With Jeb Bush announcing Tuesday morning that he will “actively explore the possibility” of running for president in 2016, radio host Rush Limbaugh said Bush is setting up a “sacrificial run” to make sure a “tea party-type” does not get the nomination.
Limbaugh added that Bush is being viewed by the “big-money donor class” and the establishment as a “savior,” and that the establishment wants nothing more, calling it their “wildest dream,” to “render the tea party, conservatives an irrelevant factor.”
“You want to know why Jeb Bush is thinking about running?” Limbaugh asked Tuesday.
“He’s…being looked at as savior by the big-money donor class and the consultant class, the establishment of the party, to head off the tea party,” Limbaugh said. “They’re gonna pull out all the stops to make sure that a tea-party-type conservative doesn’t get the nomination.”
“It could be a sacrificial run just to make sure that a conservative doesn’t get the nomination in 2016,” Limbaugh said. “There’s a whole bunch of stuff under the surface here that’s percolating and effervescing and it’s all about us being the No. 1 enemy of these people.”
“He’s not a conservative. He is a Republican probably on fiscal issues, may even be pro-life, I don’t know, but he certainly hates social issues,” Limbaugh added.
Bush’s announcement comes on the heels of his commencement address at the University of South Carolina, the home to one of the most important presidential primaries.
“As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States,” Bush said in his Facebook post Tuesday morning.
“In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America,” he added.
Limbaugh continued his critique of a potential Bush run, saying that Bush’s main goal is to win the Republican Party’s nomination “without securing the base.”
“He’s going to do it by ignoring the base. Jeb Bush is out telling donors…that he is not gonna compromise his principles like others have in order to get the nomination, meaning he’s not gonna pander to the tea party. Nope. He’s not gonna pander to conservatives. He’s gonna show that you can win the Republican Party nomination without securing the base,” the conservative radio host said.
“The Republican Party is dominated now by what is called in the parlance of the day, the donor class … the big, big donors,” Limbaugh continued.
“So when you hear Jeb, or anybody else, seek the Republican nomination and start talking about doing it without winning the base … they’re trying to all come up with a way to win the party nomination without owing anything to the tea party.” Limbaugh said. “Their wildest dream is to render the tea party conservatives an irrelevant factor.”
“And one of the primary reasons for that is that’s what the donors want. The donors rule the roost. The donors are the big money. And the donors determine in large part what the party does.” Limbaugh said, adding that ”a lot of this talk about the Jeb candidacy is an attempt to see if they can actually, once and for all, in a primary setting, relegate the tea party and members of it who are elected, such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, impotent.”
December 16, 2014
RUSH: I just got a note. “Hey, you know, this is a good thing that you’re talking about here, the loss of honest media, targeting anything conservative. Do you do you take any hope in people seeing what you’re talking about more and more?” Yeah, I do. Look at the last two midterm elections. I think the American people see clearly what’s happening here and they don’t like it. I think the American people are totally — those voting, anyway — are very aware of all of this. And they’re voting to stop all of this stuff. All of this stuff the American people were unequivocal about. Stop it. Bring it to a screeching halt.
And did the politics class in Washington do? The political class in Washington with this budget deal, essentially the two parties got together and they turned to the electorate, who voted in November and went (raspberry) you. That is precisely what they did. You want to know why Jeb Bush is thinking of running? I’ll give you a possibility, including the fact he may want to be president, he may want to do this. But he’s also being looked at as a savior by the big money donor class and the consultant class, the establishment of the party, to head off the Tea Party.
They’re gonna pull out all the stops to make sure that a Tea Party type conservative doesn’t get the nomination. If that means somebody like Jeb — could be a sacrificial run just to make sure that a conservative doesn’t get the nomination in 2016. There’s a whole bunch of stuff under the surface here that percolating and effervescing, and it’s all about us being the number one enemy of these people.
RUSH: I realize I might have very quickly gone past my Jeb Bush theory and intrigued some of you. So let’s just take a little time. Jeb has announced he’s gonna form an exploratory committee, one of the biggest surprises since the moon came up last night. What about this specter, how about Jeb versus Hillary, 2016. Do you see the American people invigorated and excited? Oh, speaking of which, there is a story in the Stack today, which I will get to. I’m doing all this stuff out of order, but I’m remembering as it applies. It has to with Millennials learning something about Hillary. Oh! Oh! There’s a poll, Millennials are shocked when they learn that Hillary Clinton is 67 years old. They can’t believe it.
Now, that begs an obvious question. What in the world are they looking at? The second thing that the polling data suggests shocks young people about Mrs. Clinton is that she hasn’t driven since 1996. Hillary Clinton hasn’t driven herself since 1996, and is 67 years old. The Millennials were shocked that she’s that old. (interruption) I’m what? (interruption) I drive myself. I do, except when I’m out of town. Well, sometimes I do. It depends. But nevertheless.
Now, stop and think of this. The news about the poll suggests the Millennials are disappointedly surprised here. “Hillary, 67? Oh, my God. We’re voting for a dinosaur? Aw, gee. We’re supporting it?” And then they find out she doesn’t drive, and that manifests itself in their minds as, “My God, this woman doesn’t drive. She’s out of touch, being chauffeured everywhere?” Wait until these kids find out what she did to enable her husband abusing women, speaking of that. Wait ’til they find out that Hillary Clinton ran the bimbo eruptions unit.
This is why I say, ladies and gentlemen, that this yellow brick road to the White House for Hillary Clinton, I’m not on board with this yet. And I think, if the Democrat Party — and, by the way, speaking of that, there are couple stories in the Stack today about the disarray the Democrat Party is in. And there’s no question it is. It is a mess, but I don’t think that ought to take precedence over the absolute mess the Republican Party’s making of things.
The Republican Party has already squandered a massive landslide election win. They’ve already squandered it with this budget deal that they did. They looked at this landslide election victory and spat upon it, all to send a message to us, to conservatives. In fact, the Democrats and Republicans got together on it. The Democrats and Republicans got together on the budget, they’re getting together on amnesty, and they’re getting together on Obamacare.
I’ve had people call me over the years, say, “Rush, there’s no difference in the parties.” And I’ve always argued with those people. But in the last two weeks, you’d be hard-pressed to find any difference. I mean, they’ve all united on this lamebrain budget, this really dumb budget. Dumb for the details in it, dumb for how long it is, everything about it’s dumb and wrong. And they’re aligned on amnesty because their donors are. The donor class is running both parties on amnesty. And the Republicans are throwing in with the Democrats and Obamacare.
You can’t find a lickspittle bit of difference. You can’t. On those three issues. I tell you, this is all done, this unity is all aimed at those who are considered the enemy, in a domestic sense, and that’s conservatives. That’s the Tea Party. The Ted Cruzes, the Mike Lees, pick a name. Throw Palin in there if you want, but that’s what this is about. So in the midst of all this, here comes Jeb announcing that he’s gonna explore, via a committee, the idea of running for president. And he’s gonna do it in a unique way. He’s going to do it by ignoring the base.
Jeb Bush is out telling donors, potential donors, CEOs and the like that he is not gonna compromise his principles like others have in order to get the nomination. Meaning, he’s not gonna pander to the Tea Party. Nope. He’s not gonna pander to conservatives. He’s gonna show that you can win the Republican Party nomination without securing the base. And one of the things that I think is really going on here, I think that the Republican Party — it’s true of both parties — the Republican Party is dominated now by what is called in the parlance of the day, the donor class.
You’ve got the political class, the establishment, the consultants class, but the donor class, it’s just the donors. The big, big donors, I’ll tell you who they are. If I had been paying attention I would have realized what was happening 20 years ago. Remember this dinner party I’ve told you about over and over again at the Hamptons? I’m out on the deck after dinner, this guy, big donor, comes up to me and says, poking me in the chest, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?” Remember that story? Well, this guy’s the perfect example of what I’m talking about, the donor class.
He’s not a conservative. He is a Republican probably on fiscal issues, may even be pro-life, I don’t know, but he certainly hates social issues, wants them to be no part of any campaign because his wife nags him about it. He doesn’t like going to conventions with a bunch of hayseed, hick pro-lifers. But this guy and who he represents was a forerunner of what’s going on now. This happened to me, had to be around 1992 or 1993, and it was my first time at the Hamptons. I mean, I would love to tell you the names, but I didn’t get permission to do that, and it’s enough to know that you would know them.
Some were administration officials at the time. Some were former. But it was heavy hitters, and big, big donors. And I remember when this guy came up to me and said, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?” I was taken aback. I was very young, naive, still in the first four years of this and still not really understanding what’s happening, and certainly not knowing who my friends are yet or not. Although I thought I did. I was wrong about that, too. But when this guy starts poking me, I thought he’s teasing me. It was venomous. He was really mad. And I said, “What do you mean, the Christians?”
And he started in on pro-lifers. At the time, the moral majority or the Christian right, I forget the term he used, whatever was popular back then. And I said, “Well, I don’t know why you think I have –“
“They listen to you. You’re one of them. They listen to you.” So right then, if I’d have known, if I’d have had the presence of mind I would have understood that even back then I had been tagged as what the Tea Party is to these guys today: a problem. A potential friend, if I can see the light of day, but if I stayed the way I was, I was gonna be a problem because I had inroads to the Christians.
I tried to stand my ground. I said, “Sir, they’re 24 million votes. You can’t win the presidency without ‘em.” And that’s what they’re fed up with, folks. That’s what they’re tired of. And so when you hear Jeb or anybody else seek the Republican nomination and start talking about doing it without winning the base, they’re trying to all come up with a way to win the party nomination without owing anything to the Tea Party. Their wildest dream is to render the Tea Party conservatives an irrelevant factor. One of the primary reasons for that is that that’s what the donors want. The donors rule the roost. The donors are the big money.
And the donors determine in large part what the party — clearly that’s what happened here in this budget deal. It’s clearly what’s happening with amnesty. I’m not so sure the donors are responsible for Obamacare, but in some ways it may be, depending on which donors you’re talking about. So I think that a lot of this talk about the Jeb candidacy is an attempt to see if they can actually, once and for all, in a primary setting, relegate the Tea Party and members of it who are elected, such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, impotent. And I think that’s the objective that they have.
You look at the way they went after Ted Cruz when he stood up and tried to get a vote on whether or not what Obama was doing is unconstitutional. He only got 22 Republicans to agree with him on this notion that Obama was acting illegally, outside the Constitution? Only 22 senators voted with Cruz on his point of order? Wouldn’t you think, just in a normal ebb and flow of the day, given what you’ve always thought party politics was, wouldn’t you think that this current bunch of Republican senators, who have to be fully aware that they’re gonna be the majority next month, the current crop of Republicans in the Senate, they’re gonna have a majority because the people that won are gonna be sworn in in January.
They’re gonna be part of a majority. You would think that they could have taken this vote and established for the party, “Yes, President Obama is acting outside the Constitution.” And only 22 senators voted for this. In effect, they sided with the Democrats on this, saying, “No, President Obama is not acting outside the Constitution on this executive amnesty business.” I had people e-mailing me, “What does this mean?” Folks, it can only mean one thing. What Cruz offered was a simple point of order.
There wasn’t even any oompff behind this. It was just go on record stating a belief. If they’re unwilling to do that, I don’t think you should expect — maybe you don’t already — I wouldn’t expect the Senate to do any serious battling with Obama, even after they’re sworn in. I mean, it has to be what this means.
RUSH: By the way, I didn’t think I needed to say this, but 20 years ago when the guy pokes me in the chest and says, “What are you gonna do with the Christians?” it’s not just abortion and the social issues today that have the Republican establishment aiming at us, opposed to conservatives. Folks, it’s all about limited government, too. They do not want a smaller government. They want a big government that they run. They claim they’re gonna do it smarter, they’re gonna do it more efficiently, but they want the power. I mean, hell, if the government’s gonna play crony socialism, the Republicans want in on the fun.
It’s a danger of precedent setting. You’d think principled people roll back all these destructive things, and that’s not what’s gonna happen. All these crazy things Obama’s done, some Republicans say, “Hey, you know, I want some of that action. It’s power, man, it’s power.” And the power of the federal budget, being able to dole out goodies to your friends in business who have spent a lot of money getting you elected, so it’s quid pro quo. It’s not just about abortion.
It’s become much more than that. It’s what it was, as the animating factor, but now it’s still the social issues, but it’s also the fact — and look at this budget. This is not my opinion. This is not theory. Based on the vote on the budget, I don’t think anybody could honestly claim that the modern incarnation of the Republican leadership is at all interested in reducing the size of government. And that has a practical meaning. Individual freedom and liberty are directly related to the size of government. Bigger government, the less freedom and liberty we all have. Undeniable.
RUSH: Hey, look, I don’t know. I mean, people say, “Hey, Rush, would you explain something to me? Jeb Bush is telling Republican donors that he’s gonna get the nomination outside of the base. He’s gonna do it without the votes of the base. How’s he gonna do that? I mean, nobody wins their nomination without the base.” Look, folks, right now I don’t have an answer. I can give you a wild guess of what I think.
originalIt’s not so much a wild guess. It’s just paying attention to what they say. If somebody had a gun to my head and said, “You give me a credible theory here on how the Republicans think they can win without the Tea Party voters,” I’d say, “Here’s what it is: Remember, they are devoted to the concept of ‘he who wins independents wins it all.'” They’re devoted to that, number one. Especially now they love the independents, ’cause they are not ideologues.
These establishment, big government, whatever Republicans just don’t like ideologues because they associate ideologues with Tea Party and conservatism. I actually think… This is probably more of a general election strategy than primary, but I think that they believe that they can win with a coalition of independents (who they believe, by the way, hate conservatives as much as everybody else hates ‘em) and Hispanics. Do not forget how devoted to the potential Hispanic vote Republicans are. It’s the sole reason they want to do amnesty.
I think they think they could put together a coalition of independents and Hispanics to go along with the average Republican voter, who’s not a conservative or Tea Partier. Romney did it. Here’s the problem with it: Romney won the independents big time. The problem is Republicans got fooled by a trick run by the Democrats all these years. The trick is, “He who wins the independents wins the election.” The reason that was a trick… I’ve said this over and over again.
What it effectively does, is it makes the Republicans run a campaign aimed at 20% of the populace. It assumes that the base is gonna vote for you no matter what in the general. It assumes that the basis is gonna vote for you no matter what. So you got that 40%, and the Democrats have their same 40%. The key, therefore, is the remaining 20% independents. So the Republican consultants tell their candidates (and, by the way, make their sales pitch to get the job from each candidate), “I’m the guy can get you the independents! I’m the guy that can devise a campaign where you’ll win the independents!”
Romney won independents going away. Lost the election. But they’re still wedded to it. It’s a nostalgic thing. They still think it’s key. Because I think they’d love to win with independents. I actually think they would love to win and be able to say afterward that conservative Republicans were not a factor in the victory. That’s… (interruption) Reagan won everything. You don’t win 49 states without everyone. Reagan won practically everything. I don’t know what the demographic breakdown back then with Hispanics and all that was, but he had two landslides.
But, see, they don’t go back and look at the Reagan years as the example. They go back and look at Goldwater. They associate conservatives and Tea Party with Goldwater landslide loss rather than Reagan. Anyway, I’ve been through all of this. I just… (interruption) Snerdley wanted to know how you win without the base. I don’t know. I really don’t. But I know they’d love to. They would love to. Their dream… Let me tell you what their dream is. Their dream is to win the White House and be able to say afterwards that they didn’t need a single Tea Party vote to do it — and the Democrats will do anything to help them, in that regard. Not win the White House, but the Democrats will do anything they can to help them render the Tea Party vote impotent or irrelevant. That’s their objective. It can’t be anything else. I mean, maybe it is. I don’t see it.
I think it’s pretty obvious.
Narrative shifts to portray culprit as “lone actor” with no political agenda
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | DECEMBER 15, 2014
Despite demanding to speak with the Prime Minister, asking for an ISIS flag, and telling hostages that the media was covering up ISIS responsibility for the attack, the narrative in the Sydney siege quickly shifted to portray culprit Haron Monis as an “isolated figure” who had no real political motivations.
Two people, including the gunman, died after commandos stormed the building earlier today, ending a 16-hour siege.
Whether or not Monis was an ISIS member or merely inspired by ISIS, to downplay that his actions were politically motivated is patently naive. While it’s true that Monis was out on bail after being charged as an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife, both his history and his actions during the siege clearly indicate that he was driven by extremist Islamist ideology.
Monis made numerous demands during the siege that were deliberately not reported by the media. When those demands leaked out onto Facebook and YouTube, the posts and videos were quickly deleted.
Hostages were asked by Monis to produce short videos in which they related Monis’ assertion that the incident was an ISIS attack and that the media was covering up the fact that the attack was inspired by ISIS. Monis also repeatedly demanded access to a radio station to air his views.
A Facebook post made by one of the victims also stated, “The man wants the world to know that Australia is under attack by the Islamic State”. Monis also demanded that an ISIS flag be delivered to the cafe. A generic Islamist flag was subsequently held up by hostages in the window of the Lindt store.
Monis originally came to Australia in 1996 as a political refugee and self-proclaimed Shia cleric, claiming that his life was under threat from the “Iranian regime” and was subsequently interviewed by Australia’s ABC network in 2001 in what some saw as part of an effort to demonize Tehran. Monis also said he was in contact with the United Nations regarding Iran’s “terrorist operations in the war”.
In 2008, Australia’s senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, urged federal police to investigate Monis while distancing himself from the cleric, asserting that no one knew who he was.
In September last year, Monis was sentenced with 300 hours community service for sending hate mail to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Earlier this month, Monis announced his conversion to Sunni Islam, posting on his website, “I used to be a Rafidi, but not any more. Now I am a Muslim, Alhamdu Lillah”.
“It was the Australian media itself who introduced him publicly as an “Ayatollah” and the Australian government that vetted him and allegedly granted him political asylum,” writes Tony Cartalucci. “He was allegedly in contact with the UN and was used to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment in Australia. It is then highly suspicious that now both the Australian media and the Australian government appear to have no knowledge of who he is or where he came from.”
