We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Boycott Sponsors Of Rush Limbaugh

by peacey Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 12:10 AM
boycott_rush@yahoo.com

Tell Rush Sponsors you've had ENOUGH disinformation and hate!

Take ACTION!

Tell Rush Sponsors you've had ENOUGH disinformation and hate!

In direct opposition to the growing anti-war movement, Rush Limbaugh has stepped up his trademark misinformation and out-right lies in an attempt to hijack the public's perception of Americas increasing militarism. There is therefore, an urgent need for people of conscience to strongly oppose the spreading of fear and bloodlust to the minds of millions of Americans on a daily basis.

By contacting and boycotting his advertisers, we can make it known to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, that those who advocate the sacrifice of innocent lives for the benefit of a wealthy few, will not go unchallenged.

----

Limbaugh's advertisers are listed below.
Please contact them by phone, mail or email to express your outrage at Limbaugh's warmongering.

Then boycott any products or services sold by his advertisers and pass the message on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rush Limbaugh Sponsors:

AutoZone Inc.
Steve Odland, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101
Phone (901) 495-7185
Fax (901) 495-8374
investor.relations@autozone.com

Bose Corporation, MS 2C2
The Mountain
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: 508-766-7781
These two people are in public relations at Bose:
carolyn_cinotti@bose.com
joanne_berthiaume@bose.com

Mission Pharmacal Company
10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000
San Antonio, TX 78230
Telephone: (800) 531-3333

General Steel Metal Buildings
1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL
Phone: 303-904-4837
Fax: 303-979-0084

Life Quotes, Inc.
Kenneth L. Manley
32045 Castle Court
Evergreen, CO 80439
1-800-670-5433

Red Lobster
P.O. Box 593330
Orlando, FL 32859-3330

Select Comfort Corporation
6105 Trenton Lane N
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Phone: 763-551-7000
Fax: 763-551-7826
investorrelations@selectcomfort.com

Scottrade Inc
Rodger O. Riney, President
12855 Flushing Meadows Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63131
1-800-619-SAVE
support@scottrade.com

----------------------------------------

For more info and to download the flyer please visit:

http://www.dakotatechnics.com/actionsurvey/rushaction.htm
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Jam Rush Limbaugh

by Sandra Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 6:35 PM

Read how to jam Rush's show:

http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/12/05/bush/index.html
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Salon?

by Are you the only left looking at salon? Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 6:47 PM

http://moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/webquote.dll?ipage=qd&Symbol=SALNC

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

by Simple Simon Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 9:28 PM

He He He. Salon down to 4 cents a share. Buy the whole thing for what, 20 bucks? No wonder the Left is so hostile to Capitalism. They suck at it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


.............

by ............. Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 9:32 PM

Yeah, the right is miraculous at it ... remember the economic global boom after Bush got elected?
(/sarcasm off)
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

by Simple Simon Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 9:39 PM

Brilliant analysis as usual. Everything that occurs in the econmy is directly attributable to the chief executive the moment he assumes office? Regardless of the fact that the ruinous policies and book-cooking of the former chief executive are the cause of the economic situation? You're good, no name. You should run for head of the Young Democrats at your Junior College.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


..............

by ............. Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002 at 9:50 PM

" Everything that occurs in the econmy is directly attributable to the chief executive the moment he assumes office?"

According to you, yes:

"the ruinous policies and book-cooking of the ... chief executive are the cause of the economic situation"

Your comments conflict with themselves so much ... at least present us with a challenge!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Mr.

by John Schoonover Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 1:25 AM

BTW, it's a pretty good idea to make life miserable for scumbags like Limbaugh. Even my 85 year old mother is putting out copies of the boycott flyer in her neighborhood.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


ya gotta laugh

by 'The Left' Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 6:26 AM

when righties say stuff like "the Left' as if it was a single entity.

ya'll go on being clueless
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

by Simple Simon Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 12:34 PM

Well I guess I could address every fringe element of every splinter group of every wingnut cause separately, but for purposes of brevity I just address you as being from 'the Left'. Much like you think that everyone more conservative than Lenin is from 'the Right'.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple Moron

by Baphomet Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 3:39 PM

No, just ignorant, projecting dickheads like you, who have destroyed the institutions of our nation, and shit on the guarantees that used to make us a free country. Go ahead. Keep wiping your ass on the constitution and the bill of rights, see where that gets us, Simpleton Simpleton.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Rush the Fraud

by Kurt Saxon Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 3:46 PM

The Truth About Rush Limbaugh

by Kurt Saxon Many have suggested that I listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. He's also on TV. Rush really knows what's happening and has the solutions to all the world's problems; according to Rush, that is.

Rush has lots of information. He has all the facts, statistics and documentation at hand. He's very good and he may be the best. But he's not original. In 1964-'65, while a member of the John Birch Society I knew many Rush Limbaughs. They were just as up on current events and knew where all the bodies were buried. There wasn't a scheme or a scam on the Left that those Birchers didn't know about and couldn't second-guess.

But with the Communist menace about to overwhelm us, the only action members could take was to engage in peaceful protest. We were to write our congressmen; those of us who could write and to those congressmen who could read. We also wrote to and even phoned various TV stations to tell them a previous program had been leftist. And after nearly thirty years, sure enough, the Communist Empire collapsed!

Today a different enemy but the same style. A familiarity with every fear haunting anyone with a job. Studied. Polished. That's Rush.

At one time he was a radio disc jockey. I suppose that was his foot in the door and he became some sort of commentator while he practiced and perfected his act. His act was to be the voice of anyone slightly right of center politically.

So Rush mastered telling Conservatives what they want to hear. A problem I've noticed is that he has a hard time agreeing with everything in the Conservative platform. Like any other group, Conservatives believe all sorts of things and so differ on many points. But Rush must agree with every point so as not to lose one faction or another. So when he's agreeing with an idea he doesn't agree with, it shows.

His stock in trade is hope. That's all he gives his audience and it's false hope, which prevents action on an individual's behalf. He concentrates on national problems and directs his comments to those locked into the system. If the system goes, they go with it. Most of them are unable to adapt to any sort of self-sufficient lifestyle.

They can count on Rush to assure them that their system will continue to support them with jobs, social services, and health care.

On the one hand, he does assure them. But on the other he paints a picture of almost insurmountable political and economic problems. This skillful combining of hope and terror to an audience of the individually weak is the way cults are formed. So what Rush has going for him now, and growing, is simply a cult patterned on the John Birch Society. Useless to the member but quite profitable to the cult leader.

Rush's main issues are politics and economics. According to Rush, nearly every problem we face is the result of bad politics or economics, and especially the politics and economics of the Liberals and their Democratic stooges.

Many in Rush's audience are Conspiracy Theorists.

