See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: RUSH LIMBAUGH: Greenspan Calls Rush To Sell Americans On Mexican Peso Bailout Scheme, Lies To Robert Novak About Call, Confesses, Goes On To Drug Career And Viagra Vacations
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1 ... vo11no14/vo11no14_limbaugh.htm
Published: Jul 10, 1995
Author: John F. McManus
Post Date: 2006-10-04 01:38:39 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: Limbaugh, Liar, Fraud
Views: 353
Comments: 23
Establishment Dittohead He is as well-known in America as any sports celebrity, politician, movie star, or television personality. Mention the name Rush Limbaugh to just about anyone in the nation and one is bound to get some sort of response -- from effusive praise, to grudging acceptance, to downright hostility. Mainstream conservative personalities love him and his outrageous style. Ronald Reagan once called him "the number one voice for conservatism in our country." Former Secretary of Education William Bennett has referred to him as "the most consequential person in political life at the moment." Jack Kemp has enthused that "he's certainly leading the fight against some of the far-left policies of the Clinton Administration and doing it with wit, wisdom, tenacity, and an irrepressible style." Senate Majority Leader and presidential aspirant Robert Dole has described him as "a powerhouse antidote to the liberal cheerleading you hear all the time from the national media." Another presidential contender, Senator Phil Gramm, has claimed that this reigning king of talk radio "has had a profound impact on conservative thinking in America [and is] doing a lot more good than Republicans in the Senate are doing." Nearly without exception, such high-profile hosannas come from those whom most Americans consider this nation's conservative leaders. Other commentators, while not nearly as effusive in their praise of Limbaugh, nonetheless admit that he has become an influential force in the national political dialogue. For instance, a 1993 article in U.S. News & World Report stated, "However he's defined, Limbaugh is a growing force in American politics .... Few political figures worry the White House more, and with good reason." And in the May/June 1993 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, reporter John McCollister noted, "Half his listeners swear by him; half swear at him .... Limbaugh's fans praise his on-target, ultraconservative blasts while critics label him an Archie Bunker of the '90s." Regardless of how Rush Limbaugh is described, no one contests the fact that in the last few years this self-anointed conservative king has enjoyed an enormous popularity among Americans who are concerned about the growth of big government and the attack on traditional values. But behind the adulation and attention given Limbaugh lies a nagging concern among Americans who for the last few decades have been in the thick of the battle to save our Republic: Is Rush Limbaugh really concerned about the future of our nation, and is he providing sound leadership and perspective in the fight against big-government tyranny? In the Beginning Born in 1951 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Rush Limbaugh aspired from an early age to carve out a career in broadcasting. At age 16, he was given a spot as a disc jockey on a hometown radio station. A few years later, he tried college, didn't like it, and spent the next decade as an announcer, newscaster, and talk host at radio stations in Kansas City and Pittsburgh. In 1984, after having left broadcasting to work in public relations for the Kansas City Royals baseball team, he returned to radio as a news commentator at a Kansas City radio station. His conservative flair and flamboyance somehow caught the ear of the station manager at KFBK in Sacramento, who decided to give him an on-air slot. Limbaugh's mix of conservative political commentary and satire rapidly became a hit with Sacramento area listeners, who enjoyed hearing his attacks on liberals, homosexuals, "feminazis," "environmental wackos," and numerous others. Before long Limbaugh's Sacramento show was attracting some national attention. In 1987, Edward F. McLaughlin, a former president of ABC network radio, offered Limbaugh a spot in New York City on a national radio network he was putting together. The two signed a contract, Limbaugh moved to New York, and the new show premiered on August 1, 1988 with 54 stations. Limbaugh now broadcasts his show on 660 stations plus Armed Forces radio. His Monday through Friday radio audience totals over 20 million per week. In addition, he hosts a late night, 30-minute television show five days per week, has had two best-selling books ghost-written for him, and has launched a monthly newsletter which in three years boasts 500,000 subscribers. Observers across the political spectrum agree that Limbaugh has had a real effect on the thinking of millions to whom he has brought some conservative perspective. He has, in his frequently comical and sometimes incisive way, helped many Americans to realize that government doesn't have all the answers, that the dominant liberalism of the past 50 years has damaged America, and that the mass media cannot be counted on to give the people the information they need to understand and correct America's problems. But by and large Limbaugh's programs focus not on the vital issues and problems facing our nation, but on a very different topic -- one that seems to preoccupy most of Limbaugh's waking thoughts. Those who tune in regularly to Limbaugh's radio and television programs will recall hearing the following, frequently repeated, over the years: • "Greetings, conversationalists across the fruited plain, this is Rush Limbaugh, the most dangerous man in America, with the largest hypothalamus in North America, serving humanity by simply opening my mouth, destined for my own wing in the Museum of Broadcasting, executing everything I do flawlessly with zero mistakes, doing this show with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, because I have talent on loan from God. Rush Limbaugh. A Man. A Legend. A way of life." • "This is the program everyone turns to to find out what's going on before they make up their minds about something." • "You'll never have to read a newspaper again! I'll tell you what's happening in America and I'll tell you what you should think about it!" • "The views expressed by the host are rooted in a relentless pursuit of the truth." • "Don't ever doubt my judgment; don't ever doubt my learned analysis -- because I am right!" • "This program is the turnpike of truth; the only superhighway you'll ever need if you're still getting your information from journalists." • "The Rush Limbaugh Show -- setting the national agenda; redefining the new media." The Entertainer There you have it. Hitching his rising star to the conservative movement, Limbaugh has made a career out of self-promotion. Some of his defenders will point out that this is just an act, part of the Limbaugh on-air persona used to draw in an audience for his conservative message. But in his 1992 book, The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaugh admitted that he thinks of himself primarily as an entertainer, and never planned to direct an agenda or be the ultimate dispenser of conservative truths: I do not look upon my show as a chance to advance an agenda .... I also do not believe I should use my show for activism. It is after all, still entertainment. I want it to be that way. I am not into demonstrating my influence in politics. Because Rush Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer, he has employed with gusto the entertainer's most effective tool: self-promotion. A radio hour with Limbaugh will offer listeners not unadulterated conservative perspective on the Clinton agenda, on homosexual activism, or on the liberal strategy in education. It will instead smother them with the overpowering weight of Limbaugh's own ego, as he rambles on about how fortunate they are to have access to such a fountain of perfect wisdom. It is difficult to believe that thinking people could listen to Limbaugh day after day for anything other than entertainment. John McCollister caught the essence of Limbaugh's insistence that he is "an entertainer first and a conservative second" in this quote from a speech Limbaugh gave in Daytona Beach: The reason