It wasn't just about Limbaugh

What the Limbaugh Quote Hoax Really Tells Us

Gentle Reader will want to read it all, rather than only what I've excerpted --

Listening to the contemporary American left’s views of the rest of us is increasingly like listening to a paranoid schizophrenic slip farther into delusions that they are surrounded by malevolent people. Just as we have to worry that the schizophrenic might act on their delusional beliefs and strike out violently against the evils they imagine, we have to be increasingly worried that leftists will strike out against the rest of us based on their delusional fantasies about what we non-leftists believe.

And make no mistake about it, leftists do harbor dark delusions about non-leftists. The fact that so many leftists fell completely for the Limbaugh quote hoax proves it.

...

Only someone seriously immersed in a deep fantasy about Limbaugh’s beliefs would swallow such quotes without checking them or thinking about the practical possibility of Limbaugh making such statements without every person in the world knowing about it within the hour. More troubling, not only would they have to believe that Limbaugh thinks that way but that his audience does as well.

They fell for the hoax because their fantasy about the evil of non-leftists tells them that most non-leftists think this way. They didn’t need to check on the provenance of the quotes any more than the rest of us need to check an assertion that the sun came up in the East this morning. It was just that obvious to them.

So, we come back to the main question: What methods could these deluded leftists justify using against the rest of us if they really believe we hold such beliefs and values as are inherent in the fake quotes? What couldn’t they justify doing to drive such people from politics or even the nation itself? We even have to ask, what level of violence could they justify using against us?

This isn’t about Limbaugh. They clearly view Limbaugh as just the most visible manifestation of tens of millions of Americans pining for the good old days of slavery. Make no mistake. They aren’t just targeting Limbaugh as someone so evil that they can justify any extremity in fighting him.

They are targeting the rest of us as well.

(h/t Cartago Delenda Est)

People who argue this way are not scientists, but lawyers with a bad case

Jonathan David Carson on the 'American Thinker' site: Excuses for Lack of Global Warming

"What Happened to Global Warming?" asks Science, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in its October 2, 2009, issue, before immediately answering, "Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit." By a "bit," AAAS means a "few years."

The "blogosphere," it seems, "has been having a field day with global-warming's apparent decade-long stagnation." The world is supposed to sign a global warming agreement in a few years less than a bit, in Copenhagen in December, to be exact, but "What's the point, bloggers ask?"

So global warming skeptics are "bloggers." ...

...

"Climate researchers" do not deign to answer back in the blogosphere, according to AAAS, preferring instead to reply "in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature": "The pause in warming is real enough, but it's just temporary, they are argue from their analyses. A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don't last forever."

After pretending that global warming skeptics are bloggers, not scientists, and that their home is the blogosphere, not the peer-reviewed literature, AAAS attributes the more-than-decade-long failure of the globe to warm to a "natural swing in climate." In other words, when the climate warms, it is as a result of anthropogenic causes, but when it cools or fails to warm, it is as a result of natural causes. Increases of temperature are human-caused. Decreases are nature-caused.

Skeptics have been saying for decades that the warming from about 1978 to 1998, which was after all only 0.40C, was probably due to natural causes; now AAAS says that the flat or downward trend since 1998 is due to natural causes, which had nothing to do with the rise between 1978 and 1998. They told us that the temperature of the earth would continue to rise, and when it did not, they said, see, our critics were wrong.

People who argue this way are not scientists, but lawyers with a bad case.

So, the alleged-President has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace?

So, the alleged-President of these United States has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace?


But ... and aside from the humor factor of the award, since he has done nothing; and aside from the amusingly blatant attempt to meddle in US politics ... was it not unConstitutional for him to accept it?

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

...
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Now, alleged-President Obama is indeed a “Person holding [an] Office of Profit or Trust under them.” And the Nobel Peace Prize *is* a present, and it *is* officially and technically a gift from a foreign State, for officially and technically it is awarded by the King and Parliament of Norway.

I understand that this is a “surprise” award.

Therefore, I do not see how it can be the case that alleged-President Obama has the prior Consent of Congress to accept the amusing award.


Kind of makes ya' wonder: Just what does this fool have to do to so embarrass (and/or disgust) the "liberals" who voted for him that they finally stop covering their eyes about what he is?

'Liberals' Do Not Believe in Constitutional Government

Via Lawrence Auster: Yet another new frontier of liberalism opens up

The real issue is not "gay marriage" --

Here's the referenced news item -- San Francisco Chronicle: Judge to Prop. 8 backers: Turn over your papers

(10-02) 18:10 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ordered sponsors of California's Proposition 8 to release campaign strategy documents that opponents believe could show that backers of the same-sex marriage ban were motivated by prejudice against gays.

Plaintiffs in a federal suit seeking to overturn Prop. 8 - two same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and the city of San Francisco - contend that the measure's real purpose was to strip a historically persecuted minority group of rights held by the majority.

If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
...

Proposition 8 was the legal and constitutional ballot measure by which the voters of California amended their Constitution to overturn the ruling of some fool judge who had decreed that the California Constitution *requires* "gay marriage."

Take-home lesson: "Liberals" do not believe in constitutional government ("liberals" are also constitutionally dishonest, in general).

Mind you, at this point, the issue and battle is not "gay marriage," but rather the question of who shall rule: the People, via written (and thus, *dead*) constitutions, or the Judges, via their "living constitutions". Now, that's been the issue for at least the past fifty years (thus the original ruling to which Proposition 8 was the response), but it's really out in the open now.

Atheism is a feeble ideology

Michael Egnor: Godless Theodicy
"... Atheism is a feeble ideology. Atheists don’t have answers; they don’t even have their own questions."

You'll want to read the whole thing, Gentle Reader.