GWB isn’t alone in his assertion that “all the world’s peoples want democracy.” A few weeks ago, I was making a long drive. To pass the time, I listened to Rush Limbaugh, which I sometimes do when on a long drive.

Limbaugh was bellowing out this very line. “All people want freedom and democracy. We are going to give it to them.” Limbaugh seemed to say that we’ll give Iraq democracy even if we blow them up doing so. He said that it’s “racist” to think Arabs can’t practice American-style democracy. He went on like this for an hour, without even taking any calls.

Some of us have chastised Limbaugh on this Forum for his refusal to discuss the immigration issue. This fits in with his “everybody wants democracy” claims.

What David says about Rush Limbaugh is truly distressing. I don’t remember him in the past saying anything that ideological and foolish. So now Rush gets added to Podhoretz, Decter, Bush, Rice, and Hanson in the “All people want the same things, therefore all people are capable of creating and maintaining democracy, and anyone who doubts this proposition is a racist” crowd. How terribly sad.

For a few years now many self-identified conservatives used race to slime opponents. Open border traitors at WSJ routinely call racist anyone with even a hint of immigration control idea.

I remember when Senator Abraham, R, Saudi Arabia, ran for reelection in 2000, he called Federation for Immigration Reform hate group. He lost and now is making sure that we always will need oil ticks of Saudi Arabia by working as a US Energy Seretary.

Perhaps we should pause and consider just how unique was the American founding and the British tradition that preceeded it, and how rare in history the idea of men establishing limited government for themselves, and maintaining it. How would anyone reach the conclusion that this was a universal tendency? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that it is unusual and abnormal, and try to understand how it came about, rather than just assume it can be replicated everywhere?

Thucydides is right. Our form of government, but particularly our Constitution is unique. It would be foolish to think of backward (feudal) countries adopting a Western model.

The reason we (Bush et al) are so stubborn in forcing democracy down Iraqi throats is because of The Mission, The Agenda. That apparently is ALL that counts, and we’re going to give it (democracy or a form of government to our liking) whether they want it or not! An insane policy, with no hope of success.

In Rush Limbaugh’s semester of college, apparently not much time was spent studying the cultural prerequisites of our form of government. This is no surprise; it generally has to be studied on one’s own. Rush being a know-it-all of incredible arrogance might keep him from thinking that he needs to get an education on this subject. Personally, I am sick of his pompousness, arrogance, conceit, and ignorance.

I agree with Thucydides. I have stated before that the primary sin of the neocons and Bush is not their lack of understanding of Arab/Muslim culture, it is their lack of understanding of our own heritage. This is the common link between open borders policies and utopian nation building projects.

And even more distressing than their lack of understanding of our heritage is the fact that they don’t even understand basic human nature. All groups, human or animal, form hierarchical structures and societies. The U.S. was the exception, not the rule. The natural state of man is to live under a despotic ruler, and it is shocking that Bush and Rice could believe otherwise.

One more thing to add to Mr. Coleman’s concise diagnosis of the disease that is neoconservatism: Have these people read the history of Philadelphia and the writing of the Constitution? Do they have any idea that the founders were republicans in the traditional sense of the word? Why are our leaders preaching about spreading democracy across the globe when this country was founded on republican ideals rather than democratic ones? It seems that the founders were terrified of democratic tyranny. Perhaps I’m wrong, just my two cents…

Bravo to Mssrs. David Levin, Coleman, Thucydides, and Mark for their comments above. Mr. Coleman, the only thing I’ll add to your comment about Limbaugh having only spent a semester in college is that it is highly unlikely that he would have learned anything about the basic concepts so well stated here even if he’d obtained a doctorate in Political Science. This is a foundational truth about our nation that isn’t being taught any more - and hasn’t been for at least 40 years.

This is related to Mr. Auster’s post on the other thread about how moral liberalism has lead to anti-Americanism. The great lie that neocons and Bushite “conservatives” hold to be true is that pre-1964 America was an irredeemably corrupt place based upon “racism.” This is why neocons and Bushites talk of democracy. To them, the more truly republican form of the earlier America was an evil place. In a way they are like the Jacobins, who started the counting of years from the Frech Revolution and re-named the months.

John Derbyshire nailed it: “Only Anglo-Saxons can do democracy.” He doesn’t know how right he is.

The Magna Carta, Blackstone, the English and American Bills of Rights… they’re nothing but laundry lists of Anglo-Saxon fetishes. That’s why they were called “the rights of Englishmen”. Not “of Negroes” nor “of Red Indians”— and certainly not “of heathen Araby”.

Rush is in Florida now. He wouldn’t have said something so dopey were he still in Manhattan. There’d be too much contrary evidence. He really needs to go back to Cape Girardeau.

I was surprised to see Midge Decter in the list above. What’s she written lately? She processes everything through her idyllic childhood in a cute little bungalow tucked behind a Presbyterian college with her immigrant storekeeper dad, where the worst threat was being called “Christ-killer” by the local Irish trash. Her old neighborhood has been gentrified, though the five-cent coffee hangs on. But is she aware her hometown is now the biggest Hmong city in the world?

There is another falsehood that Limbaugh is eagerly peddling. Rush claims that “Kerry is an elitist who hates us and Bush is one of us.” Yes, Limbaugh was saying on a recent show that “the elites hate Bush because he is a conservative man of the people.”

There are a few things wrong with this. GWB is the son of a president, grandson of a US senator, and a member of a wealthy family. GWB attended Andover, Yale, and Harvard. By his public pronouncements, Bush has ingested what these institutions taught him. Bush is greatly disliked by the “elites” because he goes under the GOP label and identifies (somewhat) with “religous conservatives.”

Someone should ask Limbaugh why Bush backs racial preferences and open borders. When Bush makes such a betrayal, Limbaugh will devote a day or two to it on his show. Then he goes back to his rah-rah Bush routine.

Frankly, I’ve given up hope of Limbaugh coming to his senses. He’s an example of the phenomenom described by Mr. Auster - a conservative reduced to mindless boosterism for Bush. Bush has betrayed every single consrevative principle - even the pro-life cause with his support of Arlen Specter. Even in the face of this, the cheerleaders like Limbaugh don’t even pause to think. Bush and Kerry are really very similar in background and core beliefs. Shining examples of the liberal ruling elite who have nothing in common whatsoever with the majority of Americans and wish to obtain political power to further globalist, utopian ideology.

My other half will castigate me for listening to Rush even for a few seconds when I’m just flipping the dial. She’s right, of course. He’s very likely a felon in his drug extortion/purchasing (using an illegal alien-housekeeper to purchase illegal medication), yet it seem s many have “forgiven” the fat man for all he did therein. My other half is like a true elephant, never forgets and rarely forgives ciminality, particularly the felonious kind. I have to agree with her. She’s almost always right about these sorts of things.

Of course, other more conservative talk show hosts have come to the fore. Rush “got it started”, but he is really NOT worth all the time we’re spending on him. Conservatism has passed him by. He loves the status quo, he loves getting invited to pro-am golf tournaments and he loves his multi-gazillion-dollar contract. Who wouldn’t?

I’m fond of Rush, he’s a great guy, as shown by the way he handled his period of total deafness. Talk about grace under pressure. But I haven’t listened to his show in many years.

I agree with many of the above criticisms of Rush, but Mr. Levin’s recycled attack on Rush as a “fat man” is unfair seeing as Rush has lost a large amount of weight and is no longer overweight.

We in America have lost our democracy and our rulers are unwilling to spread democracy back into America, much less are our rulers capable of spreading true democracy to non-white peoples incapable of developing or sustaining it themselves. Our rulers either no longer know what democracy is or are unwilling to allow its light to shine even in the land and among the white race who created that unique light.

America’s judiciary ignores the written contract our original government bequeathed to the American people — and creates its own laws in direct contradistinction to its Constitutional role and to the will of the people — forcing integration and discriminatory anti-white group “rights” down the throats of a people (i.e., the white race) who believe deeply in individual merit, equality of opportunity, and freedom of association.

America’s executive branch refuses to execute laws that are contrary to its own globalist, anti-American, corporate agenda — i.e., refuses to enforce America’s immigration laws already in place — in direct contradiction of the will of the American people.

America’s legislative branch creates laws contrary to the will of the American people and refuses to write laws that will protect and preserve American white culture and the white race itself. Congress also refuses to protect Americans and the Constitution by impeaching members of the other two branches for their refusal to fulfill the Constitution’s contracted guarantees to the American people.

The heart of democracy is not individual freedom but INDIVIDUAL POWER over the government. The heart of democracy has been ripped out of America and the white race.

I don’t know if there’s a heart operation that can put it back.

Follow-up to my comment above: We can’t give to others what we no longer have ourselves.

Joshua apparently finds as insulting my calling Rush “the fat man”, that he’s somehow an “untouchable” icon of the neocons. I recall some people fondly calling famous Shakespearean/Warner Bros. character actor Sidney Greenstreet, “the fat man”. With his weight went his character, and without it, he wouldn’t have been “Sydney Greenstreet”. I don’t dislike Rush BECAUSE he is fat, but because he is almost certainly a felon who has, like so make of his ilk (the rich) “gotten away” with breaking some major laws of the state. That the Feds or the State of Florida won’t vigorously pursue such a person because of his immense star power, is very sad. The law should apply to everyone, including the priveledged few. Regrettably, it rarely does. And whether you like or dislike Rush, I am one who believes one should be accountable to the law when one breaks it. If that is “insulting”, I am guilty. Had I done what HE did, I would be in prison NOW, NOT talking and making millions from my radio show.