They too, believe that most problems result from bad politics and economics. But they go further with the comforting belief that the bad politics and economics are deliberate. Economic failures are engineered by bad people who want to wreck the economy and take us over.

They are indeed comforted by the idea of a great plot since a plot exposed is a plot failed.

Rush is a soft-core Conspiracy Theorist. That is, he doesn't blame our troubles on the Jews and barely touches on international plotters. But to hear him tell it, Clinton and his gang of drug-crazed manipulators don't do anything without some evil purpose.

Of course, there are conspiracies and more conspiracies. There have been conspiracies and conspirators ever since there have been two people to conspire against a third. When I joined the John Birch Plot-of- the-Month-club, it was obvious the Communists would be in power here by 1965. Why didn't the hundreds of plots and overall conspiracies come to anything? Or is Clinton really a Commissar?

The fact is that most conspiracies are made up by people like Rush to scare the helpless into supporting them. In actuality, whatever real plots there are don't come to anything because they're stupid to begin with.

Things are indeed getting worse, not because of any conspiracies, but because people are still guided by their animal natures instead of logic. They haven't yet risen above instinct. A woman must bear children. No matter if she can't provide for them or is too ignorant to raise them properly. Bear she must, like a cat or a dog.

A male must father children. It proves he's a man. No matter if he's a genetic farce and other men must feed his children. Less and less children are Being born to mentally sound adults.

Rush sees nothing wrong in this. Surplus, suffering, degenerate children are still a market for diapers, baby foods, and little caskets. Moreover, he would force women who wish to end unwanted pregnancies to bring such pregnancies to term, even though an unwanted child is an automatically abused child.

Rush often speaks of freedom, but not for women or children. Nor does his ideas of freedom extend to the terminally ill who wish to end their suffering. Every day they can be kept alive, despite their agony, means dollars for doctors and hospitals. Whatever makes money for anyone is fine with Rush as long as it contributes to the economy.

Concerning Rush's political and economic solutions to our problems, let me run some figures by you. In 1850, for the first time in history, our species hit the one billion mark. Only 80 years later, in 1930, it doubled to two billion. Then, by 1975, only 45 years, it doubled again to four billion. Now, in 1995, it's over five and a half billion.

Our species has become a plague on the land. It threatens nearly every other species. Worse still, the lack of selection has caused downbreeding which has overrun the earth with mediocrities at best and idiots at worst. Forty-seven million American adults are functional illiterates. Twenty-eight percent of American births are illegitimate. In 1960, it was only 5%. Among blacks today, it is 60%.

America has 35 million welfare recipients and 42 million on Social Security. There are about 20 million Federal retirees. Counting prisons, nuthouses, etc., I'd say we have about 100 million social dependents out of a population of 260 million.

You've probably read that less and less workers provide for more and more social dependents. That idea isn't exactly accurate. It's misleading because the taxpayer doesn't directly support the social dependents. The government prints checks which are tacked onto the National Debt. It's the fantastic interest on the National Debt which must come from the taxpayer. That interest is the reason for the increasingly higher taxes.

To put the problem in its proper perspective, consider Germany with its 1995 population of 80 million. Imagine all the productive Americans paying for the food, clothing, housing, and health care of that whole country and more. What solution has Rush Limbaugh for that magnitude of problem?

And do you see a plot in all this? Did Clinton and his cabinet impregnate those millions of mainly retarded females on welfare? Did the Rockefellers and the Trilateralists (of which Clinton is a member) run off with all the money? Give me a break!
As for political and economic solutions, there are none. In 1980, Reagan entered office and promised a turnaround to that recession. At that time, America was the greatest lender nation. After only four years of Reaganomics, America became the greatest debtor nation. Reaganomics was a variation of the Trickle- Down-Theory.

The idea of Trickle-Down was that tax breaks were to be given to the wealthy, who in turn would plow the savings back into their businesses. This would stimulate growth and profits, which would lead to higher wages. The workers would then spend those higher wages on industry's output and the economy would improve.

The Democrats believed in Trickle-Up. If the workers got the tax breaks, they would spend their gains on industry's output and improve the economy. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Rush promotes Trickle-Down, naturally, even though nothing did trickle down in the last several years. The reason for that is, the wealthy didn't plow back their tax gains into the businesses that got the breaks.

The wealthy of this generation aren't concerned with product development and improvement. Their only concern is with profit taking. Their corporate heads aren't innovative industrialists as in the past, but accountants. Also, those corporate heads are paid fantastic salaries, even as a company's losses reach into the billions.

Another idiocy is diversification. Say General Motors invested millions in McDonald's. I'm not sure GM actually invests in McDonald's, but that's an example of what most them do. That really doesn't make GM and Chrysler competitive with Toyota and Nissan.

As for Democrats, Clinton is already raising taxes on the workers. Instead of giving the workers those tax breaks to prove the Trickle-Up Theory, he's slating billions to raise the standard of living of the unproductive. So both the Republicans and Democrats are incompetent and neither understands the theories they campaign on.

Clinton promised that in two years he would abolish welfare as we know it. But instead of billions in tax cuts to help the workers and middle class, there would be billions in even higher taxes to train and motivate welfare addicts.

In 1969, after an accident, I was on County Welfare, then Aid To The Totally Dependent, and then Supplemental Security Income (SSI). My only associates for three years were welfare types. As in my childhood, when we moved into the slums, and found permanent slum-dwellers and later left them there, I moved into the world of the welfare addicts and finally left them all there.

I tried to convince them that they should develop skills. But they had already developed the skill of working the Welfare racket. They had adjusted to a certain lifestyle whereby they idled away their days and partied into the night. For the most part, they were emotionally unstable, mentally defective, and bone- lazy.

Moreover, any job they might be offered or might be able to learn would pay them little more than they got from the state. Say you got $400 a month on Welfare. You are offered a menial job paying $500 a month. Would you give up a lifestyle of ease and freedom for what amounted to $100 a month? You wouldn't? Neither would I.

Besides, consider the greatest burden, the unwed mother. She may have four, eight, or even ten children by the same number of males. Almost without exception, she's unresponsive to arguments for productivity. She's already a producer. She has her own brand of self-respect, rejecting all others. She's usually mentally defective and unemployable by anyone's standards.

For this unproductive class, Clinton would tax American workers and the middle class. He doesn't understand economics. Aside from being an expert manipulator of those with like ambitions, he doesn't understand politics. He doesn't understand our system, period. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. Neither does anyone else.

What people fail to realize is that systems, economic and political, are entities, not machines. People create systems and give them life. But it takes the kind of people who gave them life to keep them alive. We all know of brilliant, ruthless, strong-willed men who've created giant companies. How come, three generations later, the heirs let the business go to pot if faced with real competition?

It doesn't have to be and doesn't always happen. But it's certainly happening today with most of our industries facing competition from stronger, younger competitors, especially the Japanese.

When it comes to political entities, most people tend to idealize their founding fathers. Ours have come down to us as noble, freedom-loving patriots. In actuality, they were ruthless and self-serving. They had a good thing going on this continent and wanted it all for themselves without sharing with the Crown or putting up with British interference.

They wanted freedom and liberty. But the freedom and liberty to do as they pleased with what they could create and produce. They had no concern for lesser folk. Only property owners could vote. An owner of ten slaves had two votes, or three if he had twenty, and so on. A slave, a black person, counted as one- tenth of a person, and not even to himself but to his owner. Women had no vote and few rights. Indians were vermin to be crowded out or exterminated. Children were the property of their fathers.

The fine words of the Constitution were mainly to get the support of the people. The Bill of Rights was the rights the founders wanted as opposed to what the British had allowed them.

Even so, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are among the most just and perfect of any such written for any people. Also, their authors were among the strongest, most purposeful, honest and intelligent men of their time.

But no objective historian can deny that our founding fathers were only for the rights of the productive. The issue was always the productive commoner against the parasitic British aristocracy, who believed they were born with the right to be supported in idleness.

The founders of our political and economic systems created a major advance in the evolution of civilization. But it was certainly not intended for the unproductive, the predatory, and the incompetent. Two hundred years ago, very few of the unfit survived long enough to reproduce. The village idiot scrounged for food, did odd jobs, and died young. The predatory were killed almost automatically. The stupid seldom could afford wives and their offspring usually perished.

Medical science was primitive. The average life span was about 45. The rate of infant mortality was high and childbirth was hazardous. It wasn't unusual for a man to bury three wives and a dozen children during his lifetime. So our founding fathers could not have foreseen our surplus population with the hordes of morons and criminals we have today.

They couldn't have known that in successfully throwing off the tyranny of one set of parasites, they had failed to prevent the rise of another set. The rights they fought for were the rights of the productive to keep the fruits of their labor. That was the main principle of their struggle. How odd that the unproductive, the parasitic, and the predatory quote these very heroes in demanding their rights to live at the expense of the productive.

Our founding fathers were men, not gods. They were practical, not idealistic. By the same principle of freeing the productive from the parasitic, had they foreseen our era, they would have added at least three amendments to the Constitution. One would have been to abolish slavery and return the blacks to their homeland. Another would have been that no one without obvious potential could be kept alive at public expense. A third would have been that only the productive could reproduce.

The big problem with modern politicians and economists is that they don't understand the roots of our system and operate on grade-school idealism and wishful thinking. They even take pride in denouncing the greatest product of our founding fathers, the "Robber Baron".

The so-called robber baron was often ruthless in taking what he needed to create his fortune. The railroad tycoons, the coal men, the cattlemen, the grain merchants, the oil men. They were great! They were indeed unscrupulous, exploitive, monopolistic and greedy. They were often excessive, in keeping with our violent growth period. But they created the wealth that made our nation the greatest in history. And they were doing exactly what our founding fathers paved the way for them to do.

Calvin Coolidge said, mainly in their defense, "The business of America is business". He was a real politician who knew his true function. He was a power broker, combining the functions of business with government.

Our modern politicians and economists have turned back the clock. The arguments of the Tories in favor of British rule echo in the halls of Congress today in behalf of our own parasites.

As I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I can see that he knows little of objective history. He carries on the myth that our founding fathers were really concerned with everyone, not just their own upper class.

Their system was never perfect. It was for white men only and mainly, propertied white men. All it gave anyone else was the freedom to earn what he could and keep what he earned. that's all it was meant to do.

But Rush promotes the nonsense that our system owes a living to anyone who at one time was a working part of the system. No matter that he did only what he was paid for and got what he earned and put nothing by. In harsh reality, he's part of the surplus population.

Rush doesn't acknowledge a surplus population. In fact, he encourages the birth of even more. Any unwanted pregnancy must be brought to term, regardless of the fate of the unwanted child or the burden on our already overburdened welfare system. This, of course, contradicts his concern for the tax payer. Rush knows this.

But contradictions don't seem to bother him. Rush denies not only the population explosion but the danger to the ozone layer, dwindling natural resources, deforestation, pollution, the Greenhouse Effect and all the other threats to the environment with an impatient shrug and gets his audience focused back on the Clinton administration. He would have his audience believe that all their problems were caused by the Democrats and more are being caused by Clinton.

Clinton was governor of Arkansas for twelve years and never caused anything. It takes a strong person to be a cause and Clinton is not strong. He won't cause anything as president.

But Clinton and his Democrats aren't causes, anyway. They are effects. An effect can't be blamed for what causes it. Fifty and more years ago, the cause for most of today's problems was addressed. Medical science was at a stage where all fertile social dependents, criminals, and the insane could have been sterilized. It was suggested and argued. But commercial interests and misplaced compassion won the day.

The self-centered Conservatives, generation after generation, seeing morons and degenerates only as a market and a cheap labor pool, allowed them to multiply and swamp the system. Those millions of non- productive and predatory are the cause. Clinton and his mob are only the effect.

Rush Limbaugh's broken-record ranting against the Democrats is simply boring. What I most object to is his disinformation. According to Rush, the individual must work hard to convince his nearest politician that Rush's solutions will save the system. He tells his audience of twenty million that the system can indeed be saved, that it's really in good shape, except for the manipulations of his main scapegoat, Clinton.

This gives false hope to those who are aware enough to seek alternatives to a lifestyle they stand to loose. Rush is certainly aware. I can tell from listening to him that he has an excellent frame of reference and so must know that this Disneyland for dummies is about to close down and doom most of his "ditto heads".

His audience trusts him. They really believe his assurances that their lifestyles will be secure if they only follow his economic advice and rattle the chain of this or that political hack.

I listen to his callers and realize that most of them are intelligent and successful. I hear the worry in their voices and realize he's feeding them garbage, misdirecting their efforts away from self-sufficiency and toward more trust in a doomed system.

I've never heard him discuss self-sufficiency as such. Nor have I heard him discuss anything important from the standpoint of individual effort as opposed to ineffectual group protest.

He undoubtedly has as part of his audience, some of the best of our species. If he was as free and outspoken as he boasts, he could urge this segment of his audience to learn the self-reliance of their ancestors, just in case. But he's neither free nor outspoken. His advertisers permit him to denounce the bureaucracy. This is always safe, no matter how radical it may seem.

But let him just once explain that our system is on overload and is going to sputter out and he'd be off the air in twenty four hours. Let him advise his audience to buy a Corona grain mill and otherwise direct their efforts toward self-sufficiency and he'd be off the air just as fast. His advertisers wouldn't want his audience to realize they could do without their products.

No, friends, Rush isn't the man on the white horse. He doesn't have any practical answers. He's just another wealthy huckster with a flock of sheep to shear. His message of unified political action is just as phony and self-serving as Clinton's "We're all in this together" hypocrisy.

The main difference between Limbaugh and Clinton is that they are on opposite sides of the same coin. Neither feels threatened by what he sees in store for their respective followers. They think their wealth will save them. But there will come a time, and soon, when each will wish he had a Corona grain mill.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

by Simple Simon Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 3:47 PM

Pray tell me Miss Manners, what part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is it that I or Mr. Limbaugh are violating? Or how about explaining to me the protections that we have stripped from you? If you are going to make ludicrous hyperbolic accusations, why not go whole hog? Like: You guys started the Thirty Years War, and you drowned Mary Jo Kopechne. And you kicked my dog, too. Start making sense before posting.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Rush the Fraud

by Kurt Saxon Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 3:49 PM

The Truth About Rush Limbaugh

by Kurt Saxon
Many have suggested that I listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. He's also on TV. Rush really knows what's happening and has the solutions to all the world's problems; according to Rush, that is.

Rush has lots of information. He has all the facts, statistics and documentation at hand. He's very good and he may be the best. But he's not original. In 1964-'65, while a member of the John Birch Society I knew many Rush Limbaughs. They were just as up on current events and knew where all the bodies were buried. There wasn't a scheme or a scam on the Left that those Birchers didn't know about and couldn't second-guess.

But with the Communist menace about to overwhelm us, the only action members could take was to engage in peaceful protest. We were to write our congressmen; those of us who could write and to those congressmen who could read. We also wrote to and even phoned various TV stations to tell them a previous program had been leftist. And after nearly thirty years, sure enough, the Communist Empire collapsed!

Today a different enemy but the same style. A familiarity with every fear haunting anyone with a job. Studied. Polished. That's Rush.

At one time he was a radio disc jockey. I suppose that was his foot in the door and he became some sort of commentator while he practiced and perfected his act. His act was to be the voice of anyone slightly right of center politically.

So Rush mastered telling Conservatives what they want to hear. A problem I've noticed is that he has a hard time agreeing with everything in the Conservative platform. Like any other group, Conservatives believe all sorts of things and so differ on many points. But Rush must agree with every point so as not to lose one faction or another. So when he's agreeing with an idea he doesn't agree with, it shows.

His stock in trade is hope. That's all he gives his audience and it's false hope, which prevents action on an individual's behalf. He concentrates on national problems and directs his comments to those locked into the system. If the system goes, they go with it. Most of them are unable to adapt to any sort of self-sufficient lifestyle.

They can count on Rush to assure them that their system will continue to support them with jobs, social services, and health care.

On the one hand, he does assure them. But on the other he paints a picture of almost insurmountable political and economic problems. This skillful combining of hope and terror to an audience of the individually weak is the way cults are formed. So what Rush has going for him now, and growing, is simply a cult patterned on the John Birch Society. Useless to the member but quite profitable to the cult leader.

Rush's main issues are politics and economics. According to Rush, nearly every problem we face is the result of bad politics or economics, and especially the politics and economics of the Liberals and their Democratic stooges.

Many in Rush's audience are Conspiracy Theorists.

They too, believe that most problems result from bad politics and economics. But they go further with the comforting belief that the bad politics and economics are deliberate. Economic failures are engineered by bad people who want to wreck the economy and take us over.

They are indeed comforted by the idea of a great plot since a plot exposed is a plot failed.

Rush is a soft-core Conspiracy Theorist. That is, he doesn't blame our troubles on the Jews and barely touches on international plotters. But to hear him tell it, Clinton and his gang of drug-crazed manipulators don't do anything without some evil purpose.

Of course, there are conspiracies and more conspiracies. There have been conspiracies and conspirators ever since there have been two people to conspire against a third. When I joined the John Birch Plot-of- the-Month-club, it was obvious the Communists would be in power here by 1965. Why didn't the hundreds of plots and overall conspiracies come to anything? Or is Clinton really a Commissar?

The fact is that most conspiracies are made up by people like Rush to scare the helpless into supporting them. In actuality, whatever real plots there are don't come to anything because they're stupid to begin with.

Things are indeed getting worse, not because of any conspiracies, but because people are still guided by their animal natures instead of logic. They haven't yet risen above instinct. A woman must bear children. No matter if she can't provide for them or is too ignorant to raise them properly. Bear she must, like a cat or a dog.

A male must father children. It proves he's a man. No matter if he's a genetic farce and other men must feed his children. Less and less children are Being born to mentally sound adults.

Rush sees nothing wrong in this. Surplus, suffering, degenerate children are still a market for diapers, baby foods, and little caskets. Moreover, he would force women who wish to end unwanted pregnancies to bring such pregnancies to term, even though an unwanted child is an automatically abused child.

Rush often speaks of freedom, but not for women or children. Nor does his ideas of freedom extend to the terminally ill who wish to end their suffering. Every day they can be kept alive, despite their agony, means dollars for doctors and hospitals. Whatever makes money for anyone is fine with Rush as long as it contributes to the economy.

Concerning Rush's political and economic solutions to our problems, let me run some figures by you. In 1850, for the first time in history, our species hit the one billion mark. Only 80 years later, in 1930, it doubled to two billion. Then, by 1975, only 45 years, it doubled again to four billion. Now, in 1995, it's over five and a half billion.

Our species has become a plague on the land. It threatens nearly every other species. Worse still, the lack of selection has caused downbreeding which has overrun the earth with mediocrities at best and idiots at worst. Forty-seven million American adults are functional illiterates. Twenty-eight percent of American births are illegitimate. In 1960, it was only 5%. Among blacks today, it is 60%.

America has 35 million welfare recipients and 42 million on Social Security. There are about 20 million Federal retirees. Counting prisons, nuthouses, etc., I'd say we have about 100 million social dependents out of a population of 260 million.

You've probably read that less and less workers provide for more and more social dependents. That idea isn't exactly accurate. It's misleading because the taxpayer doesn't directly support the social dependents. The government prints checks which are tacked onto the National Debt. It's the fantastic interest on the National Debt which must come from the taxpayer. That interest is the reason for the increasingly higher taxes.

To put the problem in its proper perspective, consider Germany with its 1995 population of 80 million. Imagine all the productive Americans paying for the food, clothing, housing, and health care of that whole country and more. What solution has Rush Limbaugh for that magnitude of problem?

And do you see a plot in all this? Did Clinton and his cabinet impregnate those millions of mainly retarded females on welfare? Did the Rockefellers and the Trilateralists (of which Clinton is a member) run off with all the money? Give me a break!
As for political and economic solutions, there are none. In 1980, Reagan entered office and promised a turnaround to that recession. At that time, America was the greatest lender nation. After only four years of Reaganomics, America became the greatest debtor nation. Reaganomics was a variation of the Trickle- Down-Theory.

