Rush Limbaugh: Obama's Watchdog

By Tony Mazur

Rush Limbaugh has always been in the forefront when it comes to political controversy since he signed on back in August 1988. The "Drive-By Media", as El Rushbo calls them, will throw everything including the kitchen sink to take down Limbaugh. The media has done what they can to make Rush look like the anti-Christ, and, according to many, they've succeeded in doing so.

Limbaugh was an annoyance for Bill Clinton during his tenure in the White House, but for President Barack Obama, Rush is not just a nuisance. He is a threat.

The economy, as anyone with a third of a brain will tell you, is in bad shape. However, it appears that fixing the economy rests solely on Obama's shoulders. The rest of the Democratic Party in Congress, most notably Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are actively finding loopholes to permanently shut Rush Limbaugh's mouth.

After a failed attempt at reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", Pelosi is interested in promoting "minority ownership" with radio companies. This would be a gigantic step to regulate various radio shows, specifically conservative talk shows.

This is a clear attempt a censorship. Also, with an administration hell-bent on saving jobs, instilling a Fairness Doctrine and eliminating conservative talks shows would KILL radio. Rush Limbaugh is responsible for saving AM radio. Otherwise, AM radio would have went by the wayside like 8-track tapes and Giga Pets. Liberals are upset that Air America never caught on (presumably because one has to have an imagination to listen to the radio).

Rush Limbaugh has once again topped the headlines on many occasions for hoping "Obama fails". I listened to him the day he made that controversial statement, and I knew exactly what he was talking about. Rush wants Obama's socialist policies to fail because he believes that they are harmful to the country. Limbaugh's critics, who hear out-of-context snippets, claim that Rush's wish for an Obama failure would mean that the country would fail also. There are also many who think Rush's statement is purely racial because of Obama's skin color.

Rather than leveling the playing field, the goal for the Democrats is to clear the playing field. These kinds of tactics have been used in communist and fascist regimes throughout world history. With conservative talkers such as Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, etc., out of the equation, Obama and the Democrats can do whatever they please without criticism, since the media is disgustingly liberal.

As the Dow Jones continues to plummet, and as more Americans go broke by the second, the real issue is to exile Rush Limbaugh, whom, by the way, seems to be the only person that makes a lick of sense these days. Change we can believe in? Not I.

FDH Lounge News Nuggets

By Rick Morris

Our "News Nuggets" segment on our FDH LOUNGE program generally addresses minor topics, or sometimes wacky ones, in detail that is brief relative to our discussion of other matters. This "News Nuggets" column is going to be a bit different, as factors relating to the overall FDH family (primarily keeping our pimp hand strong during fantasy baseball season) have kept me from opining here as much as I would have liked over the past two weeks -- but I do want to put my two cents in on the following topics:

^ Eliot Spitzer -- what goes around ... ew, I'm not going to finish that sentence given some of the connotations some people could put there! But this jerkwad slimed Richard Grasso and others on Wall Street, preferring to hypocritically try to blackmail them using their alleged sexual misadventures as part of his grandstanding campaign to advance himself. Now I'm supposed to feel sorry for him now that he's got a "problem"? Nah. I do feel badly for his daughters and yes, for his wife, notwithstanding her decision to accompany him in front of the cameras instead of walking away like he deserved (BTW, may I say Mrs. Spit is looking fine for her age and I'm sure there'd be a long line of guys looking to cheer up this "Mrs. Robinson" if push comes to shove). Now he suffers more humiliation as we learn that he likes to keep his black socks on, uh, "during." Wow. Pardon me while I get some turpentine and try to scrub my brain of that mental image ... OK, I'm back now with one more note. Apparently Hollywood Wackjob Par Excellence Alec Baldwin worshiped this guy and thinks America's going in the crapper now that he's been marginalized. He also notes that prostitution is wrong because "every prostitute is someone's daughter." I'm actually touched that Baldwin took five minutes out of his busy schedule (which, ironically, seems to consist largely of working towards driving his own young daughter to a career "on the pole" by screaming at her about her alleged bovine tendencies) to break off that particular bit of Captain Obvious wisdom.

^ Planned Parenthood's real agenda is snuffing out black babies. The heck you say! The same folks who revere their founder, Fascist Racist Extraordinare Margaret Sanger? Evidently, things haven't changed much since Sanger was founding their little baby-skull-crushing enterprise:

"Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as 'unfit,' a plan she said would be the 'salvation of American civilization.' And she also spike of those who were 'irresponsible and reckless,' among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that 'there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.' That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered 'unfit' cannot be easily refuted.

She wrote: 'We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'"

Whoopsie Margaret! All these years later one of your peons let the cat out of the bag about your extermination agenda. Sucks when that happens, eh?

"Donor: Wonderful. I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group - would that be possible?

Kersey (Planned Parenthood employee!!!): Absolutely.

Donor: Like the black community for example?

Kersey: Certainly.

Donor: OK, so the abortion -- I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose.

Kersey: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that you wanted your gift to be used to help (an) African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that that gift was earmarked specifically for that purpose.

Donor: Great. Because I really face trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids being disadvantaged, you know, against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name, you know.

Kersey: Mmhmm, absolutely.

Donor: So that's definitely possible.

Kersey: Oh, always, always.

Donor: So I just wanna - can I put this in the name of my son?

Kersey: Absolutely.

Donor: Yeah, he's trying to get into colleges, and he's going to be applying, you know, he's just -- we're just really big -- he's really faced troubles with affirmative action.

Kersey: Mmhmm.

Donor: And we don't, you know, we just think, you know, the less black kids out there the better.

Kersey: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable. ... Um David, let me, if I may, just get some sort of specific general information so we can set this up the right way. You said you wanted to put it in your son's name, and you would like this designated specifically to assist (an) African-American woman who's looking to terminate a pregnancy.

Donor: Exactly, and yeah, I wanna protect my son, so he can get into college.

Kersey: All right. Excuse my hesitation, um, um, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited, and I wanna make sure I don't leave anything out."

Well, at least the media's been pretty quiet about it, ensuring that the populace remains in the dark about what a holocaust that "choice" really is.

^ The NCAA is officially more cynical than any politician anywhere. We see now what CBS gets for its 58 gajillion dollars for the NCAA hoops tournament. Mayo v. Beasley in Round One of the brackets? Bob Huggins facing his ancient rival Xavier for a shot at the Elite Eight? Georgetown happening to draw the little sister just up the road for the first round sacrificial lamb? A first round battle of very different sentimental favorites in Notre Dame and George Mason? This entire event is tainted by the fact that it is explicitly made-for-TV in the sense that logical matchups and fair seeding are going to be cast aside for whatever the puppets on the committee think is going to move the Nielson ratings. Say what you will about Vince McMahon, and I've buried him consistently, but at least he's honest about what his enterprise is.

^ Speaking of the tournament, Bobby Knight has yet to choke Digger Phelps out on camera. Fortunately, we've got two weeks to go ...

^ Winners win and losers make excuses. The Detroit Tigers have, predictably, signed their new young franchise player Miguel Cabrera to a megabucks deal that will keep him in town well into the next decade. Meanwhile, my Cleveland Indians are engaging in a season-long goodbye wave to C.C. Sabathia. And people wonder why I may sound bitter from time to time ...

^ So now Hugh Hewitt is pushing Mitt Romney for V.P. Who saw that coming? I'd watch my back if I was McCain, though, because if that ticket wins in November, good old Uncle Hughey is going to be perched in the crow's nest on Inauguration Day with a poison blowdart aimed right at JM's carotid artery.

^ Speaking of poison blowdarts, I wouldn't put my "thoat" anywhere within firing distance of Hillary these days if I was Bill Richardson. What a greasy, back-stabbing opportunist -- and surprise, he doesn't side with the Clintons!

^ Obama's pastor hates Whitey. Obama himself throws his grandma under the bus to make him look better by comparison. Whoever said campaigns teach us nothing about the candidates for office?

^ So now Steven Spielberg, Nancy Pelosi and other moral posturers are doing their full-blown "Mr. Mackey routine" at China: "Mmmmkay, genocide is bad, mmmmmkay?" Call me cynical if you must, but I can't see any of these buffoons standing up to an Islamic terrorist threatening our country in the same way -- or standing up for the rights of (those darn intolerant and judgmental!) Christians in the same way. But now that China is oppressing Buddhists -- conjuring up the image of helpless, peaceful fat bald guys rubbing their bellies as ChiCom tanks plow them over -- well, hey, now it's time to take a stand! Gimme a call the next time any of these assclowns raises a peep when a Jewish woman and her family gets blown to bits by a homicide bomber in Israel ...

Jean Schmidt’s Liberal Base

By Nate Noy

One of the best lies going in the Jean Schmidt “shill blogosphere” is that she is a “true conservative.” Anyone read Rolling Stone Magazine lately?

Two issues that really rattle my cage from the left are: minimum wage and gun control.

On 1/10/07 Congress passed Vote 18 H.R.2 The minimum wage increase. Those voting yea included:

Ted Kennedy
Barney Frank
Nancy Pelosi
Dennis Kucinich.
Jean Schmidt

Some nay votes included:

John Boehner
Steve Chabot
Jim Jordan
Pat Tiberi
Roy Blunt
Tom Trancredo

ALL “true conservatives” opposed this vote because they actually have some comprehension as to what a minimum wage increase does to the economy.

I have a degree in Economics and anyone that does understands that minimum wage acts as a price floor, creating a deficit in employment, i.e., a higher rate of unemployment. It also leads to much higher inflation rates, which is something the media has finally started to talk about recently. The end result of a minimum wage increase is stagflation, and it is devastating to the economy.

People in general simply are not educated on this issue. I ask them: why not make minimum wage $20 or $25 an hour if it is such a great savior?

So when unemployment rates continue to rise this summer and the price of everything just seems to be going up, people everywhere can look to the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, and Schmidt for the root cause.

My other hot issue is gun control and gun free zones. Jean Schmidt of course voted to ban guns in Clermont County when she was a trustee there, however she subsequently duped enough people in the NRA into actually believing she was with them on this issue too.

This argument is so, so simple as far as I’m concerned. If the kids at Va Tech or NIU had all been carrying guns, then how many of them would still be alive today? The answer is that maybe the first kid or two would have been killed, but someone in the group would have been able to stop the massacre before it reached epic levels.

Gun bans and gun free zones will NEVER stop the criminals from having guns; they are by definition criminals and could care less about the law. The only thing that these laws accomplish is preventing those of us that are law abiding and would be willing to protect ourselves and others by taking appropriate action against a deranged gunman if necessary.

Jean Schmidt didn’t get that back in Clermont County, I doubt she gets that now either, or she NEVER would have voted for a gun ban in the first place. Her vote will always be for sale to the highest bidder, and folks the public is NOT the highest bidder as far as Jean Schmidt is concerned, she had proven that to us over and over again.

Redemption for right wing leaders

By Rick Morris

The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.

Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:

^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.

^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.

^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.

^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.

^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”

A New Year’s Plea: Fred!

By Rick Morris

As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.

Now, speaking only for myself …

Our 22^nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.

Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for America, including a who’s who of the right-wing blogsphere, are having it both ways by ignoring Romney’s past aversion to conservatism while trying to read Mike Huckabee and John McCain out of the conservative movement. Huck and McCain have their share of deviations, to be sure, but it’s the height of hypocrisy to denounce them while praising Romney as a “full-spectrum conservative.”

I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.

It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.

So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire. Every piece of filthy politics imaginable got thrown Pat’s way over the next few weeks as the party succeeded in its foul desire to foist Bob Dole’s wrinkled bones on the American people in November. How’d that work out? In 2000, the process repeated itself as the GOP string-pullers decided early on that George W. Bush should be anointed as the prince. Pliable puppets like Rush Limbaugh slimed Buchanan on a daily basis and kidney-punched John McCain relentlessly when he emerged as Bush’s main competition. Is there any sane observer of the political process who is still willing to say that George W. Bush was the best possible candidate for president on the Republican side in 2000? Leaving aside Ronald Reagan, who I believe to be the best president of my lifetime (faint praise when you examine the weasels he’s measured against) and also the best since Lincoln, when has the GOP actually rallied behind a strong and attractive-on-policy candidate?

Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the Iowa caucuses, an attack on McCain or Huck for being unauthentic while ignoring every objectionable aspect of the Romney campaign is a blatant in-kind contribution to Team Mittens. Likewise, the simple-minded dismissals of Fred as a non-starter are dishonest because they serve the exclusive purpose of pushing Romney towards ultimate inevitability.

Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.

Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.