One thing Rush said wasn’t true. . .

In 1994 Rush Limbaugh reflected on why liberals were so afraid of him. Not much changed in 27 years.

"I have not attracted and kept my audience by being a blowhard, a racist, a sexist, a hatemonger. Those who make such charges insult the intelligence of the American people. If l were truly what my critics claim, I would have long ago, deservedly, gone into oblivion. The fact is, my audience knows I constantly champion rugged individualism. One of the most oft-heard phrases on my shows is this: “I want a great America made up of great individuals, an America where everyone is unshackled to be the best he can be.” This is the philosophy that sends liberals into fits—because they know a country made of strong, self-reliant individuals does not need them at all."

He was criticized for reporting on his show that Sidwell school where Chelsea Clinton attended had assigned a paper to 8th graders on "Why I feel guilty being white." He was insulted and ridiculed for saying this on the air, but it turned out that it had already been reported in 3 other sources, and his critics had to apologize. What makes this story interesting 27 years later, is today would it even raise an eyebrow? CRT is all over the place and children are being brainwashed in violation of the Civil Rights laws.

Unfortunately, one thing he said in 1994 is not true today:

 ". . . modern liberalism—exhausted and confused—is on the run. "

Some how, the generation that fell in love with him in the 90s, managed to lose control of the Republican party, schools, boards of directors, entertainment, churches, non-profits, clubs, and turn out some very brainwashed socialists.

Fearful of knowing the other side or sides?

Dennis Prager (98.9 fm in Columbus) made an interesting observation today.  He sat next to a Californian, a leftist, on a 5 hour flight.  It was cordial, she was lovely, mid-thirties and intelligent according to him.  But after an hour or so of  discussion he realized she knew nothing she hadn’t heard on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC or one of the news services like AP, or government funded PBS. For conservatives like me it's virtually impossible to be that blind and narrow.  We hear anti-Trump material 24/7, we hear or read complaints about free markets and capitalism all the time.  Even if we find a conservative source, it is reporting on what the liberals say! We endure terribly nasty biased stuff spouted as news when it is someone's opinion. Washington Post is one of the worst--8 out of 10 headline stories that show up in my e-mail are anti-Trump, but some think the New York Times is worse.  Just ask a liberal friend or acquaintance when was the last time she heard something on the news that was positive about this administration. Even Fox has gone leftward, although no declared liberal would watch that channel enough to realize how it has changed in 2017.  How did we get well educated people so narrow and confused? Being a liberal should make you open to new ideas, right?  It’s hard to imagine they’ve been to college and can make it to work each day.

Dennis Prager has wonderful 5-6 minute videos called Prager University. He uses many different researchers, scientists, historians, etc. with some cartoons and good graphics.  I wish real universities were this clear and entertaining.

The latest is dated June, 5, 2017

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-whats-so-alarming

Liberalism and liberals

About once a day, I hear (or read) about the hypocrisy of liberals who are not accepting of other views or who don’t allow conservatives the rights guaranteed in the constitution or demonstrate a lack of compassion.  Most recently it was about Condi Rice and the shameful behavior at Rutgers University, a school that in 2011 had the performer known as “Snooki” Polizzi as an invited speaker.

However, in my opinion, there is no hypocrisy—liberals have never been open to the ideas of others or respected those they don’t consider part of their class.

In The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class by Fred Siegel (reviewed in First Things, June/July 2014) claims liberalism did not originate in progressivism, but instead began with a small group of intellectuals and writers, mostly based in Greenwich Village—H. L. Mencken, Sinclair Lewis, Lincoln Steffens, and Edmund Wilson.  Liberals “. . . had a quarrel with the industry, immigration and economic growth that had produced unprecedented prosperity in the United State.”  They developed a contempt for American culture and politics, and hostility toward the middle class, and in the 1930s many fell under the influence of Communism.

Reviewer Geoffrey Kabaservice in First Things says “Siegel makes some telling criticisms of the pre-World War II generations of left-leaning intellectuals.  They often were dismissive of the heritage and unique qualities of the United States, clueless about capitalism, too ready to see small business owners as a proto-fascist petty bourgeoisie, and too prone to thinking of big business as an oppressive force.” He was, however, critical of what he saw as many shortcomings in the book and thought Siegel “lacked objectivity.”

To me Siegel seems on target--like what Democrats (liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists) say about the middle class today, especially the Tea Party, conservatives and Republicans.

Liberals, Siegel says, love bureaucracy, don’t understand the people they claim to want to help, and expelled whites from the cities which they then bankrupted.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/opiate-elites_775988.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304434104579382882678398034

http://www.c-span.org/video/?317203-1/book-discussion-revolt-masses

Michael Barone loved it. “From the dumbing down of education to extreme environmentalism, from anti-family poverty programs to free-speech curbs on campuses, the excesses of our times are laid out like the pieces of a puzzle. It is a clear-eyed vision of how we got to this troubled place.”

http://nypost.com/2014/02/15/the-revolt-against-the-masses-reveals-liberalisms-elitist-roots/

These are the liberals . . .

Sorry, I can’t even quote them . . .

http://twitchy.com/2012/09/07/liberals-cuss-out-archbishop-timothy-cardinal-dolan/

And they probably vote.

Summer’s coming—do you know where your college student’s brain is?

“While there is not shortage of good, foundational texts to educate the student interested in America’s economic history, there is a shortage of interested students. This is where parents must play an active role in their children’s education. Sending them off to a four-year institution and assuming that upon graduation they will be economically literate flies in the face of reality. If parents abdicate all responsibility to liberal professors, there’s a good chance the graduate will come home spouting liberal claptrap and looking forward to his or her next Occupy Wall Street rally.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/6/dangers-of-academias-indoctrination-mills/

Why do American liberals say so little about Islamic views of women?

This of course is a rhetorical question: we know the answer. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." They think they will be able to co-opt the Muslims later, but they'll learn as have centuries of Christians, that you can't co-exist or cooperate with Muslims.

"Islam is a male-made religion, founded on masculinity, patriarchy, and male domination. It is notorious for its repression, subjugation, and discrimination against women. Islamic religion portrays women as inferior to men in every respect-spiritually, physically, mentally, and even intellectually. Islam's holy book, the Koran, divinely sanctions and decrees this negative impression. The Koran has been corroborated by the Hadiths (traditions of Muhammad's sayings and deeds) and perpetuated by the interpretation of the mullahs, the sheiks, and the imams."

Leo Igwe, "Traditional African Practices and Islam"

Could this be why attendance at German Mass is so low? They're Protestants?

"In anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI's forthcoming visit to his homeland, more than two hundred German theologians -- men and women who have earned doctoral degrees in theology and teach in German universities -- have issued a manifesto, "The Church in 2011: A Necessary Departure." The manifesto itself does not identify the destination for which the Church is to depart, but the terminus ad quem seems reasonably clear from a careful reading of the document: Catholicism is to transform itself into another liberal Protestant sect by conceding virtually every point at issue between classic Christianity and the ambient culture of the post-modern West.

It is, perhaps, no surprise to find German Catholic theologians publicly supporting the ordination of married men and women to the ministerial priesthood (overtly), same-sex "marriage" (slyly), and full communion within the Church for those in irregular marriages (subtly but unmistakably). These causes have been espoused for years. German theologians dissented en masse from the 1993 teaching of Veritatis Splendor on the nature of moral acts and from the 1994 teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the Church's inability to admit women to Holy Orders. What was particularly striking about this new manifesto was its attempt to address serious problems with tried-and-failed solutions. That bespeaks a remarkable lack of intellectual creativity and historical sense." Continue reading here

This was most likely the proverbial straw

Although I didn't technically leave the Democratic party until 2000 when I voted for Bush (about whom I knew little) instead of Gore (whom I actually liked at that time), today I accidentally came across a straw--don't know if it was the "last straw"-- that I think mattered to me more than Clinton's deplorable behavior in office. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 and the United States' nonresponse (except for hand wringing). The USA didn't mind smacking other governments around if we needed their natural resources, but killing a million people in a matter of months? Black people? No big deal. Not even black Democrats cared much--their leverage was with the wrongs of the 18th and 19th century. And the United Nations? What a piece of worthlessness!

My disaffection with liberalism had a long history--we hadn't been a good match for a number of years dating back to the mid-1970s. I had always been pro-life and since I enjoyed reading history the humanism base of liberalism was pretty hard to swallow. It seemed pretty obvious just from the genocidal and "death by government decree" (USSR, Maoist China) and action in the 20th century, that humans were not perfectable no matter how much money you threw at them through government programs, and that there would be no perfect kum-by-ya harmony in any government's plan. And then in 1994 when we became a "small business" the barn door was left unlocked and all the horses upon which I'd ridden for years began to escape.

So it was personal, spiritual and political, but I left and have never been sorry. Conservatives turn into Republicans who turn into RINOs, but at least conservatives seem to understand that human beings are not perfectable, which all of history, common sense, and trillions of debt confirms. I don't know, maybe liberals don't really believe it either--but I know I did despite all evidence to the contrary, my own behavior, and the church's teachings.

