There is no Lessor Evil in American Politics

So I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today as I was driving around for lunch and he actually something interesting to say.  I haven’t listened to him regularly for a long time now, mostly because he is a self-admitted water carrier for the Republican party and because of his ardent opposition to Ron Paul.

Today he was mentioning how he had said that a Hilary Clinton/Jeb Bush ticket is not a far-fetched concept.  He indicated that on the top three issues in the nation, both are in agreement: immigration reform, Common Core, and Obamacare.  He added today that Wall Street is in agreement that if Jeb runs against Hilary, they’ll win either way.

He went on to talk about how Wall Street received much of the new money created by the Federal Reserve, which is why there is a much larger wealth gap in this country.  You read all about it here.

I was actually stunned by his statements today.  Usually he is someone who will say that we have to vote Republican no matter who is running in order to beat the Democrats.  Naturally, the Democrats are usually the greater of two evils and voting for them is like putting your country in front of a fast-moving train while the Republicans promise a slightly slower train.

The fact that he is admitting that Wall Street isn’t capitalist, that both party frontrunners right now are basically the same, was incredibly shocking to me.  I don’t know if he is sticking his finger in the air and seeing where the wind blows, as he never struck me as someone who does that, but he certainly was getting things right with this rant.  Like Ron Paul right.

The fact is, there is no lessor evil when it comes to the two parties at this point.  Maybe each party stood for something different a few decades ago, but the Bush dynasty pretty much changed all that.  Starting with Bush the Patriarch, we see the blurring of the two party system we are under.

The fact is, there has been very little distinction between the two parties who dominate the current political landscape for quite a few years now.  Remember what Boehner said right after Obamacare was passed?  He said that the Republicans weren’t going to repeal all of it.  In essence, he was saying he voted against it because it wasn’t a Republican bill.

There is a huge problem with this.  When the American people can no longer distinguish between the two major parties and what they represent, where even a Republican water carrier like Limbaugh can even see it, we find rampant dissatisfaction.  With this level of dissatisfaction, we will begin to revolutions sweep across the nation as more and more people begin to show their disgust of the idiots in the Capitol and Whitehouse.

It probably won’t be a violent revolution.  At first at least.  It will probably start out with third party candidates taking over localities and state governments.  When people vote for a local candidate who is either Democrat or Republican, they aren’t thinking of that particular candidate per se, but thinking on a national level.  So if both parties are doing the same things against the American people at a national level, it stands to reason that they will revolt in mass.

Things may already be going in that direction anyway.  Wall Street has long been out of touch with the rest of the American people and it appears, as Rush Limbaugh surmised, that they are the ones controlling both parties.  They want things like Obamacare and mass migration and stupidified education programs because it eliminates potential competition.

This is what happens when there are no lessor of two evils in our two party system.  There is only the same evil in two parties.  As Vox Day puts it, it is a bifactional ruling class.  And it is has been like that for a while now.

So don’t even engage the lessor of two evils argument with others.  Simply respond that even Rush Limbaugh admits that they are both the same evil just with different animal icons.

Is Limbaugh Being Fluked?

Of all the idiotic things to dismiss Rush Limbaugh on, this was the one thing that upset people:

A lot less people are interested in what conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has to say after he called Georgetown University law student a “slut” and a “prostitute,” according to one industry ratings source.

Politico reported on Monday that Abritron’s key demographic ratings between March 29 and April 25 showed Limbaugh’s show had fallen 27 percent in New York City, 31 percent in Houston, 35 percent in Jacksonville and 40 percent in the Seattle-Tacoma market.

“Clearly Sandra Fluke isn’t the only one who didn’t like Rush calling her a ‘slut’ given how many viewers that comment incinerated,” a listener told Politico‘s Dylan Byers.

In late March, Limbaugh had claimed that he ratings were up by between 10 percent and 60 percent after he called Fluke a “slut” because she advocated that health insurance cover contraception for women.

“The advertisers who hung in here are going gangbusters, yes,” he told his listeners. “I mean, that’s the simple truth. The only ones who got hurt are the ones who left.”

A radio insider speculated to Politico that Limbaugh’s ratings had briefly surged as new listeners tuned in to hear him respond to the controversy.

Earlier this month, Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey said that his company had lost millions dollars after dozens of advertisers pulled their sponsorship from Limbaugh’s show. Dickey added that the radio giant was “hit pretty hard” by the loss.

The Arbitron report also indicated that ratings were up by as much as 79 percent in both the San Francisco and Las Vegas markets.

OK, of all the things that Rush Limbaugh has said over the years, such as admitting he was carrying water for the Republicans, declaring that Ron Paul would destroy the [Republican] party, and that morality comes from the State.  Of his hypocrisy with pain killer addiction while talking smack about drug users and supporting the institutional rape of addicts to non-government approved substances, of his support for a war without a defined endgame or Congressional approval, his mocking of the atrocities committed by our troops at various detention centers, and of so much more that he has said over the years, this is what breaks him?

Sandra Fluke is a slut and should have been regarded as such.  There is no reason to assume not to since she is a 30-year-old college student demanding free birth control.  What other reason would a college student have than to be regularly taking birth control than if she was having regular sex with strange men?

Secondly, he should have been taken to task for his ideas, not any offensive statements.  The fact that the Fluke incident is what has damaged him so much confirms my suspicions that women are stupid and they can’t stand it when a man calls a woman out on her sexual habits.  Think about it.  Most of his lost market share, if we are to believe this report, are probably women.  Most men you talk to would be asking what the big deal is?

I suspect though, that this is only the surface reason and that the real reason is because Rush Limbaugh represents the dying group know as Mainstream Conservatives.  Most people are looking at the solutions offered by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and they only solution seems to be “vote Republican”.  This is the same tired playbook that has been trotted out every election cycle and it clearly isn’t working.

Perhaps his listeners, who are probably smarter than the average street idiot, are starting to understand that simply voting for the Republican is not the solution, especially when they are consistently backing out on their own promises.  Even the Tea Party candidates who were pushed into Congress in 2010 have been a huge disappointment as the debt ceiling is still being raised and the necessary cuts aren’t being made.  Meanwhile, the Republican leaders are just telling us to vote out the Democrats and they’ll be able to fix it.

But history has proven that Republicans are just as big spenders as the Democrats are, so there is no good reason to vote for either one if you want real reform.  Instead, vote for the individual, or should not good individual be available, write your name in.

In any case, I am hoping that it wasn’t Rush’s Fluke-slut comment that got him lower ratings and revenue.  But given human nature, I have my doubts.

Limbaugh Nails It, Then Screws It Up By Apologizing

Sometimes it is a moral imperative to label people what they are, especially given their public political stances.  I have been called a kook, a “Ronulan”, a “RuPauler”, an oligarch, a racist, and so many other names in the course of my presence online, both on this blog and out in the wild when I’ve engaged in “debating”.  Are these names true?  Perhaps.  But I don’t care because I’m not so thin skinned as to let such insults get to me, although I am usually more thin-skinned than I’d like to be at times.

So now we come to Rush Limbaugh who called Sandra Fluke (is that a joke name?) a slut.  This was in response to her testimony in Congress about getting birth control for free (in this case, free meaning from my own pocket in the form of taxpayer dollars).  At least that was my understanding of what Ms. Fluke was doing which prompted Mr. Limbaugh’s response.  I read later that he apologized for his comments on-air as well.

Frankly, I don’t see what the problem is.  You have a female college student promoting the use of birth control and demanding free access to it in the form of productive sector theft.  The only reason I can see for a young woman to want more and more access to birth control without having to pay for it is because she having lots of sex with men and wants to mitigate the costs of doing so.  In other words, she is riding the cock carousel and wants to save money on the birth control so she doesn’t have to drop out of college when she gets pregnant and can’t afford to legally murder the baby.

The fact of the matter is, it is a moral imperative that our society start calling women who behave like this what they truly are.  The reason for this is simple: women who have multiple sexual partners before finally settling down and getting married are more likely to get divorced.  Divorce is the number one cause of dysfunctional families and the breakdown of the family is largely responsible for the rise in the moocher class.  Divorced people are also more likely to get divorced again, which is another reason why the first time on the marriage train is the one that really counts.

While I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore, mostly because he is a Republican hack and not a genuine conservative, I applaud him for the courage to tell millions of listeners that Sandra Fluke is a slut.  He was just saying what many of us were thinking when it comes to a female college student demanding more birth control.

And for those of you who think that Ms. Fluke was advocating on behalf of all women, keep in mind that everyone in politics has a personal interest of some kind or another.  It is not hard to imagine that Ms. Fluke wants this kind of service for herself as well.

On a side note, I fully support female college students being on birth control pills during their college experience.  You cannot imagine how many of them are constantly engaging in the most reckless behavior possible.  I recall walking to my dorm room and hearing a pathetic chubby slut brag about how drunk she was going to get to her friend.  I sometimes wonder if she was date-raped as a result.  But then I go get something to eat.

In any case, I do think college females should have birth control, but I also think they should have to pay for it.  That way, they can weigh the costs of their stupid and utterly irresponsible behaviors from a financial standpoint, since that usually works better than appealing to pesky things like morality.

The Increasing Irrelevance of Conservative Talk Radio

Oh, how the mighty are falling:

Rush Limbaugh's ratings have fallen sharply in recent months, according to a new report by Arbitron.

Limbaugh still has the top-rated radio talk show in the country, but his audience has dropped by 33 percent since October. And he's not the only one--Sean Hannity's ratings have also slipped by 28 percent.

A spokesperson for Premiere Radio, which distributes both Limbaugh's and Hannity's shows, told Crain's Business that the company wasn't worried about the ratings dip, since they were still the two biggest talk show hosts in America.

I have said in the past that Mainstream Conservatives, like Hannity and Rush, always side with the neoconservatives against the Constitutional Conservatives.  In Rush Limbaugh’s case, this appears to be detrimental to his own show as he had last year denounced Ron Paul as a man who will “destroy the [Republican] party”.

Both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are shills for the Republican party.  They talk a good game and do criticize Republicans when they act like, in their words, liberal Democrats, but at the end of the day they encourage you to pull that lever or push that button for the Republican.  In fact, the only third party candidate I’ve seen them support was Joe Lieberman.  They almost never endorse a third party candidate who more accurately reflects their views.

Because of these attitudes, the Ron Paul supporters (also known as the Constitutional Conservatives) are leaving their shows in droves.  I’d argue that most of those listeners who have left are largely from that wing of the Republican party.  They are tired of voting for Republicans again and again only to find bigger government and more tyranny in spite of what those hypocrites say to them.  Also, they look at Ron Paul’s consistency and his message and they like what they see.  Gradually, they begin to agree with him on so much more than just his fiscal policies.

There mere fact that Ron Paul won 23% of the vote in New Hampshire, when he only won 8% in 2008, shows that more and more Americans are tired of the same old dog and pony show, as demonstrated by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  They want actual reforms and changes, something only Ron Paul has really promised and most likely to deliver on.

In any case, I think Rush and Sean need to reevaluate their own ideologies and broadcast messages if they are to remain relevant.  I suspect that many in their audience are of the late Baby Boomer persuasion who became more politically active around the time that Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting.  Their children are just now becoming politically active and they do not like what they see with what has been left to them.  Yet we constantly hear from these two blowhards about how it is all the Democrat’s fault when the Republicans are just as much to blame, if not more so because they promised less government when they campaigned and gave us more.  At least the Democrats were honest about who they were.

In any event, I do not see Rush Limbaugh changing his attitude anytime soon as demonstrated by how he treats the following caller:

Notice his debate tactic toward the end. Was he reading my blog?

“This Man Will Destroy the Party”

Just after the last Republican Presidential candidate debate, Rush Limbaugh opened his Friday show by stating that Ron Paul was going to “destroy the party.”  Not only did he enrage a good chunk of his listeners (probably 28% given the Ames Straw Poll results), he followed up by saying he is not going to take any calls from Ron Paul supporters.

So let me get this straight: not only do you think that Ron Paul is bad for the Republican party, which you yourself has said is in desperate need of change, but you refuse to be confronted by listeners for your comments.  There is only one word I can think of for this kind of thing: cowardice.  Rush Limbaugh is a big fat coward.

I understand if you oppose Ron Paul.  His ideas are probably too radical these days for anyone in the looter class to take.  As talk show host Jerry Doyle put it, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are nothing more than cheerleaders for the Republican party.

Which highlights something that has been bothering about his outburst that Friday.  Notice that he did not say that Ron Paul will destroy the country, the world, our freedom, or our wealth but the party.  In other words, Rush Limbaugh admitted on his own show that he has no desire to see any change in the Republican party.

Yes, I am well aware that he has supported the Tea Party.  But you Tea Parties need to realize that Rush and Hannity and Boortz and the others only supported you in order to boost ratings.  They want you listening to them, they do not care about changing the Republican party and moving it toward a Constitutional ideology.  What they are trying to do is assimilate the Tea Party into Republican ideology because the Republican leadership cannot assimilate the Tea Party into their hierarchy like the Democratic leaders did with the Left-wing anti-war movement.

Perhaps I am just being paranoid.  But given various statements that Rush Limbaugh has said over the years, I can only wonder why he has not completely abandoned the Republican party entirely, given their continued disdain for the conservatism he originally stood for.

As far as I am concerned, though, Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a large portion of the media class, looking to create the illusion of division when the end result is always the same.  If he or his ilk ever really wanted to change things, they would run for office and really change things.

So long as we have Republican cheerleaders such as Rush, there will never be any meaningful change for the better.  It is a shame because the Republican party has largely become just another side of the oppressive sword cutting through the liberties of the common citizen.

CAIR doesn’t

The one rule of any organization is that whatever their name is, you can be sure they will do the opposite.  For example, the only colored person that has been advanced by the NAACP is, well, Jesse Jackson maybe?  No, wait, his was Rainbow Push.

Today, though, I’m going to focus on a different group.  But first, what do Juan Williams and Michael Graham have in common?

I’ll give you a minute to google them.

Michael Graham and Juan Williams don’t really have much in common.  One is a black liberal with a Hispanic name and a mustache.  The other is a pasty white guy with a slightly high-pitched voice and a strong libertarian streak.  He also enjoys RINO hunting.

But this week, both me experienced the wrath of the aptly named CAIR.

CAIR is an acronym for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Think of them as the NAACP for Arabs and Muslims in general (although black Muslims might prefer the Nation of Islam I suppose).

In any case, in a move that demonstrates just how much CAIR really cares, they have had both men fired from their radio jobs for making offensive comments.  In Michael Graham’s case, it was because he called CAIR a terrorist organization, which actually has turned out to be true in light of many FBI investigations and because their leader wants to oppress women.  Well, to be fair, he did say that he wants all of America living under Shariah Law, but it’s probably because he’s a miserable person who hates it but wants the rest of us to suffer out of envy.

Do I sound a little harsh?  Well maybe because nobody has called out CAIR on their complete and utter bullshit.  Michael Graham was right to call them a terrorists organization back in 2005 and WMAL fired him over it.  He was the most entertaining thing from 9-noon every weekday and now they have that Republican shill Chris Plante.

As for Juan Williams, I think it’s a bit ironic that the Left-wing policies he’s been shilling for has gotten him fired.  He didn’t even get as extreme as Michael Graham, he just merely said that he gets nervous when Muslims board an airplane.  You know what that makes him in this Post-9/11 world?  Normal.

But for that, CAIR bitched and moaned about how offended they were.  The sick part is, they have shown no willingness to ask Juan Williams if there was anything they could do to accommodate his feelings.  Instead CAIR just said, “Screw your feelings, we want you to love us.”  And like a good organization based on the works of George Orwell, they made their best efforts.

How about I suggest something?  If Islam is so great, why don’t you show us how morally superior you can be?  Start by condemning all those Islamic organizations and individuals who kill people in the name of Islam.  Then, stop using the government and the media to further your agenda and help others.  You have enough money laundered from terrorists and Saudi princes to actually make a difference in the world.

But you don’t have to take my advice.  I’m just another Christian infidel.  But you know, you shouldn’t mess with people like me.  You see, I know that I could very be the target of threats and actual violence, but if any attacks are unleashed, I will have no choice but to summon my troll:

The Old Conservatism is Dying

I’ve been thinking more and more about the CPAC straw poll that Ron Paul won.  I’ve also had trouble listening to the regular talk radio show pundits because they’ve refused to acknowledge it.  Rush Limbaugh even said that Ron Paul isn’t a conservative and that there must’ve not been conservatives at CPAC.

So let me get this straight.  The one man who has enough integrity to vote against pretty much every unconstitutional piece of legislation that comes through the Congress is not conservative?  Why would the likes of Limbaugh do that?

It really isn’t too hard to figure out, so long as you know the history of conservatism in the last half century.  In the 1950s, the conservative movement was formed by William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, Jr. as an anti-Communist movement.  Basically, their top priority was to stop the Soviet Union dead in its tracks.

But they didn’t argue against the Soviet Union on economic terms.  They did so based on a Christian vs. atheist theme.  Brent Bozell, Jr. once touted that he’d see the whole world destroyed in order to stop the Soviets.  I’ve probably taken that out of context, but it was something that shocking and demonstrates that the conservatives of old were more interested in defeating the Soviets than pushing for limited government and free-market economics.  No wonder Ayn Rand said they defaulted when they gained any level of power.

In the same vein, Rush Limbaugh is a second-generation Buckley conservative.  He once said that conservatives are for big government, like military spending.  For the past 20 years or so, the conservative movement as led by Limbaugh and others like him, have looked for some superpower enemy to contend with.  When the Berlin Wall fell, all that was left was the Democrat Party, which had it’s share of leftover communists from the 1960s, and following 9/11, Islamic terrorists.  Now, I’m not downplaying the threat posed by either to the American people.  Islamic head choppers are a serious threat.  But they are no superpower.

It amazes me that when I point out that we spend over 1 trillion a year on military spending that many conservatives just shrug that off and attack me for being unpatriotic or something (did I mention that nationalism was monopolized by the Buckley conservatives as well?).  The fact is, however, that many young people are fed up with their parent’s breed of conservatism.  The movement, by and large, has failed to deliver a return to Constitutional principles.  Now, they will blame Democrats or Republicans, but in the end they need to admit that they have not been an effective movement.  The Soviet Union would have collapsed eventually because no Socialist state can survive its parasitic ways.  In fact, what is happening now in Europe and here is more than likely what what happening to the Soviets circa 1980.

And yet Limbaugh refuses to even accept the likes of Ron Paul or even entertain his ideas.  The old conservatism is dying and the movement is changing for the better.  We are shedding the likes of Keynes, Friedman, Buckley, and to some degree Reagan as well.  We are embracing Ludwig Mises, Murry Rothbard, and Ron Paul as the new ideological standard.  Your ideas have failed us.  It’s time for something more radical.

I Guess We Can’t Get Along After All

With all the crap the Statists in Congress are doing, you’d think that like-minded individuals would band together and fight against their zeal for oppression.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look to be the case whatsoever if we are to believe the talk radio show pundits.
Now, I don’t listen to Sean Hannity.  It is not because I disagree with him, when in fact I usually do, it has more to do with the fact that his show is just not for me.  At times he seems to be redundant, which to me says that your audience is generally not all that smart.  Or they have adult ADD and need to be reminded again and again of what his show is all about.  That doesn’t mean that intelligent people don’t listen to show.  I’m sure there are plenty.  It just seems like it is insulting my intelligence.
So imagine my surprise when he’s up to his old tricks of condemning libertarians again.  Or more specifically, Ron Paul voters.  You know, those pesky 10% of Republicans who voted for Ron Paul as their Presidential bid.  It’s a shame no prominent conservative talk radio person supported him, otherwise we might have lost the Whitehouse.  Oh wait…
Anyway, the problem is that the Ron Paul voter, like me, is tired of war.  We have about three ongoing major wars that the Federal government has ceaselessly waged in the name of Statists and the destruction of our rights.  They are the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism.  The last one was a new addition after the Soviets fell because the Statists needed a new enemy to impose crushing debts, taxes, and inflated currencies on the dumb masses.
The problem with Ron Paul supporters is that we cannot keep the more mentally stable among us off the air of these shows.  I have to say, however, that many of these people are purposely put on the air in order to make the host look good.  Rush Limbaugh admits to that all the time on his show and it is the truth.  This is probably why I’d never get on, unless I either kissed ass or sounded crazy to the call screener.  And I don’t have the stomach to do either.  (Incidentally, kissing ass is really all you have to do to get on Michael Savage’s show)
If I were to get on his show, or anyone else’s, I think I might ask the following questions and hope that he gives me a serious response:

• Did you know that most Federal employees make 70K or more?  That’s almost double the national average.
• Did you know that 1/3 of the Federal budget goes to defense?  That includes the military, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.  Do you really think that if we cut that amount in half, we couldn’t defend ourselves against terrorists and other national threats?
• Are you willing to go all out when it comes to the War on Terror?  I mean, are you willing to nuke their hometowns and turning their families to dust?  Are you willing to dip executioner’s bullets in pigs blood and then executing the prisoners at Gitmo for war crimes?  Are you willing to carpet bomb whole towns and villas and put the fear of the United States above the fear of Allah in their hearts?  If not, then why are we fighting any war?  A nation unwilling to drop a nuclear bomb on their enemy should not go to war.

I’d probably get booted off for being a crackpot or lectured to for being cruel or sadistic.  But who says that war isn’t cruel and sadistic.  If you enemy openly decapitates someone and posts it on the Internet, all the while shouting Allah Akbar to drown out the victim’s screams, then you need to be crueler, not kinder.  War is Hell, after all.
But that’s neither here nor there.  Most of the time, Ron Paul voters catch crap from the likes of Sean Hannity because of our war stances.  But our domestic agenda is the same and no conservative is willing to work with us.  Ten percent is a significant number, not to be scoffed at.  If you really want to bring about some kind of conservative revolution, then you need us more than we need you.
You see, time is on our side.  If you continue to support Statists like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and other Republicans who do not adhere to the party’s platform, you will lose support and people will turn to us.  That is because Ron Paul represents the kind of person who should be in Congress.  Someone who is willing to vote against legislation because it is unconstitutional, even if it means going against his own party.
So when you’re all done bashing the Democrats in Congress, how about supporting Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and anyone else who happens to be running in a primary who works for liberty and freedom?

Underrated Right-Wing Pundits

Being a guy who likes to read up on a lot of commentaries and listen around, I have come to find a bunch of conservative pundits who almost never make national news.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage are all great folks in their own way who have their own unique style, but I have found these folks to be quite enjoyable:

• Neal Boortz – I have mentioned him in the past and I have more or less stopped listening to him because of this huge anti-pro-life rant he went on, but he was an interesting guy.  He is a talk radio show host who has been on the air for longer than Rush Limbaugh has.  He is a libertarian-minded pundit who is not afraid to tell the poor they are lazy and that some people are too stupid to vote.  Another plus is that he has been promoting the FairTax plan and is probably the first pundit to bring out into the mainstream.
• Vox Day – A Christian libertarian-minded writer who has a weekly column at World Net Daily and a very popular blog.  His favorite things to do includes arguing with atheists until they cry, challenging the conventional notions of the two party system, and ensuring us that the economy is doomed.  He is probably about 10 years older than me (maybe more) but seems to be more connected with my generation than most of the other pundits.  You will always find his blog entries entertaining and offensive as he is a true individual who is unafraid to express his contempt for you.  Of course, the easy way to avoid that is to just not challenge him.
• Jack Cashill – This guy does some excellent research into the corruption of the left and the injustice they commit.  Before George Tiller’s murder, he had researched the man’s corruption extensively, including him paying off politicians in order to avoid prosecution (OK, it was “campaign contributions” but there was little difference in the intent).  He also brings up perspectives that no one really considers, like how Obama probably did not write any of the books that are out there and the possibility that a lot of it was fabricated.  Nobody, not even mainstream conservative pundits, are discussing this side of the issue.  Anyway, I always find his reports to be very informative.
• Molotov Mitchell – This guy produces video commentaries that are entertaining and fun to watch.  He makes really good conservative talking points and he does so in a very fun way.  Another person from my generation, he seems to be able to connect with people like me in a way that no one else really does: through humor and sarcasm.  One of his best lines was from his most recent video, “Baby boomers, I hate to say it, but when you get euthanized because you're kids don't want to support you anymore, I want you to remember abortion. Remember, you tried to kill us first.”  Great stuff.
• Ilana Mercer – This libertarian-minded South African? (sorry if I got your nationality wrong Mrs. Mercer) native has a very great writing style that I always find entertaining.  From writing about the flops in Afghanistan by the United States to writing about her frustration with mailing a package to her mother (United States’ bureaucrats really are the biggest bunch of idiots), you are in for some intelligent and thoughtful writing that is entertaining as well.
• Dave Ramsey – OK, even though he is not a political pundit per se, he often discusses politics from a right-wing viewpoint.  Oh, and did I mention he really wants all of Congress to be replaced next election?  If only people would do that… Anyway, he does need to polish up on Austrian economic theory because I think he buys way too much into the Federal Reserve’s bankrolled mainstream economists.  Other than that, his views are pretty solid when it comes to politics.  When he does discuss them anyway.  He is usually more interested in discussing how to get out of debt with his callers and help their personal finances.  Whatever he happens to be talking about is always good to listen to, so check him out when you can.
• Jerry Doyle – Yes, the famous television star of Babylon 5 has his own talk radio show.  He is a solid conservative, for the most part, but often spends his time discussing Congress in general and all the corrupt links many of the members have with big business.  It is a very entertaining commentator and I always enjoy listening to him.
• Michael Graham – I really enjoyed this guy who was on before Rush Limbaugh here locally at 630 WMAL.  Unfortunately he was fired to correctly identifying CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) as a terrorist organization.  Last I heard, he was working in Boston, and I do miss him.  By the way, ever since he was fired, the 9-noon timeslot on 630 WMAL has been through several talk show hosts since then.  What they could use is someone who is more right-wing than Rush is to get the ball rolling.  Maybe I will put in an application later. :)

Anyway, those are a few of the pundit who I think are underrated and a lot more contraversial than the more mainstream ones.  Check them out, I am sure you will enjoy many of them.

And The Cat Came Back…

Well, 630 WMAL, one of the local talk radio shows here on the rim of insanity, brought back Chris Plant in the morning.  It did not take him a long time for me to realize why I had stopped listening to him in the first place.

It was not because he was not entertaining.  He is a very entertaining radio personality.  He worked for a long time as a journalist (or something similar) and has great insights into the inner workings of the mainstream media, which is now controlled by the DNC.  I remember him explaining how many partisan reporters would willfully withhold information in a story in order to to report not only on the story but allow it to bend toward their ideological leanings.  Say what you want about talk radio, at least they are honest about their bias.

For a long time I found him to be a refreshing voice leading up to Rush Limbaugh, whose show was aired following his.  But it was not until when John McCain had won the Republican candidacy for President last year that I finally stopped listening to him.  Immediately and without hesitation he latched on to that RINO like he was the best choice around.

It disgusted me.  He did not bother to say anything with regard to how he would rather not, but the other guy is much worse.  That I can understand, even though I completely disagree with that notion.  No, he jumped on that boat before the rest of the reluctant conservative voters could do so.

Sadly, his undying support of John McCain was not what reminded me today of why I stopped listening to him.  Today while listening to his show he made a comment about how Bush saved the banking industry.

I immediately turned off my radio and went about the rest of my day.  I cannot believe that he would throw that out there when he came back so soon.  This is the mentality of the so-called conservatives inside this rim of insanity.  They believe that the way to fix the free market is to destroy it.  They supported the President’s plan from last year not realizing that such an act was not only pointless theft from the American people, but it also paved the way for what Obama is doing right now.  Everything he has done while in office is nothing more than an extension of what Bush had done when he was in office.

You are not a conservative if you supported and continue to support the banking bailout.  I do not care if you believe that the industry was about to fail.  It was not about to fail and there was plenty of support to keep many of them alive and kicking long enough to make them solvent again.  And even if that was not true, even if they really were about to die a violent and horrible death in the business world, why intervene on what natural forces deem necessary?

If you ever deal with a “conservative” who lives and/or works in the rim of insanity, then you should know that more than likely they are not true conservatives.  The only real conservative credential they tend to throw out there is either lower taxes or pro-life stances.  Even that is questionable at times.

I drew a line in the sand on the bank bailout.  If you supported it, then you are not a conservative, you are a Statist and a fascist.  There would have been no collapse.  They did not use the money they got from the government to pay off the bad loans they had.  If these banks were on the verge of collapse, then the bailout money would have been completely gone.  Instead it was put on retainer.

What makes me sick, though, is that this is why John McCain lost.  Instead of making a clear distinction between him and Barack Obama during the campaign, he bought into the fear and the hype that Hack Paulson was throwing out there.  What Paulson really was doing was securing his favorite companies against their competitors, which is why some financial institutions were allowed to fail and others were given bailout money down their throats.

What makes me even more sick is all the rationally-minded conservatives who were disgusted with McCain’s sellout but in the end gave in to their fear and worry and voted for McCain.  Talk about a failure of principles.  I bet these folks would sell their soul if it meant keeping a Democrat out of office.

But what makes me sick more than anything are these conservatives-in-name-only who are nothing more than Republican mouthpieces and Statists to boot.  They need to be called out and told by their elders that they are tarnishing out good ideology.  Unless that was their intention to begin with…

What is wrong with "conservative" talk radio anyway?

I use to be a big listener of talk radio. I listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle, etc. Of course I would listen depending on my own preferences each day.

Lately, though, I've been more or less ignoring them all. I guess it's because I'm just not interested in hearing the same exact stories told over and over again. Democrats are bad. Republicans don't fight for themselves. I get it you guys. It's same song you've been singing for as long as I can remember.

And specifically, what's the deal with Rush Limbaugh? I thought he was done with carrying the Republican's water? Was that just a hiatus? Seriously, just tell your listeners that McCain isn't worth it because you're smart enough to know that.

I'm sick and tired on talk radio and how they keep on carrying the Republican party's water, so to speak. Any time they talk about how the Democrats are worse, they're really just pushing the lesser of two evils, Dagan over Satan. In the end, it's all the same you dolts.

I'm sure that talk radio has seen a severe drop in ratings when compared to 2004's Presidential election. Well, if the mainstream press would do a little checking, I'm sure they could push that. They're usually good at using their power and influence to eliminate competition and further their own agenda while claiming it all to be objective.

Right now, I have no cable TV. Most of my news I get online, and usually, I don't pay too much attention to that. My life is more important to me anyway. Keeping constantly informed as I use to is ridiculous anyway.

In any case, I've grown bored with them and have moved beyond them. If, for some reason, they all decide to start supporting third party candidates, then I'll listen. But in the mean time, any time you hear one of these morons talk about how bad the Democrats are, just keep in mind that they are pushing for worthless Republicans who don't deserve our votes.

OK, I'll bite the hook Mr. Boortz

As I have stated in the past, I have stopped listening to Neal Boortz and stopped reading his website altogether. This was largely due to his growing contempt for people like me, pro-life Ron Paulers. It's not as if my lack of attention will affect him any, but it's more for me. I cannot sit down and let someone insult me the way he did and continue to absorb his crap. I spent the majority of my government skool years being picked on and ridiculed (lucky for some kids I found Jesus instead of Nietzsche) and I refuse to take it from any immature adult, no matter how much older and wiser they may be. Especially when it is a direct attack on my own faith.

Today, while I was browsing the columnists at Townhall.com (I don't read all of them because I don't have time and find many of them uninteresting), I noticed that Neal Boortz had posted his own column. This is pretty rare for him, usually he just babbles on the radio and posts his thoughts (complete with spelling and grammar errors) on his website.

But this time, I decided to ignore my principles for a bit and indulge my curiosity (I know, this is how sinful lifestyles start). What he wrote was very short (200 words) and very well written. It was simple and easy to understand. And the logic was flawless.

So kudos to Neal Boortz for having yet again made things simple for the stupid. I can barely wrap my brain around various concepts and have even more difficulty communicating what I do know to others. But Mr. Boortz has been able to simplify constitutional logic and make it so that even a Malibu retard could understand it.

I'm still not going to listen to him though. Or read his website.

Why I've Stopped Listening to Neal Boortz

I really just want to say this. I know that Neal Boortz, or any of his staff, will probably not read this. Heck, barely anyone reads this blog anyway, so I'm not blind to my own lack of an audience. But I really need to write this because it has been on my mind for the past few weeks.

Neal Boortz is a libertarian-leaning talk radio show host who is probably one of the more entertaining (and underrated) talk show hosts out there. He broadcasts out of of Atlanta, Georgia. He is brutally honest, something I respect in this day of political "correctness," and he almost always takes the libertarian position on every issue. He supports the war on Islamic baby killers and supports the occupation in Iraq (no, I am not being critical of the Iraq War, only pointing out the obvious current state of affairs there).

But I became increasingly annoyed with him in the past several weeks. It started with his almost constant mocking of Ron Paul supporters. It probably several of us to remind him that while there are some crazy, conspiracy theory-minded freaks in our ranks, most of us are sane and rational people. Even then, he still would mock us, only clarifying himself after the fact.

Then, during the New Hampshire primary, Neal Boortz was offended by Ron Paul when he didn't bother to sit down and talk with him on air. While Ron Paul probably shouldn't have snubbed him like that, without a good reason, Neal Boortz has acted like a child about it ever since. His constant whining about how Ron Paul wouldn't "face" him on his radio show was another source of annoyance.

The final straw was on one Friday where Neal Boortz went on a huge rant about how pro-life people are wrong and that they are the ones who destroyed the conservative movement in the Republican party. While Mr. Boortz could not have been more intellectually dishonest at that moment, it was his passionate hatred for those of us who believe that a fetus is a human life that really got to me.

It is clear that Neal Boortz hates those of us who seek to protect the life of the unborn child. He asserts that we want the government to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want, but that's not true. We want the government to not license clinics that stick a metal probe into a fetus's brain and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner. Maybe these woman should be more responsible with their behavior and armed with a gun (to prevent rape) then opting for abortion after the fact.

But that's neither here nor there. I think Neal Boortz has had significant others in the past who have had an abortion who were his kid. I think he was there and supported her all the way through it. And I suspect that this is why he refuses to admit that a fetus is human life, in spite of the growing observation and evidence with the advent of sonogram devices and many other things.

I am only speculating here. Neal Boortz doesn't talk about his personal life all that much other than to boast about his various vacations and funny stories (the big wheel story and the Planet of the Apes mask on Halloween are my favorites). I don't know if Neal Boortz has personally been involved in an abortion in some capacity or represented clients (he was a lawyer for a decade and a half or so) who were involved in such cases. Either way, it is clear that he resents pro-lifers much more than on an intellectual basis.

I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I was tired of being called crazy and I was tired of being insulted for my personal beliefs and for being accused of putting a gun to the head of pregnant women. What is most insulting of the whole situation is that he refuses to debate or discuss the matter with listeners or read e-mails on the subject. While it is his choice as it is his show, I have a choice as well. I choose not to listen to him anymore. In fact, I think I will flat out ignore him from now on.

Frankly, it just shows how much he hates pro-lifers. He hates Sean Hannity as a result (someone who he routinely considers his friend). He hates you if you think that human should be protected and that mothers-to-be should be allowed to kill the life in their womb.

So I'm done with him. I'm done with reading his website and I'm done with listening to his radio show and I'm done with buying his books. I could not have been more offended than from him. It is clear that he cannot function on an intellectual basis when it comes to this issue. Mr. Boortz needs to start checking his pride at the door when he enters the booth and be more considerate of his own audience, where many of them do not agree with his position on abortion.

There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise too. He has made it clear that he will die supporting the right for women to scramble their babies brains, provided those children are still in the womb. The best thing to do is to ignore him, like every other insane mouthpiece with a megaphone.

This comes from local DC talk show host Chris Core (AM 630).

http://www.630wmal.com/goout.asp?u=http://images.radcity.net/5159/2382277.pdf

1) A strong national defense is the first purpose of government.

2) Personal freedom and personal responsibility should go hand in hand, and both should be maximized.

3) Equality of opportunity should be inherent, not artificially derived.

4) Judicial decisions should be based on a strict adherence to the constitution.

5) Government should have limited intervention in economic activity and commerce.

6) Individual rights are best protected at the most local level of government.

Just to make clarifications, individual rights include are right to life, liberty, and property as defined in amendment 5 and 14 in the Constitution. And economics is the study of the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses. Seriously, if you can't agree with all of these basic principles, then you are not conservative.

The difference occurs mostly in method. For example, Ron Paul believes that we should pull out of Iraq because it isn't doing a damn thing to help with #1. Most other conservatives believe in the opposite.

This comprehensive list offers, what I think, is the best and most fundamental standards that conservatives should adhere to. Beyond that, it's merely a question of what works and what doesn't. As long as you have your core principles reflecting these, then you should not have a problem with being a conservative.

Neal Boortz's Hypocrisy

Now, I am a big fan of Neal Boortz. He is aggressively honest when it comes to all of his discussion topics and he doesn't hold back any verbal punches when it comes to idiots (he once demanded to know why a female caller was poor). He is probably one of the best talk radio show hosts in the country.

But I have to call him on something. Something I think he has missed entirely. Neal Boortz is a libertarian, at least for the most part. He does regard the war on Islamic crazy head choppers as more important than other principles. He also is a big supporter of the FairTax plan. He has written two books on it (the second to be published in February of this year) and is always willing to talk about the plan on his radio show (unless you are going to claim that it is a 30% tax and not a 23% inclusive tax).

Because of his support for the FairTax, he has been sending praises toward Republican candidate Mike Huckabee. This is totally understandable. Because of his support of the War on Islamic Child Murderers, he will not endorse Ron Paul, the much more libertarian candidate. That's fine. I'm OK with his reasoning even if I don't agree with him.

There's just one problem with this who scenario. He keeps on mentioning how Ron Paul will not fight the war on Islamic Sky Mask Bandits but has said last year on Hannity and Colmes that the teacher's unions are much more of a threat to this nation than Islamic Suicide "Martyrs." I've with him so far. But, his darling Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by the New Hampshire chapter of the NEA.

So he won't endorse Ron Paul because he won't support the war on Islamic Rug Munchers but he will endorse Mike Huckabee because of his support of the FairTax, even though Huckabee has been endorsed by a teacher's union.

Mr. Boortz, with all due respect, what the hell? I'm not asking for his support of Ron Paul here. Just a little consistency.