Indeed, the mainstream media now seems to be very keen on emphasizing the narrative that Monis was a “lone actor,” an “isolated figure” and had “no known links to jihadist groups”. His overtly political statements and demands made during the siege have either been glossed over or ignored entirely.
Imagine for a second if a Tea Party supporter in the United States who hated Muslims took dozens of hostages and asked for a Ku Klux Klan flag while ordering the hostages to tell the media that he was acting on behalf of the KKK – would the media then downplay the political motivation behind the attack?
The Grand Mufti of Australia, the highest Muslim authority in the country, also sought to downplay any political or Islamist connotation, referring to the incident as a “criminal” attack.
Other factors also suggest that contrived concerns over cultural sensitivity were advanced to cloud the actual nature of the attack. A campaign called “I’ll ride with you,” which encouraged Australians to accompany Muslims traveling to work, went viral, despite no reports whatsoever of any violence being directed towards Muslims as a result of the incident.
The Sydney Morning Herald even suggested that Australians should have “empathy” for the terrorist, asking, “How should we feel for the perpetrator so far witnessed and his family?”
It’s odd that a country usually keen to create hysteria about Islamic terrorism in order to justify military campaigns would downplay the clear extremist Islam motivation behind the Sydney siege, but this seems to be part of a growing trend. The US Department of Homeland Security has also repeatedly denied information which suggests that ISIS members are active on the southern border.
Are authorities in the United States and Australia embarrassed at the fact that their role in destabilizing Syria helped foster the growth of ISIS and increased support for its activities worldwide, or are they just too incompetent to deal with the menace posed by the group and its ideology and have instead chosen to downplay the scale of the threat?
Sadly, the 18 month investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups isn’t over, and it may be worse than anyone thought. A federal judge has broken loose more emails that the DOJ had surely hoped would never surface. The picture it reveals isn’t pretty. The documents prove that Lois Lerner met with DOJ’s Election Crimes Division a month before the 2010 elections.
It has to be embarrassing to the DOJ, which may not be the most impartial one to be investigating the IRS. In fact, the DOJ withheld over 800 pages of Lerner documents citing “taxpayer privacy” and “deliberative privilege.” Yet these internal DOJ documents show Ms. Lerner was talking to DOJ officials about prosecuting tax-exempt entities (yes, criminally!) two years before the IRS conceded there was inappropriate targeting.
Ms. Lerner met with top officials from the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch in October of 2010. Although Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, No. 14-cv-01239), the DOJ coughed up dirt only on court order. Even then, the DOJ handed over only two pages of heavily redacted emails.
What’s more, the DOJ withheld 832 pages in their entirety. They revealed that Mr. Obama’s DOJ called an October 8, 2010 meeting with the IRS “concerning 501(c)(4) issues.” On September 30, 2010, the DOJ’s Election Crimes prosecutor emailed Ms. Lerner:
“Hi Lois-It’s been a long time, and you might not remember me, I’ve taken on [REDACTED] duties. I’m looking forward to meeting you, Can we chat in advance? I’m a [REDACTED]”
Ms. Lerner responded on October 2, 2010:
“Sure-that’s a good Idea [sic]. I have a meeting out of the office Monday morning, but will try you when I get back sometime early afternoon. You can try me at 202-283-8848.”
Documents from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS show that Ms. Lerner asked the DOJ whether tax-exempt entities could be criminally prosecuted. This May 8, 2013 email by Ms. Lerner went to Nikole C. Flax, Chief of Staff to Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller, who would later be fired by President Obama:
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s–saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…”
DOJ’s Mr. Pilger admitted that DOJ officials met Ms. Lerner in October 2010. Moreover, according to congressional investigators, a Lerner email from October 5, 2010 shows the IRS sent the FBI and DOJ a “1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations” that contained confidential taxpayer information.
In her May 2013 answer to a planted question about the alleged targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups, Ms. Lerner suggested that the alleged targeting occurred due to an “uptick” in 501 (c)(4) applications to the IRS. In reality, there was a decrease, and as for targeting (what targeting?), well, you know the rest.
Remember those rogue IRS employees in Cincinnati? They were confused. And while all Americans should be concerned, Judicial Watch sounds fit to be tied.
“No wonder the Department of Justice under Eric Holder has done no serious investigation of the Obama IRS scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can’t be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama’s critics,” he said. “Richard Nixon was impeached for less.”
Perhaps the latter is an overstatement. Yet it is getting harder and harder to simply accept President Obama’s ‘no smidgen of corruption’ remark made to Fox News in February, no matter how sincere and forthright his delivery.