Advertisers Fail Their True Buyers Except Quicken Loans

Some companies indicate they’ll be sticking with Rush, though. “While we do not condone or agree with Limbaugh’s statements regarding Sandra Fluke, we respect his right to express his views, as well as those who disagree with him,” Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver said in an emailed statement. “As an advertiser, our goal is to reach a broad audience, which we accomplish by placing ads on a number of programs across the country representing diverse views.”

Congratulations to a true freedom loving, constitution respecting, American company and to spokes person Paula Silver for clearly stating what should be obvious to all namely “….we respect his right to express his views as well as those who disagree with him…As an Advertiser (see above)..”

Who are the callers to sleep Eze and the other advertisers who stopped advertisements or affiliation with the hugely popular Rush Limbaugh show.  I very much doubt they are regular listeners to his three-hour program.  I suggest instead that these are what are known today as “political drones” who are paid to complain or if not actually paid, they are people who sit before their computer screen eight or more hours a day in order to attack their political, social, or religious opponents.”

The existence of these kind of chronic E mail hacks, is known by just about everybody, except those advertisers who do not have the native intelligence nor the Internet savvy to understand that the so-called “firestorm” of protest about the Limbaugh comments was generated by people who never listen to his program and therefore would not buy their products anyway.  The mere fact that the news reports indicate that all Limbaugh advertisers received the same deluge of E mail complaints and telephone protests tells us that this was merely a coordinated sociopolitical motivated attempt at intimidation.  That even the Speaker of the House of Representative Mr. Boehner was subjected to this obviously organized barrage and that he responded to it tells this writer that the so-called outrage is phony.  Also the idea that President Barrack Hussein Obama called her to thank her for standing up for women’s rights is a clear indication that this supposed spontaneous public outcry is a sham.

Why do I care?  Actually, I do not know this woman.  I do not care what she does with her life.  I do not care if this makes her famous, like Joe the Plumber or not.  However, I do care that major USA corporations are so ill-informed concerning the American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to have sex or not to have sex, that they easily fall victim and become accomplices to those who would change our social/religious/political values by Internet intimidation.  That is worrisome.

Limbaugh Innocent But Are Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, David Letterman, and Rachel Maddox?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561783-boehner-calls-limbaugh-remarks-inappropriate

The uproar over this so-called outrage is a lot of wind about nothing.  I listened to the Limbaugh show and although I found Mr. Limbaugh’s analogies a little surprising, he in no way called the person individually a slut.  What he did is what a lot of social commentators do and that is to use satire for effect.  He also used hyberole for effect as well.  And although sometimes Rush Limbaugh’s hyperbolic satire is uncomfortable, it is not done as a personal attack, has no personal animosity to it, and often highlights the silliness of our society as the society deals with such concepts as birth control and abortion.  What I heard Mr. Limbaugh say was that a student at Georgetown Roman Catholic Law School said that on a coed campus, students have such active sex lives that the cost of contraception can run over one thousand dollars a year.  Then, Mr. Limbaugh stated that the student felt that it is the responsibility of society and health insurers to pay for such contraception.  Then Mr. Limbaugh carried it further to wonder if under Obama Care therefore, it is the citizens who pick up the tab for the promiscuous students who have such active sex lives that contraception is so expensive.  By extension therefore, he mused if a student who has regular sexual encounters with fellow college students could be called a slut?  He then went forward to wonder if all the male counterparts are also, Johns.  Then he extended it to the idea if the citizens pay for the contraception, then are the citizens the pimps.  Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh did use the student’s name repeatedly and said he could  do so because her statements was on the public record.  I mentioned Jon Steward in the title because of his comments concerning President Bush during Mr. Bush’s Presidency.  I could also refer to the highly personal and offensive remarks of Keith Obermann over Mr. Bush’s manhood and masculinity during the time Mr. Bush was President of the USA.  I also recall highly personal and offensive remarks made against Mr. Bush by Rachel Maddox when she was on TV.   Neither Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, nor Rachel Maddox intended their remarks to be hyperbole or satire. Rather, those remarks and the nightly crassness of David Letterman during the Bush Presidental terms were intended to be personally affronting and mean-spirited criticism of our elected President.  This writer is sorry that Speaker Boehner felt it necessary to add his voice to this tempest in teapot high dungeon drama.  It also amazes me that in a time when the word F–k is regularly used in music and when many Rap songs refer to women as whores, bitches and objects  deserving of violent abusive rape  it is obvious that the “slut” outrage is politically motivated and intended to portray as bigots those who do not want to pay for others people’s contraception

Mary Queen of Scots wrote to Pope About her death

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9114625/Mary-Queen-of-Scots-poignant-letter-months-before-her-execution.html

 

A very interesting article about English history and the relations between politic leaders of their day.  At least in USA we just refuse to elect those we don’t want.  Yet, it very noteworthy that Elizabeth I had grave reservations about “..taking off the head of a Queen anointed by God.”  The crime was called regicide and considered especially heinous at the time.

Southern Baptist Leader Right About No Religion Test for President

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/romney-mormonism-christianity-santorum/2012/02/29/id/431034?s=al&promo_code=E4CC-1

I found this article distressing and I disagree with the analysis that Mormon Christianity is not Christianity at all.  And I disagree with the idea that the book of Mormon is the same as the Quran.  However, I do agree that there is not a “religion” test for the Presidency of the USA.  In fact a Hindu, Confucian, Shinto, Moslem, or “no religion at all” person could become President under the Constitution.  The key word in the above sentence is “Constitution”.  The USA is a constitutional Republic and not a Christian State.  Essentially, the USA is a secular government under the prescription that it must respect the freedom of religion opinions of its citizens.  There is also the proscription that the government cannot impose itself upon, regulate, or attempt to destroy the practice of religions by its citizens.

That being affirmed, the opinions of the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention are really the affairs of that denomination of Christianity.  His viewpoint is allowed in USA.  He is even allowed to make it public and to defend his position.  That is our right under the first amendment regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Unlike, the grossly stated falsehood that the Constitution protects the government from the influences of religiously informed opinions, the Bill of rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, protects people of religion from the power of the government and the prejudices of people opposed to religion.  That is to say, that you are not required to agree with my religion nor my opinions as informed by my religion but the law guarantees me the liberty to hold and express such opinions.  And while IRS regulations threaten to revoke a congregations 501.3C status if the leaders use the pulpit to preach for or against any political candidate, that is merely an IRS regulation and does not forbid preachers of any type from preaching politically motivated sermons.  Admittedly, sermons such as those of Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s Christian Pastor, in which he damned America and not blessed America, are repugnant to and repudiated by the 99.9 % of Christians, nonetheless, he is allowed to preach that.  (Please, note that no one needs to listen to his rants, and that a Senator of the USA should belong to Rev. Wright’s congregation for ten or more years, is disturbing but not illegal.)

Finally, to the doctrinal theology that informs the SBC speaker.  It is a judgement made because Mormonism supplements the 66 books of the historic Christian Bible with the book of Mormon.  Some Christians regard this as an addition to the Holy Scriptures and therefore as antithetical to Christian teaching that the only authoritative scripture is the 66 book Bible.  In this regard, some Christians would claim that Roman Catholic Christianity is also not true Christianity because they include the Apocryphal books to their publication of the Bible.  And even though Roman Catholic Christians are informed that the Apocryphal books are not regarded as Holy Scripture, nonetheless, their detractors say that publishing them inside of the covers of a Bible is itself condemnatory.

Friends, these are matters of internal Christian denominational belief and although we can go on, this writer will again state, as he has repeatedly, that Mormonism is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that its doctrines regarding the essentials of the Christian faith make it another, albeit disputed, Christian denomination.