bobtheump

B*tch, C?nt, Sl%t, Wh*re, Tea-bagger, meat bag, pig, bimbo, retard, and more.

Limbaugh went too far.  He said words that he should not have said.  He allowed for the possibility that an unmarried woman who spent $3000 on birth control in three years was of loose moral fiber.  And, he did so with coarse language.  He should apologize.  But, not to the screaming meemies who are claiming offense in the name of women.

No, to those on the left who are acting as if their feathers are ruffled he owes no apology at all.  The left set the standards for the language to be used in such arguments.  All of the words listed at the top of the page are words used to describe conservative women by men on the left with nary a word from the folks who are claiming to be offended by Limbaugh.  MSNBC’s Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a sl@t.  Silence. (Note:  Funniest thing…CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield, formerly of MSNBC, identified Ed Schultz as a conservative in order to support her contention that conservative talk radio was consistently out-of-bounds. Seriously.) Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*nt.  Who from the left was calling on Mr. Obama to distance himself from and formally denounce Maher? Keith Olberman called Ann Coulter a b!tch and wh#re.  Which of you left wing feminists screamed foul in her defense and called for boycotts of MSNBC?  Olberman referred to Michelle Malkin as a “meat bag with lipstick.”  Again, not a sound from the sensitive left.  Now Olberman is in the employ of none other than former Vice President and uber-leftist Al Gore.  Which of you highly offended progressives are picketing his studio and calling for his ouster?  Anderson Cooper routinely used the term “tea-bagger” in reference to men and women who went to Tea Party rallies.  “Tea-bagger” being a term referring to a specific homosexual act of which Cooper obviously cannot claim ignorance.  Who from the Gay Pride movement marched on CNN and his syndicators screaming epithets and insisting he be removed from the air? (Certainly he must think this homosexual behavior is abhorrent if he uses it as an insult.) Spend mere moments looking through the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos or Media Matters and prepare to be scorched by the tone and coarseness of the language used in reference to conservatives and conservative women in particular.

Limbaugh owed an apology but not to the defenders of the scarlet woman Sandra Fluke.  No.  Limbaugh owed an apology to those in his audience who expect better.  Bombast is one thing, crudity is another.  Rarely is crudity clever and in this case it wasn’t. The rest of the left who are using Limbaugh as a stalking horse in the debate over the “…free exercise…” clause of the First Amendment need to recognize they are only hearing back the language they have endorsed by their silent assent when used against their opponents.

The question is begged however.  Was Limbaugh wrong in more than his choice of words?  Fluke portrayed herself to be a 23-year-old law student at Georgetown and is found to be a 30-year-old political activist in the pay of left-wing organizations.  She had no credentials to testify in front of the actual committee involved in the debate over the Obama administrations violation of the First Amendment.  So, Pelosi created a hearing in which she could testify and the media covered it.  Let’s do the math.  In three years of law school there would be 1095 days.  Condoms cost less than a buck a piece purchased in value packs. If you buy the really good condoms with colors and bumps and spend $2.00 each you come to 1500 sexual encounters in 1095 days.  The coarse language aside the point is pretty sound.  Is there another word that describes a person who wants you and me to pay for his or her sexual promiscuity to the tune of 1.3 sexual encounters per day?  And, that, with no time off for holidays or writing the occasional research paper!  (Before you respond, the question is rhetorical.)

Yes, Limbaugh went too far; with his apology.

I listened to what I could stand of the President’s presser yesterday. His stance that sanctions on Iran will dissuade them from pursuing a nuclear weapon is more than naive. The challenge to the GOP primary challengers to state the case for war is a straw man, as if there were no choices other than capitulation or war. Most infuriating though is this willingness to wait until Iran has a weapon to do anything about it. How do they think they will know the magic moment when Iran has a working prototype? When they test it? And, where do you think Iran will test this weapon? In a bunker underground in Iran or on the streets of Tel Aviv? Waiting for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, even a “dirty bomb”, before dealing with it is like a doctor waiting to treat a patient until he has died. Obamacare meets foreign policy.

The more I ruminate on the silliness that is the Christianity is socialism meme the more I am aggravated by it.  The thing running through my head is this lie about capitalists not being charitable.  And, that in the face of all collectible statistics to the contrary, capitalists have no heart.  I don’t need to reiterate the numbers concerning charitable giving by conservatives as opposed to liberals.  Those numbers are well documented and undisputed and expose liberals for the skin flints they are.  What needs to be understood by those on the left is what any small business owner knows; there is no way he could be in business was it not for the charitable nature of people. I have often heard and read that it is the conservatives who don’t believe that people are good and it is the liberal who does.  It could not be more reverse.  No person takes the risk of opening a business without believing two things.  First that he has a product or service that serves a need.  Not a product or service that exploits or confines but something that people will choose to take advantage of if given the chance.  And, secondly, that people will give the benefit of the doubt to at least listen to the sales pitch.  That people will be charitable with their time and give to the business person the opportunity to do business with them and prove his worth.   This is by definition a charitable act and every small business owner knows it.  He or she not only knows it but more over he or she counts on it.  Whether it be the angel investor or the guy in his boxers in front of his computer shopping on line, that person offers a moment of his or her time to watch, read or listen and maybe consider purchasing.  It is the liberal who believes beyond all rationality that people need to be constrained by big government and guided, prodded, pulled or herded by force into what the bureaucrats decide are good decisions.  There is no greater example of the lack of faith in your fellow man than being a proponent of socialist progressive government intervention into the free market.   No society in the history of man has conscripted wealth to the uses of government and survived the hubris inherent in the act.  Even as recently as this last fiscal year the UK has shown that raising taxes on the wealthiest Brit’s created a drop in overall revenues to the treasury.  Still, our President ploughs on with the moral certitude of Caesar intent on saving the known world from itself. As a Christian I believe that Man is created in the Image of God and is inherently flawed but good.  I believe that left to make choices with free will that Men will decide on what is good and he does not need secular guidance from governmental lackeys serving the gods of reelection and personal power. Marx knew that socialism collapsed under the scrutiny of the religious and we as a people knew it too.  Lenin created a Godless state to preserve the power of government to do what is chose.  For our President to use scripture in an effort to promote a system of government that crushes free will is perverse.  And, anyone with a lick of common sense knows it.

People I really care about tell me over and over again how as a Christian I should be a liberal. They insist I should relish the way our current government is ravaging the Constitution for Socialist gain.  I have even heard over and over again the comment that Christ would be a Socialist.  I simply marvel at the indelicate nature of the remark, as well as what I believe to be a potential violation of the Commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain.  Christ can and did speak for himself and those who choose to speak for Him rattle my cage more than a little.

You see, Socialism is a form of governing.  Every form of government has a certain limitation on free will and Socialism has more than most. Certainly, it has more than Capitalism whose basic concept is the creation of fair markets by the general public’s exercise of free will.  Socialism in both its economic and political forms places restrictions on the creation and dispersion of wealth.  By that I mean that it not only constrains your choices in how you might earn your money it absolutely constrains your choices in how you would spend it. You cannot for instance purchase a 100 watt incandescent light bulb even though you have headaches brought on by the pulsed fluorescing of a CFL bulb.  You may not be able to invest your dollars in certain companies nor choose what bank you might want to save it in.  You might be restricted in how you insure yourself or be unable to use your money to start a business that would compete in a government regulated industry.  Socialism constrains all the potential uses of money for “the good of the State”.  This is done regardless of whether you agree with the uses of the money by the State or not.  The State decides.

It is fair to say a free market economy and form of Government limits your choices to what is legal.  The bar is set at what would interfere with another’s rights but does not presume to spend your money for you to do that which the State deems proper. Any form of taxation that is spent on efforts that fall outside the very limited focus of the Federal Government as described in the Constitution is a powerful constraint on your ability to choose something else to do with that same resource.  (That is known as the opportunity cost and it is really the most heinous tax of all.) The constraints on those choices are enforced by a government through the threat of forced imprisonment.  You have no choice to say no.  Should you refuse to pay your taxes as protest of the loss of your free will, your money, your assets, your ability to do what you are good at and the time you have to do it will be taken from you, by the state and by force.

In my church we call those things your Time, Talent and Treasure.  It is what we ask of you willingly and of your own free will to tithe as part of your covenant with Christ.  In fact we would turn down your tithe were we to understand you had not given it freely. The left presumes a moral high ground in taking your choices from you and using your money for things they deem better than the choices you would make.

If you can find for me the scripture where my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ said it was just fine with Him to take from non-believers by force of arms: to rob them of their free will, then I am willing to listen. Until then, I figure those who want me to cast my lot for forced “tithing” at the altar of social engineering are singing from a hymnal of hypocrisy and preaching politics not religion.