That is no reason to jump all over him and challenge him to an on-air, verbal joust. I love our first amendment right to free-speech and the like, but can we let the man get settled first? I understand there are people in America who dedicate their children to Rush, name pets after him, tune into his show as if his words were the oxygen they needed to live. Limbaugh, while a staunch supporter of the military, apple pie and baseball, he generally comes across as a tactless, baboon, who's only looking to diminish the morale of the left-wing liberals of America.
With that said Limbaugh was recently a guest on Sean Hannity's program; "Hannity" and he made some great points:
"I mean, Sean, he is our president now. And he's not black, he's not from Mars, he's not — he's our president, he's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved."
Obama's camp made and makes every effort to make the American public more and more dependent on the government by convincing them, they are victims of something.
He goes on to say:
"Now I look at the things that he has said, and I'm very much concerned that our greatness is going to be redefined in such a way that it won't be great, that we're just going to become average. You cannot have this large of government role in the private sector with so many people thinking that just because they're Americans they're entitled to things, that this guy is going to pass them out and keep this country great and innovative, full of entrepreneurs, and — these things concern me."
Limbaugh is right to be concerned as are we all for the simple reason the American people are getting bombarded with double-speak and conflicting statements. During a recent visit to a Camp Lejeune, NC, the biggest amphibious Marine Corps base in the world and a gymnasium full of Marines, he announced a time frame to get end the offensive military presence in Iraq and focus fully on the rebuilding and supporting the fledgling Iraqi government. Married up with that announcement is the announcement that Guantanamo Bay is closing down. Why would these two events coincide? I'm hardly saying everyone incacerated in G-bay is a terrorist but certainly there are terrorists there and once they're released to an Iraq void of a mass military presence who else is thinking this is a bad idea?
Limbaugh:
"...he plays both sides. He's going to placate the far left Fringe Kook base, his Web site people, and OK, he's going to close Guantanamo, but he's not going to close Guantanamo, because he — and he's not going to get out of Iraq in 16 months, he's going to say so, but he's not going to saddle himself with defeat of forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he's certainly not — I can't believe that he's — he will willingly release people at Guantanamo who will come back and revisit terrorist acts in this country.-
-Not on his watch. They would have loved for that to have happened during Bush. They would love surrender in Iraq when it's on Bush's shoulders, but I don't think he's going to do it, and I think — but he's got to say things that make his Fringe Kook base think that he is being true to his campaign promises."
However backwards his comments are and whether or not he is going to be able to please everyone I think we should give him chance to shoot himself in the foot if that is what is going to happen. I say give Limbaugh his shot...but let's even the odds and make this entertaining.
Thanks for reading,
WP
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment