Obama’s “Win The Future” Plan Is A 175 Year Step Backwards
3
Tag Archives: Rush Limbaugh
Full interview: Rush Limbaugh interviews Donald Rumsfeld
As A General Rule, Disregard General Rules
One of the many benefits of listening to Rush Limbaugh is learning to question all assertions, especially ones backed by a ‘consensus of experts.’ How many times have you heard a ‘fact’ from someone that sounded outrageous, only to be told that there was a ‘consensus’ behind it (e.g. global warming)? With that in mind, here is a new general rule: disregard general rules.
So-called ‘experts’ (people who are always sure, but seldom right) have been claiming for years that the key to eating healthy is a big breakfast to start the day. Almost every dime store dietitian will tell you that in order to control your calorie intake throughout the day, it is imperative to have a hearty breakfast.
Of course, the idea that a person can eat a large meal in order to suppress their diet the rest of the day doesn’t sound right, bit it’s a general rule. Like most other general rules, when put to the test, the big breakfast rule comes up short.
German researchers led by Dr. Volker Schusdziarra of the Else-Kroner-Fresenius Center of Nutritional Medicine in Munich found:
…the only thing a big breakfast does is lard on more pounds. No matter how many calories are consumed in the morning, people eat the same size lunch and dinner — and that adds up to more total calories when the breakfast is big, according to the study, which was published in the Nutrition Journal…
For the new study, Schusdziarra and his colleagues rounded up 100 normal weight volunteers and 280 obese patients who wanted help with weight loss. The researchers asked all 380 people to keep detailed food diaries, which were to include every morsel consumed during the course of 10 days in the case of the obese patients and 14 days for the normal weight volunteers.
The number of calories consumed at breakfast varied widely for individuals in both groups. A person might have a big breakfast one day and next to nothing the next. That meant breakfasts ranged from 121 to 606 calories for obese patients and from 134 to 559 calories for normal weight volunteers.
While a huge breakfast did reduce the likelihood of a late morning snack for both groups, this didn’t make a dent in the extra calories consumed by the end of the day. That is, instead of eating less at lunch or dinner, loading up on calories at breakfast increased the daily total — whether the person was normal weight or obese.
General rules, consensuses, and common knowledge tend to be devoid of common sense and a factual basis. This story is not a precursor to the next Strictly Right spin-off. Rather, stories like this one, which challenge general rules, make for important examples. Much of what is asserted as fact today is based on anything but facts. Take the relation between tax rates and tax revenues. It is ‘common knowledge’ that increased tax rates create increased tax revenues, when in fact, the reverse is true: lower tax rates generate increased tax revenues.
Throughout the Bush presidency, liberal talking heads routinely questioned President Bush’s “intellectual curiosity.” Yet it is members of the liberal media, and the Left, that constantly fall for general rules. The Left lacks intellectual curiosity. In fact, the Left’s groupthink mentality discourages the type of intellectual curiosity required to challenge general rules and experts’ consensuses.
Sarah Palin v. Rules for Radicals
Last night Governor Sarah Palin appeared on Hannity for her first interview since the Arizona shooting:
The Left suffers from a collective case of extreme Palin Derangement Syndrome. No matter what happens, Sarah Palin seems to be at fault.
When Governor Palin did not respond to accusations made against her in the wake of the Arizona shooting she was criticized. When the media tried to pin the massacre on Palin, with precisely zero evidence, Palin waited four days, then responded. The media criticized her for injecting herself into the story. Additionally, the Left suddenly became originalists with regard to the term ‘blood libel,’ and branded Palin an anti-Semite for daring to using what has become a generic term.
The Left’s all-out assault on Sarah Palin came directly from the pages of their favorite guidebook:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
-Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Accusing Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or any other conservative of being an incitement to murder is a serious charge that demands a forceful rebuke. The media savaged Governor Palin because she dared to fight back.
Again, the accusations made by the Left have been absurd. Is Sarah Palin really the first person to use war metaphors in a political campaign? Where do the geniuses in the media think the word ‘campaign’ comes from? Did President Johnson’s War on Poverty provoke killing sprees? As for the ‘controversial’ map SarahPAC used, to quote John Stossel, “give me a break.” If some lunatic had been inspired to violence by a map with targets, the insane person would still be to blame. Should The Catcher in the Rye be banned because John Hinckley read it?
Some people will never be satisfied. No matter what Sarah Palin does, it has to be wrong. There is no outcry over the vicious attacks launched by the left against her and her children, including her youngest son with Down syndrome. The Palin family is fair game for the Left because Sarah Palin fights back. It is difficult to recall any other politician ever subject to such relentless vitriol, all for the sin of existing. Palin’s policy positions are rarely mentioned. Instead, the Left has picked their target, attempted to freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it, using direct personalized criticism and ridicule. Saul Alinsky would be proud of his radical minions.
Bill Maher v. Reality
This week on the Tonight Show Bill Maher launched into a vicious tirade against conservatives. Mixed with his sardonic and sanctimonious curse laden diatribe were the assertions that it is only the Right that incites violence, and that people on the Left do not act out violently:
Bill Maher has a problem: he is always sure, but he is rarely right. Maher belittles anyone who dares to disagree with his learned opinions as ignorant. In reality, a place Maher must have left a long time ago, the Left constantly incites violence against conservatives. Additionally, there is a long history of leftists carrying out their violent fantasies.
First, on the inciting hatred front, why not start with Bill Maher himself?
In the following clip from Maher’s television program, the host jokes about Vice president Cheney dying, than makes the serious point that he believes it would be good if the Vice President died:
Then there was Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Hardball musing about killing Rush Limbaugh:
The website The Onion made a video lamenting that Glenn Beck has not died a painful death:
The website the Daily Caller made a four minute video, compiling tweets urging the assassination of Sarah Palin:
Palin Death Wish Tweets Re Tucson Shooting from Legal Insurrection on Vimeo.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, had the following to say about Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican:
“instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
That is just a sample of the vitriol and hate that regularly comes from the Left. Throughout the Bush Presidency the Left regularly wrote books, made movies, and otherwise advocated the assassination of George W. Bush. Maher’s claim that the Left does not incite violence is the type of absurd claim that could only be made by an ignoramus or a willful deceiver.
Maher’s second claim, that only conservatives carry out acts of violence because they are armed and insane, is equally fallacious.
In 1901 President William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, who killed the president “because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.”
Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who assassinated President Kennedy (save your comments Oliver Stone fans), was a Communist defector, who returned to the United States in order to assist Fidel Castro.
The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, sent 16 bombs out, killed three people and injured 23. He too was an anarchist, and a devotee of Al Gore’s.
Just last year James Lee, who was inspired by Al Gore, took hostages at the the Discovery Channel‘s headquarters because they were not doing enough to combat global warming in his estimation.
On top of all these examples there are terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front, that proudly use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.”
All this is not to say that Al Gore and his cohorts on the Left are to blame for the actions of terrorists. There are bad people in the world, and their interpretations of notable works does not implicate the authors.
What all these examples do prove is that once again Bill Maher, who represents the thinking of many on the Left, has given voice to a hateful position that is at odds with reality. Maher’s despicable lies about the Right are old hat for the smear merchant. Maher would be well served if he bothered to do even minimal research before opening his mouth.
Leftwing Politician Advocates Assassinating Opponents
Not a minute after Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd in Arizona, members of the media began frothing at the mouth, dreaming of blaming the shooting on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Plain et al.
It turns out that Loughner is a leftwing, atheist/occult, pothead, and most importantly, mentally disturbed. However, seeing a political opportunity to attack the Right, the media did not let the facts get in the way of a convenient narrative.
One of the most sickening assertions has been that Sarah Palin is somehow responsible for the shooting, because she targeted Rep. Giffords’ district.
If Palin is responsible for the shooting of Giffords, you would expect politicians to remove similarly ‘inflammatory’ rhetoric from their websites, right? After all, with the knowledge that targeting a district inspires violence, as the media is telling us nonstop, only the most irresponsible of people would continue to incite hatred.
How about Canada’s own communist party, the NDP:
“Taking aim,” bull’s-eyes, “send Harper packing”. One can only presume that the NDP is planning on shooting targeted Conservatives, and sending them packing in body bags, right?
Of course, making such an assertion is patently absurd. Taking aim, bulls-eyes, and sending people packing are all political metaphors. If someone read that map and took it as a call to arms, they would have to be mentally unwell.
Even if a Tea Party conservative opened fire on innocent civilians, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or any other liberal Emmanuel Goldstein would not be responsible. Some people are deranged. It is not possible to ascribe a logical reason to an illogical act. The Left’s attempt to pin the Arizona shooting on anyone but the lunatic involved is both libelous and malicious.
