Pope Francis’ Political Interference Leaves Questions

First appeared at

 

I listened to Rush Limbaugh point out, with sadness, that Pope Francis seems to have little knowledge about the goodness of capitalism.  It was the first I had heard of the Pope’s recent address, , and as a Catholic, I have often tried to think of ways to explain how my faith complements the issue of free markets rather than social justice when it comes to governmental policy.

So, it was very difficult for me to read the translation of , knowing what I know about the principles of free market capitalism, and knowing that I too, consider myself a faithful Catholic, at odds with the numerous Catholics who vote for a candidate’s policy of social justice, ignoring completely their stance on abortion.  In that consideration, it still would be wrong of me to encourage a vote for a candidate who is for social justice as well as against abortion, because prolonging policies of redistribution ends in tax slavery.

The translation of the Pope’s address has come under scrutiny, and I too,  wonder if this document was translated by those with certain political views, because of the unusually political and direct attack on free-market capitalism using partisan language from America’s Democratic Party.

“54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

It was striking to read the attack on American Conservatism, limited government, and the notion that a “rising tide lifts all boats.”  It would seem to me, that if the Pontiff had included some sort of reminder that we should honor God in our work, do all that we do the best we can to praise He that gave us our gifts, his address might seem less an excoriation of the free market and more a praise of the individual gifts given to us by God.  That omission led me to be reminded of where he comes from, Argentina, and its prevailing social justice of Peronism.

The reference to global economic and financial systems in the Pontiff’s address is automatically assumed to be a boon to the political forces in America that wish to use the public trust as a mechanism to redistribute wealth.  But even accepting the notion that perhaps the address was not translated properly, the Pope still seems to directly interfere politically with Catholic officeholders.

“With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.55″

It has always been my belief that faith should guide those in office.  At the same time, the godly pursuit of charity should be a personal one, and perhaps that is emphasized in the quote above “one’s wealth” not, ‘the nation’s wealth,’ and that the seventh commandment was the reinforcing rule thereto.  In other words, give your money freely to those in need, but don’t force others by threat of incarceration or devastation to do so because the Pope condones it. ‘Government is force,’ being the guiding principle, and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ the Commandment.

In that vein, tell me, do Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden live in near poverty because they are correct in their social justice form of ideology?   Have they given away their mounds of money to the poor, or other people’s?   I’m told Chris Christie has a social justice kind of governing style.  Is it correct to take (steal) from others to give to the poor?  I don’t think so, and I believe if the Pope were directly asked that, as well as if he were introduced to the principles used in the American founding, he would agree.

I still am deeply moved by this particular Pope.  I have read more that he has said than any other, trying to get a feel for where he is coming from.  I do believe he is well-intentioned and I believe he is holy, and meek.  He has said that he struggles with being a sinner, as we all do, and it is because of his honesty that I dare to try to challenge his words.

I have Evangelical Christian friends who appreciate Pope Francis, and some who believe he is wildly liberal, in the modern American sense.  But I have always learned from them, and their reading of the Bible, as well as the preaching of their pastors.  What my friends have reminded me in the past is the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

It is one thing to see the poor as a monolithic down-trodden part of society who are devastated and always left out of the ways to better themselves, as would be in a nation that has never known freedom, and quite another to see the reality that millions of American “poor” are a thousand times better off than people considered poor in the third world.  And yet, the American “poor” are those somehow still eating and not working.

It is that reality that exposes the wrongness of economic justice as administered by Catholicism’s interference in the American political system.  The doctrine should not be applied by government, but in the Church, and from our own hearts.

Because I believe the Pontiff comes from a place where government is, in nature, authoritarian, where the sovereign is the ruler and not the individual, his economic theory is at odds with the American founding.  It seems to me, that if my Pope urges me to give to those in need, I should be able to do so without my government forcing me to, and defining, for their own political purposes, who is in “need.”

 

Please follow and like:

Conor rages on Middle America

What does Conor Friedersdorf know about the conservative movement?  Absolutely nothing.

His attempt at spelling out the ‘non-cohesive’ message of the conservative movement ignores a major fact that Bill O’Reilly regularly mentions.  That Bill is not only not a conservative, but that he has no ideology whatsoever.

