The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

CPAC Speeches – Rush Limbaugh, Wayne LaPierre, Newt Gingrich,

Posted by iusbvision on March 1, 2009

I guarantee you that:

1. If you are a student you do not understand American Conservatism. The nonsense you have gotten from professors and the elite media culture is just that, nonsense.

2. If you have any interest in politics at all you will learn more in the following speeches than you would receive in two semesters of any political science class.

Rush Limbaugh on who conservatives are, what conservatism is and why, and dealing with critics. Folks this is a speech that no one should miss. Rush starts out with a few jokes to break the ice and then gets very serious (transcript HERE):

Wayne LaPierre on dealing with Congress, dealing with CNN, gun policy, and international affairs :

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on a variety of subjects such as Obama’s broken policies, how the poor and middle class are also under attack by the government and the power of ideas.

3 Responses to “CPAC Speeches – Rush Limbaugh, Wayne LaPierre, Newt Gingrich,”

  1. Stephen A. Hnat said

    It seems to me that the Conservatism advocated by Limbaugh is markedly different than that of Buckley and other intellectuals of that era. Limbaugh Conservatism is decidely NOT libertarian and advocates for the reduction of individual liberties justified by conservative religious, not political, principles. Thus, in terms of the social policy aspect of contemporary Conservatism, there is a marked disconnect with the historically libertarian, or at least tolerant, orientation of the American Conservative Movement of the past. The same disconnect also appears with regard to foreign policy, which tended toward isolationism in the past but was decidedly activist with the neo-cons. It will be interesting to see what will happen now that the neo-cons have been so thoroughly repudiated by reality. Speaking of reality, what to make of the fiscal policies of the Limbaugh Conservatives, now that the failure of their theoretical corenerstone, an essentially unregulated free market, has precipitated a second depression (or nearly so)? In any event, while the Limbaugh Conservatives have interesting sound bytes, the reality of how they have governed the last 8 years is marked for its failure in nearly every regard, economic, foreign policy or electorally. Compared to the Buckley era, the Limbaugh Conservatism lacks a coherent philosophy. Small wonder then, that adolescent novelists are now the intellectual backbone of CPAC.

    [How nice, it sounds like you memorized that speech, however it does not reflect history and your comments about Limbaugh’s speech demonstrates that you obviously didn’t watch it. If you care to dare to go over it with me point by point, consider this your personal invitation to try.

    First the government was forcing banks to make bad loans under CRA lawsuits, then the interest rates were kept artificially below the market by the Federal Reserve, then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a system to buy up any loan no matter what the risk and letting banks know that they can make NINJA loans (no income, no job loans) and then Sarbanes-Oxley with mark to market accounting rules made all those mortages worth nothing on paper after the bubble popped causing banks to show less value on paper than they actually had.

    By the way from 2003 to 2007 the economy was going great guns, government revenue went up, and unemployment dropped. The Bush Adsministration tried repeatedly since 2001 to get congress to fix the mortgage problem and Democrats blocked it each time.

    So go and do some homeork and come back if you dare.

    We have a section on the lower left had side of the page called “mortgage crisis”. It contains all the evidence needed (except the part on the Federal Reserve as I am still researching that component for publication later) to have a realistic understanding of what happend and not the easily proven lies you posted here. I won’t hold my breath that you will read it though because your comments demonstrate that you really haven’t read much.

    I see that you still work for Geoff Fieger as a policy analyst. I kinda like him but if this is an example of the kind of work you do it is no wonder that he lost. Judging by the absolute nonsense you have posted here; you couldn’t out debate me on economic policy on your very best day. I have debated PhD’s in economics including one that worked for the Clinton Administration and eaten their lunch; you wouldn’t even be a challenge. – Editor]

  2. Mike Razar said

    PhDs in economics? Isn’t that setting the bar kind of low? It is hard to decide whether they are just arrogant or stupid too?. I’ll be happy to debate that with anyone. :)

    [Hi Mike,

    Ok well ya sorta got me there :-). I would not debate the IUSB economists because they are top notch and many of them agree with me anyways. Of course IUSB’s Business and Economics school is one of the finest in the country. …BUT, there are several neo-marxist Notre Dame profs. The one I debated from the Clinton Administration came from there. I would love to debate Paul Krugman from the New York Times. I am trying to find out if he has ever been right about anything. Krugman is great at slinging BS at those who haven’t done their homework though. That is why the failing New York Times loves him so much.

    I know your name, if memory serves are you the Harvard Mike Razar (from back when Harvard really was something special?)? It’s ok if you do not answer. If you are who I think you are, I would take any critique from you quite seriously.

    In either case, if the Obama Administration gets its way and gets re-elected and keep going down the road he is going down with these budgets he has proposed, in 10 years the United States will be spending $400-600 Billion a year in interest alone (more than the Iraq War cost in interest every year). That would be a disaster I am not confident that we could recover from. Poor Stephen doesn’t have a clue. – Editor]

  3. John said

    His speech is so bogged down with inflammatory statements, how could Rush ever think he would convince someone who doesn’t already agree with him (I realize he’s at CPAC, but as he said he was excited to be “addressing the nation”). Any legitimate description of conservatism for those who HONESTLY want to know is wrapped in sensationalist attacks.

    Rush should just tell us why he thinks the President’s plan is wrong. Don’t tell me President Obama wishes poorly on the USA, because that is unfounded and useless.


    First of all, all media figures use hyped language for entertainment value, to single out Rush Limbaugh in this regard is a bit silly.

    As far as your “that is unfounded” statement. Don’t be so sure. The first laws passed by the Democratic party since the inauguration undermined ethics procedures in place to resist corruption, they snuck in the undoing of welfare reform and they saw to it that lobbyists got copies of the first spending bill before most members of Congress did. While campaigning on transparency, this administration has done more to undermine transparency than any other that I am aware of.

    The kind of policies that Obama is putting forward are similar to Herbert Hoover, New Deal, Great Society, and Jimmy Carter, all of which were failures that spread and prolonged human and economic suffering.

    If you have been reading the site, you would know that many moderates who supported Obama are now turning against him. The very far left in this country is very much into class warfare, and class envy. Rush Limbaugh calls it “get even withemism”. They believe that destroying wealth and bringing down capitol and forced redistribution in the extreme is a good thing, but anyone with a historical perspective that exceeds breakfast knows how harmful they are.

    Good or ill intent is irrelevant where the rubber meets the road, it is results that count. It is time that you and the left take a look around, look at inner city schools and cities that have been ran by Democrats for over three decades and say that after all that suffering and economic blight its ok to still keep voting the same people in because they had good intentions. It is also not as simple as a partisan matter, almost half the Republicans are just Democrat lite.

    If you know anything about Rush Limbaugh you would know that he is fearless and completely sincere. He has 22 million listeners for a reason. His audience is slightly larger than all three network news broadcasts combined. Studies from Pew and other research groups have shown that Rush Limbaugh listeners are among the most informed on matters of current events and history.

    While majorities in most news audiences knew that the Democrats have a majority in the House, regular viewers of Hannity & Colmes (84%), and listeners of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program (83%) scored best on this question. Large proportions of regular Hannity & Colmes viewers (73%) and Limbaugh listeners (71%) also identified Rice as the secretary of state

    By the way, Rush tells why each and every policy is wrong on his radio show in great detail. Rush even proposed a very smart bipartisan stimulus plan that Democrat Mort Kondrake, who is the editor of “The Hill Magazine” said was a very good plan.

    Rush uses hype and humor as literary entertainment devices, but smart listeners are very aware of the substance in his news analysis. – Editor]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: