rush limbaugh

More Tales From The Darkside.

In the aftermath of the LSMs’ (lame stream media) and the DeMarxists’ instant assault on the Conservatives, after the unspeakable tragedy in Arizona, we have Marxist politicians trying for face time by pontificating on the evils of the First Amendment and the Tea Party… not to forget Rush Limbaugh and every other Conservative radio and television personality.

Sarah Palin has been set aside for special treatment by the DeMarxists and their sycophants in the lame stream press. They have all but accused her of being an accessory to murder. The only problem was… that the ‘right wing’ radical, that they were instantly trumpeting around the world, turned out to be a left-wing nutcase who read Marx and Mein Kampf, and who kept an occult shrine in his parents’ backyard. As I reported yesterday, he was referred to as ‘creepy’ by some of those who knew him.

Well, the entire LSM and much of the Democrat Party got caught with its drawers flying in the wind. And, once again, gave the American people another unimpeded look at the craven, low and despicable tactics used by the left. Like everything else the left does, this is just one more episode in their continuing campaign to destroy this Republic.

It’s our sworn and solemn promise to stop the communists who would take our country and turn us all into the slaves of totalitarian statism. We will have to defeat them in the local school boards and in city councils… in the halls of state governments and in the halls of Congress.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2011

Massive Voter Fraud And Disenfranchisement.

We, that is Dee and I, have been warning all our readers and friends to expect just exactly what the DeMarxists are doing. Everything from so far ‘unconfirmed’ reports of electronic machines marking votes for Reid on Republican ballots (machines serviced by SEIU) to military ballots being purposefully delayed more than once. Philadelphia Republicans have uncovered what looks like a Democrat scheme to overwhelm the county voting apparatus with fraudulent voter registrations. There was more electronic meddling with machines in Virginia.

A ‘ringer’ on the three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, declaring herself eligible to serve as a sort of substitute for an ailing judge, Sandra Day O’Connor, lent her unfailing ultra-left vote to the panel, and Nevada got ripped off by an activist judiciary once again.

We can look for more of the same and worse. SEIU and the other public employees unions, who in another era could easily have passed for brown shirts, are out on more of their ‘public education’ operations, which usually consists of intimidating voters and fostering voter cheating.

Republicans have launched myriad attorneys and vote watchers to key districts. All of you should be extra vigilant and observant. If you see or read anything that would contravene voting law, speak up right then and there. Don’t be a bit shy about it. The bottom line is that it’s up to you and me, all of us, to see this fight through to the end. If you want to help but don’t know how, contact the Tea Party Patriots at

In the final analysis, it’s just exactly like Rush Limbaugh said yesterday… The way we overcome their voter hi-jinks is to overwhelm them at the ballot box and that’s just what we’re going to do. Once again, pay zero attention to ‘them’ or their polls or their misdirection… they are lying.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Crunch Time!

Rush Limbaugh said that on his program on Monday… and it is. Thanks, Rush. You spoke for all of us. I saw the ‘demonic’ photographs and I agree. There is an aspect of evil emanating from this man, this Barack Hussein Obama, whose calculated destruction of the very fabric of this society, the enslavement of our people into abject penury and crushing debt was all but successful. That’s exactly what this Conservative tidal wave is all about. We stop him here and now!

This most important election in the history of this nation represents something unique in all the world, and all the world’s history. Never before has a nation risen up as one, in a totally bloodless revolution. And a revolution it is. From sea to sea, all across the (50) states (got that Barry?) people… Americans, young and old, from every conceivable station in life, have risen up and said, “No more“.

What is striking about those pictures of Obama is the body language. They convey a sense of desperation, a certain sense of panic that his carefully laid counter-revolution is off the tracks, and that his attempted communist takeover of this country (for that’s what it is) has been stymied because of those same patriots. Obama is fearful and angry, and that makes him more-than-ever dangerous… angry, fearful people make irrational decisions.This man’s extreme narcissism may foster deep psychological issues as well, that may lead to instability.

What is going to occur in this nation, barely two weeks from now, is but the first step in the long march back from the brink of totalitarianism. We are going to hound these Marxists from our government. We are going to make them wish for the ‘good old days’ of the McCarthy un-American activities investigations… we are going to hound them from public office and we are going to hound them from the Judiciary. We are going to hound them wherever they lift their ugly, hateful, divisive doctrine. It won’t end with this election, or the one after that, or those to follow. Americans will not be lulled to sleep by the liberal serpent again.

We, the American Patriots, are pledged on our sacred honor to bring this nation back, under the founding principles and the Constitution of the United States of America. No matter how long it takes!

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Rush Limbaugh: Political Analyst

This is a portion of a book I once wrote about Rush Limbaugh, about 15 years ago. It was never published, and, in fact, a lot of it was lost via a computer horror story too ridiculous to describe with a straight face. I still have large portions of it. This is a rough of one portion of a chapter on Limbaugh's "skills" as a political analyst. There are no footnotes, unfortunately--the cleaned-up, completed version is lost forever--but, fortunately, most of the time-and-place data for the Limbaugh comments are cited in the text. Don't know if anyone will care--I just thought I'd post it here and see if anyone had anything to say:

[A note: "TWTOTB", below, refers to Limbaugh's ghost-writer's first book, "The Way Things Ought To Be", and "SITYS" to his second, "See, I Told You So."]

Given the extent to which Limbaugh's views are dictated by class interests, most observers could be forgiven if they mistook him for a Marxist caricature of a conservative capitalist. To draw an audience, he poses as a populist, but, because his populist leanings are nothing more than a pose, he shows no consistency in them. They are whatever he needs them to be at the moment to rally support behind some element of his class-dictated politics. Limbaugh views the Republicans as the best vehicle for seeing those policies enacted, and, as a consequence, he's a die-hard Republican party man.

"Republicans vs. Democrats" becomes, in Limbaugh's universe, good vs. evil. The only time Republicans are less than good is when, in his view, they're not conservative enough; the only time Democrats are less than evil is when they're conservative. He molds his political commentary around these basic axioms; they're the only consistent elements at work in his efforts at political analysis, which makes that analysis a case study in contradiction.

Limbaugh had spent a good deal of time in TWTOTB writing about the nature of politics and elections. For example, he asserted:

"The real debate about where this country should be headed takes place every four years when we vote for president."

Of the Democratic-controlled congress, he says in the same book:

"They have ignored the people's will on countless occasions and dismissed the fact that the voters have endorsed conservative policies in three presidential elections. People are not fools when it comes to electing a President. People know that election is a defining one. They study the candidates and they care about their decisions. They don't do that very often with elections for Congress."

Events subsequent to the publication of TWTOTB led Limbaugh to consign the whole of this analysis to a memory hole, and to advance a new one that contradicted the discarded one in almost every particular.

The first of these events was, of course, the election of Democrat Bill Clinton as president. Suddenly the idea that voters decided the direction they wanted to send the country via their choice for president didn't sound so appealing to Limbaugh.

The second event was the seizure of both houses of congress by the Republicans in 1994. Suddenly, Limbaugh decided this was one of those occasions when the decision about what direction the government should take WAS made in a congressional election.

Clinton was, of course, elected by a significantly larger number of Americans than later elected the Republican majority in congress, but, for two years after the Clinton election, Limbaugh began each episode of his program by describing the Clinton presidency as "America Held Hostage." When the Republicans gained control of congress in a sparsely attended off-year election, he dubbed the campaign "Operation Restore Democracy" and claimed it to be a success. Then, as the "Republican Revolution" began in earnest, he began opening his program with "America: The Way It Ought To Be."

Limbaugh had problems deciding why the Republicans won in 1994. At first, he was clear on what had happened. On his television show the day after the election, Limbaugh said, of the results, "It was a total repudiation of one man--Bill Clinton--a total repudiation of his policies and where he wants to take this country…. The Clinton agenda is dead. The people didn't want it." Such a view, that the vote was wholly a negative reaction against the much-demonized Clinton administration, served Limbaugh's purposes at the time. This changed almost immediately, and, with it, his analysis. Very soon, he was saying the public hadn't voted negatively after all. Indeed, he maintained, it had given Republicans that most mythical of all political beasts: a Mandate For Change. On his radio show in May 1995, Limbaugh said of the Republicans running in '94:

"They had plenty of negatives on Clinton, and they could've just run against the President, but they didn't do that. They came up with an agenda of things that they said defined them. 'This is who we are. This is what we believe. This is what we're for. This is what we're going to do.' It's called the Contract with America. It gave people a reason to vote in the affirmative, and I firmly believe people want to vote for ideas, for people, not against."

On his TV show (1-17-95), he said: "Go back to the campaign. The Republicans campaigned expressly and exclusively on substantive issues, the Contract with America." He added that Republicans could have gone negative but didn't: "[They] took the high road and stuck straight to issues."

This portrait of principled conservative Republicans boldly eschewing readily available sleaze in favor of real issues bore, of course, no resemblance to the actual 1994 congressional campaign, where the most popular RNC canned ad, used by Republican candidates all over the country, was one in which the face of their Democratic opponent morphed into that of Bill Clinton. Nor, more importantly, is it a fact that voters cast their ballots in any number of significant relevance to the election in response to the Contract With America, either pro or con. Exit polling showed that fewer than 12% of voters from either side had ever even heard of the Contract. As a caller on his own program pointed out to Limbaugh in March 1995, even as late as five months after the election, 47% of the public, in a poll in USA TODAY, were still saying they had never heard of it. A TIME/CNN poll taken immediately after the election asked "Which is most responsible for the Republican victories in Congress?" Half the respondents chose "voter disapproval of Clinton's job as President"--only 12% cited "voter support for Republican programs."

At this point, a further word about the 1994 elections seems appropriate. In the Republican takeover of congress, consistently described by Limbaugh and other commentators of the right as a "revolution," fully 92% of incumbents were reelected. Turnout was low, and exit polling showed that nearly half of those voting Republican were simply voting against the incumbent. As often happens in mid-term elections, a small but well-organized, heavily financed, and active minority was, due to low voter turnout, able to exert a sufficiently disproportionate influence to swing the overall outcome. As Limbaugh pointed out on his radio program only weeks before the "revolution," (on September 26, 1994), "Out-year elections, the party in power always loses."

Limbaugh knew this before the election. After, he consigned it to a memory hole, and embraced the notion that those elections represented a public mandate for the reactionary policies of the newly-minted Republican majority. He quickly began using this as a bludgeon against opponents of those policies, portraying any dissent as an attack on the public and on the notion of democracy itself. On his radio program on March 2, 1995, he said "That's what the election last year was all about; the people having a say in what happens to them." Responding to Democratic criticism that the Republican agenda in congress was extremist, Limbaugh said on his radio program in February 1995:

"...these people are telling the American people--they're not just talking about Republicans in Washington in Congress--when they talk about those Republicans in Washington in Congress, they're talking about the people that the American people voted for and elected, so Algore, whether he knows it or not, is insulting everybody when he says these people [Republicans in Congress] are extremists. And most people are not extremists, and they don't take kindly to being called extremists."

On his radio program on September 25, 1995, Limbaugh was still stating that liberal congressmen, by opposing Republican policies in the 104th Congress, "are also insulting the people who voted for them, which is far more people than voted for the Democrats the last time around. They are engaging in a very risky strategy here by insulting the very people who made all this happen--the voters--which is what liberals have always done. They've just gotten away with it up until now." This concern for democracy was, of course, never in evidence during the previous Democratic-controlled congresses, which, though they were elected by larger (and usually significantly larger) margins than the 104th Congress, were nevertheless subjected to unrelenting criticism on his program. It certainly wasn't there when Limbaugh characterized the rule of the president and congress elected two years earlier as "America Held Hostage."

Speaking of which, Limbaugh can't get Clinton straight twice running. He has repeatedly expressed his outrage with Clinton for governing against the popular will. On his radio show (2-1-95), he said:

"To say he [Clinton] went against the tide is nothing new. He's always done that, from his first initiative--gays in the military--to that massive health care plan. He's always been at odds with the American people. Don't forget. I was one of the first to point out to you that I have never seen an administration which is attempting to govern against the will of the people as much as this one has. In my lifetime, I've never seen an administration which is so hell-bent on going against the will of the American people, but this one is."

Later that year, public discontent with the policies of the congressional Republicans quickly grew into a festering hatred. Polling information from all the major news outlets was pouring in showing that huge majorities were opposed to every major Republican policy initiative. An ABC News/Washington Post poll less than three months after Republicans assumed control of congress asked, "Are Republicans doing what you want?" Only 35% said yes, while an overwhelming 62% said no. The same poll showed similar majorities, from 57%-77%, in opposition to what Republicans were putting forward in terms of tax policy and welfare reform. Nowhere, though, was public opposition to these policies stronger than in the area of environmental protection. A Harris poll from August is typical of public reaction. Only tiny minorities favored less strict regulation of toxic waste disposal (2%), water pollution (4%), air pollution (7%), and wetlands (15%). Republicans had tried to weaken protection in each of these areas, but between 52% and 80% of respondents said they actually favored stricter regulation in regard to each. And 60% said they opposed the efforts of the Republicans to limit the powers of the EPA. At this point, Limbaugh's outrage against those attempting to govern against the will of the public not only disappeared; he did a complete back-flip on the subject, and began to urge the Republicans to ignore the public. In October, he advised "It's time to stay bold. It's time to ignore the polls."

And when it comes to this sort of thing, Clinton just can't win. On his radio show (164), Limbaugh commented on an article he had read about an excessive amount of money spent by the Clinton administration on polling:

"You, me, most of us…have principles, and it is their principles that guide their beliefs, and it is those beliefs that guide their desires. Those beliefs and desires guide the way people go about achieving what they want, and when a person is firmly rooted in principle, it's easy to spot. They're consistent. You know exactly what they stand for. You know exactly what their objectives are--they tell you. Rudolph Giuliani is a name who comes to mind, a recent politician… You can see that Rudolph Giuliani is a man firmly rooted to his principles. You could say that about Reagan. Now, you might disagree with them, as I know some people did, but you knew what Reagan stood for… You may disagree with it all day long, but you knew what he stood for."

He recalls that during the 1992 campaign, he implored Clinton's supporters to call and "name one thing for me that this man has stated that you want him in the White House to do. They couldn't. Nobody could… All this time, nobody could specify what Bill Clinton stood for. To this day, you can't really specify what Bill Clinton stands for." He continued:

"This has bugged me. It's bugged me that so few people cared, so few people seemed to notice that there were no guiding principles here. Well, this story explains why: there are no guiding principles. There are only focus groups."

This analysis, which Limbaugh has offered repeatedly, boldly contradicts most of his other commentary about Clinton. Limbaugh spends most of his time before the public portraying Clinton as a hard-core ideologue, albeit one with which he completely disagrees. On hundreds of occasions, he has used phrases like "hard-nosed ultra-liberal" and even "socialist" to describe Clinton, and spent hour upon hour detailing why he thinks they're appropriate. He gives the impression that Clinton has shown a stone-like dedication to his alleged liberal principles.

At the same time, he argues that Clinton has "NO guiding principles." [emphasis his]

He condemns Clinton for ruling against the will of the public, while also condemning him for ruling by polls, in accordance with the will of the public. He praises congressional Republicans (who come to power during the off-year elections he had earlier dismissed) for ruling in accordance with the will of the people, and goes so far as to say criticizing them amounts to an attack on the public, then, as the public clearly opposes their agenda, urges those same Republicans to be "bold" by ignoring the will of the public. He says the public makes the real decision about where it wants the country to go during presidential elections, then, when the public chooses Clinton, marks it off as "America Held Hostage." Clinton stands condemned both for being solid in his convictions and for not having any convictions.

This is what passes for political analysis in Limbaugh-World, a place where the sky must be a very different color indeed.

Judicial Lightweight.

She’s a college buddy of Obama’s. Her name is Elena Kagan. Her portfolio is as empty as Obama’s own. She has never tried a case in front of any court. She has written no legal briefs or opinions. She has never tried a case, either as council or as a judge. She has no qualification to sit on the highest court in the land. She’s not as much lawyer or legal academic as she is a political hack for Barack Hussein.

Obama didn’t pick her for her legal brilliance. He picked her because she is every bit as much a left wing radical as he is. He picked her because she’ll follow Obama’s leftist agenda with the dedication of a zealot. He picked her for Solicitor General for the same reason. Rush Limbaugh called her a “pure academic idealist radical”. I’m inclined to go along with Rush’s analysis.

There is supposedly some trepidation among liberals about Ms. Kagan’s opinions about everything from the second amendment to her stated opposition to gay marriage. Many see her as an academic with the hallmarks of a cautious pragmatist and not the ultra-left leaning activist jurist they want. She’s plenty radical enough for most of us. I’m sure we’ll hear plenty more about her as this thing plays out.

The Republicans must filibuster this appointment. Republican lawmakers have a long history of being all too willing to cave on issues where standing on conservative principles was not the popular thing to do. Republicans should note and study what occurred with Bob Bennett. Our lawmakers should be aware that we are watching. We’re watching every race and every candidate very closely. Stand up and fight or go the way of Bob Bennett is what it amounts to.

Elena Kagan would be a dangerous radical on the Supreme Court. She is being put forth strictly because she’ll work to further the Barack Hussein Obama regime’s radical socialist agenda. Obama has taken a page from the book of Franklin Roosevelt, from when he attempted to pack the Supreme Court with Justices who Roosevelt knew were in favor of his big government policies. As Conservatives, we have to do all we can to see that no ‘court packing’ goes on with Barack Obama in the White House. Filibuster or else.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Billy Jeff 1992 Redux.

All that’s missing is Janet Reno and an FBI sniper with a penchant for pregnant women. In 1992 the militia phenomenon was growing in reaction to Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Clinton moved quickly to marginalize and demonize the militia movements. He and Hillary repeatedly tried to tie the movement to Timothy McVeigh. The ‘main stream’ media had been working overtime to link McVeigh to the militias as well… but Billy Jeff’s fixation with the militia movement went back farther than that.

Bill Clinton didn’t take criticism gracefully and one way to shift some of the heat away from himself, and what was going on inside his White House, was to latch on to the militia movement as an example of right wing extremism. From there it’s easy to lump Conservatives together with the militias and paint us all with that brush the left loves to use.

Ruby Ridge 1992, Waco 1993, Elian Gonzalez 2000. All massive abuses of power and misuse of the law. A runaway Justice Dept. being run by Janet Reno, who reportedly was impaired a good deal of the time. The Government’s willingness to take the lives of its own citizens chilled the nation. Clinton laid off the militias some in his second term, but by then he had a lot more to worry about than what he saw as a bunch of rednecks running around the countryside with pickup trucks and rifle racks.

Now Billy’s back and damned if what he’s saying isn’t almost exactly what he was saying in 1992, when he ‘discovered’ the bane of his existence… Rush Limbaugh and Conservative talk radio. The internet was beginning to be a factor also.

I can’t help get the impression listening to Clinton that he’s ‘fishing’ for something by chumming the waters and then waiting for the suckers to bite. I thought I had as much of Billy Jeff as I ever wanted and here he is popping up again. The rhetoric is identical, but it came from a false premise then as does it now. He was wrong then. He’s wrong now.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Trillions Of Dollars – The Money They Are Hiding.

It’s a new chapter in the daily soap opera that has become Obama’s headlong rush to entrap seventeen percent of the national economy. It’s right out of Marx. Nothing is what it seems and nothing the Democrat Congress says will hold up to scrutiny. They lie with numbers faster than they lie about facts, if that’s possible.

Obama’s Fox News interview with Bret Baier was an exercise in slip-slide away… with Obama doing the slip-sliding and Baier trying to nail him down to a real answer… about anything. But, true to form, the prevaricator-in-chief spouted frayed talking points while totally ignoring substantive answers to anything Baier asked. The result was an Obama constantly on the defensive and showing flashes of anger and frustration, while Baier remained remarkably cool throughout.

Baier and Obama

The lame stream media predictably castigated Bret Baier and Fox News for ‘being cruel and disrespectful’ to the President while overlooking the obvious. That this is the first time any news outlet or reporter has attempted to do anything but grovel before Obama’s magnificence. If even one of these so-called news outlets had done their job to start with, we would have known a lot more about the real Obama. They sold out whatever claim they had to journalistic integrity long ago. The very fact that Obama was willing to go on Fox News, a venue he admittedly detests, is a measure of his desperation.

The CBO has just released the latest version (one of many) of the health care legislation and no one on the Democrat side of the aisle is jumping for joy, as this ‘latest’ bundle of joy is sixty nine billion dollars fatter than the last one. It strips even more dollars from Medicare and Medicare Advantage and raises even more taxes on the backs of the American people.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid apparently think that Americans are going to be deceived into thinking that a ten year projected cost of 940 billion dollars isn’t a trillion dollars, less a little change. The real truth of the situation is that they’ve done their math using methods that would get any senior executive thrown in jail in the private sector. They have used accounting methods that would make Bernie Madoff proud. The true ten year cost of the bill, according to the Heritage Foundation, is more like two point four trillion dollars.

Rush has called for a Fed-Ex express on the Capitol. There are thousands of Patriots heading towards the Capitol as I write this. Please continue your efforts to call, and call again and again… fax, email and write. It ain’t over until it’s over and then there will just be another battle over the next hill. We won’t ever quit… this is our country and we won’t give it up. God Bless America!

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Tell key Congressmen listed below to vote no. Fax, call and even personally visit each in their local offices, or their offices in Washington DC:

PLEASE CALL!   DC Office   Local Office      State    District Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District Tim Bishop (202) 225-3868 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District


CBO Count…No Account – The Chief Cluck Calls In The Chicks.

There’s no CBO count as promised on Wednesday, but the word is that they are desperately trying to get the monster genie stuffed back into a three sizes too small lamp. No matter what the Congressional Budget Office does, it can’t make this trillion dollar boondoggle revenue neutral.

Dennis Kucinich (D) Ohio was a really cheap vote and he sold his for the price of a plane ride. His speech reminded me of Britain’s WW-2 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, when he returned from Berlin waving a piece of paper with Hitler’s signature on it, raving that he had obtained ‘peace in our time’ while Hitler’s war machine was even then poised on the borders of Poland. Dennis Kucinich is a sellout to his country and to his stated principles… difficult though they may be to find.

Dennis Kucinich Leaves Air Force One

Several other Democrat Representatives have responded to the intense pressure being applied by the White House and the party leadership, including Anne Kirkpatrick (Ariz) and Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz). Wonder what the bribe was there? Also, Dan Maffei (N.Y.), Dan Kildee (Mich.), Jim Oberstar (Mich), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.). These folks are going to have to account not only to their consciences but their constituents as well.

Call the Representatives on the list below… call the ones listed above… they can be influenced right up to the last moment. E-mail, fax, write, or best of all for those of you who can’t get to Washington D.C., visits to your local Representatives’ and Senators’ offices are very effective. These Congress critters are going to be heading home for the Easter break very soon. I have the distinct impression from everything I’m hearing that it’s going to be a very hot time when these people try to justify themselves to the citizens of this country.

The house Madame called all of the Democrat women Representatives to her office for a private tete a tete. One wonders if she wore her dominatrix outfit for the occasion. The Democrat leadership is saying that they can’t look for a vote before Saturday and most likely Sunday. Rush Limbaugh’s call for patriots to call the Capitol and the Congress resulted in far more than a half a million calls in virtually one day. Keep the heat on. Don’t let up. We are Americans… we don’t give up… we don’t quit.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Tell key Congressmen listed below to vote no. Fax, call and even personally visit each in their local offices, or their offices in Washington DC:

PLEASE CALL!   DC Office   Local Office      State    District Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District Tim Bishop (202) 225-3868 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District


Massa-ive Distraction - Why You Should Never Consort with the Enemy

Playing with Massa has landed Glenn in Swampland.  

YahooNews posted a serious "Overmatched by Disgraced Dem!" zinger on it's landing page this morning, meant to compliment the writer's understanding of unbiased mainstream media propagation. This article that was meant to denigrate and soil Glenn Beck, based on guilt by association, was listed under these titles on various pages scattered throughout the web:  

 This one article under various titles, designed to give passerbys the impression much has been written on the topic, was written by one slimey, Slimeland "Swampland"  blogger Michael Scherer, Time's White House "correspondent" who went to Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism to learn how to blog about Jay Z and Beyonce, Saturday Night Live, groping and back hair.  

Yes, there's a reason why Scherer blogs at Swampland.  

We could credit Scherer for giving a stab at explaining the White House's healthcare legislation via the blogger's old cut 'n paste fall-back (while taking the devil's word for it) , but on the day that news broke of the the Democrat's hostile, reinvent-the-rules, no-vote, socialist take over of legislation through the Slaughter Solution , Scherer was busy doing the write-up about Massa's Caligulan orgy discussion on Glenn Beck's show.  

Perhaps doing other things as well.  

The problem is, one of conservativism's darlings, who was once thought of as "the next Rush," whom perhaps Rush "should fear," did not heed the advice of conservative media mavens such as Michelle Malkin who advised Beck on his radio show that Massa is  

a sick, desperate pol looking to save his hide and distract from his smelly ethics problems and personal problems. This is not a hero, not a bona fide champion of reform and integrity in government. He’s the jerk who gave the figurative middle finger to his own constituents as he proclaimed last year that he would ram single-payer down their throats no matter what they thought..  

Beck refuted Michelle's insistence that Massa's controversy was a distraction by pouting and yelling at her like a petulant teenager responding to a parent's concern over questionable behavior (after they've left the room) with "You don't know!"

She would blog about Massa 2 days before her heated discussion with Beck, and mere hours later, would blog about the Slaughter Solution before Massa would appear on Beck's show.  

For Beck, this was never a question of finding a replacement -- who would NOT want to appear on Beck's show, even last minute? -- but more of a refusal to capitulate to the sage advise of conservative veterans, that included Rush who said a full day before the Massa interview:  

[Massa's] out there challenging me to a fight. He wants to come on this show, calling me a coward on this phony soldier business. And these guys in the media are trying to say I'm one of this guy's champions. Anybody who embraces this guy, including the Democrats, please do, but it isn't me ..  

Actually from the moment this thing started yesterday I suspect a rope-a-dope and I still think a rope-a-dope's going on and I still think that anybody out there who embraces this guy is in for big trouble.  

Anybody who embraces this guy is gonna get caught.  

On the day before Beck's radio discussion with Michelle and the Massa Interview, Talking Points would skewer Rush's comments, an obvious, ominous foreshadowing of how the left would interpret Beck's handling of Massa. On the day of Beck's radio discussion with Michelle and Massa Interview, Rush would talk about "The Train Wreck That Passes for TV "News in 2010."  

Neither would influence Beck's decision to host Massa for an entire "faaaascinating" hour.  

So, while Obama continued his campaigning in the Middle America (no John McCain?) to advance socialized healthcare, and the Slaughter Solution would be on everyone's radar -- from small, conservative news organizations in my homestate to media giants, Glenn Beck would decide to follow through on his commitment to court controversy, like "one of this guy's champions."  

Glenn played with caca and he got his hands dirty.  

As for me, an established conservative who understands a bit about the dynamics of media and polics, -- and integrity and character -- my question about Beck is this:  

Is he courting conservativism because the movement is the "Now Controversy"?  

A serious question. 

About Fox, I would ask:

Why does Fox News allow this sort of gamble that would result in a distortion about the conservative movement?

Because this is what happens when you consort with the enemy: you lose control of the narrative. 

And then it gets picked up by people like Scherer who like  to blog in Swampland. 

I am comforted because the only reason Beck showed up on Scherer's radar was because of Massa. 

Massa will always be Progressive's Progeny, their breed. 

He doesn't belong to us. They own him and others like him, even if he's been blackballed and labeled "damaged goods" by their own. 

I have hope, not because Beck has said Michelle was right, but because conservative truth prevails.

I pity their envy. 








America:"Screw You!"; Obama:"I Want It Now!"

You could tell just as soon as his props started filing out, most likely low-level White House staffers in the obligatory white lab coats left over from the rose garden hoopla a while ago. You could tell by the overbearing look of arrogance on his face. You could tell from the first sentence out of his mouth that there wouldn’t be a word of truth or forthrightness coming out of him.

Rush, Hannity and Levin said much the same thing, that there was not one bit of truth, fact or substance in anything he said. This guy is not really a convincing liar, you’d have to have seriously bought into the whole Obama persona thing to swallow it.

Flashback: A Staffer Hands Out The Props.

In his hubris he demanded an up or down vote on the bill within weeks, indicating use of the reconciliation process for passage without calling it that. Facing uniform opposition from the GOP and not a few Democrats, Obama, like Nancy Pelosi on ABC Sunday, called for loyal Democrats to fall on their swords while acknowledging that the legislation wasn’t very popular, by saying that he ‘didn’t know where it was going politically’. Master of understatement! America overwhelmingly despises this bill and everything to do with it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the legislation was vastly unpopular because the American people knew what the bill stood for and didn’t want it. He further said it represented a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts and a half a trillion dollars in tax increases. He said that in the first ten years it would create two point five trillion dollars in unfunded debt through new spending. He also made the point that the opposition to the bill was not between the Republicans and the Democrats, it was between the Democrats and the American people. He followed by saying that the price would be paid in November because the Democrats would not have this issue behind them, they would have it in front of them.

The desperation of the Obama administration is palpable. What they and most everyone else has ignored is that with every likelihood of a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010, Obama just as likely to be a one term President, with the Democrats setting the precedent for major legislation through reconciliation, anything they do pass could be just as easily dismantled.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get that far. Mark Levin has called for all his listeners to saturate Congress with their calls, faxes and emails. Let me add my urging to that. Everyone who reads this please get active. It’s our country, it’s your and your children’s freedoms. It’s the future of the free world.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010


Syndicate content