The idea of Trickle-Down was that tax breaks were to be given to the wealthy, who in turn would plow the savings back into their businesses. This would stimulate growth and profits, which would lead to higher wages. The workers would then spend those higher wages on industry's output and the economy would improve.

The Democrats believed in Trickle-Up. If the workers got the tax breaks, they would spend their gains on industry's output and improve the economy. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Rush promotes Trickle-Down, naturally, even though nothing did trickle down in the last several years. The reason for that is, the wealthy didn't plow back their tax gains into the businesses that got the breaks.

The wealthy of this generation aren't concerned with product development and improvement. Their only concern is with profit taking. Their corporate heads aren't innovative industrialists as in the past, but accountants. Also, those corporate heads are paid fantastic salaries, even as a company's losses reach into the billions.

Another idiocy is diversification. Say General Motors invested millions in McDonald's. I'm not sure GM actually invests in McDonald's, but that's an example of what most them do. That really doesn't make GM and Chrysler competitive with Toyota and Nissan.

As for Democrats, Clinton is already raising taxes on the workers. Instead of giving the workers those tax breaks to prove the Trickle-Up Theory, he's slating billions to raise the standard of living of the unproductive. So both the Republicans and Democrats are incompetent and neither understands the theories they campaign on.

Clinton promised that in two years he would abolish welfare as we know it. But instead of billions in tax cuts to help the workers and middle class, there would be billions in even higher taxes to train and motivate welfare addicts.

In 1969, after an accident, I was on County Welfare, then Aid To The Totally Dependent, and then Supplemental Security Income (SSI). My only associates for three years were welfare types. As in my childhood, when we moved into the slums, and found permanent slum-dwellers and later left them there, I moved into the world of the welfare addicts and finally left them all there.

I tried to convince them that they should develop skills. But they had already developed the skill of working the Welfare racket. They had adjusted to a certain lifestyle whereby they idled away their days and partied into the night. For the most part, they were emotionally unstable, mentally defective, and bone- lazy.

Moreover, any job they might be offered or might be able to learn would pay them little more than they got from the state. Say you got $400 a month on Welfare. You are offered a menial job paying $500 a month. Would you give up a lifestyle of ease and freedom for what amounted to $100 a month? You wouldn't? Neither would I.

Besides, consider the greatest burden, the unwed mother. She may have four, eight, or even ten children by the same number of males. Almost without exception, she's unresponsive to arguments for productivity. She's already a producer. She has her own brand of self-respect, rejecting all others. She's usually mentally defective and unemployable by anyone's standards.

For this unproductive class, Clinton would tax American workers and the middle class. He doesn't understand economics. Aside from being an expert manipulator of those with like ambitions, he doesn't understand politics. He doesn't understand our system, period. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. Neither does anyone else.

What people fail to realize is that systems, economic and political, are entities, not machines. People create systems and give them life. But it takes the kind of people who gave them life to keep them alive. We all know of brilliant, ruthless, strong-willed men who've created giant companies. How come, three generations later, the heirs let the business go to pot if faced with real competition?

It doesn't have to be and doesn't always happen. But it's certainly happening today with most of our industries facing competition from stronger, younger competitors, especially the Japanese.

When it comes to political entities, most people tend to idealize their founding fathers. Ours have come down to us as noble, freedom-loving patriots. In actuality, they were ruthless and self-serving. They had a good thing going on this continent and wanted it all for themselves without sharing with the Crown or putting up with British interference.

They wanted freedom and liberty. But the freedom and liberty to do as they pleased with what they could create and produce. They had no concern for lesser folk. Only property owners could vote. An owner of ten slaves had two votes, or three if he had twenty, and so on. A slave, a black person, counted as one- tenth of a person, and not even to himself but to his owner. Women had no vote and few rights. Indians were vermin to be crowded out or exterminated. Children were the property of their fathers.

The fine words of the Constitution were mainly to get the support of the people. The Bill of Rights was the rights the founders wanted as opposed to what the British had allowed them.

Even so, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are among the most just and perfect of any such written for any people. Also, their authors were among the strongest, most purposeful, honest and intelligent men of their time.

But no objective historian can deny that our founding fathers were only for the rights of the productive. The issue was always the productive commoner against the parasitic British aristocracy, who believed they were born with the right to be supported in idleness.

The founders of our political and economic systems created a major advance in the evolution of civilization. But it was certainly not intended for the unproductive, the predatory, and the incompetent. Two hundred years ago, very few of the unfit survived long enough to reproduce. The village idiot scrounged for food, did odd jobs, and died young. The predatory were killed almost automatically. The stupid seldom could afford wives and their offspring usually perished.

Medical science was primitive. The average life span was about 45. The rate of infant mortality was high and childbirth was hazardous. It wasn't unusual for a man to bury three wives and a dozen children during his lifetime. So our founding fathers could not have foreseen our surplus population with the hordes of morons and criminals we have today.

They couldn't have known that in successfully throwing off the tyranny of one set of parasites, they had failed to prevent the rise of another set. The rights they fought for were the rights of the productive to keep the fruits of their labor. That was the main principle of their struggle. How odd that the unproductive, the parasitic, and the predatory quote these very heroes in demanding their rights to live at the expense of the productive.

Our founding fathers were men, not gods. They were practical, not idealistic. By the same principle of freeing the productive from the parasitic, had they foreseen our era, they would have added at least three amendments to the Constitution. One would have been to abolish slavery and return the blacks to their homeland. Another would have been that no one without obvious potential could be kept alive at public expense. A third would have been that only the productive could reproduce.

The big problem with modern politicians and economists is that they don't understand the roots of our system and operate on grade-school idealism and wishful thinking. They even take pride in denouncing the greatest product of our founding fathers, the "Robber Baron".

The so-called robber baron was often ruthless in taking what he needed to create his fortune. The railroad tycoons, the coal men, the cattlemen, the grain merchants, the oil men. They were great! They were indeed unscrupulous, exploitive, monopolistic and greedy. They were often excessive, in keeping with our violent growth period. But they created the wealth that made our nation the greatest in history. And they were doing exactly what our founding fathers paved the way for them to do.

Calvin Coolidge said, mainly in their defense, "The business of America is business". He was a real politician who knew his true function. He was a power broker, combining the functions of business with government.

Our modern politicians and economists have turned back the clock. The arguments of the Tories in favor of British rule echo in the halls of Congress today in behalf of our own parasites.

As I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I can see that he knows little of objective history. He carries on the myth that our founding fathers were really concerned with everyone, not just their own upper class.

Their system was never perfect. It was for white men only and mainly, propertied white men. All it gave anyone else was the freedom to earn what he could and keep what he earned. that's all it was meant to do.

But Rush promotes the nonsense that our system owes a living to anyone who at one time was a working part of the system. No matter that he did only what he was paid for and got what he earned and put nothing by. In harsh reality, he's part of the surplus population.

Rush doesn't acknowledge a surplus population. In fact, he encourages the birth of even more. Any unwanted pregnancy must be brought to term, regardless of the fate of the unwanted child or the burden on our already overburdened welfare system. This, of course, contradicts his concern for the tax payer. Rush knows this.

But contradictions don't seem to bother him. Rush denies not only the population explosion but the danger to the ozone layer, dwindling natural resources, deforestation, pollution, the Greenhouse Effect and all the other threats to the environment with an impatient shrug and gets his audience focused back on the Clinton administration. He would have his audience believe that all their problems were caused by the Democrats and more are being caused by Clinton.

Clinton was governor of Arkansas for twelve years and never caused anything. It takes a strong person to be a cause and Clinton is not strong. He won't cause anything as president.

But Clinton and his Democrats aren't causes, anyway. They are effects. An effect can't be blamed for what causes it. Fifty and more years ago, the cause for most of today's problems was addressed. Medical science was at a stage where all fertile social dependents, criminals, and the insane could have been sterilized. It was suggested and argued. But commercial interests and misplaced compassion won the day.

The self-centered Conservatives, generation after generation, seeing morons and degenerates only as a market and a cheap labor pool, allowed them to multiply and swamp the system. Those millions of non- productive and predatory are the cause. Clinton and his mob are only the effect.

Rush Limbaugh's broken-record ranting against the Democrats is simply boring. What I most object to is his disinformation. According to Rush, the individual must work hard to convince his nearest politician that Rush's solutions will save the system. He tells his audience of twenty million that the system can indeed be saved, that it's really in good shape, except for the manipulations of his main scapegoat, Clinton.

This gives false hope to those who are aware enough to seek alternatives to a lifestyle they stand to loose. Rush is certainly aware. I can tell from listening to him that he has an excellent frame of reference and so must know that this Disneyland for dummies is about to close down and doom most of his "ditto heads".

His audience trusts him. They really believe his assurances that their lifestyles will be secure if they only follow his economic advice and rattle the chain of this or that political hack.

I listen to his callers and realize that most of them are intelligent and successful. I hear the worry in their voices and realize he's feeding them garbage, misdirecting their efforts away from self-sufficiency and toward more trust in a doomed system.

I've never heard him discuss self-sufficiency as such. Nor have I heard him discuss anything important from the standpoint of individual effort as opposed to ineffectual group protest.

He undoubtedly has as part of his audience, some of the best of our species. If he was as free and outspoken as he boasts, he could urge this segment of his audience to learn the self-reliance of their ancestors, just in case. But he's neither free nor outspoken. His advertisers permit him to denounce the bureaucracy. This is always safe, no matter how radical it may seem.

But let him just once explain that our system is on overload and is going to sputter out and he'd be off the air in twenty four hours. Let him advise his audience to buy a Corona grain mill and otherwise direct their efforts toward self-sufficiency and he'd be off the air just as fast. His advertisers wouldn't want his audience to realize they could do without their products.

No, friends, Rush isn't the man on the white horse. He doesn't have any practical answers. He's just another wealthy huckster with a flock of sheep to shear. His message of unified political action is just as phony and self-serving as Clinton's "We're all in this together" hypocrisy.

The main difference between Limbaugh and Clinton is that they are on opposite sides of the same coin. Neither feels threatened by what he sees in store for their respective followers. They think their wealth will save them. But there will come a time, and soon, when each will wish he had a Corona grain mill.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Rush the Fraud

by Kurt Saxon Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 3:50 PM

The Truth About Rush Limbaugh

by Kurt Saxon
Many have suggested that I listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. He's also on TV. Rush really knows what's happening and has the solutions to all the world's problems; according to Rush, that is.

Rush has lots of information. He has all the facts, statistics and documentation at hand. He's very good and he may be the best. But he's not original. In 1964-'65, while a member of the John Birch Society I knew many Rush Limbaughs. They were just as up on current events and knew where all the bodies were buried. There wasn't a scheme or a scam on the Left that those Birchers didn't know about and couldn't second-guess.

But with the Communist menace about to overwhelm us, the only action members could take was to engage in peaceful protest. We were to write our congressmen; those of us who could write and to those congressmen who could read. We also wrote to and even phoned various TV stations to tell them a previous program had been leftist. And after nearly thirty years, sure enough, the Communist Empire collapsed!

Today a different enemy but the same style. A familiarity with every fear haunting anyone with a job. Studied. Polished. That's Rush.

At one time he was a radio disc jockey. I suppose that was his foot in the door and he became some sort of commentator while he practiced and perfected his act. His act was to be the voice of anyone slightly right of center politically.

So Rush mastered telling Conservatives what they want to hear. A problem I've noticed is that he has a hard time agreeing with everything in the Conservative platform. Like any other group, Conservatives believe all sorts of things and so differ on many points. But Rush must agree with every point so as not to lose one faction or another. So when he's agreeing with an idea he doesn't agree with, it shows.

His stock in trade is hope. That's all he gives his audience and it's false hope, which prevents action on an individual's behalf. He concentrates on national problems and directs his comments to those locked into the system. If the system goes, they go with it. Most of them are unable to adapt to any sort of self-sufficient lifestyle.

They can count on Rush to assure them that their system will continue to support them with jobs, social services, and health care.

On the one hand, he does assure them. But on the other he paints a picture of almost insurmountable political and economic problems. This skillful combining of hope and terror to an audience of the individually weak is the way cults are formed. So what Rush has going for him now, and growing, is simply a cult patterned on the John Birch Society. Useless to the member but quite profitable to the cult leader.

Rush's main issues are politics and economics. According to Rush, nearly every problem we face is the result of bad politics or economics, and especially the politics and economics of the Liberals and their Democratic stooges.

Many in Rush's audience are Conspiracy Theorists.

They too, believe that most problems result from bad politics and economics. But they go further with the comforting belief that the bad politics and economics are deliberate. Economic failures are engineered by bad people who want to wreck the economy and take us over.

They are indeed comforted by the idea of a great plot since a plot exposed is a plot failed.

Rush is a soft-core Conspiracy Theorist. That is, he doesn't blame our troubles on the Jews and barely touches on international plotters. But to hear him tell it, Clinton and his gang of drug-crazed manipulators don't do anything without some evil purpose.

Of course, there are conspiracies and more conspiracies. There have been conspiracies and conspirators ever since there have been two people to conspire against a third. When I joined the John Birch Plot-of- the-Month-club, it was obvious the Communists would be in power here by 1965. Why didn't the hundreds of plots and overall conspiracies come to anything? Or is Clinton really a Commissar?

