The Dismaying RINO Co-opting Of Rush Limbaugh

The purpose of recent articles about RINO Speaker John Boehner and his supporters (herehere, and here) was to make clear that the biggest problem conservative voters face is betrayal by candidates who lie about what they will do if elected. Because the United States leans conservative, RINO conservative poseurs have the greatest need to lie in order to win elections. Apparently, this is still not clear.

On April 14, Rush Limbaugh effusively praised an egregious phony, Marco Rubio. The next day, Limbaugh astonishingly defended that praise with toxic acquiescence in preemptive surrender to contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.

Fool-Me-Once/Fool-Me-Twice

The gist of Limbaugh’s initial commentary was that Rubio is a “serious” candidate with a “powerful message.” How depressing! Where has Limbaugh been? How many times have true conservatives been betrayed by “serious” people who abandoned their “powerful messages”? Powerful messages mean nothing if never acted upon. Elections then become farces as meaningless as those staged by any totalitarian regime.

Marco Rubio is a painful case in point. The first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to give the finger to his supporters by trying to grant amnesty to alien lawbreakers, teaming up with the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Richard Durbin, and Charles Schumer — yes, Charles Schumer! (That’s the very same Charles Schumer who is a poster-boy for Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. The very same Charles Schumer so fanatically opposes freedom of speech for conservatives that he zealously advocates eviscerating the First Amendment. A shocking 48 senators supported his assault on the right of the right to criticize the left.)

Limbaugh repeatedly rails against bipartisanship and “compromise,” which, he correctly says, comes down to giving leftist Democrats whatever they want. Conservatives give; they take. In joining the Gang of 8, Rubio demonstrated that he is infected by this mindset.

Moreover, Limbaugh has often claimed to oppose both illegal immigration and amnesty for this law-breaking. He has argued it would be the death knell of often antonymous conservatism and the Republican Party. Yet he disregards the broken clear and well-documented anti-amnesty promises made by Rubio in order to be elected senator. Did Limbaugh believe the strident gaseous fulminations against amnesty emitted by John Boehner?

It was no surprise when Boehner caved in. By contrast, Rubio actively, publicly, and aggressively promoted the very amnesty he opposed as a senate candidate. Does Limbaugh expect a senator who breaks his promises on a major issue to be different as president? Does one have to be a proverbial rocket scientist to understand that pledges by a candidate with a record of insincerity and lack of integrity mean nothing? How often are conservatives going to let themselves be fooled by the faithless elected? Shouldn’t they declare that candidates who betray them on major issues will never again have their support, no matter what they profess?

Let this “powerful message” ring out: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

Let’s Make John Roberts an Honest Chief Justice

If Limbaugh’s initial Rubio praise was disappointing, his next day’s rationalization of that praise should appall anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution. Limbaugh gushed over Rubio’s

prescient prediction …. in part an explanation for why he was participating in the Gang of Eight [amnesty bill].  …Rubio said that … if there is an executive [Obama] amnesty granted to millions and millions of illegals … he could not envision a new Republican president being elected and rescinding it. 

How can Limbaugh call “prescient” and “spot-on” a prediction about what a Republican president would do before any Republican president takes office? Has he turned from optimist to pessimist? Is he now on the side of defeatist hopelessness and despair? With this kind of thinking, there may never again be a Republican president–and it would make no difference if there were. Notwithstanding Limbaugh’s Republican cheerleading, conservatives are unlikely to vote for a candidate promising not to reverse his predecessor’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts. (On April 17, days after Limbaugh praised Rubio, the latter pulled the rug out from under the former by making just such a promise!)

If the coming contest for the Republican presidential nomination is to mean anything, primary and caucus voters should have a choice between RINOs who see anything done by a tyrant as a fait accompli and at least one candidate who unmistakably rejects the notion that tyrannical acts must be accepted as irreversible.