Strictly Right Radio episode 76
On this Strictly Right, Ari analyzes the the media and the Left’s reaction to the Arizona shooting, the hypocrisy of the Left on profiling, the success of Canada’s corporate tax cuts, the targeting of Sarah Palin by the left and more.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
The Mainstream Media Displays Their Bigotry in Arizona
This weekend’s shooting in Arizona was a tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
From what is know about the shooter, Jared Loughner, it is safe to conclude that he is mentally unstable.
Seemingly minutes after the shooting was first reported, the media jumped on the ‘Tea Party militia’ explanation. It was automatically assumed that Loughner was a registered Republican, and probably a Plain supporter. In reality, a case can be made that Loughner is a Leftist. Loughner listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books, was described as “left-wing” in 2007, and was a critic of President Bush.
Never letting the facts get in the way of a story, The New York Times, led by Paul Krugman, laid blame for the shooting at the feet of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservatives. Members of Congress, and their amen corner in the media, have determined that Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting. Arizona Sheriff, and well documented political hack, Clarence Dupnik, targeted rhetoric from talk radio and cable news:
The Left has developed a cottage industry decrying the evils of ‘profiling.’ Every security measure implemented at, say, the airport, is applied equally to all travelers, from young Muslim men, to old Norwegian grandmothers, all because we are so averse to profiling.
The Left has demonstrated their aversion to profiling in the past. When Nidal Malik Hasan shot up Ft. Hood, yelling “Allah Akbar!” we were told to wait for the facts and not jump to any conclusions.
However, when there is a chance that the suspect may be a conservative, it is safe to run wall to wall coverage of pure speculation, and assert conclusions based on that speculation as fact.
When a terrorist tried to bomb Time Square last year Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately asserted that the terrorist was a “homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” Turns out the Time Square bomber was… a Muslim terrorist.
But this weekend in Arizona a Democratic Congresswoman was shot and the media immediately assumed the shooter was a Tea Party member, inspired by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. How did the media reach such a conclusion before the facts came in? They profiled.
The Left sees every conservative as a Timothy McVeigh waiting to happen. Isn’t that the very type of profiling the Left professes to abhor? If the shooting in Arizona had been politically motivated, would it not seem pertinent to the case that the judge who was shot and killed was a Bush appointee? And lets not forget that if anything, Jared Loughner is a man of the Left, not the Right.
The Left has created yet another double standard. When it comes to terrorists flying planes into buildings, it is ‘wrong’ to profile Muslims. We are almost asked to believe that the fact that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim was incidental. However, when a lone nut, who happens to be white, opens fire on crowd, it must be the Tea Party. What is on display is the Left and the media’s bigotry, their bigotry against all those ideologically at odds with them.
By the way, when President Obama said “if they [Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” that was okay, right? Only ‘right-wing extremists’ can incite violence, right?
Best Television Show Idea Ever
If you are like me, you’ve tried to pay attention to the Golf Channel while listening to Rush Limbaugh. It can be difficult to take in swing tips while devoting your attention to America’s Anchorman. Thankfully, this pressing situation has been dealt with.
On January 11 at 9PM a new season of The Haney Project begins, and this season Hank Haney works on El Rushbo’s swing:
Hank Haney was Tiger Woods’ swing instructor, and is the second best golf teacher in the country, according to Golf Digest. In the two previous seasons Haney tried to find something resembling a golf swing in Charles Barkley, followed by an effort to make Ray Romano into a golfer.
This season promises to be the most entertaining. Rush has made it abundantly clear that he does not believe in practicing or exercising, two things Haney will definitely demand. Keep an eye out for Rush’s EIB golf gear, as well as his DON’T DOUBT ME emblazoned golf balls.
Golf and Rush Limbaugh. Brilliant.
Rush Limbaugh: The True Story of Thanksgiving
See, I Told You So. “Chapter 6, Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You: The True Story of Thanksgiving — The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century … The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community.
After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.
“And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford’s detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford’s own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.
“Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.
“Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ’60s and ’70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.” There’s no question they were organic vegetables. “Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That’s right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work!” They nearly starved!
“It never has worked! What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future,” such as that we’re enduring now. “‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition…’” this is Bradford. “‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,’ Bradford wrote.