Rush Limbaugh is spot on with his analysis of Barack Obama and how he has intentionally torn our nation apart, and more importantly, how Republican leadership has allowed him to do it. This is a great read for anyone who would like to understand exactly how this war on cops and war on White America started…
RUSH: This is so predictable to me. You know, I didn’t have a chance to really listen to it or study Obama’s speech in Dallas yesterday because it happened while the program was on, so I had to bone up on it later in the day. And it was predictable. The reaction to it was predictable. The Drive-Bys just thought it was the greatest speech ever. It was just over the top great. I mean, it was so timely, and it was so presidential.
Even some in the conservative media found it necessary to praise Obama’s speech. And we know why this happens. It is because some in the conservative media don’t want to be seen as constantly pestering the guy, so it’s thought that it’ll add to their credibility if they can acknowledge that the president did something well, did something good, presidential, even if it was only a portion of the speech.
But my take on it was entirely different. I think the first half of his speech yesterday seemed to be high-minded and unifying, but he blows it all to smithereens because I think what the first half of the speech was was a setup for the political hackery that was to come. It wasn’t as if the speech suddenly and unexpectedly veered off course. Obama knew that he had to give the impression he was a healer and a unifier before he could pivot to what he really wanted to say.
And I took it, you know, I’m sitting there watching it like everybody else did, and I’m absorbing it, and I felt like it was a political sucker punch. The second half of the speech is what Obama really wanted to say but couldn’t unless he preceded it with the so-called unifying remarks beforehand.
But here’s the thing I was wondering as I’m watching Obama, and we hear people on the left in the Drive-By Media talking about how Obama tries to unify and bring everybody together. “What a great effort! Ah, it was just stupendous.”
Then why draw a moral equivalence? Here he was at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers. Why draw any kind of a more…? Why do you mention Alton Sterling and what went on in Minnesota? Why? You can mention it, but this effort to draw some kind of moral equivalence as though there is one and we can understand all of it happening? This inability to look at something and proclaim it wrong… (interruption)
Well, yeah, okay. So he knew he’d get grief from the left. I don’t think he cares he get grief from the left. I think the guy’s got his agenda and he’s full-speed marching it down the path. I’m just… When this year began, I warned everybody. I said, “Folks, this year coming up with the Republicans having given Obama a clear road signaling they’re not gonna oppose anything, not even his policies…” You know, Mitch McConnell and Ryan announced they weren’t gonna oppose Obama.
They didn’t want to appear to be opposing or creating any negatives for the Republican presidential nominee. So Obama knows he’s got a free road. So why does he care that the left might come at him and say he wasn’t left-wing enough or he wasn’t pro-Black Lives Matter enough? I don’t think there’s any doubt where Obama stands with people on the left. I want you to stop and think about something. I want to set it up by acknowledging something that we all know. Obama knows it; everybody knows it.
The entire narrative of Ferguson, Missouri, is a lie. “Hands up, don’t shoot” is a lie. The story that a racist cop went hunting and found an innocent Gentle Giant walking down the street — when he should have been on the sidewalk — contemplating excitedly… This is part of the story: He was eagerly anticipating his freshman year at college, was Michael Brown, and this racist cop went hunting, and he found a guy breaking the law, walking in the street!
And he got up in his face and he all bullied him and so forth, and Brown was immediately deferential and put his hands up and said, “Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot!” and the cop shot anyway. That is the story that came out of there, and that story fed entire narrative of Black Lives Matter and whatever they’re trying to do to create controversy and division. And it fed the New Black Panthers. It was a lie. It was a total lie.
Everything about that Ferguson story as repeated by the media and prominent Democrats and civil rights activists was a lie. What if…? I want you to think about it. What if, in the aftermath of Ferguson, Missouri, Barack Obama, as president of the United States — meaning president of the whole country, meaning president of everybody here — had scheduled a national address from the Oval Office, an address to the people of America and told them the truth about what happened in Ferguson?
After the grand jury investigation was complete, after it was inarguably so — after we learned exactly what happened, that the Gentle Giant had robbed a convenience store, that he was looking for a mechanism to spoke some dope. He had bullied the clerk in the 7-Eleven, the convenience store, whatever. He was walking down the street. He had attempted to overtake the cop in his car. He had defied the requests and the orders of the cop. He had taken action which resulted in the cop shooting.
