Last month, Mr. Limbaugh got busy bashing Senator McCain and defending Governor Bush, though he acknowledged that the only difference between the two republican candidates was that the public perceived the former as having a character and the latter as not having it. Then, what interest does Mr. Limbaugh have in bashing McCain and the moderate republicans and promoting Bush and the extreme conservatives?

I do not think that such a shrewd political commentator as Mr. Limbaugh would not know the difference between the moderate republican and the extreme conservative. Therefore, I assume that Mr. Limbaugh purposely makes topsy-turvy of his own logic when he states that ‘today a "conservative" is a synonym for a "reformist"’.

As I see it, all major dictionary compilers agreed that a conservative is one who conserves and preserves what is already achieved, and a moderate is one who is willing to preserve the best of the achieved and to sacrifice what is worse today for the better future. The art of compromising with what "you are not willing to die for" is not Mr. Limbaugh’s simplistic strategizing oneself into the Procrustean bed of the statistical majority. The people, moderate individuals, are organizing themselves into this same majority when each compiling moderate individual is following through his own ideology of prudence and moderation, which is usually called ‘common sense’. When the moderate individuals are uniting in the voting process, then the statistical bar of majority is rising, but not vice versa -- because the statistics cannot exist without real individuals.

Mr. Limbaugh wants us to return to an ancient scholasticism – which came first, the chicken or the egg, the individual or the society, the real or the abstract. However, for the past ten years, Mr. Limbaugh has been saying that he is trying to teach us how to use our common sense in discerning that the interests of majority and the whole society grow from individual interests. Then why is he trying to pull our leg right now and what is his interest in Bush & Co. that he is willing to bend the truth and to smear his own reputation and become a "quack of democracy"?

The root of Mr. Limbaugh’s snobbism probably lies in his schooling past when he was educated as a Jew. Judaism is a religious ideology and, as any ideology, it requires its disciples to be ready to bend the truth on behalf of the inner circle. A recent example of such a bending happened three weeks ago when the Jews of New York depleted the state fund of school vouchers.

Last year, the New York State Assembly passed an ordinance in accord with which the state must allocate some percentage of educational funds for school vouchers so that parents can transfer their children from public to private schooling. However, because the majority of the Assembly is comprised of Jews, the law was vague on the matter of how to promulgate the law, i.e., how to publicize it. Because the voucher law specified that the money would be distributed on a "first come, first serve" basis, the Jews spread the knowledge of the starting day of the voucher program among themselves. Thereafter, three weeks ago, when the black parents came to receive a better opportunity for their children, they were told that ‘all the money was already taken’ (by the Jews). Moreover, when the blacks started to complain that the people unite into a civilized society, into a state of equality before the law, they were told, that ‘we (the Jews) will slip on the issue and will devise a "fairer" system of distribution’ (for the next time, but for now, you can lick your paws). And you know how to entrust a sheep to a wolf.

Well, and that means that the Jews organized themselves into a Jewish state inside the State of New York, as they organized themselves into the Communist Party inside the Russian State. That is why the New York republican voting system is organized in such a manner that the Russian Jews can be proud of. That is why Senator McCain and four other republican candidates have a hard time to place their names on the New York ballot. That is why my book will never published by Simon & Schuster. And that is why Mr. Limbaugh is promoting Bush & Co., hoping on his father’s record in preserving status quo.

I understand that Mr. Limbaugh fears that the campaign finance reforms of Mr. McCain can clarify our voting system and make it transparent, thus, diminishing the Jewish power, which breeds on our ignorance. But then again, stop talking about your own "intellectual" honesty, Mr. Limbaugh, because it is you and your beloved political extremists who really do not have the founding principles. And you will not have them unless you understand the difference between political extremism and excellence in the arts, and until then you will again gain the weight (physical) and will again lose the weight (spiritual).

The entire history of the American Constitution is the history of compromise and moderation between political extremes. First, between the Anglicans and the Protestants, then, between the rich and the poor, later, between the whites and the blacks, and now, between the Jews and the "Gentiles." Moreover, even the very name of Mr. Limbaugh, from Christian lingo, means a region between heaven and hell. And I am wondering how the hell he came up with the doctrine that only the extremists have principles, and the moderates only adjust themselves to the external interests of majority. Hello, Mr. Limbaugh, how was that majority organized in the first place?

We know that the extremes tend to converge into each other. Probably that is why Mr. Limbaugh had started his political career as a revolutionary and is finishing it as a retrograde.

02/08/00

For the past six weeks, Bush’s people got busy bashing Senator McCain and refusing to discuss issues with fellow-republicans in a civilized manner, as if McCain’s supporters were the outsiders of the Republican Party, and even worse, as if they were extra-terrestrials. Now Bush’s staffers realized that they themselves boosted McCain’s image, implying that he is the outsider of the Washington elite. Consequently, now Bush wants to expose McCain as some kind of upper-class mole. Moreover, the Bush’s staffers (Baker, Reed, & Co.) realized that they made the bigger flip-flop in their tactics when they decided to rely more on money than on honest politics. Baker, Reed, & Co. decided that the moderate republicans could be easily manipulated as if they were ultra democrats.

Consequently, Mr. Limbaugh jumped on the moderate republicans, accusing them of not having common sense and not knowing what honesty is, as if they were Clintonites. However, the flip-flop became apparent when Mr. Limbaugh tried to redefine the moderate republicans as if they were ultra democrats who may not have strong principles. And it did not fly with the moderate republicans, who became republicans in the first place because they strongly believe in the principle of lesser, but more effective government. This flip-flop became transparent even to an elementary school student when Mr. Limbaugh stated that ‘today a "conservative" is a synonym for a "reformist"’.

It does not matter to us, the middle-class republican moderates, how an upper class individual would try to redefine us. However, we discern a conservative republican as an upper class person who conserves and preserves what he/she has already achieved, and a moderate republican is one of us who is willing to preserve the best of the achieved and to sacrifice what is worse today for the better future, for we also want to be among the upper class. Therefore, it is we, the moderates, who are reformists, not the ultra-conservatives who want to preserve the status quo.

Talking about form, our art of compromising with what "we are not willing to die for" is not Mr. Limbaugh’s "strategizing" oneself into the Procrustean bed of the statistical majority. The statistical majority appears when each of us decided to follow through his own ideology of prudence and moderation, which we usually call ‘common sense’. When we unite in the voting process, then, the statistical majority appears, but not vice versa -- because the statistics cannot exist without real people. Therefore, we cannot "strategize" ourselves into the majority. Trying to redefine us, Mr. Limbaugh willingly bent the truth on behalf of the ultra-conservative upper class elite, thus, turning from a "doctor of democracy" into a "quack of democracy" and from a "detector of truth" into a "killer of truth".

Talking about essence, we, moderate republicans, are willing to preserve the best of the achieved and to sacrifice what is worse today for the better future of our children and ourselves. As such reformists, we will proceed from our principle of lesser, but more effective government, for we understand that we cannot eliminate all taxation because that would mean the elimination of the government itself. We cannot live entirely without a government, for we are not rich enough (as Bush & Co.) to be entirely without a social safety net. Therefore, the Baker-Bush tax-cut plan to cut the federal budget by extremely lessening taxes will benefit exclusively the upper class. Why? Because it will lead to disproportionate increase of independence of the upper class from us, the middle class, and will allow them gradually denigrate us to the lower class and definitely will ruin our social safety net. However, acting in accord with the McCain tax-cut plan, we will save our social safety net and will give a moderate boost for upper class activity. These two fiscal plans are the best evidence of the crime against our children and us, moderates, – the crime of extremism.

