June 11, 2013
The Obama Scandals and the Limbaugh Theorem
By Steve McCann

Virtually all the scandals erupting around the Obama regime involve the loss of individual freedom and the rapid evolution of an oppressive central government. These ongoing revelations eerily mirror the history of repressive nations such as Germany, Italy and Russia during the past century. Nonetheless, per the public opinion polls and the lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream media to cover these scandals, Barack Obama remains above the fray and is not directly linked or blamed for any of these debacles -- even something as egregious as the NSA and domestic surveillance of all Americans.

Over the past few months, Rush Limbaugh has posited what he calls the "Limbaugh Theorem." Essentially he contends that Barack Obama, as part of a calculated and permanent campaign strategy, maintains, with the help of a sycophantic media, high approval ratings despite the unpopularity of his policies. The core of this strategy is for Obama to remain above politics and not be identified with any of the policy failures or scandals surrounding his administration by blaming others for all that has gone wrong, as he is a dedicated "outsider "doing all he can to solve problems; but first he must slay those purveyors of evil rampant throughout the land: Republicans and conservatives.

The Limbaugh Theorem is spot on. However, the Obama tactics have been successful only because of the confluence of three factors that came together at a right moment in American history.

The first is the long-term and intentional dumbing down of the American people. The second, the incarnation of a celebrity culture as a byproduct of the ill-education of the citizenry as well as the concurrent decline of morality and denigration of religion. The third is this nation's unhealthy obsession with race.

The Viet Nam war protests of the 1960's unleashed far more than just a demand for an end to the war. Those that blamed America for all manner of alleged sins in the past and determined to transform the United States into a socialist/Marxist nirvana were able to step out from behind the shadows and enter the mainstream of national legitimacy. This swarm of locusts soon enveloped the higher levels of Academia spawning countless clones to further infiltrate all strata of the education establishment including primary and secondary institutions.

The curriculum throughout all levels of sch.poooling was gradually but inexorably altered to reflect the American left's mindset, not only about the nation, but also their determination to undermine basic societal moral and religious underpinning as a necessary step in assuring the populace would look to government as their savior. While the bulk of the populace slept content and mesmerized by the country's overwhelming prosperity, this process, underway for nearly two generations, has eventuated in creating a massive class of low-information voters unconcerned about the nation's future and susceptible to all manner of lies and propaganda from unscrupulous politicians such as Barack Obama, who will do or say anything to win an election.

Among the consequences of the successful undermining of societal mores and an ill-educated citizenry is the creation of a pervasive celebrity culture. As the concepts of God and individual self-determination were increasingly denigrated and cast aside, the populace began to look elsewhere for so-called role models and guidance. The obvious choice: those that entertain a vast number of people and are adept, through the vehicle of the media, at being constantly in the nation's living rooms, sports venues, movie theatres, magazines and the internet.

While it is difficult for any national politician to achieve overwhelming celebrity status, Barack Obama made that goal his primary campaign objective. Once he achieved that end, his checkered past and his record or philosophical bent became immaterial. Combining that achievement with his African descent, he has been anointed as the national celebrity-in-chief. Barack Obama is therefore above mere mortals to a majority of the gullible.

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/t...l#ixzz2VtewrWl8

Zitat

---

The Limbaugh Theorem is spot on. However, the Obama tactics have been successful only because of the confluence of three factors that came together at a right moment in American history.

The first is the long-term and intentional dumbing down of the American people. The second, the incarnation of a celebrity culture as a byproduct of the ill-education of the citizenry as well as the concurrent decline of morality and denigration of religion. The third is this nation's unhealthy obsession with race.

---

Good article.

I think however that there is another factor the author overlooks: the lack of a viable opposition party.

Going all the way back to the founders - they set up a system of "checks and balances". Basically, it was one branch of government keeping the other two "in check." It looked good in theory, but at some point it became corrupted - and a system evolved where it became a political party (not a branch of government) supposedly keeping the other "in check."

Due to various factors, the US has never had a viable third party - therefore, it's been relatively easy over the years to corrupt the system.

I am of the opinion that - all appearances aside - we have a de-facto ruling party with a D and an R branch.

No matter what "scandals" come out, it is not in the R's interest to remove Zero or his cabal. And the only point I'm making here is that the other factors mentioned in the article could never have happened without first corrupting the system of checks and balances - such as it was.

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

[quote]

"...a system evolved where it became a political party (not a branch of government) supposedly keeping the other "in check."

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

[quote]

I am of the opinion that - all appearances aside - we have a de-facto ruling party with a D and an R branch.

No matter what "scandals" come out, it is not in the R's interest to remove Zero or his cabal. And the only point I'm making here is that the other factors mentioned in the article could never have happened without first corrupting the system of checks and balances - such as it was.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Third party (a la Perot), virtually guaranteeing that the WORST candidate will win?

No thanks.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Third party (a la Perot), virtually guaranteeing that the WORST candidate will win?

No thanks.

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #6

---

[quote=Cedric|p42619]


This is the equation that the R's use against people who reject them. They treat the citizens like an abused spouse.

"Where you gonna go for safety? I'm all you got."

---

If there's a two-horse race and I own both horses, I can't really lose, can I? And I can even get richer getting fools to bet on one horse or the other.

Zitat

---

Could there have been a "worse" outcome?

---

The reason Xlinton was (s)elected was to get NAFTA passed.

The reason Bush Jr. was (s)elected was to get The Patriot Act passed (it was written well in advance of 9/11, just needed an "event.)

The reason Zero was (s)elected was to get Obamacare passed.

See how it works?

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #9

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Third party (a la Perot), virtually guaranteeing that the WORST candidate will win?

No thanks.

---

You prefer a choice of worse candidates?

---

The Democrats roped in a Third Party ringer (Perot) in '92 to get Clinton elected.

Could there have been a "worse" outcome?

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #10

---

If there's a two-horse race and I own both horses, I can't really lose, can I? And I can even get richer getting fools to bet on one horse or the other.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #9

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Third party (a la Perot), virtually guaranteeing that the WORST candidate will win?

No thanks.

---

You prefer a choice of worse candidates?

---

The Democrats roped in a Third Party ringer (Perot) in '92 to get Clinton elected.

Could there have been a "worse" outcome?

---