Everything about that story was not true.
What if Obama had gone on TV and simply told people? For the sake of national unity, for the sake of understanding, for the sake of promoting and acknowledged truth, what if Obama had been on TV and acknowledged what really happened and had told everybody that what they think happened in Ferguson didn’t happen? What do you think the aftermath might have been?
This is what we expect of presidents, is the point. We don’t expect presidents to further and promulgate lies and misinformation for the express purpose of creating and fomenting deadly anger. Presidents try to quell these situations. They try to get a handle on ’em and ratchet down the tension. Such an opportunity exists here because the truth was the truth, and the truth was not part of the narrative. Now, if that had happened — and I can’t predict in the alternative future, but I have to think that the aftermath of that incident the lie would have been short-lived.
And the anger would have subdued. Maybe it would have been redirected toward Obama; I don’t know. But, remember: It fed Baltimore, it fed Freddie Gray, it fed the situation in New York with the Eric Garner — who also died of a heart attack, not a chokehold. That’s another lie that was told. This guy was selling knock-off cigarettes on the street of New York. He’s telling… Because New York City taxes it so high that the guy could make a living selling black market cigarettes, selling black market cigarettes.
For some reason, he came to the attention of the cop. They ended up applying a restraining hold on the guy, but he had a heart attack. It was not… The chokehold didn’t kill. The cops did not kill the guy. But that’s not the story. There are so many lies that have been created and then, if not promoted, they have not been quelled by the White House, which makes me question motive. Why not? Of course, I know the answer to this, and you do, too.
You know the answer lies in the president’s agenda and is rapidly becoming the Democrat Party agenda. I was looking at the Democrat Party platform. You wouldn’t believe, folks. The Democrat Party has been totally now taken over by the radicals. I mean, just insane lunatic radicals are now the mainstream of the Democrat Party. You look at the Democrat Party platform in ’08 and look at it in 2012. They acknowledge the legitimacy of the Second Amendment, these platforms.
Platforms don’t matter much in terms of future governing. I mean, they’re not binding on presidents if they win the election to implement the platform, whatever. What the platform basically does is tell you what the base of the party thinks about things, ’cause the base of the party dominates in primaries and they end up on the committee that writes the platform, so the platform gives you an indication where the base of both parties are. The Democrat Party is…
Not only is it not John F. Kennedy’s Democrat Party. It isn’t Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton’s Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton is a… Well, I don’t want to… She’s a radical in and of her own right, but she tempers her radicalness with enough proclamations or statements that make her to be mainstream in enough areas. But there isn’t any mainstream anything in the Democrat Party platform. And I’m telling you: It’s what happens when there’s no opposition.
When there’s no opposition, when there no guardrails, when there’s nothing to stop people from descending to their extreme worst, that’s exactly what’s gonna happen. And I’m here to tell you: The extremism in America could be found almost exclusively on the Democrat side, and that extremism has been documented in their platform, and it was speaking in Dallas yesterday. This idea of finding a moral equivalence, and taking the occasion of a memorial service at a funeral for one of the cops to say it?
It was a funeral for one of the cops yesterday. To take the occasion and use it to amplify…? That statement, “It’s easier to get a Glock than to get a computer or gun?” Come on! What in the world can that possibly represent, that kind of statement? There’s nothing unifying about that. It’s not even true. And he knows it isn’t true. So that’s nothing but a provocative statement designed to illustrate an actual opinion held by Barack Obama, and he turned that whole thing yesterday into yet another attempt at gun control.
I think it’s the… Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there’s a chapter. If you haven’t heard this, buckle up. It’s a chapter of the NAALCP, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People. And somebody in some chapter prominently has now claimed that the death of Micah X. Johnson was nothing more than a modern day lynching. Yeah. The guy who assassinated five Dallas police officers and injured 11 or 12 others.
So the police rally, and they use their explosive robot bomb to kill the guy, and now the NAALCP is running around accusing that action of being a lynching. Innocent people were lynched. The NAALCP says, “We don’t know if the guy was a shooter! We don’t know if the guy did it. We’re just taking their word for it? We don’t take their word for it! We don’t trust them; we don’t to believe ’em. They’re making it up! We don’t have any evidence the guy was the shooter. We don’t have any evidence blew him up with a robot bomb. It’s a lynching.”
Hey, here’s to unity.
For entire article: Rushlimbaugh.com