The Washington Times - September 2, 2010, 01:26AM

David Limbaugh, an attorney and nationally syndicated columnist, just released his fourth New York Times best seller titled Crimes Against Liberty (Regnery Publishing, Inc.). Mr. Limbaugh, brother of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, also saw his book reach number one on the New York Times list on Wednesday. I spoke with David Limbaugh on Wednesday about his new book and his thoughts on the Obama administration and their allies on the Hill. 

The title of Mr. Limbaugh’s book may make some wonder if he is accusing President Barack Obama of some kind of high crime or misdemeanor, but Mr. Limbaugh made it clear he does not support any effort to impeach the president, but he does believe the president and liberals in the administration are abusing their authority.

SEE RELATED:


LIMBAUGH: The title Crimes Against Liberty is a figurative title. I’m not suggesting that Obama has committed violations of the criminal code, nor am I suggesting in the book that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors so as to constitute impeachable offenses.  

Mr. Limbaugh points out that impeachment would be counter-productive for conservatives anyway.

LIMBAUGH:  I wouldn’t advocate trying to impeach him. I think, as a practical matter, it would result in him being a victim and cause a backlash. It would actually inhibit our ability to make him accountable for his disastrous policy agenda. I believe in fighting him at the polls. I do think he has committed egregious abuses of power in violation of the rule of law and the Constitution.

In the midst of a horrible economy, former president Bill Clinton’s time in office has been compared to Barack Obama’s. While liberals long for the good old days when poll numbers for a Democratic president were not so bleak, could it be argued that Mr. Clinton’s actions in office simply set the tone for the next Democratic president?

LIMBAUGH: I think Clinton [was cynical] about the rule of law and about the criminal code, when he and his minions could actually justify and rationalize that the commission of felony perjury by a president of the United States, by saying it didn’t matter about the conduct when the subject of the lie was sex. I find it so amazingly cynical in how Clinton sort of distorted the language and abused it. He demonized Republicans as advocates of trickle down policy. I think he laid the foundations for what Obama has now built on, and [the Obama administration] has taken it into hyper-space.

In his book Mr. Limbaugh discusses the lack of transparency in an administration that promised C-SPAN cameras showing Americans the health care reform debate negotiations as well as posting legislation online for five days for everyone to see. Like other promises during the campaign, Mr. Obama did not follow through on these either. 

LIMBAUGH: Obama promised during the campaign that he would have the most transparent administration in history. He boasted he would on his website, and then he went some 300 plus days without a press conference. He promised he would post bills on his website for five days for public comment, and the first ten of the eleven bills, he didn’t even come close, maybe arguably one he did, He cynically just didn’t do it at all. He didn’t even pretend to adhere to that. He promised to televise the healthcare debates on C-Span. Cynically he didn’t even try to honor it.

Then when he was challenged on it, he said ‘If I had done it Republicans would have just used it as a political football and been opportunistic about it.’ He has shut Republicans out of the process and then invites them one day before a bill is to be signed for a photo-op. But the guy has been secretive. He’s done things behind closed doors. He’s had secret meetings with the Democrats, health care officials, insurance executives, and financial institutions. He’s ruled completely un-transparently and in overt defiance of his pledge.

Probably one of the most egregious abuses of power has come from the Obama Justice Department headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder. The Washington Times Editorial Page heavily covered the how justice was far from blind when handling the New Black Panther Party case. Mr. Limbaugh writes about the politicization of the Department of Justice stating in his book: “The New Black Panther Party’s methods are hardly worse than those of the Obama administration. Though Obama doesn’t use a nightstick to intimidate people from voting, his subordinates protect those who do.”

Mr. Limbaugh points out that the DOJ did race relations in America no favors in the department’s weak decision making regarding New Black Panther Party members who stood in front of a Pennsylvania polling station during the 2008 presidential election, wielded nightsticks, and verbally intimidated voters and poll station staff. 

LIMBAUGH: The case was won by default judgment, and [an insider like] Christian Adams quit [DOJ] over the deal. He said it was because there was an unwritten policy in the Justice Department that says that whites cannot be victims of black civil rights discrimination.  So as a matter of policy, they were not going to pursue that case. So here we have a Justice Department that’s supposed to be administering justice—equal justice under the law…blind justice pursuant to the American ideal, and it is administering race conscious justice. It’s outrageous and it’s dangerous to the republic. A politicized justice department is very negative towards race relations in this country.

Recently, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said the American people needed to be “re-educated“ (H/T Hot Air) about the health care bill. Her statement not only illustrated that Americans still do not like the massive health care overhaul but also her use of the term “re-education.” Mr. Limbaugh stresses in his book that Mr. Obama was unable to convince America that the health care bill was a good thing, so instead of trying to change the bill some, he used the State of the Union address as another opportunity to tell the country why the Democrats plan to reform healthcare would be beneficial.

LIMBAUGH: Obama was unable, initially, to persuade the American people that Obamacare was a good thing, and he was unable to get the poll numbers up. And then he got repudiated in the Massachusetts Senate elections—Scott Brown, which was clearly a referendum on him [Obama] personally.

He said, ‘I want the American people,’ instead of saying, ‘I’m going to massage my plan’ in the State of the Union address, and that ‘I’ve seen the error of my ways,’ showing some contrition, and moving to the center, and honoring it. No, he said, ‘I want the American people to take another look at my plan, so I want to re-educate.’

They believe the government has the affirmative duty to re-educate. Its interesting she [Sebelius] used the Marxist-Stalinist term “re-education” and I guess, subconsciously, it revealed her mindset, but regardless of the terminology she used, the arrogant liberal mindset is that they know better than the un-washed masses, and they can educate us and we’ll ultimately become more enlightened through their beneficence. And through their enlightenment we’ll all become enlightened together. That’s their worldview…that we’ll all live happily ever after in their little socialist utopia.