Is El Rushbo ever wrong?
Oh, absolutely. Rush went easy on Owebama early on; in fact he still does. Can't be calling the Commie Thug-in-Chief a commie, now can we? Nor does Rush call Owebama a racist @sshole (or something suitable for the airwaves). That's not civil discourse. Of course, the fact that both statements are true is irrelevent.
Plus, Rush is completely off the mark, as are almost all political commentators, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. How many talking political airheads, or even just political airheads, have mentioned the 2nd Amendment is so we can fight our own tyrannical government, should one arise? (And it has arisen, just like Owebama's iconic religious halo images that put Chocolate Jesus in a favorable light.)
/Bad puns intended.
I'm not going to pimp the investigative journalist blog 'since 1995' where I got this quote. But this is what we are up against: Complete and willful ignorance of the History of our Country. No one reads the Founders anymore to flesh out what exactly those brave men were trying to attain. Forget Maya Angelou or even Mark Twain:
The Federalist Papers ought to be required reading certainly by high school. Of course, the teacher goonions won't be having that as that would make their goonion kickback savior wrong -- and on so many levels.
The Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus has sold millions of Americans on the dangerous – and false – notion that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so an armed population could fight the government that the Framers had just created.The Bill of Rights was a mix of concessions, some substantive and some rhetorical, to both individual citizens and the states. . . . The Second Amendment was primarily a right granted to the states. It read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
You can't fix stupid, but you can kill it.