The fact is that most conspiracies are made up by people like Rush to scare the helpless into supporting them. In actuality, whatever real plots there are don't come to anything because they're stupid to begin with.

Things are indeed getting worse, not because of any conspiracies, but because people are still guided by their animal natures instead of logic. They haven't yet risen above instinct. A woman must bear children. No matter if she can't provide for them or is too ignorant to raise them properly. Bear she must, like a cat or a dog.

A male must father children. It proves he's a man. No matter if he's a genetic farce and other men must feed his children. Less and less children are Being born to mentally sound adults.

Rush sees nothing wrong in this. Surplus, suffering, degenerate children are still a market for diapers, baby foods, and little caskets. Moreover, he would force women who wish to end unwanted pregnancies to bring such pregnancies to term, even though an unwanted child is an automatically abused child.

Rush often speaks of freedom, but not for women or children. Nor does his ideas of freedom extend to the terminally ill who wish to end their suffering. Every day they can be kept alive, despite their agony, means dollars for doctors and hospitals. Whatever makes money for anyone is fine with Rush as long as it contributes to the economy.

Concerning Rush's political and economic solutions to our problems, let me run some figures by you. In 1850, for the first time in history, our species hit the one billion mark. Only 80 years later, in 1930, it doubled to two billion. Then, by 1975, only 45 years, it doubled again to four billion. Now, in 1995, it's over five and a half billion.

Our species has become a plague on the land. It threatens nearly every other species. Worse still, the lack of selection has caused downbreeding which has overrun the earth with mediocrities at best and idiots at worst. Forty-seven million American adults are functional illiterates. Twenty-eight percent of American births are illegitimate. In 1960, it was only 5%. Among blacks today, it is 60%.

America has 35 million welfare recipients and 42 million on Social Security. There are about 20 million Federal retirees. Counting prisons, nuthouses, etc., I'd say we have about 100 million social dependents out of a population of 260 million.

You've probably read that less and less workers provide for more and more social dependents. That idea isn't exactly accurate. It's misleading because the taxpayer doesn't directly support the social dependents. The government prints checks which are tacked onto the National Debt. It's the fantastic interest on the National Debt which must come from the taxpayer. That interest is the reason for the increasingly higher taxes.

To put the problem in its proper perspective, consider Germany with its 1995 population of 80 million. Imagine all the productive Americans paying for the food, clothing, housing, and health care of that whole country and more. What solution has Rush Limbaugh for that magnitude of problem?

And do you see a plot in all this? Did Clinton and his cabinet impregnate those millions of mainly retarded females on welfare? Did the Rockefellers and the Trilateralists (of which Clinton is a member) run off with all the money? Give me a break!
As for political and economic solutions, there are none. In 1980, Reagan entered office and promised a turnaround to that recession. At that time, America was the greatest lender nation. After only four years of Reaganomics, America became the greatest debtor nation. Reaganomics was a variation of the Trickle- Down-Theory.

The idea of Trickle-Down was that tax breaks were to be given to the wealthy, who in turn would plow the savings back into their businesses. This would stimulate growth and profits, which would lead to higher wages. The workers would then spend those higher wages on industry's output and the economy would improve.

The Democrats believed in Trickle-Up. If the workers got the tax breaks, they would spend their gains on industry's output and improve the economy. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Rush promotes Trickle-Down, naturally, even though nothing did trickle down in the last several years. The reason for that is, the wealthy didn't plow back their tax gains into the businesses that got the breaks.

The wealthy of this generation aren't concerned with product development and improvement. Their only concern is with profit taking. Their corporate heads aren't innovative industrialists as in the past, but accountants. Also, those corporate heads are paid fantastic salaries, even as a company's losses reach into the billions.

Another idiocy is diversification. Say General Motors invested millions in McDonald's. I'm not sure GM actually invests in McDonald's, but that's an example of what most them do. That really doesn't make GM and Chrysler competitive with Toyota and Nissan.

As for Democrats, Clinton is already raising taxes on the workers. Instead of giving the workers those tax breaks to prove the Trickle-Up Theory, he's slating billions to raise the standard of living of the unproductive. So both the Republicans and Democrats are incompetent and neither understands the theories they campaign on.

Clinton promised that in two years he would abolish welfare as we know it. But instead of billions in tax cuts to help the workers and middle class, there would be billions in even higher taxes to train and motivate welfare addicts.

In 1969, after an accident, I was on County Welfare, then Aid To The Totally Dependent, and then Supplemental Security Income (SSI). My only associates for three years were welfare types. As in my childhood, when we moved into the slums, and found permanent slum-dwellers and later left them there, I moved into the world of the welfare addicts and finally left them all there.

I tried to convince them that they should develop skills. But they had already developed the skill of working the Welfare racket. They had adjusted to a certain lifestyle whereby they idled away their days and partied into the night. For the most part, they were emotionally unstable, mentally defective, and bone- lazy.

Moreover, any job they might be offered or might be able to learn would pay them little more than they got from the state. Say you got $400 a month on Welfare. You are offered a menial job paying $500 a month. Would you give up a lifestyle of ease and freedom for what amounted to $100 a month? You wouldn't? Neither would I.

Besides, consider the greatest burden, the unwed mother. She may have four, eight, or even ten children by the same number of males. Almost without exception, she's unresponsive to arguments for productivity. She's already a producer. She has her own brand of self-respect, rejecting all others. She's usually mentally defective and unemployable by anyone's standards.

For this unproductive class, Clinton would tax American workers and the middle class. He doesn't understand economics. Aside from being an expert manipulator of those with like ambitions, he doesn't understand politics. He doesn't understand our system, period. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. Neither does anyone else.

What people fail to realize is that systems, economic and political, are entities, not machines. People create systems and give them life. But it takes the kind of people who gave them life to keep them alive. We all know of brilliant, ruthless, strong-willed men who've created giant companies. How come, three generations later, the heirs let the business go to pot if faced with real competition?

It doesn't have to be and doesn't always happen. But it's certainly happening today with most of our industries facing competition from stronger, younger competitors, especially the Japanese.

When it comes to political entities, most people tend to idealize their founding fathers. Ours have come down to us as noble, freedom-loving patriots. In actuality, they were ruthless and self-serving. They had a good thing going on this continent and wanted it all for themselves without sharing with the Crown or putting up with British interference.

They wanted freedom and liberty. But the freedom and liberty to do as they pleased with what they could create and produce. They had no concern for lesser folk. Only property owners could vote. An owner of ten slaves had two votes, or three if he had twenty, and so on. A slave, a black person, counted as one- tenth of a person, and not even to himself but to his owner. Women had no vote and few rights. Indians were vermin to be crowded out or exterminated. Children were the property of their fathers.

The fine words of the Constitution were mainly to get the support of the people. The Bill of Rights was the rights the founders wanted as opposed to what the British had allowed them.

Even so, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are among the most just and perfect of any such written for any people. Also, their authors were among the strongest, most purposeful, honest and intelligent men of their time.

But no objective historian can deny that our founding fathers were only for the rights of the productive. The issue was always the productive commoner against the parasitic British aristocracy, who believed they were born with the right to be supported in idleness.

The founders of our political and economic systems created a major advance in the evolution of civilization. But it was certainly not intended for the unproductive, the predatory, and the incompetent. Two hundred years ago, very few of the unfit survived long enough to reproduce. The village idiot scrounged for food, did odd jobs, and died young. The predatory were killed almost automatically. The stupid seldom could afford wives and their offspring usually perished.

Medical science was primitive. The average life span was about 45. The rate of infant mortality was high and childbirth was hazardous. It wasn't unusual for a man to bury three wives and a dozen children during his lifetime. So our founding fathers could not have foreseen our surplus population with the hordes of morons and criminals we have today.

They couldn't have known that in successfully throwing off the tyranny of one set of parasites, they had failed to prevent the rise of another set. The rights they fought for were the rights of the productive to keep the fruits of their labor. That was the main principle of their struggle. How odd that the unproductive, the parasitic, and the predatory quote these very heroes in demanding their rights to live at the expense of the productive.

Our founding fathers were men, not gods. They were practical, not idealistic. By the same principle of freeing the productive from the parasitic, had they foreseen our era, they would have added at least three amendments to the Constitution. One would have been to abolish slavery and return the blacks to their homeland. Another would have been that no one without obvious potential could be kept alive at public expense. A third would have been that only the productive could reproduce.

The big problem with modern politicians and economists is that they don't understand the roots of our system and operate on grade-school idealism and wishful thinking. They even take pride in denouncing the greatest product of our founding fathers, the "Robber Baron".

The so-called robber baron was often ruthless in taking what he needed to create his fortune. The railroad tycoons, the coal men, the cattlemen, the grain merchants, the oil men. They were great! They were indeed unscrupulous, exploitive, monopolistic and greedy. They were often excessive, in keeping with our violent growth period. But they created the wealth that made our nation the greatest in history. And they were doing exactly what our founding fathers paved the way for them to do.

Calvin Coolidge said, mainly in their defense, "The business of America is business". He was a real politician who knew his true function. He was a power broker, combining the functions of business with government.

Our modern politicians and economists have turned back the clock. The arguments of the Tories in favor of British rule echo in the halls of Congress today in behalf of our own parasites.

As I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I can see that he knows little of objective history. He carries on the myth that our founding fathers were really concerned with everyone, not just their own upper class.

Their system was never perfect. It was for white men only and mainly, propertied white men. All it gave anyone else was the freedom to earn what he could and keep what he earned. that's all it was meant to do.

But Rush promotes the nonsense that our system owes a living to anyone who at one time was a working part of the system. No matter that he did only what he was paid for and got what he earned and put nothing by. In harsh reality, he's part of the surplus population.

Rush doesn't acknowledge a surplus population. In fact, he encourages the birth of even more. Any unwanted pregnancy must be brought to term, regardless of the fate of the unwanted child or the burden on our already overburdened welfare system. This, of course, contradicts his concern for the tax payer. Rush knows this.

But contradictions don't seem to bother him. Rush denies not only the population explosion but the danger to the ozone layer, dwindling natural resources, deforestation, pollution, the Greenhouse Effect and all the other threats to the environment with an impatient shrug and gets his audience focused back on the Clinton administration. He would have his audience believe that all their problems were caused by the Democrats and more are being caused by Clinton.

Clinton was governor of Arkansas for twelve years and never caused anything. It takes a strong person to be a cause and Clinton is not strong. He won't cause anything as president.

But Clinton and his Democrats aren't causes, anyway. They are effects. An effect can't be blamed for what causes it. Fifty and more years ago, the cause for most of today's problems was addressed. Medical science was at a stage where all fertile social dependents, criminals, and the insane could have been sterilized. It was suggested and argued. But commercial interests and misplaced compassion won the day.

The self-centered Conservatives, generation after generation, seeing morons and degenerates only as a market and a cheap labor pool, allowed them to multiply and swamp the system. Those millions of non- productive and predatory are the cause. Clinton and his mob are only the effect.

Rush Limbaugh's broken-record ranting against the Democrats is simply boring. What I most object to is his disinformation. According to Rush, the individual must work hard to convince his nearest politician that Rush's solutions will save the system. He tells his audience of twenty million that the system can indeed be saved, that it's really in good shape, except for the manipulations of his main scapegoat, Clinton.

This gives false hope to those who are aware enough to seek alternatives to a lifestyle they stand to loose. Rush is certainly aware. I can tell from listening to him that he has an excellent frame of reference and so must know that this Disneyland for dummies is about to close down and doom most of his "ditto heads".

His audience trusts him. They really believe his assurances that their lifestyles will be secure if they only follow his economic advice and rattle the chain of this or that political hack.

I listen to his callers and realize that most of them are intelligent and successful. I hear the worry in their voices and realize he's feeding them garbage, misdirecting their efforts away from self-sufficiency and toward more trust in a doomed system.

I've never heard him discuss self-sufficiency as such. Nor have I heard him discuss anything important from the standpoint of individual effort as opposed to ineffectual group protest.

He undoubtedly has as part of his audience, some of the best of our species. If he was as free and outspoken as he boasts, he could urge this segment of his audience to learn the self-reliance of their ancestors, just in case. But he's neither free nor outspoken. His advertisers permit him to denounce the bureaucracy. This is always safe, no matter how radical it may seem.

But let him just once explain that our system is on overload and is going to sputter out and he'd be off the air in twenty four hours. Let him advise his audience to buy a Corona grain mill and otherwise direct their efforts toward self-sufficiency and he'd be off the air just as fast. His advertisers wouldn't want his audience to realize they could do without their products.

No, friends, Rush isn't the man on the white horse. He doesn't have any practical answers. He's just another wealthy huckster with a flock of sheep to shear. His message of unified political action is just as phony and self-serving as Clinton's "We're all in this together" hypocrisy.

The main difference between Limbaugh and Clinton is that they are on opposite sides of the same coin. Neither feels threatened by what he sees in store for their respective followers. They think their wealth will save them. But there will come a time, and soon, when each will wish he had a Corona grain mill.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


We have jobs

by traveler Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 at 10:06 PM

Your boycott will not work The advertisers know that we have jobs and you are malcontents losers and welfare junkies
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy