or "The New Fascists"
______________
In Lieu of a Forward--
I have over the last few months ignored a few issues in the news for various reasons. Primarily because I was simply tired of defending my views to people who really have no business questioning them-- their primary tactic generally was to so distract from the object by drawing attention to phantoms, as to lose the message in the resultant clutter. I was tired with the old look and format... AND the debate.... and chose to kick back, recoup, and rebuild.
Well, the building is done. All that remains is to furnish the rooms and stock the cupboards. My views haven't changed, but my focus has. As have, for all intents and purposes, the focus of the Democrat Party; an object lesson in the perils of moral ambiguity if ever there was one. That and a clear understanding of Lord Acton's quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the context of what has become of the Democrat Party, this statement alone has significant relevance.
______________
Corruption in politics in nothing new. Neither is corruption in American politics. And neither Democrat, nor Republican are immune, for the heart of politics is in the heart of man; it is a human construct, and therefore tainted from the outset. Can anyone sail the political seas untainted? Certainly. The reason being, Man is not ruled by base instinct as are animals. Animals are locked into instinct both distinct in terms of species, and corporately in terms of immutability-- in that every sub-human creature is a slave to instinct.
Man is different, however. Man can choose to deny the urge of instinct, but not the physiology of instinct. Frank Herbert made the same distinction in his classic novel, Dune: An animal, by sheer instinct would pull its hand from the pain-amplifier. A human can choose to endure the pain however great that pain toward a greater purpose, for without struggle there is no purpose. The point being, Man can choose to remain untainted by the effluvial wash of political foam and spray. Animals cannot.
Something very serious has occurred in American politics in recent years. It has always been there to one degree or another, but it has recently taken on a cankerous hue, and what was once unthinkable is now not only commonplace for one political party, but acceptable to the point of "aiding and abetting" to the one system of checks and balances in America (Media) that should instead decry, bug-eyed and apoplectic, the political party that no longer believes in Freedom of the Press. Instead, Media, overwhelmingly supports the Democrat Party, willing to overlook a multitude of sins to see them retain power.
I have sat back and watched, with no small measure of incredulity, the Democrat Party engage in character assassination, anti-patriotic speech (if not traitorous), and outright lies, all for the sake of power through the artifices of ideological fascism, to the extent that this Party sees the effacement of the Constitution as noble and honest work. For when one Party actively seeks out-- actively abetting those who push for and finance such --opportunities to deny one segment of society the very same Constitutional protections they themselves jealously and violently defend for themselves, something serious has gone wrong in America. As one radio talk show host put it:"What they are unable to control, they seek to destroy"
So, let's get down to brass tacks.
For awhile now Democrats have drooled over the idea of a return to 'the Fairness Doctrine' --as if it was ever fair or Constitutional to begin with. The problem with such a return, however, is determining just WHO will decide what is and is not fair. By what measure, or standard? By what ideology? And let's be upfront and clear on this: What separates Democrat from Republican; Liberal from Conservative, is ideology... that fundamental whore or virtuous wife-- depending on an individuals ideological point of view --upon whom we are wont to spend our lusts.
It is difficult to lay this at the doorstep of the DNC alone. Fascism is as much an ideology as Liberalism or Conservatism; both could easily fall into fascism, yet it is today's Democrat Party that currently exhibits the closest relationship to fascism. When one Party seeks preeminence at the expense of the common rights of their political foes, how is that any different than what Germany sought to do in World War Two? Both see the suppression and eradication of one segment of society as desirable, and both were/are dangerously blind to their own hypocrisy.
Cases in point, Hypocrisy--They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
--John Kerry, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971There is no reason, Bob [Schieffer], that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.
--John Kerry, Sunday, December 4, 2005, "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer, CBSThere was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood... They actually went into the houses and killed women and children.
--John Murtha, May 17, 2006If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
--Dick Durbin, Number 2 Senate Democrat on the Senate floor, June 2005Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management
--Senator Ted Kennedy, March 19, 2004I believe that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything...
--Senator Harry Reid, April 19, 2007
The hypocrisy in all this is that they are only exercising their right to free speech, and how dare anyone question their patriotism! But they don't allow anyone else the same courtesy; demanding apologies and dismissals of anyone they disagree with ideologically. Republicans by and large are no different. I have myself called for the resignation of, if I'm not entirely mistaken, every single one of these Democrat statesmen. Why? Because they claim to love this country and yet at every opportunity, in an effort to tear down this present administration, they denigrate the American soldier-- that force by which their freedoms of denigration and political obfuscation are maintained. What I mean by obfuscation is 'attempting to make the bad guy's job harder.' If you lock your front door at night, you obfuscate. This is what ALL politicians do to one degree or another, but again, it is Democrats who seek to destroy what they cannot themselves control.Liberals want to control everybody's lives so that they live as liberals want them to live. They don't want them to smoke; they don't want them to drive certain cars; they don't want them to eat certain foods; they don't want them to live certain places. It's about total control with the government having the last word on what anybody can eat, drink, say, or do. Liberals also hold most people in contempt, Billy. They have done everything they can to keep as many people from reaching individual prosperity as possible. They want people dependent so they'll continue to vote for Democrats.
Conservatives look at individuals and see the opportunity for greatness in each and every one of them. If we get out of their way, we believe in the ability of people to overcome the obstacles in life. We want them educated so they can triumph over this, so they can understand achievement, they can understand pride, they can understand the concept of meeting and surpassing expectations. We want a great country. We don't want a country full of wusses and wimps who could be much better than they are because they have been told they have no chance and they have been told to depend on Democrats and government. That is not the recipe for a great country. It's, basically, boil it down to control versus liberty. I'm for liberty. Liberals are for control. I don't want them controlling my life, and you shouldn't want them controlling yours.
--Rush Limbaugh, October 1, 2007
"Truer words..." and all that. Boil it all down and this is exactly what Democrats want. They want a nation full of mind-numbed robots who think, breath, eat and drink the Democrat/Liberal party line and ideology... to say nothing of Koolaid. Don't believe me? Columbia University is simply one of literally hundreds of Liberal colleges churning out Liberal storm troopers. One plank in the Communist Manifesto is to control education and thereby in as little as twelve years change the mindset of an entire generation; the Chinese have done it, North Korea has done it, Soviet Russia did it, then there's Cuba, and let's not forget America, which is close to accomplishing the very same thing. The point is Democrats desire to crush all ideological opposition, even if they have to destroy the Constitution to do it.
The surge, before it had barely begun, was already declared dead in the water-- a failure, by Senate majority leader Harry Reid... by the leader of the Senate! The new commanding General in Iraq, General David Petraeus after receiving unanimous Democrat support during confirmation is, less than a year later, called a liar by the very same Senate Democrats who supported his appointment. MoveOn.org, a George Soros funded organization, takes out a full page ad in the New York Times calling our top Commander in the field "General Betrayus", calling him a traitor to this nation, and a liar. But Rush Limbaugh makes an on-air reference to a genuinely phoney soldier, one specifically who has lied about his service-- ie; drummed out of boot camp yet claims to have served in Iraq as an Army Ranger and witnessed 'atrocities,' one Jesse MacBeth; fake recipient of the Purple Heart, and sentenced to five months in jail, and three months probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record --and Rush is verbally castigated by both the Senate and Media? Let's see, Democrats supported obvious lies about General Petraeus and the American Troops, demanding no apologies or retractions, but Rush Limbaugh can't speak truthfully about a "Phony" soldier? And Mr. MacBeth is not the only "Phony" Soldier out there spreading the liberal lie that the American Soldier routinely "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.... terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.... killed innocent civilians in cold blood... [like unto] Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others... [under whose management] Saddam's torture chambers [have] reopened.... Oh! And the war is lost!"
This is how irresponsible Democrats have become; to allow a knowing lie from their own membership as well as those who support them, while knowingly lying about what their ideological opponents say in public, all in an effort to silence the opposition. They are fascists, and as subtle as a brick through plate-glass, or a scarlet A* forcibly pinned to the lapels of whomever they deem undesirable.
This is a relatively new phenomenon. It didn't begin in 2000; it began with the Clinton White House; the Clinton smear machine. And that machine's wheels are greased and in full production today-- and greatly increased. What? You didn't know that Hillary Clinton, from her own lips, claimed a hand in the creation of Media Matters and the Center for American Progress?We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere, and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.
--Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate, at this summer's 'Yearly Kos Convention'
Media Matters, the same group that daily tapes every Conservative talk radio and television host looking for something to pull out of context and create a scandal. This is what they did to Imus. It's what they want to do to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and every other conservative voice that stands up to Radical Liberalism. Their point is to squash the first amendment right to free speech of those thinkers who steadfastly stand against rabid Radical Liberalism.
Did the Senate denounce the "General Betrayus" ad? No. Will they denounce Media Matters for taking two words out of context and creating an entire lie of a campaign against the 'king of the hill' of Talk Radio? Of course not! They draft resolutions against the man in the Senate to denounce him... because of a report, known to be a lie, by Media Matters. Don't condemn the Phony Soldiers, don't condemn Media Matters or MoveOn.org, instead condemn Radical Liberalism's most vocal critic; namely, Rush Limbaugh.
There is something very wrong with America. There is also a lot of things very RIGHT with America, but what is right with America can easily be trampled beneath the jack-booted heels of the new Democrat Thuggery if we are not vigilant. Freedom of Speech to this new breed of Fascists is accorded only to speech that affirms and uplifts Radical Liberalism. This is what could very well happen should Democrats gain control of all three branches of government come next election. Think, Fairness Doctrine, and say goodbye to free and honest dissent.
With a Democratic president come the jack-booted thugs of the New Fascism, the Emperors of Effacement.
________
*A for "Anathema"
Special thanks to K-Maru for waking me from my slumber.
Great post and very much in line with what I've been thinking lately. Rush actually went another step today, making the case for how the tactics of leading Congressional Democrats (and particularly the 'she-devil' Senator from New York) can legitimately and plainly be termed "Stalinist".
I've grown tired of the term 'liberal' because the ideology of the people we're talking about is fluid; it refuses to be pinned down by rational standards of discourse. Never mind that it's far away from what that term meant in the early 1960's and light-years away from what Disraeli meant by it in the late 19th century when it was the best term for what we now think of as Libertarianism. They don't even engage on that level anymore.
No, the leftists in power today are all about getting and keeping more of it (power, that is). Why? Because they think its the most important place from which to 'run' society. (Contrast that for example, to Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan who, by all accounts, were reluctant to seek the presidency until convinced by others that they must. To conservatives, there is little to be 'run'; mostly government is about letting folks alone and defending us from our common enemies.)
You wrote: "They want a nation full of mind-numbed robots who think, breath, eat and drink the Democrat/Liberal party line and ideology".
Yes and... if you refuse to willingly numb your own mind (something that, I'll admit, seems tempting as a way to reduce conflict in the liberal free-fire zone in which I live), they will institutionalize their party line in law and enforce it vigorously.
Thus the Stalinist tag.
Keep going. Love the pic in the header bar, btw.
1. Conservatives tend to enshrine in law protections for corporate interests and government surveillance.
2. In Pres. Bush's second term conservatives dominated not only the executive branch but the legislative and judicial as well. Seems to me Conservatives are the ones closest to taking over the country.
3. You say Republicans are corrupt like Democrat, but have no discussion or furtherance of the idea. If you don't think it. Don't say it.
4. You actually have no examples of corruption from anyone. No shady deals. No sweetheart policies. You mention the fairness doctrine, but don't even have a quote about liberals trying to resurrect this law.
----
Here's what I almost deleted.
This whole post can be summed up in: I don't like liberals! I don't like them because they use strong imagery, and question the idea of American perfection.
But of course liberals aren't alone in the use of dramatic language. When you have actual complaints about liberal policies and plans. Then we might could discuss these issues. Until then your just a dittohead, because you don't actually know anything about liberals except what the conservative talking heads tell you.
This week Congress passed a bill to expand the SCHIP program by $35-billion. George Bush vetoed the bill. The media portrayed the bill as a liberal initiative. Guess what though, the bill was passed because democrats negotiated with republicans for $35-billion. The original democratic proposal was to expand the program by $50-billion. Do you know anything about this subject?
Last month Senator Jim Webb proposed an amendment that would guarantee soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan an equal amount of time in the US. It was shot down by conservatives. Why? What conservative principles did that violate?
You don't have to explain blue to me. But you do have to use more than emotional arguments. I won't be swayed by excitable quotes. I look at policy. I look at executive orders and presidential appointments.
I have a definite goal with my posts and responses. I want to stir in you more awareness of the depth of your anger and the shollowness of your beliefs about progressives. I have few illusions that you would ever support liberal policies.
I don't want to see my friend become a fanatic. I don't want you to settle for simple answers to complex problems.
You use other senses to relate to the color. Blue is a cool color so you might use a glass of cold water to relate the color to feel/temperature. You might describe blue as some sort of jazz instrument, jazz flute or the oboe, or base. You might describe blue by comparing it to the smell of ozone. maybe compare the taste to that of a blueberry slushy.
It is a difficult task but not impossible.
PINK, small, and punctual.
Aromatic, low,
Covert in April,
Candid in May,
Dear to the moss,
Known by the knoll,
Next to the robin
In every human soul.
Bold little beauty,
Bedecked with thee,
Nature forswears
Antiquity.
--Emily Dickinson
1-- The SCHIP "Expansion" would have covered children up to the age of 25.
2-- The SCHIP "Expansion" would have covered families at 400 percent of poverty... households with annual incomes greater than $80,000.
The President isn't against insuring the poor children, he's against insuring children whose families can afford to pay for private insurance. He's against paying the insurance of 20-somethings who should be working and buying into company insurance plans.
Furthermore, the President is not against expanding the SCHIP program... only against the extent to which Democrats want to take it.
Moving on...
Senator Webb is the same angry disrespectful jerk, as an invited guest to the White House, who couldn't be civil to the President of the United States. The Conservative principle violated by MISTER Webb's proposal is that of military victory. The military is stretched thin; no denying that, but neither is there any denying that Democrats want to lose in Iraq. If they didn't, they'd grow a pair reminiscent of those proudly carried by 1940's era Democrats. Instead, Post World War II Democrats desired a loss in Vietnam, and they got one. Now Modern Democrats want a loss in Iraq, and unless genuine patriots stand up, today's Democrats will get what they want. Which is more blood on American hands, and more proof that America is bad.
What kind of blind, deluded fool states on national television that NO genocide occurred when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam? MILLIONS died in South Vietnam. And the cowardice of Democrats emboldened Cambodia's Khmer Rouge and millions more were slaughtered. Who was it that embarrassed themselves on national television? A Democrat... Senator John Kerry, no less. A Vietnam veteran.
Now Democrats naively tout a civil war in Iraq as reason to leave before the job is done. But pulling out before the place is stable... before the fledgling government is strong enough to fend for itself, will only usher in the real McCoy-- Then you'll see a civil war. Millions will die. Worse yet, the region itself could very well descend into chaos. And the image that America is weak-- a paper tiger --will be borne out in the hearts and minds of every terrorist with a yen for more 9.11's on American soil. I'm sorry you support that political party that cares nothing for sparing more American lives on AMERICAN soil for the ignoble distinction of having died in ANOTHER terrorist attack on AMERICAN soil. I'm sorry, you can't see the bigger picture here.
Per a comment you made on a previous post just two days ago:
"We're a huge country, Even if someone set a nuke off in Manhattan, we would not be destroyed. We might be injured, but this country is large enough and has the resources to recover from even that."
Well, sor-ry! I'm not willing to sacrifice even one city because Democrats are too cowardly to fight for their country, in a time when this country genuinely needs to risk what Democrats so hypocritically refer to as, our "Treasure" and "Blood" on a war that absolutely must be won, beyond any shadow of doubt.
There very fact that you refuse to accept emotional arguments only solidifies in my mind the callous nature of your fact-filled life. Fact's have their purpose in delineating truth from fantasy, assuming one is capable of wading through the Bull-SCHIPS. But facts do not stand in the chow line at a rescue mission, nor do they serve from the other side of the serving line. Facts don't give to charities that seek to feed starving children in Africa, like Feed the Children... Facts are emotionless, with no heart, no mercy, nothing of genuine human value. Yes, they have purpose, but their role is to inform, not act, which is why crybaby Liberals and lying loud-mouthed Democrats repeatedly demonstrate they have no understanding of true compassion.
Tell me. How was Congress to pay for the increase in SCHIP? By taxing tobacco? According to the Heritage Foundation 22 million more smokers would be needed to fully fund the bills pushed by Congress. How's that for a cold, hard fact? And how is such an increase possible when Public health advocates say the move to a $1-per-pack excise tax on cigarettes will bring down smoking rates? Good grief! Not only are you NOT using your heart, but you don't seem to be using your head either!
Do YOU know anything about THIS subject? Clearly not. Call me a ditto-head if you wish, I'm not the least bit offended, but at least I know what I'm talking about here... even if my communication style leans far more toward emotional word pictures; pictures that seem beyond your ability to appreciate. From where I stand, you're incapable of grasping the difference and equal-relevance, of our different communication styles.
"I won't be swayed by excitable quotes."
Clearly not. Cold, hard, emotionless fact is the hard crust of bread on which you daily feast.
"I look at policy."
Without bothering to look very close... choosing instead to be spoon fed mis-characterizations and outright lies by your Liberal/Democrat plantation bosses.
Until you can show a little empathy and emotion in your arguments, as well as a firm grasp on the consequences of the policies you advocate, political and ideological common ground between us will remain a pipe dream.
Hence, my previous comment:
"I'm not trying to sway you."
Because you won't be swayed.
And neither will I... not as things currently stand.
You continue to insist I give over more than you yourself are willing to give. That is hardly an equitable arrangement toward ANY future understanding between us. You don't respect my views-- as clearly demonstrated by your comments. And as things currently stand, I don't respect yours either.
Sad but true... because I genuine like and respect you as an individual. This is the very reason I stopped discussing these issues with you at work... all we did was shout at each other. Everyone else seemed to get a kick out of it, but it's too emotionally and spiritually draining for me.
I'll say this for you... you sure know how to push my buttons. And once their pushed I seem to have little control in how I respond. For that, I sincerely apologize... it is a character flaw I fully recognize.
Oh! And great job with the Emily Dickinson. Well done!
There is no doubt he understands who and what Rush was talking about when he used the term, "phony soldiers", yet he stands in front of the country with his bare face hanging out and sanctimoniusly lies to the American people.
I do not understand this complete absence of character and integrity. It is foreign to me. I personally cannot intentionally lie to anyone without feeling incredibly guilty. I feel remorse if I do something wrong and I know it's wrong. And if I didn't know it's wrong, and I find out later, I am incredibly remorseful.
I understand when someone objects to something that really happened they feel is offensive. When Hillary said General Petraus's report requires the "willing suspension of disbelief", I am offended, but it is something she really said. It wasn't intentionally taken out of context or a flat out lie that she really made that statement.
In other words, I'm quite sure the leftists can find things Conservatives have really said to take offense at, and subsequently condemn on the floor of the Senate, but Rush's reference to one phony soldier is not one of them.
Ann Coulter's statement that she never saw four women who enjoy their husbands death so much is a case in point. She really said it. It's there in print in her book, "Godless". Rush Limbaugh was referring to one "soldier" who was never in Iraq and didn't really witness all those atrocities that he blamed American soldiers for, and his statement can be found in it's entirety on his web site.
And yet, Harry Reid, with malice aforethought, stood on the Senate floor and willfully lied to America. Why? Apparently to shackle Rush Limbaugh's right to free speech. What other reason could he have?
As I said, it is beyond my comprehension that anyone could have a soul so dead to stand in front of America and lie his ass off and apparently, unbelievably, expect America to believe him.
Incredible!
Incredible, Indeed! And not just Harry, every Tom, Dick, and Jones across the nation who parrots the lying liar and the lie he told.
Hillary Clinton admitted to being closely responsible in starting Media Matters, that makes it as close to a Clinton "Start-Up" as we need to put two and two together.
Don Imus has said all kinds of negative things about Hillary, that she was 'Satan' and the 'Devil'. The Clinton Attack machine, very famous during the Clinton years, looks to have gone after Imus, grasping at a reprehensible comment he DID indeed make. Should he have been fired over it, legally speaking? Nope, and his multi-million dollar settlement from CBS bears that out.
Rush, now, is highly critical of Hillary and almost ALL democrats. And with the election coming up, how many Democrats have put two and two together, that Rush does have a voice in America that can motivate the Republican base.
This is a serious problem for Democrats who believe it their right to return to the White House. Well, sorry, it's not a right... it's an election by popular vote. But Democrats have never seen a election they didn't want to cheat on. And with a voice like Rush's a return to the Fairness Doctrine, Well! That would be GOOD for America!!
That question however, as I mentioned in this post is "Who makes the decision as to what is and isn't 'Fair' and FREE speech?" Democrats? Republicans? Which ever political entity controls the White House? The House? Senate? Sorry, Free Speech knows no political affiliation. You can't cage it and it still remain free.
Besides which, will Democrats insist the Daily Kos provide equal time to Conservative voices? How about the New York Times in its editorial department.... EQUAL column space?
Of course not. Democrats don't want fairness within their media ranks, they want to ruin a format that they have been unsuccessful in breaking into? Why? Because Air America was a whacked out beacon of whacked out vitriol for whacked out ideologues. No station wanted to carry their programing because they knew no one would listen and they'd make no money carrying the shows.
Al Sharpton's show is/was (I don't know if it's still airing... and yes, I took the time to listen) a whacky show. Randi Rhodes' show was lunacy central... and Franken's? Hate-filled.
So. Media Matters wants to shut up Rush Limbaugh. So does Hillary and her supporters. We can choose to live believing Hillary would never stoop so low as to encourage Media Matters, a group she claims she was instrumental in starting, to go after the big dog... Take down the El Rushbo, and watch the other small fish scramble... Yeah, we can choose to live there, but that's a place which completely ignores the human condition, and the Clinton past.
Sorry, but I'm not that gullible.
Thanks for your input, Mark.
RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
Please tell me how Rush was addressing one specific phony soldier. It's pretty clear that Rush was questioning the service of every soldier that disagreed with his viewpoint. A pretty bold, brash, and stupid generalization to my thinking, but he has free speech and can say whatever he wants. That of course is the point. He can say what he wants, MoveOn.org can make stupid, inciteful statements in advertisements, Ann Coulter can label liberals godless on her book jackets. That's the job of the professional partisan rabble-rousers. When we end up discussing their antics instead of real substantiative policy questions, we fall into the mindless sheep bin.
---
EL had some substantiative comments about the SCHIP bill that I would rather be discussing.
1. I didn't/haven't investigated the matter thoroughly because I generically support anything that moves this country toward a single-payer health system. Our current healthcare system is a drain on businesses, the economy overall, and individuals.
2. EL says the bill will cover some individuals until 25. I imagine those individuals will be full time students. I know that was the only way my brother could stay on my mother's health insurance until he graduated college. I have no problem with this.
3. The claim that the bill would cover families making up to 80,000 is a misstatement. The fact is that the programs coverage levels are proposed by states and then the president has to sign off on those limits. Recently New York wanted to raise SCHIP enrollment levels to 82,600 for a family of four. The president denied the increase. There are no federal laws setting coverage levels. That is up to the president's discretion. The next president can approve higher or lower levels.
A study out from the Urban Institute say that 70% of the children expected to benefit are in families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four).
Information from FactCheck.org
4. EL brings up issues with funding this legislation. He sees no problem with the enormous costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives as a group haven't been complaining about deficit spending for a long time. Why just with this bill? And if some of the funding for the proposal is to come from smokers, I only see it as a plus. The gas tax pays for federal road maintenance. Why shouldn't activities that decrease public health, be taxed to pay for federal healthcare programs?
People tend to use emotional arguments to gloss over holes in their beliefs. It's easy to use emotional arguments to paint Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton as cloven-hoofed devils. Or mustachioed Hitlers. It's harder to do the same when you're debating points about legislation that would give health care to uninsured children. Don't be lazy in your posting, because I'm certainly not going to be lazy in my responses.
All me to fill in the gap for you. Beginning just before you left off:
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
END TRANSCRIPT
Which, seemingly, is your greatest inconvenience as well. Not because you're a liar, but because you haven't bothered to think for yourself on this issue, choosing instead to let others think for you.
But there's your context. Thanks for proving my point about blindly believing one's Democrat handlers.
"Touché!!!
Most of Americans love this country. Love it because of it's freedoms, and promise. The promise that anyone can live here with their own unique beliefs, and strive to enrich their life unimpeded because of those unique beliefs. The fact that you would change that if you could shows how truly unamerican you are.
Ummm...uh...how do you communicate with any American who thinks him/herself oppressed? W@HY communicate with any American who has convinced him/herself he/she is oppressed?
Give a leftist enough rope...and they will eventually reveal their stupidity.
BenT...seriously...why don't you move to New Zealand or something. We'd all be better off!