opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
9 Feb 2016
Fear Not, My Secular Friends

It amuses me that certain people are convinced that Christians are angry scolds but totally miss the … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Ted Cruz and the Body of Christ

There is a misplaced fear — shared, I'm sad to say, by many on the right — that Christian … Read More.

2 Feb 2016
In His Own Words

David Limbaugh is off. The following is a column by Erick Erickson. "As far as single payer, it works in Canada,… Read More.

It's Time To Turn the Tables on this Presidential Bully


Something is very wrong in the world when the most dogmatic and inflexible president in recent memory can make unreasonable demands of his GOP budget opponents and yet be confident they'll be blamed for the impasse.

It is past time Barack Obama be held accountable for his intentionally irresponsible fiscal policies that are guaranteed to take us into national bankruptcy. It is outrageous enough that he is steering us into insolvency, but it is unbearable that he's fraudulently blaming the Republican Party for it to boot.

This is not a close call, and reasonable people, if they understood the facts, would not support Obama. The problem is that so many people who trust him, inexplicably, look no further than his disingenuous statements and the liberal media's slanted reporting, and the Republican Party leadership simply cannot seem to get its message across. It would help if they evidenced more faith in the wisdom of their own approach.

This isn't complicated. Our financial problems are overwhelmingly a result of excess spending, not of insufficient tax revenues. Increasing rates or decreasing deductions won't make a speck of difference, and Obama knows it.

Our $16 trillion national debt and our $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities are going to destroy this nation in relatively short order if we don't take drastic remedial action.

Yet Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the highest 2 percent of income earners while refusing to make significant reductions in discretionary spending or to restructure entitlements. His life's ambition is to fundamentally transform the nation, which depends on keeping the federal spigot spewing and punishing the "wealthy."

You could say it is crazy talk to suggest Obama doesn't want to bring our fiscal house in order, but I say, based on the evidence, it's much crazier to pretend he has any intention of balancing the budget.

To keep his shell game going, he has to divert the people's attention from the real culprit, spending, and toward blaming and demonizing the rich, and the red herrings of "balanced approach," "loopholes" and "revenues."

Obama is the one who won't agree to a "balanced" approach; he's ignoring spending and entitlements. When he calls tax increases "revenues," he is implying that increasing rates and eliminating deductions for a small fraction of income earners is going to appreciably raise revenues and help solve our problem. It won't. When he refers to legitimate tax deductions as "loopholes," he is further defrauding the public into believing that these high-income earners are somehow cheating by availing themselves of deductions the law reasonably allows.

Speaker John Boehner must quit adopting that same misleading terminology and conceding, in effect, that the "wealthy" are undertaxed.

He is not doing himself or the nation any good by playing into Obama's hands and allowing him to control the language and the narrative.

Boehner needs to turn the tables on Obama and go into attack mode himself. There is no other way to deal with this destructive bully. Boehner must sprint to the national microphone and tell the American people that Obama is being unreasonable, reckless and uncompromising.

Obama is the one who won't address the only problem that matters: spending. He won't budge from his intolerable demands that Republicans raise rates on the "wealthy" in exchange for his vague promise of implementing spending "cuts" in the future, his insistence on spending more money on new programs today, his steadfast refusal to put entitlement reform on the table, and his demand that he be given unilateral authority to raise the budget ceiling at his whim.

Boehner must point out that Republicans have gone out of their way to compromise — way too far out of their way — by agreeing to eliminate deductions for the highest income earners to the tune of $800 billion, a figure Obama himself demanded not long ago. He should say he agreed to that not because he believes they're paying too little (they are indeed already paying more than their fair share) or that it will increase revenues, but in a good faith effort to secure an agreement from Obama to greatly reduce spending and restructure entitlement programs.

The GOP majority did not get re-elected to roll over to Obama's disastrous policies. They have a moral, legal and constitutional duty to resist Obama's path of destruction with every fiber of their beings. At some point, their desire not to look mean must yield to their duty to inform the American people of the gravity of our situation and how reckless Obama is being.

Face it: Unless Republicans accede to all of Obama's unreasonable demands and thus to the accelerated destruction of the country, there will be an impasse, because Obama will not yield, and Republicans will be blamed for it.

The only conceivable way Republicans can avoid this fate is if they quit playing his sinister game of negotiation chicken, call him out in plain terms on what he's doing, and show he has never been and is not now serious about averting a national financial meltdown.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "The Great Destroyer," reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



7 Comments | Post Comment
Sir... Mr. Obama was held responsible for his actions... He was very nearly un-elected, and would have been unelected if the republicans had not been so thouroughly obnoxious to the body politic...It was not enough that you had some stepford husband/lawn sprinkler to oppose him with; but you had to abuse him for the sake of your base which would have voted for the lawn sprinkler android if he had been the devil in hell with a pitchfork and horns... The people who elected Mr. Obama for change who saw damned little change from him were the ones who out of necessity and lack of choice put him back into office...
Now, the republicans standing on the pitiful thin ice of the house elected with gerrymandered districts against wholesale democrat majorities want to protect their true masters from a pitance of taxation, and will ride the economy to the gates of hell to do so...
If there really is a God; then Mr. Obama will not trouble himself to make a deal with the republicans... He will tell them once, and once only, to get their heads out of their horns, and make a deal or bear the consequences...The republicans ought to check in with their employers, and find out just how far they should be willing to push the impediment of government over the cliff before they yell: Stop... It is possible the rich do not want to show the world what a moth eaten mouse chewed pissy smelling incapable rag of a government we have here...Maybe the republicans want to look to their voters like people who can chew gum and fart at the same time...It is possible they are so boxed in by years of recycled rhetoric that they cannot make a deal without looking like hypocrits, or dishonorable norquists...I have read that in France before the fall of their last king, that the perception of economic collapse was worse than the actual collapse... Maybe the republicans think it is not the collapse, but how you sell the collapse that counts...Bankruptcy is the precursor to revolution, and we are there; hallaluja and A---- Men... In the end it will not matter who gets the blame, which is to say: there will be plenty for all...It is now time to ask: who died and left you the judge of what is fair in the way of taxation... People who have never gotten squat from the government have been taxed into poverty, and you say the rich with their unreasonable protections domestically and internationally for which all they ever had to do was pay a moderate tax as they have never done except for a short period before the first world war, and you cry for more unfair fairness...
If the rich do not pay for what they use of the commonwealth, which is extreme, and no one else can pay, then this society, government, and the economy we protect will fall by the boards... Ever since world war two, this United States has survived on promises and funny money... Now that promises are due, and funny money is no longer an option it is time to roast the rich until every penny sizzles out of them... That would be more than fair...
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Dec 6, 2012 3:57 PM
"Bankruptcy is the precursor to revolution, and we are there; hallaluja and A---- Men...Now that promises are due, and funny money is no longer an option it is time to roast the rich until every penny sizzles out of them... That would be more than fair..." Sweeney, if you are such a moral and just man, as you have written that you are in past posts, why can't you think of anything except violence and anarchy? I have no desire to live in Egypt or Iraq or any of the other places in the world where fighting in the streets and unlawful killing are the norm. That isn't just nor is it moral. If we're all so dumb and you're so smart, Sweeney, why haven't you founded a system that would work and tried to put it in place? The democracy I've seen you write about sure isn't it. A tribal system from half way around the world that was in place centuries ago. Is that the best you've got? ANARCHY is NOT an answer!!!!!! You other folks that read these posts need to mark folks like Sweeney. They are a danger to all of us. Not just the rich they wail about.
Comment: #2
Posted by: P. Long
Thu Dec 6, 2012 4:44 PM
P. Long, The term “libertarian” was first used by Joseph Dejacque in 1857 to describe a particular brand of anarchism. So "anarchy" has a time and a season just like everything else. And everyone else. It's amusing you think Sweeney is a danger to us. He is less of a danger to you than I am. I and many in my cycling club have been reading him for years, always a gentleman, always on the side of the oppressed. I fear you fear him because you don't understand him or what he says. Seems you take him literally as if he plans on literally roasting the rich. No, he's more than aware of history and has a headful of knowledge and historical facts at his fingertips and yes, he's pissed that the wealthy have been screwing over the poor and disenfranchised from time immemorial. If that scares you, don't read him. He's not going to storm the bastille or the gates of hell. He seems more than content to sit back and watch the country either right itself or fall on it's ass, as am I. Now if Sweeney incites you to riot, don't blame him for your actions. See, he's never struck any of us that way. His posts are far more interesting and well thought out and while it's easy to recognize most people's sources simply from their comments, Sweeney is original so much so that many weeks later I have read some of the columnists regurgitating Sweeney's message only in a much more coherent manner. Sweeney, if you read this, I mean no offense, but your gifts don't translate to the written word. It's good and bad, good because unlike most of the sophomoric stuff written today, you make me think about what you're saying, bad because I don't always have the time to totally focus and have to come back to it a few times.
Comment: #3
Posted by: morgan
Thu Dec 6, 2012 7:17 PM
If you're the same Morgan that wrote the diatribe I read on Wed., I'm Prince Charles. Your grammar is good and you aren't boorish or obscene, though plain spoken. Sweeney vilifies and is obscene with some of his writing. I find some of his ideas interesting, but much of it offensive. On the school yard it's said that if you dish it out, you should be able to take it. Sweeney doesn't seem a guy that needs a protector.
