Are other so-called neoconservatives embarrassed by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Who is publicly distancing himself from these two? Where's the repudiation of their lies?
Hannity and Limbaugh are calling the current economic crash (caused by wild monetary policies and equally wild real estate speculation and exotic, toxic derivatives) Barack Obama's fault. ("Hannity, Limbaugh promote myth of an 'Obama recession'," Media Matters. November 12, 2008.)
They are suggesting that the majority of the reason (not really saying it that I know of — maybe they are — but clearly implying it by virtue of the weight they are placing on it, calling this the Obama recession) investors are not jumping back into equities is because of Obama's risky signals.
Now that's just total hogwash. Of course people are wondering exactly what an Obama administration will look like, but that concern isn't amounting to a hill of beans in terms of investing in Wall Street right now compared with people not knowing how much total junk there is in the system put there by deregulated, under-regulated, and unregulated markets by laissez-faire- and crony-capitalist-investment creators.
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are just grasping at whatever they can, and by trying to label the recession the "Obama Recession" when it is without doubt George W. Bush's Crash of 2008, they are trying the Big Lie tactic of Adolf Hitler and the other Machiavellians.
What is so annoying about these two is that the vast majority of their viewers and listeners know that this is exactly what's going on too. These people wink at each other over the radio for crying out loud. It's amazing the level of dishonesty. It isn't even remotely clever. They don't even care how transparent they are.
Barack Obama did not cause this recession. His announced policies are not sending fear through the investment community. If the people had elected Herbert Hoover again (Heaven help us) or any other president or person, the markets would still be dead for a good while.
Don't these people read their own economists? Anna Schwartz co-authored, "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" with Milton Friedman. She has stated that the toxic securities are keeping people out of the markets. They don't know what value there is behind the huge corporations on account of the junk securities. Investors are waiting to see the dust settle so they can look around at the damage to appraise the situation. Don't blame it on Obama. He's going to make enough real mistakes without people having to bear false witness about him based upon ridiculously contrived propaganda.
Look, anyone who reads this blog knows full well that I'm no fan of Barack Obama, but it's just pathetic to see Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh spewing such utter garbage. Why are these guys on the air? Who can look in the mirror and listen to those two and agree with them? Don't people know that their kind of talk is sinful? It's deliberate malicious lying and gossip. That's evil. They have zero excuses for it. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't believe the stuff they are spewing out. They are being paid to spew lies.
Honest errors are one thing, but this level of constant fabrication is beyond the pale. All the corruption of the Bush administration hasn't humbled these two a bit. How will they escape damnation if they don't stop and thoroughly repent and there still be any justice?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)