We have already compromised too much with ultra-conservatives by allowing them to criminalize some lighter forms of drugs and prostitution, which led to an enormous increase of their power over the lower class, the majority of which was passed trough the meat-grinder of the prison system in order to learn to be submissive to their dictate. Each of the past sixty some bloody years, we let them have $300 billion via Mafia, plus $25 billion via ATF, and nearly $90 billion that we spend in the health system healing the byproducts of the underground drug system. That kind of money (not counting those thousands of broken lives) could extinguish six times the national debt that we have right now. Do you think they appreciate that? Not a zilch. They want more money and more power at our expense, and they will not calm down until they denigrate us to the same low level as they did the Negroes and Latinos, if we let ‘em. Will we???

The latest flip-flop of Baker, Bush, & Co. happened two days ago, when Bush won the Maryland primary (51%) and McCain finished second (with 25%). However, the liberal press reported it as the victory of McCain because the latter was not even present there, while preparing for South Carolina. The latest polling data shows that the majority of independents and defected democrats of the middle class, who were allowed to vote in the Maryland primaries as republicans, prefer McCain over Bush. Now Baker, Bush & Co. cry foul that it is a "left-wing conspiracy" to tamper with the republican electorate now and switch their votes back later, during the general elections. Why would they do so? Baker, Bush, & Co. claim it is "because they are defectors, and we, ultra-conservatives, cannot trust them. Because such people like practical jokes, and they would like to screw our system. Because it appears as if nobody trembles in the camps of Gore and Bradley in the face of the entire desolation of their camps. And because McCain would be a much easier adversary for either Gore or Bradley."

Why would McCain be much easier competition for Gore or Bradley? "Because he has nearly the same socialistic program as they have." After all of this suspicion and fear mongering, Baker, Bush & Co. have finally found some dirt on McCain. However, at close look, their latest finding only highlighted their own filthy minds, implying that the middle class is so dumb and stupid that people cannot discern their own long-run interests and cannot switch party (a formal representative of their long-run interests), even if that party no longer represents their interests. The latest ultra-conservative labeling also implied that such labels as "socialism" or "communism" could easily intimidate the newly converted republicans. Therefore, they will be constantly sitting on a fence, scratching their foreheads, and plotting a prank for the "poor" ultra-conservatives.

The mouthpiece of the Baker, Bush, & Co., Mr. Limbaugh, had already branded McCain’s moderate tax-cut plan with moderate social programs as a "communistic one." However, this labeling is about form, and as such, it is a matter of taste, not of reason. Therefore, I prefer the term a "capitalistic one… with a humane face." Who can blame me for that?

02/10/00

For more than two months, Mr. Limbaugh has been advising Bush to take his gloves off and start a war with McCain, because the public loves fighting and fighters. Now, when Mr. Limbaugh’s instigation succeeded and the war is going on full speed, Mr. Limbaugh’s protégé got a blow below what Mr. Limbaugh thinks is the correct line of behavior of the fighters during the wartime. Now Mr. Limbaugh bethinks himself and wants to cook the rules of engagement into the combat.

Whining to that end, he proposes to outlaw playing the "religion-card" as too divisive for the Republican Party that it cannot handle such an assault of one faction against another faction. To enforce this moratorium, he proposes to call such tactics of war as "Clintonesque" and such wars as the "holy-wars".

Mr. Limbaugh thinks that the inner-party fight for the leadership in the party should be a duel-like fight of equals. However, he hypocritically silences that the "equality" of the fighters is unequal in money from the outset. That is why the disadvantaged side necessitated using savvier tactics in the battlefield in order to survive.

And where do you, righteous Rush Limbaugh, stand on that equalizing suggestion of the campaign finance reform? You hypocritically turned it down, because it would equate your protégé with other adversaries, but you want him to have advantage before the fighting started.

McCain's team says that it will divide the party until one silver line will crystallize and one leader will emerge, then it will unite the country… and they do so.

Baker-Bush commando says that it is uniting the party right now and it will unite the country after this inner-party struggle… and they do to a contrary.

So, who is a hypocrite here? And I am wondering, why on the earth you think that McCain started this war? If you say that he started only the "holy-war," then, is it not your Clintonesque, Mr. Limbaugh?

02/28/00


[email protected]