Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama, Messiah vs. Rush Limbaugh (Ideas): Burning Heretics at the Stake!!!!
"President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration." This is the lead from today's New York Post story headlined on Drudge. It is, of course, well known that leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream news media, do not really believe in free speech for anyone other than themselves. Thus, the sanctimounious hypocrites can push for the destruction of conservative talk radio (by threatening to again impose a "Fairness Dcotriine", or just use the intimidation fo the Federal Government to threaten licenses of stations who carry Limbaugh, et. al. as not "acting in the public interest"--which leftists devfine as the same as their interest). But you don't need more than this statement to understand that leftists do not believe in "bripartisanship" either, or in compromise (other than the Soviet Union definition: "What is ours is ours; what is yours we negotiate."). To leftist Democrats, "bipartisan" means areeing with them. That is it. Pure and simple. And that is what Obama has just said. So long as Repubicans recognize the Messiah, and commit no heresy, they will have a place at the table. If, however, they stand on principle (wich is all Obama means by "listening to Rush Limbaugh"), and firht Obama because what he is trying to do conflicts with their fundamental principles, then Obama is going to burn them at the stake (figuratively speaking). He, and the Democrats in Congress, intend to freeze (neat mixing of metaphors here, from "buring" to "freeze") them out--not even let them participate in anything. Leftist Democrats, Obama, and the mainstream media think that they have been effective in trying to use Rush Limbaugh as an anchor to weigh down the Republican Party. There have been few greater miscalculations in the history of man (a miscalculation similarly made by the Republican Party establishment, which is why both Rush Limbaugh and I are no longer Republicans). The Republican Party is dead because it ceased to stand for anything--not because of Rush Limbaugh, who DOES stand for consistent principles that the Republican establishment has abandoned. Even with the handicap of a Republican Party that has lost its soul, and an economic meltdown caused by Democratic politicians creating a housing "bubble" and by the panic of Bush and Paulson, this Republican Party still almost beat Obama. Obama should have won by a double digit percentage, but he was not even close. What are these principles of Rush Limbaugh that Democrats think are so out of step with the American people? Well, let us list a few of them: 1. Rush Limbaugh does not think we should be moving toward socialism. The American people agree (turst me on these, even though I personally have taken no scientific poll, and don't believe in them anyway). 2. Rush Limbaugh des not beleve in bailouts of GM, Citigroup, Bank of American, etc., while small business like my brother's trucking company are left to fail (often because of the actions of those very banks that taxpayers like my brother are bailing out). Okay, Rus does not believe in bailing out my brother either. But neither does my brother, except when he sees banks, GM, and Wall Street being bailed out while small businesses like his are picked as "losers" in this new socialism. Again, I am confidant the American people agree. I am just not confident the Republican establishment agrees. In fact, I am confident they do not, as reflected by the domestic policies of that leftist mole, President Bush. 3. Limaugh opposes amnesy for illegal immigrants, supports enforcement of our immmigration laws, and supports real border security. So do the American people. 4. Rush Limabugh supports the death peanlty. So do the American people. Obama will appoint judges who he knows will outlaw the death penalty (doing his dirty work for him and Obama's fellow leftists), while Obama can talk around the subject. 5. Rush Limbaugh opposes gay marriage, and societal APPROVAL of the gay lifestyle. As the vote in California shows, so do the American people. Again, the Republican establihsment is on the wrong side, as with illegal immigration. Again, Obama wants to waffle and deceive, while appointing judges who will overrule the people (as in California) and opposing any attempt to overrule those judges. 6. Limabuh opposes abortion of nine month fetuses/babies before they have a chance to be born. Obama supports abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, as do real leftists. The American people are with Limbaugh on this one, too. Oh, I know Limbauh opposes abortion on demand back to conception, as do I, but you would be amazed at how close the American people (majority) are to agreeing on that one, too. Remember (because I was there when that fight was taking place then), the MODERATE LEFTIST position on abortion used to be that it was unthinkable to allow abortion on demand (deception on the part of Planned Parenthood and other leftists, since unrestricted abortion on demand was always their goal, up to the mooment of birth). The moderate lefist position was that reasonable exceptions should be made (which they wanted to eat up the rule). I am absolutely confident that this is, at worst (from my point of view), still the position of the American people. They just are unable to express that position, sinc the judges have taken over. 7. Limbaugh believes that the Federal Government is too big, never "sacrifices" its own power and growth, and that people should not look to the Federal Government to solve all of their problems. The American people believe this too (and vote to sabotage that belief). Even Obama SAYS he believes it. He LIES. You see what I mean? If the American people understand what Rush Limbaugh stands for, they will mostly agreee with him. If Repubicans stand for what Limabugh stands for (whether they say they are "listening" to Limbaugh or not, they can win. As it is they (Republicans) are a party without a soul, and without any discernible principles. That party deserves to lose, if the Republican establishment remains in control, and I fully intend to do my personal best to make sure that party does lose. Enough people think like me that the Obama/Republican establishment recipe for the Repubilcan Party merely spells doom for that party. The party rejected Limbaugh by nomnating McCain, and suffered a total disaster. It is not Limbaugh himself that the Republican Party needs to follow, as he, himself, says. It is the principles that Limbaugh stands for that remain the soulf of the real Republican Party. Or do they? That is what the present battle for the soul of the Reublican Party is all about, with the mainstream media doing its best to support Obama in making Limbaugh the "bogeyman" (meaning that the mainstream media and Obama do not have to fight Limbaugh's IDEAS, where they have no chance).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
WTF, at least El Rushbo is constitutionally qualified to be President!
The reference in the comment is presumably to the persistent rumor, without real evidence, that that Barack "World" Obama was not born in Hawii, but is foreign born. Rusty Humphrey (to whom I do not listen, but my mother does, has been a proponent of this, and has even met with the governor of Hawaii to try to get access to birth records in Hawaii. I am not in favor of purssuing this "conspiracy theory" type rumor. Now what is funny is that the despicable mainstream media now specialies in that kind of rumor from anonymous sources, but to advance their agenda. Sarah Palin, for example, was forced to invade the privacy of her daughter (nationally) to counter swirling rumors that The LIar Network, CNN, was investigating, along with the rest of the mainstream media and left wing blogs (same thing), about wheher the Down's Syndrome baby was really Sarah Palin's baby. In other words, if Obama were a Repubican, he would have had to disclose his birth certificate just to counter the rumor. It is puzzling that Obama did NOT disclose that brith certificate (whcih he could easily have done without violating any law or regulation whatever), leaving a vague idea that he has something to hide. Still, it is gossip and rumor, and I leave that to the mainstream media. I know of no solid evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Skip, it's no rumor(it's a practical fact). Obama has already stated on his campaign website that his father was a Kenyan/British, not American, citizen on his birth. This alone bars him as not being a "natural born citizen" under Article 2 of the Constitution (which is distinct from "citizen" as under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which he may not even be if not born in Hawaii and HE STEADFASTLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE ON FILE UNDER SEAL IN HAWAII DESPITE NUMEROUS NUMEROUS QUESTIONS -- under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that speaks for itself; hence the burden is on BHO to provide it).
In any event, it's no rumor that that there are a number of cases NOW PENDING BEFORE THE US SUPREME COURT -- and it's only a matter of time when they'll come up with a decision on the merits.
I am sorry,. Ted. I appreciate the comments, and hate to disagree with someone who makes a comment (not appearing to be a leftist comment--I don't mind arguing with leftists at all). However, it is false that Obama is not a "antural born citizen" because his father was Kenyan. I live in El Paso (on the front lines, so to speak, of the illegal immigration battle). Pregnant Mexican mothers have long capmed out at R.E. Thomason General Hospital (county hospital) in El Paso, waiting to be in labor. That is because of the INSANE rule that a baby is a "natural born" citizen of the United States just by being born here, even if NETIHER parent is even legally in the United States. That rule should be changed--even if it takes a Constritutional Amendment. And the sanctimounious hypocrites in the mainstream media remain exactly that: the worst santtimonious hypocrites ever to walk the Earth, including Neanderthal Man. They were willing to opubicize the ridiculous suggestinon that John McCain was not an "natural born citizen" because born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents, but unwilling to evcen demand that Obama produce his birth certificate. However, I contine to regard the assertions about Obama's "natural born" status as rumor and gossip.
I left out a few things in my previous response to Ted. First, Hawaii is a state, and was when Obama was allegedly born there. So it is, in fact, no different thatn bein born in El Paso (and I know of NO ONE arguing that a person borh in the U.S. to a U.S. mother is not a U.S. citizen, or should not be, whether the father is or not. Yes, I undestand that the mainstream media approach to REPUBLICANS is that the burden of proof is on them to disprove SPECUATLION based on limited, or no, factual evidence. However, that is not the standard applied to DEMOCRATS. My personal opinion is that, in this case, the stand applied to Democrats is correct: President should not have to DISPROVE all speculation (such as the speculation, given mainstream media attention, that Prisident Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks). I agree tath Obama's refusal to disclose his birth certificate raises suspicion that he has SOMETHING to hide, but that is today's mainstream media attitude toward ALL speculation that supports their agenda, and I reject that approach in the absence of real evidence. I know of no serous Supreme Court case that would automatically disqualify Obama as a "natural born citizen". Few things are more certain in this life than that I WILL NOT HAPPEN (in the absence of "smoking gun" proof" of birth outside the U.S.)
Post a Comment