Comment: #4
Posted by: P. Long
Thu Dec 6, 2012 11:10 PM
P.Long, I'm one and the same, and no, Sweeney doesn't need a protector. It's my choice to defend 'Sweeney against any asshole who thinks so highly of their own comment and so little of someone else they think it's ok to tell that someone else they should shut up or leave the country because you don't like what they say. I fought in a foreign country so other people could have the rights we enjoy. I didn't hang that up when I took off the uniform.You think I and others like me won't defend a loyal American patriot? If you think it's ok to tell Sweeney or any other poster you don't agree with to shut up or leave the country, then it's also ok to tell you the same thing. He took it pretty good. How did you like it?
I respect the man's opinions and comments. He's one of too few independent thinkers and he's more than able to defend his positions. I don't always agree with everything but I get him. And I will speak up everytime for Sweeney or any other loyal patriot willing to stay and work for the greater good of this country and its people rather than leave it.
Comment: #5
Posted by: morgan
Fri Dec 7, 2012 12:17 AM
So far, you don't bother me at all. And you may have fought for the right for folks to speak out, but you don't like it much when they don't agree with you. You're free to like or dislike me at your whim. No one will be any the worse for wear, like or dislike. That's one of the things I like about the good ole' USA. Sweeney may have been told to leave if he doesn't like the place, but does he have to? Isn't that great? He's not beat up, killed, raped, or murdered. He says what he wants and goes on his way. I like being able to walk in the sunshine and enjoy my life. Third world antics don't interest me and class warfare is one way to bring third world status to our shores. And while we're on the subject, I've picked cotton, chopped cotton, worked as a janitor, picked strawberries and lived in houses with Prince Albert tobacco cans nailed over rat holes. How 'bout you?
Comment: #6
Posted by: P. Long
Fri Dec 7, 2012 1:19 AM
Re: P. Long... I do not think much of violence... I grew up in a violent time in a violent place and must admit I grew rather immune to it... But I would define violence different than most people... If you screw some one you don't love, I think it is violence, even if it is something people do to themselves and each other, needing it, wanting to do it to each other; but without the essentials of love, the caring, the relationship- it is violence... Violence is a matter of intent to me...If I intend violence toward the rich because I think they have screwed up this place and this society for so many; still, when I get around them I cannot help but notice how nice they are and how human they seem, and it is hard for me to consider violence toward them...
If you intend violence toward some one or ones; it does not matter if the situation is volatile, or the actions are sudden, or explosive... If you intend that a child should go without proper nuitrition or medical care because that is the only way you can have the money that might pay for those goods, then your intent is violence though it may take years to have the desired effect... What if you know of it and cannot care??? What do you think is the result of a child suffering unjustifiable want amid obvious plenty and luxury... Such suffering people grow to hate themselves, their society, and humanity, and in time they become a danger to all... Ultimately, violence is a form of communication where what cannot be communicated in any other fashion is expressed... I don't wish the rich would burn... I wish they could grasp the pain they inflict without others in turn inflicting it upon them...
People look to the rich as the definition of their whole society... No one ever looks to the poor for examples... When the poor look at the rich who afflict them, they see the whole society that afflicts them, that tells them to suck it up and suffer and get by with less... The rich simply need a mirror moment when they see themselves as they are and see the imprint of their personalities upon this whole society...
I am pretty intelligent, and with a lot of insight, but not particularly smart... In addition; I give a lot of thought to morals without being particularly moral since true morality is a thing of emotion, pre-reason in psychological development, and very often unreasonable... Nor am I just; because as Socrates was supposed to have answered: There will be justice in Athens when those not injured by injustice are as indignant as those who are... I can be indignant over the injustice I have suffered, that I gave so much of my life for so little, and then must be demeaned because I know I deserved more... And we all deserve more and our meaning too; but if I were truly just I would go personally to the rich and make them give it back, and I must stop with being indignant...
You see, I know the value of anarchy... We must tear down the old before the new will ever seem an alternative...But so long as there is some social authority, I take no more than my share which I exercise in every public forum to demand justice... I do not make myself a champion for a cause that does not as yet exist... I do not take the law into my own hands... We have a great tradition in the West not shared in Islam for very good reason that amounts to peace before justice... Those who put justice before peace in our society violate a fundamental tenet of the law going back to the Cannon Law of the Catholic Church (Actio Spolio, spoilation, to us)... The Muslims are correct to believe that all people have a fundamental right to justice, and that nothing should come before it, especially peace -since when there is peace people feel no need for justice until the whole situation blows up in worse injustice... First things first to them; but that is not our tradition, our law, or our morality... Still, people should remember that our concern for justice results from the fact that people know they cannot live without it....If it were not essential to life, and all social living it would be just another dead word...
Comment: #7
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Dec 7, 2012 5:17 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Limbaugh
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Veronique de RugyUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Connie Schultz icon
Connie SchultzUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 11 Feb 2016

30 Sep 2014 Obama's Narcissism a Threat to National Security

18 Jun 2010 Obama's Latest Shakedown

24 Feb 2011 Obama Not Just Above the Law; He Is the Law