Thomas Friedman's predictable election rant

Who is Friedman kidding by blaming Republicans (and indirectly the Tea Party supporters and candidates who are the only life in this current campaign) for our economic mess? Democrats have been in control of Congress for the last four years (and most of my life time), so let's plot a graph. They are in charge of all the major cities; they've pushed all the major social legislation since FDR's New Deal and the Johnson War on Poverty, which statistically he is showing has failed, and under their President Barack Obama, have spent more money with fewer results than any administration in our history. And then with Katie Couric and Barack Obama, he blames the great unwashed, the vast fly-over couch potatoes and gun clingers watching TV evangelists, for the mess instead of the well-heeled, well- educated, beltway revolving door lobbies, and Ivy League crowd that have gotten us here with misguided, incredibly expensive social engineering.

Thanks, Mr. Friedman, for your usual, insightful drivel.

Thomas Friedman: Election rhetoric shows you can't keep a bad idea down | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

13 Columbus pastors going to Washington DC

But not for the cause of social justice. Not for the poor. Not for Christ. I think it's the same gang that went after Rod Parsley. See my other, other blog.

No place to hide today

It's all Obama, all the time. The Obamathon. The WSJ has an editorial, "The Opacity of Hope," which really, really tries to put the best spin on this presidency. I'm just looking for a place where the TV and slavish-slurpy admirers won't be out in force--I have to be out of the house most of the day, so there's no place to hide. I'm surprised that Soros and Moveon haven't constructed flatscreen TV billboards throughout the cities and countryside so people can watch while they drive. Phrases from the WSJ with my comments:

his heritage: Little is said about his European roots and middle class life--raised by his white grandmother who was a bank vice president--a plus for all the grandparents, black and white, who step up to do what needs to be done when parents have failed; a teen mother, absentee, polygamous father--yes, this too can be overcome if the government gets out of the way.

his rhetorical skills: This one really baffles me. Do whites never listen to black preachers on Sunday morning? He can't even come close to the power, rhythm, KJV language and parables of hope--probably because it doesn't come naturally--he had to learn it as an adult, and the ear for imitation is never as good at that age. Do most rhetoricians stammer when off teleprompter?

first class temperament: Has no one at WSJ seen his flashes of anger when cornered by a lie, even by a plumber? His hatchet men were immediately sent out to destroy the little guy who dared to question him. I see he also has no patience in press conference when there is the audacity to step outside the MSM carefully drawn guidelines of obsequiousness and lackeydom.

self-confidence: Self delusion comes to mind. I'm guessing he's quite surprised to be where he is, considering he'd set his sights on being Mayor of Chicago. Others on the far left saw more in him for their purposes than he did--when they saw the effect of his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, how the crowd was moved to tears, after he'd said those same phrases many times to black audiences in Illinois, with little impact--they began to rub their hands with glee--"here's how we'll do this."

smooth transition: Yes, because Bush continues that precedent of being gracious and helpful, something that all our out-going presidents have done. Also, it doesn't hurt that he's surrounded himself with Clintonites who've had 8 years experience and never left the plantation.

first black president: first Hawaiian president, first offspring of an African, first president born in the 60s, first president with such shallow experience. All presidents come with "firsts." JFK was the first Roman Catholic, and we haven't had any since. There are lots of firsts, but the hoop-la about being black is the one that mystifies me the most. I never once doubted that we'd have a black president in my life-time, although as the civil rights industry grew and expanded in the 80s and 90s, I was feeling less confident as black people were being held back by the very people encouraging them to eat only slops at the victimhood trough.

historical symbol, walking affirmation of opportunity: Obama has defied the entire civil rights movement, the whole black power bleat--beat them at their own political game and sought help from whitey, the Chicago machine and terrorists moved maintstream. WSJ editors need to read some presidential biographies, not his two autobiographies written before he'd accomplished a thing. He's not a Lincoln who grew up without education; or FDR who over came a physical disability to rise to the heights of power; or the son of a rich and powerful bootlegger turned respectable; or a dirt poor, crude Texan who learned the political ropes with powerful mentors and a refined, classy wife; or a peanut farmer with a naval education and ambition, or a handsome radio announcer turned movie star from tiny Dixon, Illinois. There's nothing remarkable about Obama except the hysteria--particularly from whites clawing and grasping for release from a prison of a sordid history they had no part in making. I'm not the least bit surprised at the pride and love the African-Americans are showing him--they've longed for this recognition on the world stage and at home that they are indeed "somebody." Having Jesse Jackson shout it was nice, but for them, this is the real thing. For white liberals, I say, step back and take a deep breath. This is your creation. Tomorrow it's business as usual.

He must be the messiah

The dead are rising in Cleveland, missing aunts are found in Boston, homeless in Columbus have addresses, a birth certificate is miracuously found and declared valid in Hawaii. And money--it just appears from nowhere, no one, no how--follow the money.

See James Taranto: Beloved Aunt: America is fed up with compassionate conservatism. Is heartless liberalism the answer?

Clearly Obama is anything but a soft touch. In fact, his blasé attitude about deporting his beloved aunt and bankrupting fellow Americans [coal story] is downright chilling. Maybe a period of heartless liberalism is a needed corrective after eight years of compassionate conservatism. But here's the big question: Would Obama be as brutal in defending America's interests as he is in pandering to xenophobes and global warmists?

3796

Training ground for biased big media?

The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper is one of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of struggling free circs, those piles of newsprint and skinny magazines you see in the lobbies of coffee shops, shopping centers and libraries. Technically, they offer an alternative, but if they become successful, a bigger paper usually buys them. I hear they pay well, and the slant is, well, very, very one way or the other. The Stranger is left, although I've only read one article. It's anti-religious right. Yawn. That's like an elephant being afraid of a mouse. There is not a single leftist program proposed since FDR that hasn't succeeded. Conservatives, at best, toss an occasional banana peel, and a baby might make it out alive in the Dakotas that otherwise would have been thrown in a trash can.

The article that was sent to me is "Cross Purposes" by Erica C. Barnett. For some reason she thinks it is sad that Seattle's old line, dying liberal churches are shrinking and becoming irrelevant. When we joined UALC [it's a conservative congregation within a liberal denomination] in 1976 our pastor had formerly been a Lutheran pastor in the northwest--can't remember if it was Oregon or Washington. But I remember him saying that the mountains were white capped from all the letters of transfer that never made it. That means, for you non-Christian readers, when people headed west, they left their relgion back in the east or midwest and started worshiping Mother Nature. If they needed a little familiarity for a wedding and cozy pot lucks, they could always join the Unitarians. So I don't know where Erica's been hanging out, but it ain't church.

So she writes a lengthy story about the "new conservatives." But she has a very odd hitch in her gitalong. Seems to really focus on externals, hoping I think, to turn off . . . who, exactly? In describing the people she's afraid of (i.e. conservative Christians) seen at two different gatherings, tiny Church on the Hill, and big Mars Hill:

T-shirts and jeans
overalls and sweats
casual sportswear
bearded guy in sweats
blond man in sneakers and faded blue jeans
brown long-sleeved t-shirt
thrown-together, house-party-ish scene
heavily gelled hair [preacher]
sloppy, untucked dress shirt
wooden bead necklace
trendy wide-strapped brown leather watch
girls in glittering half-sweaters
sloppy emo boys with tattooed arms
disheveled hair
pregnant women in stylishly expensive maternity jeans
loud and a bit slovenly [preacher]
Jimmy Kimmel-esque comedian [preacher]

I haven't seen that much fashion description except in my own complaints about what people wear to church these days.

When describing the liberal Mainline Methodists in Ballard, WA she says. . . not much about their appearance, but does cite their criticisms of the new kids on the church block, and they have a serious case of edifice envy.

"Very much your father's conservatism"
"women are the nurturers who should go home and have babies"
"negative, almost misogynistic view of women"
"emergent or emerging" [these are 2 different terms, but she doesn't distinguish]
"They've built a show that attracts masses of people. That legitimates it"
"it's possible they are simply not paying attention"
"an astonishing number believe in reincarnation, which is not a Christian doctrine"
"we're in a time when people pick and choose what they want from their religious experience"
"appeal to people who think we live in apocalyptic times"
"creates a system where people can have a feeling of control"
"they see themselves as cutting edge, whereas mainline churches are struggling to keep their doors open"
"theology of fear"
"they're cool and they can go out into the world"
"they'll outgrow it"

Oddly (or, not so odd since she wants a job with a "real" paper), Erica sees the mainline church goers (most with gray hair and canes), as more tolerant and diverse because there is a sprinkling of gay couples, and some female pastors. She thinks it is quite OK for the Methodist pastor to be preaching on the "evil empire" the U.S. is becoming with obscene tax-cutting, but not OK for the Mars Hill guy who's preaching that the suburbs have just as much evil as the city. She calls the conservatives intolerant with retrograde political leanings (she only sites homosexuality and women as evidence of "retrograde"), and apocalyptic, rebelling against the pop culture while appropriating its language and styles.

Yes, Erica's looking for a job with a playa.