The Truth About the Obama-Limbaugh Controversy

This week, a man that people either love or hate, Rush Limbaugh, has been the talk of all talk radio.  Limbaugh made a comment about President Obama and his presidency that has earned him criticism from liberals while garnering support and a chorus of “Amens” from conservatives.

“I want him to fail.  If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?”

For those of us who love America and who truly and firmly believe that America’s greatness is in her traditional roots and small government, we are increasingly fearful of President Obama’s massive and frivolous spending and socialistic agenda.  Apparently, a promise to limit earmarks changed to allowing just a mere 9,000.  So I echo the thoughts of many conservatives right now when I ask, “Why is it not ok for Rush Limbaugh to hope that the President’s agenda fails?”  Quite a few voiced their hopes that President Bush would fail at passing his agenda, and they used much more inflammatory (and defamatory) language than Rush is using here.

He is not saying that he wants America to fail.  Hoping that the President fails in reconstructing our country to his socialist vision is not hoping America fails.  Rush knows, as well as many of us know, that Obama’s current policies could bankrupt America, financially and morally, and that if his policies were to fail, America might then have a better chance of survival. 

He knows that if Obama succeeds in removing the Conscience Clause, which currently protects those in the health care industry from having to provide abortions or other medical services which they are opposed to for reasons of conscience, then we will have trampled on and violated the values that individuals hold dear, and allowed their jobs to be in jeopardy because of those values. 

He knows that if Obama succeeds in passing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then any restrictions on abortions, including parental notification for minors, will be eradicated and the 36 year-old lie that it’s morally ok to abort babies will continue to deceive women all over the country.

He knows that Obama blocking the Born Alive Infant Protection Act , which would provide medical treatment for babies born alive after an attempted abortion, is inhumane at best and that letting them die on a cold table somewhere, is immoral and irresponsible.

By the way, does this really qualify as a commitment to reduce the number of abortions in this country, as Obama promised during his campaign for the presidency?  Again, his position must have changed.

Rush also knows that the Fairness Doctrine will shut down free speech for conservative voices, which represent millions of Americans, and thereby create a very slippery slope for all kinds of future censorship.

He knows that if Senator Barbara Boxer has her way and Obama ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the family will be ripped apart and all parent-child relationships will be in jeopardy.

Rush Limbaugh knows that President Obama’s policies are bad for America.  We can certainly look and pray for areas of agreement with Obama, and when we find it, wholeheartedly support him, but for those who see how his agenda spells doom and disaster, to be expected to hope it succeeds is ridiculous.  It’s because we want America to succeed first and foremost that we hope Obama’s big government intervention fails.

Parent’s Rights in Danger

^{This in just today:  Senator Barbara Boxer of California is hoping to strip parents of more of their rights over their children.  She is asking the Obama administration to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This treaty would ensure that the government has a say in how you parent your child, even to the point of allowing your children “to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed” (www.parentalrights.org).  This is government interference at its worst; an assault on our basic rights as parents.}

^{“This poses a serious threat both to parental rights and to U.S. sovereignty, as the UNCRC dictates not only that the federal government must intrude into the family sphere to an unprecedented degree, but also how the federal government is to monitor and govern the actions of our families.  Parental rights would be replaced by “the best interests of the child” as defined, ultimately, by an international committee of 18 people in Switzerland” (Parentalrights.org)}

^{Read “20 Things You Need to Know” on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on the front page at the link below and let’s get involved in any way we can to prevent this treaty from being forced upon us as parents.}

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}