Archive | limbaugh RSS feed for this section
3 Mar

Liberals are the true aggressors in culture wars

If you’re not with us, you’re against us. President Bush popularized this expression after 9/11 to describe his foreign policy doctrine: Countries couldn’t support or indulge terrorists and be our friends at the same time. But his detractors quickly turned it into a fairly paranoid vision of domestic political life, as if Bush had been talking about domestic opponents and dissenters.

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it’s a war they don’t want to fight. They insist they just want to follow “sound science” or “what works” when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.


It’s all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn’t so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. “Why are you making such a scene?” progressives complain. “Just do what we want and there will be no fuss.”

Undermining Catholics

Consider President Obama’s decision to require most religious institutions— including Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. — to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the “morning after” pill. When “ObamaCare” was still being debated, the White House had all but promised Catholic leaders that it would find a compromise to spare the church from the untenable position of paying for services that directly violate their faith. Now that ObamaCare is the law, the administration says the church, like everyone else, must fall in line.

Or consider the still-raging controversy over the Susan G. Komen For the Cure’s entirely reasonable — albeit very poorly handled — decision to withdraw its funding of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. The Komen foundation is singularly dedicated to raising research money for, and awareness about, breast cancer. It’s the folks with those pink ribbons. The organization decided to withdraw its comparatively meager funding in part because Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms. (Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, was caught misleading people on this very point last spring.)

Other factors included the fact that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress and the obvious but unstated fact that the organization is wildly controversial. It’s this last point that infuriates the left. Pro-choice activists and their allies believe that Planned Parenthood should not be controversial, nor should abortion be up for discussion, either.

If you have a problem with either it is because you are an ideologue, an extremist or a zealot opposed to the interests of womankind. And any attempt to suggest that abortion should offend the consciences of mainstream Americans, never mind such a revered organization as Komen, is simply unacceptable.

Resist, and you will pay

It’s clearly not about the money. Komen’s $600,000 in donations amount to less than .01% of Planned Parenthood’s budget (as opposed to the nearly half that comes from taxpayers). It’s about making it very clear: Resistance is not just futile, but dangerous.

That was evident almost immediately. Komen’s website was hacked, its Wikipedia page filled with smears. Various allegedly objective news outlets rallied to Planned Parenthood’s defense as if the behemoth abortion provider was a victim of the tiny little breast cancer foundation.

Komen apologized and seemed to offer a reversal of its policy. This “just goes to show you, when women speak out, women win,” responded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

This, of course, is ridiculous propaganda. Women are not a monolithic political bloc and were not unanimously opposed to Komen’s decision. Indeed, roughly half of women are pro-life and, you can be sure, Komen will lose donations from women and men who do not want to see their donations going to abortion providers. But for a certain type of upper-class liberal woman, it simply must be asserted, if not believed, that there is only one acceptable definition of a woman’s perspective when it comes to issues such as abortion.

You can understand why Komen wants to get out of the culture war crossfire. It just wants to spend its finite resources on the race for a cure. But that’s not good enough. The real motive behind this backlash is to make it very clear: You must choose a side — ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy.

As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism’s moral vision. You’re either with us, or against us — which means we shall be against you.

WRITTEN BY:Jonah Goldberg is author of the forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Clichés


You liberals crack me up so righteous so intelligent,you spend most of your time trying to convince others that these things are true. BOTTOM LINE “you announce to the world your stand for the 1st amendment as long as it falls under your socialist banner ‘MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY”

17 Dec
Conservatism, Where did it begin?

Before I get started I would first like to say that I personally believe that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in my lifetime. There are myriads of reasons that people liked Ronald Reagan but for myself, one of the reasons was the sense and feeling of pride that he gave me as an American as I listened to his first inaugural speech while driving a truck on the highways in the state of Wyoming. I never had the privilege of meeting him yet I felt that I had as he spoke that day of the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and the resolve of “Heroes” (You and I) The American Citizens of the United States, and “YES!” I do believe my life was better because of the many things and changes he brought about.

What I find interesting is the allusion that is given out by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, Mark Levin and other Conservative Radio Talk Show host that give the inference that Conservatism came about because of Ronald Reagan.

I would like to take a moment and say, that I have the utmost respect for those of whom I have named above, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity, Mr. Gallagher, and Mr. Levin as they are a most important weapon in the fight against Socialism in that, they bring to light many of the underhanded and despicable activities of the Socialist Elites that would otherwise go unnoticed or unreported by the mainstream media. These men and others like them are Patriots in my humble opinion and eyes and, if you were to ask me who I liked or appreciated the most I would have to say that it is Mr. Mark Levin as I myself enjoy and love the Constitution of The Untied States, I deeply appreciate and applaud his understanding and knowledge of this most precious and valuable document that by the way is not just written on parchment but is, (or it should be) written in our hearts and minds.

These men do their jobs day in and day out to bring us the information that is needed so that we can then do our part by, e-mailing, faxing, phone calls, and by flooding and shutting down switch boards and e-mail boxes so that “We The People” are and can be heard. Though I may not agree with them one hundred percent, I acknowledge and applaud their dedication, hard work, and their sacrifice to and for the cause of Liberty and Freedom in these very troubled times.

So, If I may continue.

Ronald Reagan did not define nor did he create Conservatism but, he did “Exemplify” in part what Conservatism is. I have even heard it said that he “Redefined” Conservatism which in actuality he did not. To “redefine” something causes or infers the content to be changed.


1 : to define (as a concept) again : REFORMULATE *had to redefine their terms*
2 a : to reexamine or reevaluate especially with a view to change b : TRANSFORM 1c
–redefinition \(*)r*-*de-f*-*ni-sh*n\ noun

To even say that he “reestablished” Conservatism would infer a change of some kind and I honestly believe that this is not what he did because, True Conservatism does not need to be changed but rather adhered too. What President Reagan did was, bring Conservatism, Conservative Values, back to its rightful place, in the forefront, after it had been suppressed by Socialism for so many years.

Now, In President Reagan’s work of bringing Conservatism back to its rightful place, there was not a “redefining” of Conservatism but rather a “Resurgence” of and a “Re-commitment” by the people who held and believed in Conservative Values to Conservatism through the exhausting efforts and work of those many “Reagan Supporters”.

There was also the “New Commitment” of the younger generation who had grown up with the constant “Barrage” of Socialism from the Main Stream Media to the Left Wing Teachers. This Commitment by a younger generation to Conservatism should be a message to those of us who are older.

Now I made the statement or comment earlier that Ronald Reagan did not create Conservatism but that he merely brought it back to its rightful place so now I will elaborate.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again. I am a Born Again


a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
c : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change


: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Again one must realize and grasp the fact that Liberalism is now in actuality “Socialism, Communism, Marxism” or any other title or philosophy that advocates that “The State is Supreme over the Masses”.

Conservatism and Liberalism first came into being in the Garden of Eden.

After God had created all things
He saw that His creation was “Good”. He made a garden placed Adam in the garden and Adam became a farmer. God tells Adam what he is to do and what he is “Not” to do:

Gen 2:15 And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gen 2:16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest there of thou shalt surely die.

Here God establishes the institution of “Law and Order”. Adam is told what he is to do, he tills the ground and can eat from every tree except the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. The adherence to these precepts that God has “Established and Instituted” is the birth of Conservatism.

Now God creates woman and God presents her to Adam *Gen. 2:22* and Adam names her Eve *Gen. 3:20*.

One day while alone in the garden Satan speaks to Eve through a serpent and tempts her to eat of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, but Eve “Knows” that this is wrong as she was taught by Adam what God had “Established and Instituted”.

Let’s break it down:

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?

Satan brings doubt to the authenticity of what God has “Established and Instituted”

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat:
Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Eve knows what she has been told by Adam yet she “adds” to Gods Words by saying “neither shall ye touch it” which God never said to Adam. We now have doubt and the “entertaining” of a “new thought” not from God but rather from part of His creation.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

We now see the birth of “Liberalism” through a “Lie” against the “Established Institution” of the Word of God. Satan no longer casts doubts but asserts “authority” over his Creator. He tells Eve that she is not really free, that she needs to cast off the “Old Traditional” way of thinking, the old “Established” way of life and think for herself. So she goes from “entertaining” to “accepting” the thoughts and lies.

BTW: For those opponents of God and His word who say that “Christians will force God on us”. Both Adam and Eve “Exercised” free will, Free Moral agency in choosing to be disobedient to God and His Word.

For those who ask, “If God were a loving God then why didn’t He stop them from making this mess that we now have?” It is the allowance of true Liberty and Freedom, the allowance to choose. Liberalism (Socialism) will suppress that right of choice make no mistake about it.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I can make no defense for Eve. She knew what God had said yet she chose to believe a lie but, Sin and the fall of mankind did not come about through Eve but rather, it was through Adam, because it was Adam who had been given dominion over the earth and not Eve. Read Romans 5:12-21.

Conservatism, True Conservatism speaks and acknowledges the truth and then allows one to make up their mind

Liberalism (Socialism) uses lies, deception, and intimidation to coerce the desired outcome of tyrants.

To put it simply:

Conservatism: is a Godly principle given and handed to mankind from his Creator

Liberalism (Socialism): Is a deception that has been perpetrated and forced upon mankind by Satan

I do not speak of Republicans and Democrats, I do not speak of Political Parties but rather I speak of you and your heart, your conscience, your desire for real Liberty and Freedom. What is it that you want for this Nation? What is in your heart for this Nation?

Is it a heart that wants Socialistic servitude or a Conservation of Liberty and Freedom?

Don’t stay at home, VOTE. If you refuse to vote out of protest you give your vote to the enemies of this Nation.

Though I am not a Mormon nor do I believe in the doctrines or teachings of Mormonism, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney because I believe that he is the closest to being a Conservative than any of the others, but you must decide for yourself.

President Ronald Reagan said the following at his inauguration:

“On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, President of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, “Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of…. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”

Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children and our children’s children.”

I also believe like President Reagan, that “WE” the Americans of today can act to ensure Liberty and Freedom for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children, but the question is



17 Aug
Rush Limbaugh

“I got one of these email things,” Limbaugh said on his program this afternoon.

“And, of course, I’ve only seen it a thousand times, and knew it before I received the first one. And you probably have seen this one going around. This one is, ‘Where are all of Obama’s former girlfriends?’ It’s a takeoff on where are all of the students Obama taught who claim to have been inspired by him when he taught law at the University of Chicago. Where are all of the former classmates of Obama who can tell wonderful stories about their experience with Obama on campus or in the classroom?”

Limbaugh continued, “They are interesting because those people haven’t surfaced. There aren’t any ex-girlfriends that have admitted it. Students that have been inspired by Obama as a professor, they haven’t come forth.

“Media hasn’t dug ’em up. It is interesting from the standpoint that the guy has not been vetted yet. Look what they’re trying to do to Michele Bachmann, what they’re planning on doing to [Rick] Perry and so forth.”

He concluded, “I’m just saying it’s very strange that we know so little about a guy who’s written two autobiographies. It really is strange.”

28 Jan

Asian-American lawmakers demand Limbaugh apology

Rush Limbaugh’s imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.

California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.

In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino’s Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh’s national talk radio show.

“The comments that he made — the mimicking of the Chinese language — harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days,” Yee said in an interview Thursday. “You think you’ve arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you’re a second-class citizen.”

During a Jan. 19 radio program, Limbaugh said there was no translation of the Chinese president’s speech during a visit to the White House.

“He was speaking and they weren’t translating,” Limbaugh said. “They normally translate every couple of words. Hu Jintao was just going ching chong, ching chong cha.”

He then launched into a 20-second-long imitation of the Chinese leader’s dialect.

The next day, Limbaugh said he “did a remarkable job” of imitating China’s president for someone who doesn’t know a language spoken by more than 1 billion people.

“Back in the old days, Sid Caesar, for those of you old enough to remember, was called a comic genius for impersonating foreign languages that he couldn’t speak,” Limbaugh said. “But today the left says that was racism; it was bigotry; it was insulting. And it wasn’t. It was a service.”

A telephone and e-mail to Limbaugh’s station operator Clear Channel Communications Inc. was not returned Thursday. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc. is home to Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck, Bob Costas and Sean Hannity.

An e-mail to Limbaugh’s show requesting comment was also not returned.

Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh’s comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh’s program.

An online petition has been created on Yee’s website.

“I want an apology at the very least,” said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. “Making fun of any country’s leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American.”

She added: “He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that’s his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City’s population.”

There are about 14 million, or 4.5 percent, Asian-Americans in the United States, more if counting those of mixed races.

In California, Asians make up more than 12 percent of the state’s 38 million population.

While Asian-American lawmakers demand an apology from Limbaugh, some are increasingly concerned for Yee’s personal safety. Public officials have been put on alert after the deadly rampage in Tucson where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot while meeting with constituents.

Shortly after condemning Limbaugh’s remarks, Yee said he received racist death threats to his San Francisco and Sacramento offices. The lawmaker also received a profanity-filled telephone message Thursday.

The caller, who did not identify himself, called Yee a “cry baby” and urged him to resign from office.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Tony Beard Jr. confirmed the Legislature has launched an investigation and is cooperating with other security agencies.

He said Yee had received similar faxes in April after he called on a state university to disclose how much it was paying Sarah Palin for a fundraiser.

“We need to stand up for civility and be respectful of one another. Otherwise the consequences are dreadful as we can already see in the death threats against Senator Yee,” said Rep. Judy Chu, a Democrat who represents a large Asian district outside Los Angeles.

Yee, who has a chance to become San Francisco’s first elected Asian mayor, said he has no plans to change his behavior because doing so would amount to “stepping down.” He said his staff has received additional security training.

“It’s just been a disappointing experience,” Yee said. “I’m not angry about it, more disappointed that in the year 2011, we still have individuals who are racist.”

Threats to minority lawmakers are not new. California state Assemblyman Paul Fong said he was the target of racist comments in 2009, when he introduced a resolution officially expressing California’s regret for the way it treated Chinese living in the state.
Comments from Gary Gatehouse

Hey Senator YEE-The American people who care, don’t expect Limbaugh to apologize to the Chinese people-we will expect Limbaugh to apologize when your guy the china man on the piano apologizes to the American people and Korean War Veterans for playing that anti America music at OUR paid for STATE DINNER where two socialist brothers met-Obama and the guy you really hold allegiance to China’s President

The Communists Chinese Government were/are allied with the North Korean communists. How can this not be taken as a slight to the allies at the very least? Calling them Jackals is profane. They insult the American people with this propagandists instrumental. Chinese govt have shown aggression and will continue to.

Please do not play innocent communists.

Drop Senator YEE a e-mail and let him know what your think of his Bull Shi.


This is one political Pearl Harbor that we are not going to let happen.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

written by: Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.