It has been argued that Chief Justice Roberts slandered American voters by suggesting that they voted for ObamaCare:

[O]ur Nation’s elected leaders … can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

The voters were given no choice prior to the imposition of ObamaCare against the wishes of clear majorities in poll after poll after poll. When they were given clear choices, in 2010 and 2014, numerous incumbents who voted for ObamaCare were ousted by opponents who promised to repeal or defund it. The promises were promptly broken, showing the futility of “throwing leaders out of office” and, hence, the futility of elections.

Isn’t making Chief Justice Roberts’ statement honest long overdue? Isn’t it long overdue for the Republican Party to give the voters a genuine choice by nominating an honest presidential candidate (or at least one not demonstrably dishonest)?

An honest Republican nominee would elevate this issue above all others: whether to ratify or reject lawless and unconstitutional tyrannical presidential malfeasance.

Encouraging and Defending Lawlessness

The essence of Limbaugh’s Rubio defense is that it would be unimaginable to take away unlawfully and unconstitutionally acquired plunder. That is contrary to the bitter lesson of ObamaCare. It was never inconceivable to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to unconstitutionally deprive millions of their doctors and insurance. What was inconceivable to them was to tell the truth about it. Amnesty is doubly offensive. First, illegal aliens broke the law to get ahead of law-abiding potential immigrants. Second, Obama violated both the law and the Constitution to grant them amnesty.

Limbaugh advanced his defense of Rubio’s amnesty betrayal on tax day, April 15, when millions of Americans were having lawfully acquired money and property confiscated by government — in order to bestow unmerited benefits upon those for whom Limbaugh and Rubio contend it would be inconceivable to cease providing.

It is, of course, no surprise that the Supreme Court has expressed contempt for those who follow the law in good faith. When a retroactive change in law relied upon by Jerry W. Carlton cost him over $600,000 (page 39), the Court effectively declared him to be a fool (33, 34):

Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code. ….a taxpayer should be regarded as taking his chances of any increase in the tax burden which might result from carrying out the established policy of taxation. [Internal quotation marks omitted.]

Going further, five justices have not found it inconceivable to throw an 88-year-old lower middle class lady out of the only home she ever lived in. They unconstitutionally approved government confiscation of that privately-owned property not for “public use,” but to turn over to a huge corporation for private use. (The corporation ultimately abandoned it.) Now, frequently corrupt local politicians can seize lawfully-held private property from the less well-off and turn it over to influential private parties, often much better off, who did nothing to deserve it.

Right now, the Supreme Court is considering whether government bureaucrats may “constitutionally” steal raisins from private citizens who lawfully produced them.

If the Limbaugh/Rubio view prevails, nothing can be done by Americans to avoid living in a country where, with the approval of any five U.S. Supreme Court justices, tyrannical and corrupt government officials, often unelected, can confiscate what ordinary people lawfully obtain and earn on their own–and prevent use of the doctors and insurance obtained by responsible individuals.

In sum, the United States would be a country where people are penalized for responsibly complying with the law and rewarded for breaking the law. Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, some might have been unable to “envision” that.

Can there be greater invitation to lawlessness and unconstitutionally despotic actions by government officials, as well as by ordinary people, than to say that it would be unthinkable to take away anything unlawfully or unconstitutionally obtained? Such actions would never be undone, regardless of what voters want. That is the import of a Rubio presidency. Voters should think long and hard about whether they want to elect a president who won’t reverse what a prior president had no constitutional right to do in the first place. We have already seen the consequences of electing Republicans promising to repeal or defund Obamacare, only to shrink from the task in cowardly fear. So far, contrary to Chief Justice Roberts, “throwing the bums out” is no meaningful choice at all.

Are Conservatives Gullible Turtles?

An example of the fool-me-once adage is the ancient parable of the turtle and the snake. A snake persuades a turtle fearing a lethal bite to give him a ride across a river, arguing that for the snake to bite the turtle would cause the snake to drown along with the turtle. Whereupon, the snake bites the turtle with poisonous venom, explaining that he could not help himself because he was, after all, a snake–and that was his character.

Conservatives are almost benumbed by the bad faith of those who deliver “powerful messages.” Nevertheless, the primary 2016 goal of conservatives must be to seek the candidate who is least likely to betray them. Although there can never be 100% guarantees, at a bare minimum, they cannot be turtles succumbing to smooth-talking snakes.

Of course, a candidate with a conservative message must be sought. It is to be expected that anyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination will at least repeat conservative lines. But that should be just a start. It is much more important to find someone with a record of honesty and integrity. Not just important, but critical — critical because the next election will probably be the last chance to repel the relentless march toward complete leftist tyranny.

Flip-floppers and promise-breakers need not apply and must be rejected if they do. Conservatives must exclude from consideration anyone with a proven record of major dishonesty.

Conservatives must exclude Marco Rubio.
Copyright © 2015 by Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college Political Science teacher who views mainstream media suppression of the truth as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles on the U.S. Supreme Court, capital punishment and American Politics are collected here and here.        

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Rush Limbaugh Suggests New App To Allow Apple Watch To Fit Company’s Leftist Values

rush

As Western Journalism has previously reported, Apple CEO Tim Cook is open both about his leftist ideals and his own homosexuality. Those two issues collided in the controversy over Indiana’s recent attempt to pass religious freedom legislation castigated by Cook and others as discriminatory. Of course, he did not escape criticism over his company’s practice of doing business with nations that actively persecute gays.

Nevertheless, Apple’s status as a socially conscious corporation was the impetus behind a recent radio segment by syndicated host Rush Limbaugh. He used the impending release of the Apple Watch as a vehicle to make his point.

“How about if the Apple Watch could somehow determine if the country or if the state or even the city that the watch-wearer is in oppresses women, gays or Christians and Jews or minorities?” he rhetorically asked. “What happens if your watch could tell you if you are an oppressor? What happens if the Apple Watch could tell you you live in a place where gays were oppressed, blacks are oppressed? Then you wouldn’t have to wonder.”

He envisioned an application built into the product that would allow users to “enter in the settings, their gender, their sexual preference, and their religion, and that way if the Apple Watch wearer enters a country whose laws are overtly hostile to women, gays, Christians and Jews, the watch could issue some kind of alert or warning to warn you.”

Furthermore, the watch could include a “warning siren” to advise women “when they’re about to step on an American college campus” and “warn them of imminent attack by male students.”

He concluded that “if Tim Cook is going to insert the company into the American cultural and political fray, why not take it deep with the watch?”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Buy Harry Reid’s Story Behind Serious Facial Injuries

Rush Limbaugh

Upon announcing his intention to retire from Congress at the completion of his current term, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid cited serious injuries he sustained in January as a driving factor in his decision. With the renewed focus on his physical trauma, radio host Rush Limbaugh publicly questioned claims that Reid was hurt while exercising.

Partially blind as a result, Reid still sports visible bruising on his face and is forced to wear bandages and sunglasses over his injured eye in all public appearances. The extent of his injuries, Limbaugh reasoned, does not fit the narrative put forth immediately after the incident.

“Does anybody believe that Harry Reid really had an accident with his exercise machine?” he asked Friday. “Does anybody really believe that’s why Harry Reid is still bruised and is still wearing dark glasses, what, months after this accident with his exercise machine?”

He went on to reveal that he doesn’t believe “for a minute” that Reid is telling the truth, suggesting his injuries are more in line with those of someone who has been physically battered.

“Harry Reid looks like and is acting like – and now with this announcement, behaving like – somebody who may have been beaten up,” he said.

Limbaugh is hardly the only one with doubts about the origin of Reid’s injuries. A recent Free Republic thread reveals theories about an encounter with an assailant – potentially someone involved in organized crime – abound.

Of course, considering Reid affirmed just last month that he had every intention of running for another term, some feel his retirement has nothing to do with his physical recovery at all.

Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova spoke to Breitbart last week to share his belief that Reid was worried about the possibility of a Republican winning the 2016 presidential election and appointing an attorney general who would aggressively investigate abuse of power accusations against him.

“I think Harry Reid’s getting out of town ahead of the posse,” he said.

Do you believe Harry Reid was injured while exercising, or is he hiding something? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

New EPA Proposal Would Spy On Hotel Guests In The Shower

Josh Janssen (Flickr)

Claims of bureaucratic overreach within the Environmental Protection Agency are nothing new; however, its latest initiative is ruffling a few more feathers than usual. With funding from a grant made to the University of Tulsa, the EPA hopes to develop a prototype for a device that would monitor and report the water use of hotel guests across America.

“Most hotels do not monitor individual guest water usage,” the grant states, “and as a result, millions of gallons of potable water are wasted every year by hotel guests.”

As per usual, the federal government asserted its position as the arbiter of personal behavior by explaining how individuals will now be shamed into using less water.

The device being developed through the grant, the EPA confirmed, “will be designed to fit most new and existing hotel shower fixtures and will wirelessly transmit hotel guest water usage data to a central hotel accounting system.”

According to the grant, its goal will be to “assist hotel guests in modifying their behavior to help conserve water.”

One of the researchers working on the project explained his objective will be to “get hotel guests to reduce their water use by 10 percent or to reduce their showers by about one minute,” noting that the average hotel shower currently lasts about eight minutes.

Beyond water waste in the shower, the project will also include pleas to reuse towels and other linens while staying in a hotel room instead of requesting they be laundered.

Rush Limbaugh noted on his syndicated radio show Tuesday that he believes it will be just a matter of time until the EPA attempts to force citizens to install such software in their own homes.

Limbaugh was hardly the only person outraged by the news. Twitter comments in response to a Fox News link included overwhelmingly negative reactions.

One user explained that a hotel is “the only place I enjoy a long hot shower especially since I’m paying enough for the room.”

Others cited this program as further evidence that the federal government needs to be pruned significantly.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Here’s How A Surging GOP Contender Just Handed A Hostile Interviewer Her Head

Image Credit: ABC News

With Mitt Romney out of the race for the White House in 2016, supporters of the GOP’s failed 2012 presidential candidate are looking for someone else they can get behind.

And if a new preference poll is any indicator, that someone may be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

As reported by Townhall:

…a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released over the weekend shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker jumping out to a small lead in the state — followed by Rand Paul, Mitt Romney (now out of the race), Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. Jeb Bush pulls eight percent, with Chris Christie struggling at four percent….

Though he has shown his ability to stand tall and fight tough against unrelenting liberal attacks and union opposition in Wisconsin, the Republican governor has been viewed by some in the GOP establishment as lackluster, even uninspiring.

That view, however, is not shared by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh, who recently hit quite a few high notes in singing Walker’s praises:

“…I believe Scott Walker is the blueprint for the Republican Party if they are serious about beating the left.  Scott Walker has shown how to do it.

Scott Walker has shown the Republican Party how to beat the left. Scott Walker has the blueprint for winning and winning consistently and winning big in a blue state with conservative principles that are offered with absolutely no excuses.”

Although Walker has not formally declared his intention to seek the GOP nomination for the 2016 race, he is widely expected to throw his hat into the presidential ring.

So how does the Wisconsin governor fare in the media ring, especially when facing off with a not-so-friendly interviewer who, by the nature and tone of her questioning, was looking to trip up the Iowa front-runner?

There was a chance this past weekend for Governor Walker to show how he can handle what could be called a mainstream media “inquisition” when he appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with substitute host Martha Raddatz.

As noted in a post on Biz Pac Review: “Whether she was in search of her ‘Katie Couric moment,’ or just trying to take advantage of the opportunity to shore up her liberal bona fides, Raddatz was gunning for Walker from the start.”

It was a challenging interview about the governor’s “big, bold ideas” for the country; but Walker took the fire and shot back effectively, as you can see from watching the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom