one of these people that don't want me around? I wouldn't be where I am without 'em. They made me possible!
"Every one of these Democrats did everything I asked them to do, and they are lying to you when they say they don't like me." All right. All entirely possible. It is. I still think that we're going to hear at some point... I don't know when. It may be next year, after all this gets voted on and the new Congress is actually sworn in. I can hear him saying, "You know, I wanted to work with these people.
"I respect the results of elections, I really do, but these extremists? I mean, they're just obstructing everything I want to do here! We gotta help people," and then list all the things that he's trying to help and portray the Republicans as just refusing. He's gotta take action on his own, and he'll justify Republican gridlock and obstructionism as the reason he's reluctantly doing it. "Gee, I hate to do it, but I gotta do these executive actions."
No, nothing would surprise me, because that's what he wants to do. If you look at his approval ratings, it's not working right now. I mean, he's been blaming Republicans for his problems for the last two years, and it hasn't helped his approval numbers. People... (chuckles) This election was not about punishing the Republicans. I hate to tell you. It was about punishing the Democrats. It was the American people saying...
Look, I'm getting blue in the face saying it. You get the deal now, right?
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• Roll Call: Obama: My Policies Are on the Ballot
• RushLimbaugh.com: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails -- 01.16.2009
• Breitbart: Report: Executive Amnesty "No Matter How Big a Shellacking" for Democrats

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...tion_was_about

Ron Paul: Two-party Monopoly Must be ‘Infiltrated’ with Ideas

“They claim it's two parties, but it's a monopoly of a one-party system...”

http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/up...714ronpaul.jpg
Image Credits: David Carlyon / Wiki

by Adan Salazar | Infowars.com | November 5, 2014

An influential former U.S. lawmaker is warning that it will take more than just a GOP victory for the nation to realign its moral compass.

Appearing on Russia Today, former Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul pushed back against the dominant two-party paradigm, whom he says both endorse the same detrimental values of Keynesian economics and foreign policy interventionism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry3NHkINjTg

“Well I think it seems like this will be a very good year, better than it has been in the past,” Paul said of the Republican party winning total control of Congress.
According to Dr. Paul, the public has to stop voting for “the lesser of two evils” and endorse liberty candidates for dynamic change to occur.
“[W]e’re still locked in on this mentality that people will think positively on these other options, but when it gets down to the wire they say ‘Oh, I gotta vote for the lesser of two evils,’ and they end up voting that way. So we have to wait and see if there is a breakthrough.”
“Rather disgusting,” he says, “this whole idea that a good candidate that’s rating well in the polls can’t get in the debate. That’s where the corruption really is. It’s a monopoly of a one-party system. They claim it’s two parties, but it’s a monopoly of a one-party system and they don’t even allow a second option.”
When asked if third party candidates will soon have a chance of overcoming the paradigm to hold national office, Paul affirmed he believed that to be “a long way off” due to the two parties’ “tenacious cling to power.”
“If a third party person gets anywhere along, [republicans and democrats are] going to do everything they can to stop that from happening. So I think it’s a tough job. I think everybody should keep doing it, the people who are sick and tired of republicans and democrats, and according to a poll about eighty percent of the people are sick of republicans and democrats, yet they don’t go and opt out for another decision.”
Paul, who ran as a presidential candidate for the libertarian party in 1988 and later joined the GOP, also recommended attempting to “influence” and “infiltrate” the parties with ideas in order to fundamentally shift each party’s thinking. “So there’s two ways you can do it: fight for competition, fight to get rid of the monopoly of the republicans and democrats, or you try to influence people with ideas and infiltrate both political parties, because this is our problem right now is republicans and democrats both endorse Keynesian economics and they both endorse foreign policy interventionism and wars overseas and that’s why we’re in this mess today.”

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-two...ed-with-ideas/