Mr. Levin’s post reminds me about a certain someone getting away with breaking the law against perjury and obstruction of justice…

I fear Mr. Levin has not read Joshua’s post carefully enough. Joshua argues that it is wrong to call Rush Limbaugh “fat” because Rush is *no longer overweight*. One might as well call him “bald man.” I doubt also that first-time drug possession felonies are generally treated more harshly than in Rush’s case. On the other hand, I don’t like Rush because he is too Republican and because I hate golf.

“That the Feds or the State of Florida won?t vigorously pursue such a person because of his immense star power, is very sad. The law should apply to everyone, including the priveledged few.”

In defense of Rush, this is diametrically opposed to the truth. All of the prosecution leaks to the tabloids have proven unfounded. The prosecution is based entirely on political pressure from the Left that has been placed on the district attorney. The only remaining charge is “doctor-shopping” to get extra prescriptions. The district attorney cannot produce any examples of prosecuting such a charge before the Limbaugh case. If such a case is ever dealt with, they send someone off to drug treatment and that is the end of it.

I am afraid that Mr. Levin has allowed his hatred of the rich to make him irrational on this issue. Perhaps he can produce examples of people who were imprisoned for “doctor-shopping”.

I am very disappointed with Limbaugh, to say the least, for his continual boosterism for the RINO, corporate wing of the Republican party, perhaps personified by George W. Bush. I have been following the drug charges and concur with Mr. Coleman. If anything, Limbaugh is being given far more scrutiny by the prosecutors due to his wealth and political views. If a member of the Kennedy clan indulged in what Limbaugh did, it would have been swept under the rug by the media and the legal establishment.

Mr. Agricola is right—I got a different take from Joshua’s reading of my “fat man” remark re: Rush. Mr. Agricola is right about “first-time” drug offenders. Perhps Rush wouldn’t be a felon, but only a misdemeanorer with probation.

Mr. Coleman is close to the truth about my feelings toward the rich, but Rush is only one of millions (pardon the pun). My biggest problem with “the rich” is the way they are able (as OJ and The Ramseys et al) have been able to get away with crimes which would land the common people like me in the slammer, that’s all. I wouldn’t want their alcoholism and other problems associated with the wealthy and famous.

To back up these statements, not that they are “exceptional” or outlandish, I think I can admit here that I have worked for the wealthy for many, many years. In some cases, I have been very close to them. I am not talking about Rush or Gebhardt (one of the richest men in Congress) or Bill Gates or other “public figures”. I’m talking about “the quiet rich”.

I am not necessarily “an expert” on the rich, but I understand a lot about the ones I have had business and personal relations with.

A bit tangential, but related to the main point of the thread: Bush is now earmarking money for Cuban dissidents to involve more blacks.

Of the 59 million dollars the administration intends to commit to “democracy-promoting” activities in Cuba, up to 36 million dollars will be allocated for the support of dissidents and their families, and “to help youth, women and Afro-Cubans take their rightful place in the pro-democracy movement.”

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2493

I have also experienced the frustration expressed by David Levin when figures like OJ Simpson, the Ramseys, the Kennedys and the Clintons literally get away with murder. Once, while expressing my frustration about this type of injustice, a pastor gave me a quote attributed to Calvin, the Protestant theologian.

“Do not fret when evildoers go unpunished in this life. It is only a sign that they are being fattened for the day of slaughter.”

It is nice to be among friends! I thank Carl for his cogent quotation. I wish I was deserving of it! Now I can finish my day here with some solace.

Matt has said that the West must repent of liberalism in order to survive. I think that many of us conservatives, starting with myself, need to repent of our voting decisions in the past, particularly my vote for George W. Bush.

There is a tendency to get caught up in the horse race spirit and start discounting conservative candidates who have not been endorsed early by establishment media, or who have been declared to be unlikely to win. Instead, conservatives should examine the candidates, make a list of conservatives, narrow down only within that list based on electability, and then begin speaking out early in the campaign process to influence other Republicans to not jump onto the bandwagon of the CCR establishment candidate.

Sam Francis has an interesting column about disaffection with Dubya and the way that Dubya got so much conservative support in 2000 at http://www.vdare.com/francis/bush_blunder.htm

I followed the link called “GOP nomination” in that article and found that John Ashcroft, Steve Forbes, and Alan Keyes were all viable conservative candidates who were not coronated by the spineless GOP establishment and were thus read out of the race early. We need to start sending a message to the GOP establishment about these choices.