I do what I do, the way I do it, is to get the largest radio audience possible and to get the largest dollar amount I can for commercials. It's a business -- strictly a business. Now, no one begrudges Mr. Limbaugh his astounding success, or the fact that he is making a real killing in the broadcast field. But millions of Americans are concerned about the future of their beloved nation. They need true education on the foundations of our republic, and direction on how we can get back to the limited government our Founders created. To trivialize this crucial conflict to the realm of entertainment does a disservice, because it disguises the present desperate straits in which we find our nation. In reality, Limbaugh has gone well past the constraints of simple entertainment; his assertion that he would never use his programs for political activism will not stand up to scrutiny. As we shall see, since he has stepped fully into the national spotlight, Limbaugh has become little more than a shill for Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and the defective policies of the present leadership of the Republican Party. As a consequence, he has offered false leadership to those who -- unlike the leadership of either the Republicans or the Democrats -- honestly seek to limit government to its proper constitutional role. Unlike the entertainment aspects of his show, this side of the Limbaugh phenomenon is downright dangerous. Republican Mouthpiece Writing in the May 1994 Atlantic Monthly, liberal commentator James Fallows, who describes himself as a longtime listener to Limbaugh, states, "As recently as June 2, 1992, Limbaugh was free-swinging, even against some Republicans. During the Republican primaries early that year Limbaugh had been very hard on George Bush for his fecklessness and his deviation from the conservative line. Pat Buchanan's truculent campaign seemed matched to Limbaugh's outlook -- and Limbaugh supported it on the air." To curry Limbaugh's support and entice him back into the GOP establishment's fold, President Bush took aim at a target he couldn't miss -- the performer's ego. Fallows recalls: On June 3 [1992] George Bush invited Rush Limbaugh to Washington. The two had dinner and took in a show together. Limbaugh stayed overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom -- where ... he placed calls to his relatives saying, "You'll never guess where I am!" ... From that day forward Limbaugh never said a word on his show that could be construed as hurting Bush's re-election effort. Additionally, Limbaugh relaxed his supposedly ironclad rules against having guests on his show and using his show for partisan activism: "Having proclaimed for years, and with good reason, that his show was so entertaining that it didn't need guests, he had both Bush and Quayle on the air and listened to them reverently." The most remarkable aspect of Bush's undisguised wooing of Limbaugh, observes Fallows, is that "One visit seemed to turn him around permanently." Where Limbaugh had occasionally displayed an independent streak, after June 3, 1992, he unmistakably became a propaganda accessory of the Republican Party: As Limbaugh became more and more a party operative, his subject matter shifted too -- from positions he'd developed to those he had obviously been fed .... He is clearly working from clips and theories someone else has handed him, very much like the Hollywood liberals he ridicules, who are working from clips about the plight of whales or the rain forest. Fallows observes that throughout his career, Limbaugh has displayed a voracious appetite for approval. Despite his conservative public persona, Limbaugh has often used his program to drop the names of liberal figures with whom he has dined or attended social functions; Fallows recalls being particularly startled to hear Limbaugh exult about having lunch with ABC anchor Peter Jennings, one of the media's most mawkish liberals. "Who knows how different politics would be today," Fallows muses, "if liberals had been nice to Limbaugh first?" Prior to President Bush's defeat, Ronald Reagan supplied additional Republican affirmation of Limbaugh with a letter Limbaugh happily read to his television audience on October 22, 1992. The former President enthused, "I am comforted to know that our country is in the capable hands of gifted young individuals like you and your listeners. You are the backbone of this great nation, solely responsible for the success of our worldwide crusade." With such patronizing platitudes coming his way from the former President, it is not surprising that Limbaugh ignored Mr. Reagan's presentation the previous May of the first annual Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to former Soviet tyrant Mikhail Gorbachev, who had previously been an easy target for Limbaugh's witty jibes. The adulation paid to Limbaugh by Bush, Reagan, and other establishment conservatives paved the way for additional plaudits from influential Republicans, such as Kansas Senator Bob Dole, who was quoted in a September 1993 National Review promotional piece on Limbaugh as enthusing: "He's smart, he's tough, and he isn't going away, much to the annoyance of the liberal crowd." Dole would later call on Limbaugh for help with passage of GATT and the balanced budget amendment. No GOP notables have boosted Limbaugh's image more than Jack Kemp and William Bennett, two Limbaugh friends who later publicly opposed California's Proposition 187, the principled initiative designed to terminate taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens. Although Limbaugh was himself a solid supporter of this balanced and sensible measure, he refused to call his GOP friends to account on their decidedly unconservative stand against it. When asked why he wouldn't challenge their incorrect stand, Limbaugh lamely responded, "They are my friends; I'm not going to condemn them." The Republican sweep in the 1994 congressional elections led to a surge of Limbaugh euphoria unmatched since he has been on the air. He promoted the notion that everything in Washington was now going to be fixed because Gingrich and Dole would see to it. One problem surfaced immediately: The lame-duck Congress was going to bring the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) up for a vote, and it soon became apparent that the Republican leadership wasn't going to stand in the way. In fact, GOP leaders were solid backers of this sovereignty-threatening economic union. Listeners began to call Rush about GATT immediately. One after another, anguished Americans questioned the wisdom of having our nation submit to GATT and its 130-nation World Trade Organization. Listeners wanted to know why Republicans were allowing the decision on this matter to be made by scores of just-defeated Democrats. They wanted to know why the vote wasn't being postponed so that the newly chosen senators and representatives could hold hearings, ascertaining the true sense of the American people and weighing the constitutional implications, and then vote accordingly -- in true conservative fashion. Wrong on GATT While Limbaugh had the perfect opportunity to offer his listeners solid constitutional perspective on the true nature of GATT -- avoiding partisan agendas and the political activism he had earlier insisted he would shun -- instead he simply parroted the lame assurances made by the Republican leaders: "Gingrich and Dole endorse it and have answered all the arguments against it." Never mind that Gingrich long ago joined the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, and GATT is a pet project of the CFR. Never mind that Bob Dole is legendary for throwing last-minute support behind liberal proposals that no true conservative would be caught dead backing (the crime bill, NAFTA, foreign aid, GATT, gun control, etc.). Caller concern over GATT prompted Limbaugh to reply somewhat lamely: "I don't look at GATT as world government. I have talked to people I love who have read GATT and they reassured me .... Mr. Newt is all for it; he went to the Heritage Foundation and they're satisfied that there's no sovereignty problem." In reality, Gingrich had earlier testified before a House Ways and Means Committee hearing that GATT would indeed compromise America's national sovereignty: [W]e need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment .... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power. As for the Heritage Foundation, it, like Dole, Gingrich, William F. Buckley, and other "conservative" notables, has become a mouthpiece for the establishment. The true conservative argument against GATT is very clear: The Constitution grants power to Congress alone to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." And Congress has no authority to transfer its powers to any unaccountable international bureaucracy. Giving GATT's World Trade Organization authority over American commerce is totally unconstitutional. On November 30, 1994, Limbaugh informed a caller who tried to point out how harmful GATT would be to U.S. interests, "It's tough for me to join you [in your attitude] because I really don't want to be there in the first place." He insisted: "If GATT turns out to be harmful, we could drop out .... I can't imagine that we'd stay in it." But when the caller asked Limbaugh to identify an international agreement from which the U.S. has extricated itself, Limbaugh was, for once, at a loss for words. Not only did Limbaugh offer plenty of support for the sovereignty-destroying GATT, he conspicuously shunned all legitimate opposition to it. Two particularly knowledgeable and articulate foes of the global trade mechanism are news columnist Patrick Buchanan and constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum. Limbaugh adamantly refused to take on-air calls from either so they could air their constitutional concerns. He also refused to sell them advertisement time on his television program, even though they had been perfectly willing to pay the high fees for the ads: Schlafly had already paid $85,000 for ad time (the money was returned to her), and Buchanan's sister had offered $100,000 for ad time for her brother, but was rebuffed by Limbaugh's advertising team. Limbaugh spokesman Smart Krane later attempted to explain to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that the decision to reject the Schlafly and Buchanan ads was based in part on a desire to steer clear of political advocacy, a contention which is difficult to swallow in light of the fact that Limbaugh has unashamedly stumped on the air for an array of GOP schemes. Schlafly also found Krane's explanation a bit thin, since she had earlier encountered no similar resistance when placing two anti-Clinton ads on the show only months before. Who Will Benefit? On December 1, 1994, when caller heat against GATT was especially intense, Limbaugh took a call from a man who identified himself as an "exporter-importer with China" and a strong supporter of GATT. "I'm going to benefit greatly from GATT," he said, "it's going to mean more money in corporate America's pockets, less in government's." Which, of course, is why much of corporate America -- top-heavy with internationalists -- has enthusiastically endorsed GATT. The important point to note here is that a few international businessmen will benefit greatly from GATT, yet the nation itself will lose an important ingredient of sovereignty. Instead of boldly speaking out for maintaining the integrity of our Republic and the liberty of all Americans, Rush Limbaugh has banged his drum intensely for GATT (as he had previously done for NAFTA) while America's manufacturing base is fleeing -- and taking American jobs with it. Amid this escalating damage to American sovereignty and prosperity, Limbaugh has remained sanguine about GATT and its sanction-imposing World Trade Organization. In fact, he has even stated that he hopes the WTO will rule against the United States in the contrived tariff war with Japan. Apparently, Limbaugh's "conservatism" has little use for patriotism. On March 2, 1995, Limbaugh told his audience that he received a telephone call from Senator Bob Dole the day before. At the time, Dole found himself one vote short of the number needed for Senate approval of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. So Dole's private message to Rush, already an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment, was: "I have delayed the vote so the American people can be heard. The American people need to work some magic here." Rush promptly took to the airwaves and spent the next three hours suggesting that senators who voted against the amendment proposal would be deleated in the next election. Again, this is the same Rush Limbaugh who had previously insisted that he would never use his program for political "activism." Deficient Congress No measure received more intense support from Gingrich and Dole than the proposal to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The measure strongly suggests that the Constitution is deficient and in need of alteration. In reality, it is Congress that is deficient -- of members who are unapologetically committed to the Constitution as penned by our nation's Founding Fathers. There is absolutely no need to put our Constitution through the dangerous amendment process to balance the nation's budget. Either house can balance the budget with a simple majority vote any time it wants to do so. All that is needed is for Congress to phase out or terminate all spending programs not authorized by the Constitution. A balanced budget amendment would in no way guarantee a true balanced federal budget anyway, because it contains several loopholes which would allow the budget to be unbalanced via a 60 percent vote of Congress. Further, the measure wasn't even scheduled to take effect until 2002 at the earliest -- allowing at least seven more years of foolish deficit spending by an out-of-control Congress. In addition, nothing in the measure provided for cutting back on government programs, which means that the budget could be balanced by increases in taxes rather than by cuts in spending. What a con job on the American people! Instead of a balanced budget amendment, the nation needs members of Congress who will simply refuse to approve any unconstitutional measures that are piling up debt and deficit. Alas, this is not something Rush Limbaugh, America's supposed leading conservative, has even suggested. Limbaugh brazenly depicts him self as "the epitome of morality and virtue," a gallant tribune of middle American family values. (This may explain why he has been back for three helpings of matrimony.) Like a hog which can sniff out a concealed cache of truffles, Limbaugh has a gift for finding profitable opportunities in seamy and unseemly places: He has given interviews to Playboy and Penthouse, and has appeared on Hearts Afire, a television situation comedy produced by Harry and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, high-profile friends of the Clintons. He has even been featured in advertisements for the New York Times, the polestar publication of the left-wing establishment. Limbaugh's response to questions about the propriety of his accepting the Playboy interview is especially telling. "Hell, go buy it anyway and hide it from your kids," he advised his audience. He even went so far as to blasphemously suggest that Jesus Christ would have submitted to a Playboy interview. Liberal Boost Along his road to national prominence, Limbaugh has been boosted by an assortment of liberals. In a 1991 article in Human Events, conservative journalist Cliff Kincaid pointed out that despite Limbaugh's treatment of the major media on his programs, he had nonetheless received favorable coverage on ABC's Nightline and in the Sunday magazines of the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. Kincaid also noted that CBS' Sixty Minutes had provided some million-dollar free publicity. Rush's lust for celebrity apparently explains one of his most curious absences. In the March 1995 issue of Chronicles, Kincaid observes that the broadcaster "took time off from his show during a critical debate over last year's crime bill to participate in the opening of a 'Planet Hollywood' restaurant, where he posed for photographs with Roseanne Barr." While Limbaugh was thus engaged, Congress and the Clinton Administration were completing one more phase of America's transformation into a centrally controlled police state. Even if we were to concede that Limbaugh's understanding of the constitutional questions involved is topical at best, it seems curious that he would have missed a ripe opportunity to inveigh against Bill Clinton's gun control policies. Furthermore, Limbaugh has endorsed the unconstitutional federalization of police authority. Although he had criticized the "pork" in the 1994 Clinton crime bill, he was a voluble supporter of the 1995 Republican crime bill, which essentially restored the $2.5 billion in additional spending which had been removed last year. Furthermore, he defended the federal mandates which were imposed on the states as a way of promoting "conservative" law enforcement -- building prisons, establishing mandatory penalties, etc. But none of this is compatible with the design of the Founding Fathers, who specifically left law enforcement powers in the hands of local and state governments. Squishy on Homosexuality Early in his career, Limbaugh attracted attention by artfully satirizing the homosexual "lifestyle." This led to a memorable encounter on The Pat Sajak Show, during which a snarling mob of homosexual hatemongers shouted Limbaugh down. This episode added to Limbaugh's luster as a defender of decency. However, since that time, Rush has had little to say about the dangers of the "Lavender Revolution" and its corollary scourge of AIDS and other diseases propagated by perversion. Cliff Kincaid points out that by Limbaugh's own admission, "he has muted his criticism of the homosexual lifestyle, in response to harassment from such groups as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation." Kincaid recalls that Limbaugh was an unabashed cheerleader for GOP "moderates" during the 1994 congressional election, "one of them being Mitt Romney in Massachusetts." Romney appeared to be a plausible contender against Ted Kennedy, the Bay State's monument to decadent socialism, until Romney expressed pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality views. Romney, a leader in the Mormon Church, disavowed his Church's teachings regarding abortion; although he held a position on the board of the Boy Scouts, he endorsed the integration of homosexuals into the organization. A similar embarrassment developed out of Limbaugh's support for GOP "moderate" Rudolph Giuliani, who is an energetic supporter of homosexual "rights." Limbaugh is a virtuoso at blowing his own horn, but regarding family values he is at best a very uncertain trumpet. For decades, informed conservatives have been warning that a high-level, global conspiracy exists, the ultimate goal of which is to plunge the earth and all its peoples into the godless depths of a one-world government euphemistically known as the "new world order." From the early part of this century that conspiracy had its main manifestation in Communism, and its servants worked tirelessly to advance its tyranny worldwide. That Communist agents succeeded in infiltrating America's government is well documented. The conviction in 1950 of State Department official Alger Hiss on charges that he lied about his activities on behalf of the Soviet government represented merely one of Communism's tentacles exposed. In 1953 the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee concluded: "Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security." But Communism has been merely a tool of a larger conspiracy, as Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, explained. Noted Welch of this higher conspiracy, "As secret as the Communist activities and organizations generally appear, they are part of an open book compared to the secrecy enveloping some higher degree of this diabolic force." Even Dr. Bella Dodd, a former high-level American Communist, admitted, "I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy." Conspiracy Denial It has been one of Rush Limbaugh's public passions to vehemently deny the existence of such a high-level conspiracy to plunge our nation into a new world order, and to mercilessly attack all who understand and seek to explain this godless plot. As far back as 1987 Limbaugh was verbally abusing those who believe in a conspiracy, referring to them as "right-wing fringe kooks" and "conspiracy nuts." One of his chief targets has been the John Birch Society, which has provided numerous exposés over the years that amply document the existence of a conspiracy to destroy our nation. For example, on October 14, 1994, Limbaugh responded to a computer message he had pulled off the Internet the night before. The electronic message, from an individual he never identified, suggested that "Rush Limbaugh was part of the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission conspiracy." As if on cue, Limbaugh responded by attacking the John Birch Society, stating: I have gone to many John Birch Society meetings in 1975-76 in Kansas City. I was doing a talk show back then and was identified as a conservative. So the Birchers called me, and I didn't know what I was doing. I saw the slide show; I saw the film "Overview" and it got into my head for six months and they had me believing this stuff. And then, after that, I asked some questions they couldn't answer. When they said [William F.] Buckley was a member of the conspiracy -- I'm outta here! And on November 30, 1994, responding to a caller who never mentioned the Birch Society, but who did raise concerns about the influence of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, Limbaugh once again lashed out: You're going to have to trust me. I have been on the inside of the Birch Society. I have been there. I bought it hook, line, and sinker for six months. You see, back in the '70s, the conspirators were all communists, and the communists were going to take over the world. But I can tell you from the bottom of my heart: It doesn't exist. When they said Buckley was a member of the conspiracy -- I'm outta here. Buckley a communist? Had Limbaugh truly seen and understood the John Birch Society's two-hour, well-documented exposé, An Overview of Our World, he would recall that one of its main conclusions -- offered with enough documentation to convince even the most skeptical -- is that Communism has long been a creature of a larger conspiracy led by individuals who are not themselves Communists, but internationalists using Communism as a stepping stone to world domination. Forced to Respond As the John Birch Society's chief spokesman, this writer has responded by letter to Limbaugh's attacks on the Society on more than one occasion (the opportunity to answer directly on one of Limbaugh's programs apparently being out of the question), pointing out that hurling unfounded and gratuitous accusations has always been a great deal easier than defending oneself against them. In a letter to Limbaugh, dated August 24, 1990, this writer addressed several issues concerning the Conspiracy, pointing out that: • The John Birch Society has never "suggested to anyone that a few master conspirators sit down each morning and decide what they want others to do to wreck havoc in our country and around the world." • The John Birch Society has never accused such notables as "William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, or any other individual whose national reputation is conservative but who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, of being a 'Communist.' We certainly criticize these individuals for some stands they have taken, or for lending their names to such an organization. But call them 'Communists' never!" • The John Birch Society has never had anything to do with such publications as The Spotlight, and has for years condemned irresponsible and sensationalistic handling of important issues. • While it is Mr. Limbaugh's prerogative not to discuss the conspiracy on his program, he also has an obligation to cease from misrepresenting the John Birch Society's views on the Conspiracy. This letter concluded with an excerpt from the John Birch Society's own video presentation, An Overview of Our World, in which the Society's view on the workings of the Conspiracy is clarified (see the sidebar below for that excerpt). Limbaugh's own penchant for self-promotion makes this excerpt particularly relevant. In 1989, Robert W. Lee interviewed Limbaugh while preparing an article for THE NEW AMERICAN about the rising influence of talk radio in America. When Lee asked Limbaugh why he steered clear of discussing the Conspiracy, Limbaugh responded: My purpose here is not to save the world or come up with the ultimate truth; my purpose is to attract an audience and, if you turn your show over to those people [who believe in conspiracy], your audience is going to go elsewhere. Callers make up one percent of the audience; 99 percent never call and you've got to play to them. I'm intellectually open to it [the conspiracy] and I don't oppose conspiracy callers because I don't believe it. It's just that those people who espouse it are dull people. As he stated back then, it wasn't that he didn't believe in conspiracy; he just felt it would be bad for his ratings. But after being in New York for several years, his public attitude about conspiracy changed from not only refusing to talk about it, but to actively opposing and ridiculing the notion and any caller who tried to bring up the matter. It is likely that Limbaugh has distanced himself from discussion about the Conspiracy because such ideas are ridiculed among fashionable conservatives -- those with whom Limbaugh regularly tries to ingratiate himself. He does not want to be lumped with those whom the major media has labeled "right-wing extremists," "kooks," and "conspiracy nuts." Admissions Against Interest? Nonetheless, the unspeakable notion has found its way to Limbaugh's lips now and then. As recently as February 7th of this year, Limbaugh painted the following conspiratorial scenario in an attempt to explain why harm is befalling America: You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or hand-picked from an Ivy League school -- Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government -- you've shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you're handplucked, so to speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers put you. During his broadcast on December 7, 1994, he hurled the following charge at the Clinton Administration: "These people have been trying to alter basic American life. There was a full-fledged, full-speed attempt here to take over and make socialist as much of the U.S. government as they could." On June 8, 1994, Limbaugh declared: "We have these people [in the White House] with a carefully orchestrated scheme to take over America." And on October 19, 1993, he insisted that the activities of the Clinton team formed "part of a Master Plan." Taking pot shots at the Clinton Administration appears to be as close as Limbaugh dares get to exposing conspiratorial forces in high places. On December 7, 1994, the same day that he had exposed the Clinton conspiracy to "alter basic American life," a California listener called in to express her fears about GATT and lamented that Rush had supported both it and NAFTA. She told him she believed that these two agreements placed our nation's sovereignty in grave jeopardy. She added that she was increasingly disappointed with him and named several other Southern California talk show hosts who were providing more and better information. She never used the word conspiracy, but he chose to do so in his response: This has never, ever been a program that focused on conspiracy. My objective is to do a radio program people want to listen to. I've had years of experience taking calls from people and it [the Conspiracy] is not interesting to listen to. Her quiet and dignified response was simply: "Rush, we have a country to save. We should forget about ourselves." Limbaugh's response to her helps to reveal his true motivation: This is my program. I have always run this program using my interests, my desires, and my instincts. This is a program, where I set the agenda .... I am in total satisfaction with my attitude. I'm not going to change mine. I'm happy. Limbaugh's "total satisfaction" with himself licenses him not only to strongly abuse callers who raise the issue of conspiracy, but to employ his trademark ridicule with the goal of intimidating people from bringing up the subject. For example: • On December 7, 1994, he announced with tongue in cheek, "I am in closed-door consultation with David Rockefeller about a new book." • On December 8, 1994, he mocked the importance of the Trilateral Commission and waded in with absurdities about a supposed conference call he had had with Trilateralists Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger. • On December 12, 1994, he had fun chiding the CFR for "not keeping us informed" about a mythical asteroid until it had passed and was no longer a threat. For Rush Limbaugh, it is great sport to poke fun at the well-documented fact that the CFR and the Trilateral Commission are two major institutions working against the best interests of the American people. Limbaugh's role as premier debunker of the notion of the Conspiracy was previously filled by friend and mentor William F. Buckley, who has molded his career as a "respectable conservative," holding hands with the left while attempting to destroy the efforts of true conservatives trying to steer Americans in the right direction. Buckley's early attacks on Robert Welch and the John Birch Society, and his more recent campaigns against columnists Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan, come most readily to mind. Buckley has always scoffed at the very notion of a conspiracy against our republic. But his motives for doing so are suspect, in light of his impeccable Insider credentials: He is a Yale graduate and a member of its Skull and Bones fraternity; he was a member of the CIA, posted to Mexico during the 1950s; and he has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since the 1960s. Buckely's positions on some core issues are decidedly unconservative as well: He approved the Panama Canal giveaway; has declared that he would join the Communist-dominated African National Congress if he were a black South African; has advocated a national youth corps and a federally directed civilian police corps; has supported federal gun control measures; has supported foreign aid for Russia; has endorsed "gay-rights" legislation; and has championed legalization of both marijuana and prostitution. If this is "conservatism," one shudders to think what "liberalism" is. Limbaugh and Buckley Limbaugh, however, stands before Buckley as a starry-eyed devotee. During the summer of 1992, Limbaugh started off a particular Monday broadcast with tongue-tied exuberance about the marvelous weekend he had just spent at the home of William F. Buckley. With overflowing joy, he provided details about the piano concert attended by "30 to 35 people." "At Buckley's insistence," he recalled with feigned modesty, "I was asked to sit in the front row." Who else was there? Why, none other than Henry Kissinger, himself a veteran CFR member and current officer on the Trilateral Commission's executive committee. Informed conservatives will recall that Kissinger, as President Nixon's Secretary of State, was an architect of many of America's most shameful foreign policy defeats. He was a heavy-handed promoter of policies that led America for decades to keep the Soviet Union afloat, a major player in the abandonment of our POWs and MIAs in Vietnam, and a defender of Red China's blood-drenched assault on defenseless students at Tiananmen Square. The event at Buckley's home preceded congressional consideration of NAFTA and GATT. In time, Kissinger would write in a widely published newspaper column that NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War." Precisely! NAFTA indeed represents a huge step in the direction of the new world order long advocated by conspirators working for world government. Seasoned supporters of world government know, even if Limbaugh and many others haven't figured it out, that NAFTA and GATT are economic unions, that economic union is the route to political union, and that political union leads to world government, the "new world order." An enormously revealing incident occurred early this year when President Clinton and his team were trying to figure a way to sell the American people on their scheme to bail out Mexico from its peso crisis. The incident began in late January with a telephone call from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Limbaugh. Newsweek later revealed that Newt Gingrich first suggested the call during a White House meeting attended by President Clinton, Greenspan, and congressional leaders. According to Newsweek, the Speaker felt that the best way to generate public support for giving $40 billion of the American people's money to Mexico was to have Limbaugh champion the idea. So Greenspan (CFR) made the call and prefaced his conversation by asking Limbaugh to consider the entire conversation "off the record." A week later, syndicated columnist Robert Novak got wind of the phone call and asked Rush about it, only to have the talk show host promptly and categorically deny that such a call had ever taken place. "A Man of Honor" Later that day, Rush received another call from someone at The Nation magazine who also had learned about the Fed chairman's call. Recognizing that the communication was no longer secret, Rush immediately got back on the phone with Novak to explain that he was "a man of honor" and had promised Greenspan that he would not divulge the conversation. Would not a true man of honor refuse to lie and simply state that there had indeed been a conversation but that its details could not be divulged? When a caller from Ohio asked him about the incident, Limbaugh told listeners that he had said to Novak: Mr. Novak, I owe you an apology. I was simply behaving as a man of honor. I was respecting the wishes of the [Fed] chairman to keep the whole thing off the record. I would do the same thing with you if you called me and gave me something that I wasn't supposed to say. I would deny that you had told me it since I'd pledged to you that I wouldn't divulge it .... Regarding the actual content of the conversation, Limbaugh explained that Greenspan had given him a "brief history of modern-day Mexico and its attempt to become a first-world nation" and then insisted: There was no attempt by the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give me a line, to tell me what to say, that "here's what our position is and man, it would really, really help us if you would [promote it]." It was like a brief little history lecture. He didn't ask me to come out one way or the other on it -- and I never did come out for it. If somebody wants to say that Greenspan called to lobby me, we would have to say he failed. But in the middle of a serious financial crisis, would the Fed chairman call merely to give "a brief little history lesson" to a famous talk show host who didn't even ask for it? There are hundreds of senators and representatives -- some of whom would love the kind of attention Rush Limbaugh was given -- who weren't privy to this transparent, behind-the-scenes attempt to diffuse the wrath of millions of American taxpayers. Rush Limbaugh has toned down his "conservative" rhetoric since the days when he gained a huge following by attacking the worthlessness of America's dominant liberalism -- and his listeners are beginning to realize it. He started out bashing the United Nations, environmental wackos, feminazis, homosexual militants, and any liberal in sight, but has now become, as Robin Toner of the New York Times suggested, "a precinct captain for the Republican Party." Because he has become a strident promoter of numerous indefensible positions offered by Republican leaders such as Gingrich and Dole, the people of America and the freshmen in Congress who look to him for guidance are getting nothing but steady doses of establishment poison and bits of fluff. After the Oklahoma Bombing Immediately following the tragic Oklahoma City bombing, Rush Limbaugh couldn't stress emphatically (and often) enough that he is indeed a "mainstream conservative," and not one of those "wackos who fear this so-called United Nations new world order." He assured his audience that those who believe this nation is being threatened by the UN and world government are "kooks" and most certainly not welcome on his show. Instead of offering some balanced conservative perspective, Limbaugh essentially joined forces with liberal media personalities who suggested that anyone who opposes the UN and world government differs little from the "right-wing militia wackos" supposedly responsible for the bombing. On April 24th, listeners were informed that dissent from government policies steering America into the arms of world government was not only not welcome on Limbaugh's show, but was tantamount to spreading the same kind of "garbage" that allegedly motivated the bombers. Having slurred anyone who has legitimate concerns about the steady drive toward a new world order, Limbaugh then boasted about how broad-minded he has been in accepting calls on his show: "We allow other points of view -- even put them up front." Of course, such a claim is pure balderdash. Over the past several years, even as he repeatedly pontificated that his program is based on "a relentless pursuit of truth," Rush Limbaugh has banned callers who wanted to discuss the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the new world order, the United Nations, one-world government, and other establishment-disapproved topics. How can these matters not be of concern when the two men who have served as President during Limbaugh's rise to national fame -- George Bush and Bill Clinton -- both have CFR and Trilateral roots? Why would a man who unabashedly describes his program as "the turnpike of truth," and as so valuable that "you'll never have to read a newspaper again," ignore such telling credentials? Rush Limbaugh wants to be known only as "a mainstream conservative," but the "mainstream conservatism" he espouses is similar to that of William F. Buckley, Jr., Newt Gingrich, and other CFR notables who enjoy being identified as "conservative" but whose agenda is helping to steer this nation toward self-destruction. Their "mainstream conservatism" has for years shifted leftward, much to the delight of the more open (and honest) champions of the new world order. Father James Thornton reviewed Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be in the May 3, 1993 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN. While delivering numerous compliments to Rush, he chided him for stating that "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process." "Sorry Rush," wrote Father Thornton, "rights are either God-given or they do not exist at all. To accept the notion that new rights evolve out of (God help us!) the democratic process leaves us defenseless before all manner of crack-brained legal theories." That mild slap on the wrist prompted a few readers to spring to Limbaugh's defense. In his follow-up letter sent to them and shared with us, Fr. Thornton explained: The ongoing erosion of American independence and freedom proceeds sometimes openly (as under Democrats) and sometimes more in shadows (as under establishment Republicans). It nevertheless proceeds without serious abatement. Patriotic Americans do not desire simply to alter the style at which we are plunging downward, they aim at changing the whole direction for the better. In his book, Rush Limbaugh makes clear that he sides with establishment Republicans. What America Needs And Rush has made his affinity for establishment Republicans far more obvious since his 1992 book appeared. But establishment Republicanism isn't what America needs. Nor is that brand of conservatism sufficient to save America from a conspiracy determined to destroy our nation and enslave us. Conspirators who are tightening their grip on so much of this nation's affairs must be delighted with Rush Limbaugh as a prominent adversary. Why would they even mind if he derides Bill Clinton on a daily basis? As history clearly shows, these powers behind the throne can and will turn to others, Democrat or Republican, who will carry their agenda forward. This agenda must be exposed if this great land of ours is to remain free and independent. There are plenty of fine Americans who have been helped to a limited degree of understanding by Rush Limbaugh. Both they and we are grateful he brought them as far as he did. But it is perfectly obvious he will bring them no further. He will even steer them down dangerous tangents and shield them from the whole truth. About 30 years ago, Dr. James Lucier penned the following cogent epigram: "The first job of conspiracy is to convince the world that conspiracy does not exist." Conspirators have always delighted in having non-conspirators perform that task for them. For the purposes of this article, we haven't attempted to marshal any great body of evidence to support our belief that our nation is increasingly gripped by a conspiracy. But the evidence does exist -- great amounts of it. Our earnest hope is that Limbaugh listeners and all other patriotic Americans will avail themselves of the evidence. Only then will they be able to avoid being misled by false leadership, and thereby become far more effective in the fight to preserve American freedom and greatness. 
by John F. McManus
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Its funny. I have been all the way around the world on the "right" spectrum. 15 years ago- I was right there with Rush- a "ditto head"- painting houses during the summers and listening to his every show eagerly (not to mention a voracious cover to cover reader of National Review.) I of course steered clear of the "conspiracy kooks" of the John Birch Society- believing them to be little better than basement dwelling KKK members who saw aliens hiding in the shrubs of the White House and muttering about hidden Masonic messages on dollar bills. Now- here I am 15 years later- finding myself more in agreement with John Bircher types than I am with the blowhard sellout Rush.
Most excellent. Thanks for this.
This was the precise moment that my "faith" in Limbaugh eroded to zilch. He has since completely sold out to the global elites, promotes anti-conservative values while calling true conservatives "libs" ... people like Limbaugh should face the gallows just as their puppet masters. Talk Radio hosts such as Hannity, Beck, Savage and Medved are more insidious and dangerous than an invading army. The John Birch Society is weak on Zionazis, that's why I quit them. The New American has much good information and an enviable accuracy record ... but avoids discussing the Zio-nazi Jews in any serious fashion.
"consensus facit legem" "consensus makes the law"
Now- here I am 15 years later- finding myself more in agreement with John Bircher types than I am with the blowhard sellout Rush. And like me it's just not possible to pigeon hole your politics. Those who attempt to reduce me to a stereotype are invariably mistaken because I don't buy the false left-right dichotomy, and I don't accept any package deal from anyone. The worst thing that Bush could have done was have Ari Fleischer tell us that we're either with him or we're with the turrists". No informed American regardless of her or his political position on the scale wishes to be herded into a narrow ideological playpen, least of all for the benefit of a few hacks who attempt to manage the entire mess with soundbite patriotism.
You and I have followed a similar path. My subscription to CIA-front Bonesman- directed propaganda organ National Review did not end until '92. Only now, I realize, the Birchers didn't go nearly far enough. Trapped in the anti-Communist Cold War paradigm, they fail to appreciate the degree to which Communism itself was a creature of Western elites. They failed to see the depths to which we've all been played -- that the communists never were a real enemy or threat to Big Capital, but were instead their wholely-owned subsidiary.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
If there is one thing I took away from "National Review" was it made me study the original writings of conservative thinkers like Burke. What you come away with from such thinkers is that "conservatism" isn't an ideology, its a disposition that vehemently opposes ALL ideologies and ideologues. Well- it was from that education that I slowly came to see the GOP for what it has become- a gaggle of statist ideologues who are the window dressing for Oligarchy. And National Review their chief water carrier. Say what you will about that magazine now- but 15 years ago it had some solid intellectual work going on within its pages. Now? Two words- Jonah Goldberg. Nuff said.
Exactly.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
Yeah- there is an anachronistic sense about Bircher writing and their use of the "communist". They seem to fail to realize that "communist" was more of a controlled prop than a real menacing force. Not for a second was this country ever in peril of being taken over by these true believers. Their presence in the federal government starting in the 20's was carefully monitored and KNOWN to such agencies as the FBI. They were extremely useful and were used.
I couldn't agree more, on both counts. Ironically, NR, rather than fully conditioning its target audience to accept and support the Spook Empire (as intended), instead gave us the intellectual wherewithall to recognize its subversions and (eventually) reject it utterly. Why is it that everything the Spook Empire does blows up in their face? They are their own worse enemy, thank God.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” Marcus Tullius Cicero (43B.C.)
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
Very good. The primary rub between warring factions that oppose the march of the titans seems to be whether or not one believes that the "Wiley Mr. Yehudi" is responsible for the ills of the world. It took a while but I now agree with others who believe that if certain steps were taken such as abolishing the redistribution of debt paper wealth created by the income tax and the FED, then whoever is responsible would be out of business. I happen to believe that the only way the machine can be dismantled is if the system collapses, and this will result in unimaginable suffering for millions. And, the odds are even that if that happens we still won't prevail, but rather, we'll find ourselves toasting batwings around a hobo campfire and arguing whether or not the god-cursed Democrats or the greedy, money grubbing Republicans are responsible. *Mmmm, batwings. Could you please pass the salt?*
*Mmmm, batwings. Could you please pass the salt?* That's quite a picture you paint. Do bat wings taste like chicken?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
well said. it's not adaptive to paint yourself into a box which inhibits growth.
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
Given the level of vitriolic rhetoric and white hot hate for each other one finds on the respective chat boards of the two party fraud- when the shit does hit the fan- our hoodwinked "liberals" and "conservatives" are going to tear into each other with such violence that it is going to make the Shia and Sunni spats in Iraq look like a powder puff football game. And what will be the most depressing? They will be killing each other over a contrived reality that never existed and doesn't exist- except in their heads.
We'll find out soon enough! I'm not feeling very cheerful or optimistic about America's future, what with the actual unfunded (and unreported) liability totaling more than the entire wealth of the nation. And, the fact that Americans are the most politically naive (read: stoopid) peeps of any western nation, and any political discussion lasting longer than 2 or 3 minutes results in a Pavlovian response where their eyes roll back in their heads, well, they'll swallow whatever the MSM feeds them, and nothing good can come from that. When those social security and other govt checks stop the feds' bought-and-paid-for constituency is going to want to blame someone. No matter which group is fingered, (tax protestors, gun owners, homeschoolers, joo baiters, cut and runners, etc.,) I'll be marked for brutal retribution. I can only imagine how vicious my own dear in-laws and even my barber of 20 years will be once the gravy train grids to a halt. They bought the false promises and they'll kill me and even their own grandchildren to proect their Winnebago vacation and cruise ship money. People think I'm kidding but, we may see the day when every senior is the American counterpart of a KGB snitch, like those who kept the failed Soviet system alive 70 years past its expiration date through bare fear.
Alas, a false dichotomy. The fact of planning, the degree to which it is pursued in a particular time and place, is itself an organic and natural phenomenon. But we don't have to commit ourselves to the naturalistic fallacy.
Sure have to agree with you re the stoopidity of the sheeple. And your scenario of elder snitches should be enlarged to include all those on the dole...all ages, sexes, professions, etc. The major exception I would have appears to be about those bat wings....and perhaps that is due to geographical differences. I'd be more inclined to think we'd be toasting/roasting grasshoppers and grubs over the hobo fire! :)
I read lots of macho saber rattling from young would-be warriors, and they are all too ready to take on the Chinese, NATO, the civilian MOS, (SWAT) but, most don't realize that members of their own families may put them in peril. Dealing with people of whom we were once fond won't be easy, and that will test our commitment to enduring principles. It's my belief that if Granny has a choice between getting her check and me keeping my guns, she'll tell herself that "He doesn't need those damn guns, anyway!" and rat me out if she knows where they're arsenaled. Of course the govt contractors and employees will feel the same, they won't be close enough to learn intel that could hurt me. And, every patriot I know has family who disapproves and believes it's impolite to resist the govt. And, it took but one snitch in the FSU to keep the neighborhood paralyzed with fear. And they considered themselves patriots even though they never had the courage to resist the KGB.
McManus said: "Had Limbaugh truly seen and understood the John Birch Society's two-hour, well-documented exposé, An Overview of Our World, he would recall that one of its main conclusions -- offered with enough documentation to convince even the most skeptical -- is that Communism has long been a creature of a larger conspiracy led by individuals who are not themselves Communists, but internationalists using Communism as a stepping stone to world domination. " Arator - it seems that McManus is saying the same thing you are saying...
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
I am well aware of human nature, Dawg........I go round and round with my Mom over a number of things. She has this little thing about being 'helpful'.......like she got a notice the other day from her insurance company that the state of californicate requires that they voluntarily solicit some information, or some such bullcrap. I asked her what it was they wanted.....they wanted to know if she was African American, Asian, Latino, South Pacific, or white. OF course my b/p went up and I asked her why she felt the need to even discuss filling out something that was voluntary. And then I got into the what country or continent does white come from. And I jumped on the african american bullshit--why isn't it just listed as black if you are required to be listed as white.......when, in fact, there are very many WHITE people born with generations of ties in Africa. And then we/I discussed why she felt the need to volunteer any information. Period. "Well, if it will help them do their job". I won't take it any further..........i had to get off the phone with her because I didn't want to get any more irked than I was. I spent years teaching my kids that just because the friggin phone rings doesn't mean you have to answer it, nor answer a door bell or knock. Period. You can have a jillion reasons not to or simply NO reason. I fear for the nation.
Good post.
#2. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
I don't feel quite right tdaoy. I feel like my expectations are being managed.
#3. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
An enormously revealing incident occurred early this year when President Clinton and his team were trying to figure a way to sell the American people on their scheme to bail out Mexico from its peso crisis. The incident began in late January with a telephone call from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Limbaugh.
#4. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
Its funny. I have been all the way around the world on the "right" spectrum. 15 years ago- I was right there with Rush- a "ditto head"- painting houses during the summers and listening to his every show eagerly (not to mention a voracious cover to cover reader of National Review.) I of course steered clear of the "conspiracy kooks" of the John Birch Society- believing them to be little better than basement dwelling KKK members who saw aliens hiding in the shrubs of the White House and muttering about hidden Masonic messages on dollar bills.
#5. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
(Edited)
Now- here I am 15 years later- finding myself more in agreement with John Bircher types than I am with the blowhard sellout Rush.
#6. To: HOUNDDAWG (#4)
#7. To: Arator (#5)
That the communists never were a real enemy or threat to Big Capital, but were instead their wholely-owned subsidiary.
#8. To: Arator (#5)
#9. To: Burkeman1 (#6)
(Edited)
What you come away with from such thinkers is that "conservatism" isn't an ideology, its a disposition that vehemently opposes ALL ideologies and ideologues. Well- it was from that education that I slowly came to see the GOP for what it has become- a gaggle of statist ideologues who are the window dressing for Oligarchy. And National Review their chief water carrier. Say what you will about that magazine now- but 15 years ago it had some solid intellectual work going on within its pages. Now? Two words- Jonah Goldberg. Nuff said.
#10. To: noone222, Uncle Bill (#3)
Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage and Medved are more insidious and dangerous than an invading army
#11. To: Burkeman1, AngelSpawn, christine, Zipporah.Diana, rowdee (#6)
If there is one thing I took away from "National Review" was it made me study the original writings of conservative thinkers like Burke. What you come away with from such thinkers is that "conservatism" isn't an ideology, its a disposition that vehemently opposes ALL ideologies and ideologues. Well- it was from that education that I slowly came to see the GOP for what it has become- a gaggle of statist ideologues who are the window dressing for Oligarchy. And National Review their chief water carrier. Say what you will about that magazine now- but 15 years ago it had some solid intellectual work going on within its pages. Now? Two words- Jonah Goldberg. Nuff said.
#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#11)
(Edited)
And, the odds are even that if that happens we still won't prevail, but rather, we'll find ourselves toasting batwings around a hobo campfire and arguing whether or not the god-cursed Democrats or the greedy, money grubbing Republicans are responsible.
#13. To: HOUNDDAWG (#4)
No informed American regardless of her or his political position on the scale wishes to be herded into a narrow ideological playpen, least of all for the benefit of a few hacks who attempt to manage the entire mess with soundbite patriotism.
#14. To: Burkeman1, HOUNDDAWG, wbales (#6)
#15. To: HOUNDDAWG (#11)
#16. To: Arator (#12)
Do bat wings taste like chicken?
#17. To: BTP Holdings (#14)
2. THE ORGANIC STATE
In defending the family, locality and nation,Burke stood for a natural, organic state as opposed to an artificial one based on planning.
I don't feel quite right tdaoy. I feel like my expectations are being managed.
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
#19. To: rowdee (#18)
#20. To: Arator (#5)
Arator said: "....they (Birch Society) fail to appreciate the degree to which Communism itself was a creature of Western elites."
#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#19)
#22. To: HOUNDDAWG (#19)
#23. To: rowdee (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest