Limbaugh’s, versus the factual, truths

Rush Limbaugh often speaks about how his facts are checked to be 90+% acurate…how much of that is interpertation, or manipulation, only “the” Rush really knows!

Very recently Rush Limbaugh was dooped by a satirical blog about a bit of Obama’s work that was critical of the Constitution. When, while still broadcasting, Limbaugh was told about his arror, “the” Rush did not apologize, but rather stated that in his opinion, President Obama actually believes what was attributed to him in the mock article.  Because of that belief, he, “the great Limbaugh,” stated that it was not wrong for him to report as factual a story that did not exist; but that he, Limbaugh, believes President Obama embraces.

Rush Limbaugh is a dangerous man because he seems to believe that his truths are more true than are actual truths. This fact makes the existance of Limbaugh a threat to [American] civilization since he seems to have great and loyal following that accept his words as gospel.

Limbaugh is not, as advertised, a spokes person for conservatism, he rather seems to anchor the political right of conservatism, and does so based on his own views, even as they require that he manufacture ”facts” for supporting these views…

In spite of the fact that Rush Limbaugh is, at times, a loose cannon, the “Rush” often appears to be quite an intelligent person, a man with some valuable insights. Limbaugh has his thirty-five “Undeniable Truths,” many of which are obsolete since the USSR is gone, some are credible, but some are off-the-wall.  Some of Limbaugh “Truths,” include, those presented in 1988:

• Peace does not mean the absence of war
• War is not obsolete
• There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons -use them.
• The peace movement in the US, whether by accident, or desiign, is pro-communist
• Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society
• There is a God
• The US will again go to war
• To more and more people, a victorious US, is a sinful US
• This is frightening and Ominous
• There will always be poor people
• This is not the fault of the rich
• You should thank God for making you an American; and instead of feeling guilty about it, help spreading our ideas worldwide.

The following “updated” list was read on Limbaugh’s radio show in 1994, making a number of items from his 1988 obsolete. Seven items about the USSR that were removed could, for example, apply to present day’s Russia, other overlap, and a few other are new. Following are select number of Limbaugh’s “Truths,” for the reader to decide how true, the Limbaugh’s “Truths” are:

• There is a distinct singular American culture – rugged individualism and self-reliance – which made America great.
• The Earth’s eco-system is not fragile.
• Character matters; leadership decends from character
• I AM NOT ARROGANT [Capitals by this author]
• My first Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true
• Follow the money. When somebody says, “It’s not the money,” it’s always the money.
• Liberals measure compassion byhow many people are given welfare.
• Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.

The selected group of Limbaughs truths chosen above, is but a sample of how Mr. Limbaugh can have positive insights, on one hand, and without pause moves on to ridiculous views that are based entirely on his own thruths, truths that have little, or no, basis in fact.

Palin’s “death squads” claim is false, but may have basis in truth!

There are no death squads provisions in the health bill as it now atands, but it is not unheard of to experience the following type pf progression:

Counseling moves on to advising
Advising moves on to suggesting
Suggesting moves on to instructing

Could the health bill turn into means for determining the level of health care that senior citizens are entitle to receive?

Is the United States at war? If it is, against whom? Without war the use of the War Powers Act is Illegal!

For a nation be in a state of war, said nation must have a defined enemy, and identifiable objectives. The 2001 US war was, more-or-less a war against the Sadam Hussine regime in Iraq. Once that war ended, when President George W, Bush declared mission accomplished. For all practical purposes,  the President’s words put an end to that war, bringing up the question: Is the United States [still] in a state of war, and if it is, with whom?

In order to be at war one must have a tangible enemy; neither terror, terrorism, or radical Islam, fit that criteria, all are virtual rather than tangible entities. Based on that premise, with whom is the United States at war?

Can a nation be at war against an idea, a concept, or a philosophy of life? If it can, how does one define such a state?

A case in point could be made of Afghanistan where the Taliban, a group of Afghani natives, would like to impose their [minority] point of view on the whole country. Is the Taliban at war in Afghanistan, or is the conflict a case of internal (national,) civil disorder?

Since the situation Iraq is quickly becoming and internal issue, and if the conflict in Afghanistan is one internal dimensions, is the United States in a war, or is it aiding an ally with its efforts in Afghanistan?   

The Founding Fathers, in their [collective] wisdom insisted that in the United States, state and church be separated. Separation notwithstanding, the founders also insisted that members of all religions be treated equally under the law.

The First Amendment gives all those legally in the United States the right to speak as they please, providing one does not causes harm (such as shouting fire in a crowded theater) by what one says.

Notwithstanding the right for free religion in the United States, is a religion that instructs its followers  to eliminate all those who do not believe as it teaches be put in a category of one who shouts fire in a crowded theater? Should believers in such religion be outlawed in the United States? Islam is such a religion, are those who embrace it in a state of war against the United States?

Even though the Koran is a declaration of war against all who do not accept Allah as the one and only legitimate God, are those who embrace it at war with all those who don’t believe?

Technically, in spite of what United States Administrations, starting with that under George W. Bush, claim that the United States is at war, the fact that there is no well defined enemy, suggests that the United States is not at war since the war against Iraq was declared won (the George W. Bush mission completed declaration,) and using the War Powers Act, in any of its nuances, has become illegal since that time.

If the United States is at war, it must be at war with Islam, not radical Islam, but Islam, those who unconditionally embrace the teaching of the Koran. If the US is not at war with Islam, as President Obama claims, then the US ia not in [any] state of war, and must cease to use the War Powers Act, or anything related to it.

Is your enemy’s enemy your friend? Hosni Mubarak seems to have more faith in Netanyahu, than in Obama: Israeli submarines through the Suez! Part of “the” Iran solution?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Shiite leading an Aryan nation, represents a threat to all Middle Eastern nations, he uses open threats against Israel to divert attention from the threat a nuclear Iran is to Islamic (largely Sunni) Arab people. Most Arab countries, Egypt in the lead, realize that Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions are not designed to give Iran additional electric power, or to strengthen Islamic nations, but rather to get Iran to replace Sadam Hussein as THE most dominant Islamic power.

But since Iran is an Aryan Shiite nation, and because Arabs are mostly Semite Sunnis, there is little trust by most of the Arab world of Iran, especially under Ahmadinejad, an irrational autocratc leader.

Intelligent observers around the world seem to feel that the United States under Obama’s Administration is too timid to deal with the Islamic threat, especially that of Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and they appear to be right. Obama’s demeanor, his Islamic sympathies, and rehtoric of appeasement, suggest that he will not be the person to keep a strong United States that can keep the free world safe.

Hosni Mubarak, the very smart Arab leader that he is, by allowing Israel’s Dolphine submarines through the Suez Canal, gave the green-light for Israel to deal with Iran, his enemy and one of the reasons why Israel is his friend: His enemies enemies are his friends!

Obama’s “cultural Islamization” of the Unites States (Part II.) And, members of the “Nation of Islam” are NOT Muslims!

Before the emergence of Barak Hussein Obama as a dark knight on his white horse, a number African Americans (many of them athletes, and entertainers of other ilks,) started to assume Arabic names, and as early as 1930, had a unique religion established, just for them.

It is important to understand that the Nation of Islam (NOI), is not Islam, but that it is rather a religion that was established in the United States by and for black people. NOI is not Islam, it does not accept some of Islam’s most central teachings, unlike Islam, it does set a race, the black people, apart from all other races.

Not to dwell on the fact that the NOI is an entirely separate entity from Islam, let me just add that the NOI does not accept Koranic law (the Sharia,) it does not believe that Muhammad had the last word from Allah, as Muslims do, and unlike Islam, it does not accept that Adam and Eve were the first people created by Allah, they rather accept that black people were the first humans to be created, and they were created by black scientists.

Even though Barak Obama, at one time, or another, had dealing with Louis Farrakhan, there is no reason to believe that Obama has any interest in NOI; notwithstanding the fact that Louis Farrakhan, on at least one recent occasion, proclaimed Obama the Messiah. 

Barak Hussein Obama, by virtue of his birthrights, is a mainstream Muslim, even though he may not be practicing the religion. Since Barak Obama spent most of his formative years under Islamic influence, one must accept the fact that Obama’s thinking, instincts, and character are in some part of Islamic nature.

Since some of those things are inherited and are present from birth, and some of those things are instilled into a person during the formative years, they are an integral part of that person. The person may not be aware of their existence, they nevertheless exist. If nothing else, it is fair to assume, that if in no other way, Obama’s Islam clearly exist in his subconscience.

The “Islamization” that is occurring under President Obama is not a grass-roots movement, nor is it a popular event; to date the phenomena manifests itself in Obama’s presentations of the United States national views to the rest of the world. There are many, especially conservative in the United States, who vehemently object to the face Obam put on the country, but for all the objectors, Obama’s popularity makes his presentations appear to have popular support.

The image Obama is carving for the United States is of a country whose Muslim population, Obama says, makes it one of the largest Muslim nation in the world. Obama also says that the United States never was and never will an enemy of Islam, a statement not based on facts and one that leaves out the fact that the Koran consider all infidels its enemies, and the United States is a country made up mostly of infidels (non Muslims.) Not only that, much of Islam declared Israel its enemy, and isn’t your friends’ enemies your enemies, as well?

Barak Obama’s Islamization of the United States will not likely to lead to a situation where school children have to abide by the five Pillars or Islam, or pray to Allah five time a day. It may, however, lead to a President being sworn into office on a Koran, rather than a Bible. During his first Inauguration President Obama, for the first time in many month, revealed and use his Muslim name, Hussein. Should Obama get reelected, it would not be surprising, that with right wing political election-pressure becoming inconsequential, Obama may use the Koran for his swearing in ceremony, and that sooner, or later, he may openly embrace Islam as his religion of choice. 

As a footnote: The Nation of Islam does not contribute to any Islamization of the United States, it is simply a fringe group without  substantial commonality with Islam.

Iran’s election was determined by Khameni’s endorsement of Ahmadinejad; it was “divine,” rather than idiological.

Since in Iran Khameni, the supreme ruler speaks with divine authority, his endorsement of Ahmadinejad was paramount to assuring the President a win. Because a majority of Iranians are believer, only secular and some people disgruntled by their economic state were in a position to vote against Ahmadinejad; his win was thus assured, it was, as Khameni said, a divine act!

When President Obama was speaking of a robust [political] dialogue in Iran. he was totally misinformed, the dialogue, if any, was about personal economic problems, not about ideology, not in response to Obama’s Cairo speech.

The West is still to remember that an Islamic democracy is not strong enough to overcome religious beliefs, and the culture that accompanies them.

Biased & Disgraceful US Political [media] voices!

United States political [media] voices are biased, seldom recognize positives on the other side, and often obnoxious following; some glaring examples:

Oberman (D), O’Reilly (R), Franken(D), Beck (R), Maddow (D), Meagher (I/D), Limbaugh (R), Hannity(R), Coulter (R).

What a tainted image does the United States political system have? Just think of a Martian who comes down and watches TV; what will he think?

Rove and Morris, the epithome of losers, now Fox-News “political gurus:”

We were in Washington when Dick Morris disgraced himself and was summarily kicked out by President Clinton; Morris became a mean, and an angry person; he is vindictive, and full of hate for the Clintons. Now, the outcast Morris was lifted from the gutter and proclaimed a guru by Fox-News, what a travesty!

Karl Rove single handed lost the 2006 election for the GOP because of his inability to communicate to more than just the about 27% of the US electorate that makes up the  conservative movement, and even to that movement Rove was only able to communicate without enough depth to be ever effective again. Rove’s arrogance and lack of understanding of the American public in general,  render him a toothless tiger in US politics.  Even Rove’s claim to fame, the 2004 election, was not won by the GOP, but was rather bought using political credits; what a sad example of American politics!

Fox-News own commentators:  Sean Hannnity, Bill O’Reilley, and Glenn Beck, to mention a few of the most inflexible ideologues, cannot see the forest for the trees.  These expertcommentators, the in-house gurus, if you will,  are inciteful, use semantics to draw crowds (or ratings,) and shed crocodile tears (Glenn Beck, an actor turned: Who-knows-what) to demonstrate sensitivity, continually, and fabricate projections of looming disasters!

Those mentioned above, the in-house newsman, as well as Morris and Rove, always speak with authority, always with their emotions on their sleeves, be the emotion anger of deep sorrow, like their mentor, Mr. Rush Limbaugh they appeal to the emotions of less educated and knowledgeable audiences, and represent an ever present danger to civilized discord.

There are some reasonable voices on Fox-News; the aforementioned five, all discipled of Rush Limbaugh, are, however, a disgrace to American journalism.

The Constitution adopted its policy from the Ten Commandsments, and why some politicians just don’t get it!

The Ten Commandments are not instruction, they are just a set of boundaries! Only three of the Commandments are positive, and they are boundless…the other Commandments are telling people what is irrevocably unacceptable, and not allowed,  by the Creator!

The Founding Fathers of these United States offered people a set of boundaries in form of the Constitution. The Constitution does give assignments to the various branches of the United States government, but no detailed instruction regarding what they must do to perform their duties.

Representative Micele Backmamm demonstrated a complete lack of understating of the essence of their Constitution when questioning Secretary  Geithner about his source Constitutional authority for performing his job. The representative does not seem to realize that the Constitution does not provide specific “marching order,” to Government operatives.

Obama’s Iran appeasement; a systematic sacrifice of friends? (Text shared: www.zyonism.org.)

Appeasement is not diplomacy!

With a strong mandate, President Obama roared in like a lion in January, but is approaching April as a lamb, a lamb whose words are load and strong, its deeds lack knowledge, conviction, or authority.

President Barak Hussein Obama is a great orator, yet a very weak communicator. Obama does not understand that communication include action, not just words.

Granting his first television interview to an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish news outlet, was a clear demonstration that Obama’s Islamic roots are deeper than he is openly admits; it shows that in his case, blood is indeed thicker than water.

On Christmas Eve, 2008, President Ahmadinejad of Iran arranged for Hamas, by breaking a cease fire, to cause an Israeli attack on Gaza. Attacking on Christmas Eve, the Iranian President demonstrated that he has no respect for Christianity; Ahmadinejad is a koranic person who believes in Islamic world domination, with a complete disregard to any other religion, or human beliefs.  

Obama’s approaching the Iranian people under  Ahmadinejad, and his even more militant superior, Ayatollah Khamenei, is not only a sign of weakness, it is a demonstration that Obama is an opportunist who would do anything, sacrifice friends and allies, in order to get his way.

In the US-Iran conflict, Obama was the first one to blink, he essentially agreed to reduce the long standing US commitment to Israel in order to ease energy concerns, and help the United States economy. By his overtures to Iran, President Obama also sends a signal to Iran that when the US leaves Iraq, it will become fair game for adding it to an Iranian controlled Shiite region.

It is either naivete, or deeply rooted Islamic commitment that seem to drive President Obama to take reckless steps, and throw allies (i.e Wright, Israel, Ayers, etc.) under the bus, when they cease to be useful to him.

Please remember, President Obama, sacrificing old friends to advance new causes is a sure way to self-distraction.