Conor is confused by this because he does not know what a conservative is.  Had he known, he could not have put Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly on the same level in the first place.

The thrust of Conor’s post in the Atlantic, is that Bill O’Reilly backed down from criticizing Limbaugh on his tv show as he had on his radio show, because Roger Ailes told him not to.  So what.  But then, Conor assumes that Limbaugh and O’Reilly should somehow be equals since he considers them both, ‘right-wing’ media titans.

He inadvertently I’m sure, called Mark Levin a media titan as well.  Gosh, praise from a nobody neo-lib might rank if he was intellectually honest, but alas, Conor is neither intellectual nor honest.  One time I’d like to hear him try to refute Mark Levin on anything that matters, but he can’t so he usually does an annoying limp-wristed unfocused poke that I have described as flipping pebbles at Levin’s iron tank.

What has happened since 2008, has been Bill O’Reilly trying, unsuccessfully, to unseat Rush Limbaugh as the lead conservative radio host.  But O’Reilly failed, and hasn’t a radio show anymore.  The reason O’Reilly failed is because he’s not a conservative.  Don’t look at me, he says it constantly himself.  So, it isn’t truly a fight between O’Reilly and Limbaugh, but a real examination of what a conservative is, how the movement reflects the nation’s common sense, and its focus on the greatness of the individual, and core anti-controlling principles.

So where Conor fails is in his entire premise.

The problem with someone like O’Reilly, is that he continuously says he’s a non-ideologue.  What does that mean?  Well, it means that given any issue, he is free to find out what others think, and then jump on those thoughts as his own.  He does it all the time, and it exposes what small-minded, I-me-my groupthink gets you.

A core principle is based in centuries of human existence, and Rush Limbaugh’s principles as espoused daily on his radio show are based in that fertile soil.  In the end, that means that those who tell you they are ‘looking out for you’ are truly not that different than those looking to control you.

Conservatism is often described as rugged individualism, and I have yet to figure out how a channel dedicated to, ‘we report, you decide’ can feature a parade-jumping guy who thinks he’s your personal warrior.

Clearly, Conor favors O’Reilly over Rush, and he wants to be able to be the guy who helps pull some listeners from Rush aside, and tell them they are following the wrong fella.

But O’Reilly can’t do that and neither can Conor, because the Rush radio audience is more intelligent than both of them.

Clearly, Conor has not studied philosophy and American heritage and history enough to understand that there really isn’t such a thing as a non-ideologic person.  There are plenty of people that don’t think all that much about politics or worldly issues, but when they are pressed to, they always come down with a discernible ideology.  How Bill O’Reilly can call himself ‘non-ideologic’ is by playing to both sides and coming up with whatever is winning at the moment.  That way, he can seemingly be the guy who called it, and claim he’s ‘looking out for the folks.’  A glaring example of this blatant positioning has him at odds with his own viewers who believed him to be a culture warrior, and his highly offensive ‘thumping the Bible’ remarks.

More Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal, regardless of party affiliation.  That makes conservatism the mainstream ideology of the American people.  So, it doesn’t make Rush Limbaugh a ‘right-winger’ it makes him mainstream center.  So, if Conor wanted to pull people away from him, he would have to go to the right or the left.

Conor always darts left.   In fact, I can think of no issue that Conor is mainstream on.  But beyond that, the staunch, solid conservatives that make this nation great, aren’t for turning, as Margaret Thatcher would say.

So, another wishful-thinking tantrum from Conor Friedersdorf is like another sunrise, and his post reeks of his usual impotent rage at the very core of our nation, Middle America.

 

Please follow and like:

The idea that talk radio is causing the rift in the GOP is ridiculous.

If there was no talk radio, the GOP would be united, marching lockstep toward amnesty, carbon credits and a subversion of faithful Christianity.

Right?

Not really.

Although it is my opinion that the new GOP messaging amounts to just that, there are actual conservative people who populate the GOP grassroots who would still be fighting against these pitfalls, or would have started to really move toward a third party. I truly believe that if it weren’t for talk radio, conservatives would not have been hanging on within the Republican party as long as they have, because they are told over and over that a third party is not going to amount to much good, and that truth needs to be repeated.

So, the Republican spokesmen who denounce Rush, Hannity and Levin, should at least be able to grasp this simple concept. We’re here to help, we’re here to save our children’s future, and we’re here to save the country. Your career in politics means little to us.

Frank Luntz is the latest message-mangler, who said what he really thought, when he cut down Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, but what is truly pathetic is his inability to understand words.

Ironic.

Frank has been defended by , a complete and utter fruit loop, who just wishes there were more sane conservatives like, ahem, David Frum and Joe Scarborough, lol, and bemoans the influence of the tea party and talk radio, et cetera. Luntz was unknowingly recorded, saying,

And they get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it’s really problematic. And this is not on the Democratic side. It’s only on the Republican side…[inaudible]. [Democrats have] got every other source of news on their side. And so that is a lot of what’s driving it. If you take—Marco Rubio’s getting his ass kicked. Who’s my Rubio fan here? We talked about it. He’s getting destroyed! By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others. He’s trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn’t the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him. That’s what’s causing this thing underneath. And too many politicians in Washington are playing coy.

Ok, so Luntz believes that if the politicians would stop being deferential to Rush and Levin, Rubio would be able to “find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn’t the traditional Republican approach.”

Well, what is the traditional Republican approach, and why doesn’t it work? The traditional approach is that the Republicans work with the Democrats to provide amnesty to those who are illegal, and never secure the borders. In fact, when Rubio was on Rush’s show, he stated unequivocally, that if the borders are not secured first, he will walk away from the deal.

They aren’t, and he isn’t.

So, what Rubio is really doing, IS the traditional Republican approach. What he should be doing, is the conservative approach, which is, all together now, SECURE THE BORDERS.

Do we need Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to point this out to us? Not really, but Rubio needed Rush’s and Levin’s airtime to reach the grassroots, didn’t he?

What Luntz and the rest of the never-ending parade of moderate mindless buffoons will never understand, is that when you attack Rush, Hannity or Levin, you are attacking the grassroots of your own party. The grassroots are the people all across the country who have the ability to make or break your “messaging.” If your messaging is stupid, you can count on the grassroots to let you know. Whether or not you heed the warnings and advice of the grassroots is entirely up to you, and it gives the grassroots fodder to replace you.

In the end, you bolster Rush and Levin when you attack them, and show yourselves to be shallow and discourteous in the eyes of the grassroots.

And I for one, am having a good time pointing it out.

Please follow and like:

Moderate low-information outreach

It has become very clear to me, that the “low-information voters” Rush Limbaugh often talks about are not what he describes them to be.

Let me explain.

Since the election in November of 2012, Rush Limbaugh has been doing a sort of outreach on his radio program, to those voters we on the right might describe as emotion-filled dumbasses, who know exactly bupkis about policy, issues, politics, news, information, intelligence, how things work, how life works, you name it. So, in order to catch their attention, Rush has been talking about Kardashian and Beyonce, hoping to attract those potential listeners to the rest of the discussion.

I was a critic of the move at first, because I didn’t think it would work, but I came around to accepting that I would have to start paying attention to what is happening with the rich and famous, so I too, can know what all the dumbasses know.

kardashianOk, so yesterday while in line at the grocery store, I noticed a magazine with Kim Kardashian on the cover, complaining that she has gotten so fat with her pregnancy, that even her fingers are fat. So, I thought of penning an open letter to her, explaining what most mothers already know, but a new mother might not, but while I was thinking it over, I did a google search, and found that at least 7 bloggers hate her guts and hope she explodes from overeating, and how could she think of wearing that? and AAAAAAHHHH!!!

Nope. Not gonna do it. Sorry.

If all you can do is bitch and judge people’s looks, style and social hierarchy, I think it is highly unlikely you have the ability to comprehend any depth whatsoever. And if you have hyper-emotive reactionary responses to nearly every item put in front of you, maturity may forever escape you.

So, perhaps I have just been off-put by the term, “low-information.” Perhaps I would be happier with the term, “immature”, in regards to those voters Rush is talking about.

To me,the people who truly are low-information, are many of my fellow Republicans.

This is not a slight, I am not trying to offend. I’m simply pointing out that the people in the Republican Party who decry talk radio are the very ones who are so very ignorant on what their party’s stated goals and platform are, and I think it is unfair to let them describe themselves with the term “moderate.”

“I’m a moderate.” It sounds so reasonable, so un-provoking, so mild-mannered and so charming, doesn’t it? But anything you say when you are a moderate is equivocating bullshit, because being a moderate is, willfully or not, blindness.

Forget those concerned with Kimye and Beyon-Z, we have a serious problem here.

Conservatives catch flak for being confrontational, judgmental, and overly critical of members of their own party. But what do moderates do? They go out of their way to be non-confrontational, non-judgmental, and only critical of conservative members of their party. They have “friends on the other side of the aisle” instead of opposition. They harp on tone and finesse while the nation is going down, and they deny that is even happening. They are witnessing the demise of their nation, but aren’t too damn upset about it, because they don’t know it’s happening.

They are blind, as I said, willfully or not, but blind for sure. If they are willfully blind, they are cowards, if they are not cowards, they are just simply blind.

But the big elephant in the room, is that they are very low-information, and therefore ignorant.

Conservatives fill their days absorbing information. Perhaps it is because we get pissed on so much, it drives us to know more, who knows. But the key to most conservative’s daily lives involves talk radio. The moderates believe that talk radio is hardening people on the right by espousing conservative views that are, in their view, out of the mainstream. However, the mainstream, to a moderate, is controlled by the left.

Hence the disconnect.

The truth is, most people are conservative, and those who listen to talk radio have already realized they are conservative, but perhaps felt alone in their views due to the massive influence of the secular leftist media.

Talk radio provides articulation for their views.

So it has occurred to me that if Rush was to start trying to attract moderates, we may be able to get somewhere as a party who has the tenacity to stop the Democrats dead in their tracks. But, how would you go about that? What could you do to entice people who have no interest in learning anything, to listen to a program where they might learn something? Hmm.

Just as an example, and I’m not trying to pick on him, but a Republican friend of mine was utterly perplexed as to why people would be upset about smart meters. I said, “why would you want that much government intrusion on your everyday life? in your home?” To which he responded, “If it’s cheaper, what does it matter?”

Whew. In order to explain to him what I know as second nature, we would have to talk for quite a while, during which he would doubt every single thing I had to say.

Why do we bother to gain traction on the Kimye dumbasses when we have legit hard-working Republicans who have no clue that big brother government is a bad thing? And if the party is banking on winning enough dumbasses over to our side to win, sorry, that’s just a dumbass idea.

The non-ideologic ideologues have charted a path for the Republican Party that will, once again, thwart our ability to win. With many moderates pushing for moderation, compromise and softening on basic Republican principles, we will never win again.

Unfortunately, moderates do not see this coming, and that is the problem.

Please follow and like:

S.E. Cupp to GOP grassroots: Rush is crazy, stupid, dangerous

the entire NYT piece, “” so good for him, (I nodded off, it’s long and irrelevant) but he found a quote from MSNBC’s S.E. Cupp.

[W]e can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” said Goodwin’s fiancée, S. E. Cupp, a New York Daily News columnist and a co-host of”The Cycle”on MSNBC. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to denounce the talk-show host as well.

Goodwin has a group (don’t we all) that is trying to fix what is broke in the GOP.  Goodwin’s group is asking young people, who voted for Obama, what they think about Republicans.  Naturally, Goodwin would ask people who he thinks can be persuaded to vote Republican, to give their views about Republicans without considering once that those people don’t know much if they already voted Obama.

So, Goodwin’s fiance tries to help, by smearing the one guy who reaches more people and REFLECTS and STRENGTHENS their own views on life, natural common sense, and history.

Cupp doesn’t say what she means when she points to Rush Limbaugh’s comments, she just simply gives cover for denigrating him.  By the way, does Cupp have any children? I don’t think so.  I have two teenagers, and many conservatives who listen to Rush have ‘Rush babies’, kids who have been listening to Rush for years along with their parents.  In fact, teenagers only glean a little about life in general, as they are quite self-centered (we all were) and they also speak their mind without being asked.

Where Cupp goes wrong is that she is trolling for something Rush may say, usually taken out of context, and spread out on media platforms that are populated with gleeful conservative-haters.  Point that out to a youngster, and they will see the injustice of it, since they already say exactly what they think, usually at inopportune times.

No, this a major foul for Cupp.  Big time.  Rush is part of our lives, and Cupp would have him thrown to the wolves to somehow ingratiate liberal know-nothings to the Republican party.   No thanks.

What she should be doing is educating herself and her peers about the founding of this country, the spirit of America, and how our children are the greatest resource of hope for our future.  The kids can save their future if only they know the truth.  And Goodwin should have responded to the group of know-nothings, that if they just turn on the radio once in a while, they might learn something.

You don’t grow the party by changing it into whatever the youngsters think it should be, because they aren’t seeing it the way it really is.  There is no truth in what the twenty-somethings thought the GOP was, how can you suggest the GOP change when you don’t even educate people on what it stands for?

Should there be a new term for self-loathing Republicans now?

Please follow and like:

Pam from Texas is a soldier for freedom. This is not a cakewalk.

I love Rush Limbaugh as much as Pam does. But his dismissal today of the facts got me ruffled. Pam is from Texas, is in Virginia, and will be in Ohio until it is time for her to vote. She is doing what a lot of people can’t do, due to their circumstances, and is doing frankly, what a lot of people would never do. She is personally taking the election in her own hands.

from today’s exchange. It took a lot of guts for her to call Rush, wait forever, and tell him that there is something he is doing that worries her.

CALLER: Anyway, I love you, and this is an absolute honor to speak with you, and what I wanted to call you about is I am a bit concerned that you’re being too optimistic. I think you’re projecting an image that this may end up being a cakewalk. It’s not gonna be. I believe we’re ahead in the polls, I believe all those things, but we are up against the mainstream media. We all know they’re a hundred percent in the tank for Obama. They’re not projecting the good things about what’s happening within the grassroots efforts of —

RUSH: They never do.

CALLER: I know.

RUSH: How would you prefer that I act, Pamela?

CALLER: Well, actually, I think maybe just some healthy skepticism. And here’s my point. I want everybody to act as if we’re running behind and that their efforts depend on us actually winning this race. Now, what I’m saying is, I’m calling from Hampton, Virginia. I live in Texas. I am here because I’m working, knocking on doors, I’m being a volunteer in the state of Virginia. I’m going back home tonight. I’m leaving Monday and I’ll be in Ohio until the election’s over with. But my point is we’ve got to get out and do our part.

RUSH: Do you think we’re being out-hustled? Do you think we don’t have an ground game that can compete?

CALLER: We do have a ground game that can compete, but they’re busy, believe me, guys, they’re working. The other side does have a good ground game. I think that that’s the —

RUSH: I will gladly — if you want to hear more pessimism, I can do that.

CALLER: No, Rush, I’m not suggesting pessimism. My point in talking —

RUSH: Well, you don’t like optimism —

CALLER: Rush, I love optimism, I do, but here’s what I want everybody to do. Everybody get out and do something. Regardless of where you are. You can make phone calls from home.

RUSH: Why do you think people aren’t? And why do you think that’s not being said to people? Why do you think that you have to call any radio show to urge people to do that? Do you think most of the people on our side are not engaged that way? How did 2010 happen? How did it happen? How did that landslide happen? And what has changed to make people less energetic or enthusiastic since then?

CALLER: Probably nothing. My point, though, Rush, is just that I want to somehow project to people that we’ve got to work hard until the very end and do whatever we possibly can ’cause I sense that there’s so many people that are sitting back and they’re not sending in five dollars to different campaigns —

RUSH: Why do you think that? Have you seen Romney’s numbers?

CALLER: Oh, I absolutely did see his numbers.

RUSH: Did you see his money numbers?

CALLER: I did.

RUSH: This is very helpful. Am I creating the impression this election is over and nobody has to do anything, it’s just the media’s lying to everybody and this is in the tank and —

CALLER: No, no. I’m not saying that at all, Rush, and if I have, I apologize. I guess I’m just concerned. I want to make sure that we work as though we are a few points behind and that we do our part. You know, it’s difficult sometimes to get people to come to work. I know in Dallas we’ve had a few issues with campaigns — or people not coming in when we want them to, and probably because Texas is not, you know, a battleground state. And in Virginia, yes, it’s true, they could use some more help. All of these states can use some more help. If anybody is listening that has any inkling that they may be able to add to the campaign, you know, in the form of making phone calls or whatever, get out and do it. Gosh, I’m sorry, I’m so nervous, Rush.

RUSH: Well, I understand. I understand. I’m up against a time break here I can’t avoid; I’ve gotta take it. But I’d like to thank you for the call

This woman has taken the future of this nation in her hands. She took time to call Rush to explain that regardless of popular vote polls, the battleground states are being manned by the Obama campaign, and we need more people to help in these states.

You know how you think you know Rush because you spend 15 hours a week with him? It’s true, we know him, he doesn’t know us individually, but we know he appreciates us.

So, as listeners, we hear what he is saying and have a sense of understanding of what he is trying to do. There is nothing wrong with optimism. Optimism is wonderful. Romney and Ryan are exuding optimism for the future.

Where I think Rush needs to listen to Pam is, that when she describes the battle, and that she is concerned, he pushed back with the opposite, pessimism.

She was not being pessimistic, conservatives are optimistic people, but, there is a realistic lesson here.

If we don’t take Virginia, Ohio and other states that did not vote Republican last go-round, we are not going to win the White House. Then, there is the Senate to contend with. The two states she mentioned, Ohio and Virginia, are crucial to win the Senate. We are losing House seats, but we should keep the House. If we lose the Presidency and Senate because people in states that are not battleground states believe we are winning, and do not take this race into their own hands like Pam is, we may lose.

Personally, I do not have the time and finances to do as Pam is, but I know people who can. Boots on the ground in these key states will help immeasurably.

I do not like criticizing Rush Limbaugh, he has done so much to help the nation understand conservatism. However, if I was sitting in his Attila the Hun chair, I would have thanked Pam profusely, and encouraged others who can swing it, to do the same as she.

A good realistic exercise to utilize is the There is a “Create your own map” button at the bottom of it. Romney was ahead in their estimation a couple days ago, and as we all know, a lot can happen in a dozen days.

The polls are saying the Romney will take Florida and North Carolina, so I put those in his column, I then thought, what if Pam and the Virginians take Virginia? I put Virginia in the Romney column. Things are tenuous in Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, so, if those go Obama, we have to get Ohio and one other state. Romney began his campaign in New Hampshire, his back yard. If we can put New Hampshire in the Romney column, he needs Ohio or Pennsylvania. Using different angles, you can see that it’s down to basically 4 states, IF he wins the aforementioned.

What I’m saying is, ignore what-ifs, maybes, I-feel-good-abouts and all of the rest. The reality is that this race is down to a few states that may not be reflected in the popular vote polls.

Pam is an outstanding activist. If we win the popular vote but lose the electoral, optimism that ignores reality will lose the country.

We need more Pams and cautious, but active optimism.

Please follow and like:

Rush The Blogger

I’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh for 16 years now, I make the joke that I listen to him more than I listen to my husband. Of course, my husband would never talk for three hours straight. I’ve been watching, with interest, the changes that Rush undergoes and am kind of shocked that he has turned his website into a sort of blog.

I think it’s great, don’t get me wrong, I think it’s humble, it’s real, and gives bloggers for conservatism a good feeling. Rush Limbaugh is the reason many conservative bloggers have the guts to write. His financial success is the reason many bloggers feel they can make it big. I was shocked because he is the man on the cutting edge, and he is legitimizing blogging. That is wonderful!

I listened with interest to Rush this week when he said he used to write a weekly column for a newspaper. Opining and digging for info is what bloggers do, but see, Rush has been doing that since way back!

I have just one teensy problems with today’s Rush Homepage. In, , why does the Titanic in the picture depict Chris Christie as the iceberg, when Rush states that we must, “make sure the GOP puts up the right iceberg.”

Christie isn’t the right iceberg, unless his girth is the only reason he was used. The right iceberg would be a conservative.

See now Rush, you are catching flak from bloggers! Before long, we’ll all be acting like equals.

Please follow and like:

Vote For David Frum!

Life is busy, I only picked up on a couple of things from yesterday, and putting them together made me laugh.

First, Rush Limbaugh asked a question yesterday during his radio show, then posted it on , “You have an incumbent president, Barack Hussein Obama. Does the Republican nominee focus on what we all believe and say, “Obama is a socialist who’s anti-traditional American values,” or do we just focus on policy?”

The other thing that I saw yesterday was a video at linked by Mark Levin on his , of David Frum trying to convince the folks who watch CNN that Beck and Levin and Limbaugh have to go.

mix it all up, and you get:

VOTE FOR DAVID FRUM!!
If you are concerned that the right man for the job may never come along, check out David Frum!

If you are interested in molding the Republican Party into a party more like the Democratic Party, Vote for David Frum!

If you respect a man who winces when I shake his hand, Vote for David Frum!

If your only thought on a Tuesday night is whether you should go to a French Restaurant and DVR Glee, or just eat Ben and Jerry’s and watch it, Vote for David Frum!

If you are tired of all the bickering, and want to learn how to sit, lay, roll over and beg, Vote for David Frum!

If your wife is too embarrassed to admit she is married to you in public too, Vote For David Frum!

If you can’t keep a job because everyone is else is a moron, Vote for David Frum!

If the only color that makes you happy is gray, Vote for David Frum!

If you spend time under a blanket with a webcam screaming a youtube diary about the greatness of progressive thought, Vote for David Frum!

If you equate preserving National Parks with bankrupting energy companies and strangling our economy, Vote for David Frum!

If you want to take the man out of manly, Vote for David Frum!

If you think conservatism is dead, as evidenced by last November, Vote for David Frum!

If your purpose in writing is to camouflage any direct statement of truth, Vote for David Frum!

If you too disparage actual lawyers because you never passed the bar exam, Vote for David Frum!

David Frum, the liberal’s conservative, the media’s token, Nixon’s biggest defender.

If you need four more years of Barack Obama, vote for David Frum!

But, on a serious note, to answer Rush Limbaugh’s question, the way to win in 2012 is to talk about conservative thought as it pertains to every day life. What is right, what is wrong, how what happens in our everyday life is affected by our votes. How our memories of past experiences can teach the lessons to shape our future. How the history of our great nation helps us remind Americans that we are only exceptional when we are free. The answer to the question is not either/or, but both. We have to draw a distinct line between what is good for the people of America, and what will cause us to shrug the responsibilities that being great has given us. Throughout this discussion, I would personally like people to stop referring to Democrats as one liberal group. They are not.

Please follow and like:

Conor Friedersdorf, Can’t You Smell That?

Conor, get off the floor, wipe your face and pay attention. Up until now, I have felt the need to hold you by the hand and walk you through, like the little 9-year-old you are, but I have lost patience.

, “It’s verboten to criticize anyone on “your own side” in an ideological conflict many see as binary.” Well then, it certainly isn’t forbidden to criticize outsiders.

Conor claims he has a “major following” now that he has been at Mark Levin’s iron tank, nevermind who is following. My guess is that they are mostly hiding behind Conor’s apron because their mommies asked them nicely to start thinking about moving out of the basement. But the outsider wants us to police ourselves better.

Isn’t it fitting then, that Conor hides behind ? She has just articulated a view that many conservatives have, and Conor holds it up and says, “too bad nobody else will do the hard work except me!” She just did the hard work, Conor called attention to it, said, “she speaks for me,” and he’s not even on her side. He uses her article as if she would agree with him, and this last moment of Beck’s was the first since it’s the first he’s heard of it.

Conor-the-outsider is on an island, but if the natives were looking to him to lead the fight against mainstream conservatism, they’d all lose their will to live.

“Who will lead our battle, Captain?”

“I’m afraid all we have is Major Following, sir.”

“In that case, go get my brown pants and my red shirt.”

However, Conor’s biggest problem with his crusade against common sense is that he does the things he condemns Beck for doing. Beck is not the movement, neither is Conor. Beck is not well read, neither is Conor. Beck is prone to picking parts and pieces of works to make his point, Conor, well, Conor tries to impress Frum, who is a master of the same. Yes, piss boy and butt boy teaming up to defeat smart people everywhere!

Tell you what, Conor, I wrote about my thoughts on Beck a year ago, but don’t tout it. I, like all conservatives, don’t want you around trying to use our minds so you don’t have to use yours. Oh, that’s another thing you have in common with Beck.

But what about Conor’s consistency? A month ago he was telling conservatives that we need to, “dial it down” and “appreciate” that they “have to coexist with citizens we disagree with, that means we have to compromise sometimes.” Now it’s, “Achtung, die folgenden Worte sind untersagt!”

He says, now that somebody has started with Beck, let’s get rid of Ailes, Limbaugh and Brietbart. Conor has probably been playing with his dolls again, hoping Princess Frum will comment on the size of his .

But what of his beef with Limbaugh? That really got my attention, I must say. Of all the people on God’s green earth that would try to take down Kong Limbaugh, Conor “Bonecrusher” Friedersdorf’s the man for the job! But seriously, why does Conor try to prove his point that the rhetoric is too conspiratorial by defending Marxists and Dictators and Communists? Conor needs to be told that his kind overtures to the left will get him at most a one day reprieve of being eaten by the alligator.

The thing is, Conor doesn’t see what is in front of him. He is getting his nose rubbed in dogshit everyday, and he can’t smell it. Banshee’s are screeching and he can’t hear them. No, instead Conor feels more comfortable censuring the messenger.

I’m sure being under Conor’s boot feels a bit like being whipped with a pink feather, it’s just too bad he can’t use just one of his five senses to clue him in to what is being done to America.

Please follow and like:

Todd Lassa, Is it that time again?

After Motor Trend Magazine named the Chevy Volt, “Car of the Year,” Rush Limbaugh articulated what everyone on God’s green earth was thinking,

Oh, by the way, did you see that Motor Trend magazine has named the Chevrolet Volt the car of the year?  Folks, of all the cars, no offense, General Motors, please, but of all the cars in the world, the Chevrolet Volt is the car of the year?  Motor Trend magazine, that’s the end of them.  How in the world do they have any credibility?  Not one has been sold.  The Volt is the car of the year.

Agreed. While Motor Trend hails the Volt as a “game changer,” Car and Driver and Investor’s Business Daily give a less glowing report.

Car and Driver points out the fact that it is government intervention that pushed the Volt forward, and the many detracting qualities of the Volt, namely, it’s many

was very caustic, calling the Volt a fraud, and bringing up many concerns including,

This is what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and tries to run a business. We are not told that we will be dependent on foreign sources like Bolivia for the lithium to be used in these batteries. Nor are we told about the possible dangers to rescuers and occupants in an accident scenario.

The reason Rush’s attitude is down on the Volt, is similar to IBD’s post and because it is not necessary. It is a government-subsidized, extremely expensive project that has only one purpose; to make people feel good. Make sense?

As Motor Trend lavishes praise on the Volt’s low emissions and high mpg, they completely miss the point of what the Volt is actually supposed to be. It is supposed to be the answer to peak oil and climate change.

However, peak oil is an extremist view of a world oil shortage which is not based on fact, and climate change aka global warming has been completely debunked.

So, Chevy’s exercise in stupidity, built for the government, for reasons that are illogical and unfounded, comes with a huge price tag that is mitigated by the government.

Can we all please remember that “the government” is our tax dollars, therefore my back, and your back?

The fact that Motor Trend’s Todd Lassa decided to lash out like a spoiled toddler at Limbaugh also shows the hyper-sensitivity to criticism of their pick for car of the year.

includes,

But, harrumph. In its attempt to force cars that don’t use much gas on us — how un-American/un-ExxonMobil/un-Halliburton is that? — the Obama administration is offering a $7,500 tax credit on the Chevy Volt, grabbing tax breaks and credits right out of the deserving, job-creating pockets of America’s richest individuals. How dare he?

and,

Maybe you’re worried that if the $7,500 tax credit works, too many people will buy the Volt, and that could reduce the need for oil drilling tax credits?

and,

Thanks to the recently unbridled ability of American and foreign big business to contribute unhindered to their favorite politicians – both Democratic and Republican — you don’t need to worry about rampant left-wing policy coming out of Washington any time soon.

and this below-the-belt screech,

If you can stop shilling for your favorite political party long enough to go for a drive, you might really enjoy the Chevy Volt. I’m sure GM would be happy to lend you one for the weekend. Just remember: driving and Oxycontin don’t mix.

Total dick move.

Lassa is a fool for his attack on Rush. All Rush did was give an opinion, Lassa lashed out like menstruating woman would.

I suggest everyone around Lassa to not comment on how he looks. Just sayin’.

Please follow and like: