Limbaugh: 'Obliterating Morality Has Been What the Culture War is All About'

[rangerrebew]

Limbaugh: 'Obliterating Morality Has Been What the Culture War is All About'

(CNSNews.com) - "How in the hell did this happen?" conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh asked his audience on Thursday.

"We have men's and women's restrooms for a reason, just like we've always had marriage, and it's always been defined as a specific thing for...time-honored and time-tested reasons.  They were not the result of people who had power lording that over other people.

 "These are processes and behavioral patterns that established over the millennia as proper, just, moral, correct, sensible, you name it.  Now all of a sudden that gets thrown out, and it's all up to how somebody feels about themselves at a particular moment in time as to which bathroom they want to use."

Limbaugh said none of it makes any sense within a "right versus wrong" framework. He said it's all about "us versus them."

"And, see, I don't think the culture war has been about right versus wrong for a long time.  And people haven't figured that out.  They continue to fight it on a moral or a morality battlefield, but that's not it at all.

"In fact, obliterating morality has been what the culture war is all about, not asserting it and not having it triumph.  The whole point of the culture war is an us-versus-them framework now, and the 'us' is all of the disparate minorities of the world versus the 'them,' which is people they claim to be the oppressive majority."

Limbaugh said liberalism is determined to wipe out the concept of morality, believing that no one has the right to define it.

"Nobody can write laws that are based on morality and have them apply to everybody, because your morality may differ from mine, and there isn't any universal morality; there isn't any universal right and wrong...

"So something as simple as morality and right and wrong has now become politicized, and therefore illegitimate, 'cause you don't have the right to tell somebody what's right and wrong. You don't have the right to define morality -- and if you do, then you're a problem. You're the problem. You're the oppressive, old fogey, fuddy-duddy problem. Meanwhile, you think you're just standing up for what's right and justice and wholesome and good, and their whole objective has been just to erase all of that."

Limbaugh said the cultural and political battles we face are no longer rational.

"None of this LGBT stuff is rational.  Not a single thing happening is rational.  It's all irrational.  None of it makes any sense.  It's got everybody scratching their heads, but they don't know how to stop it. They don't know how to oppose it. Anybody who tries is shouted down, targeted for destruction or what have you, on Twitter."

Limbaugh described the ongoing battles as "tribal."

"We are stunned. How many of you, how many of you are literally shocked and stunned that logical arguments do not persuade people anymore?  How many of you have found yourself in an argument with people and you're using logic, inescapable logic?  As far as you're concerned, there's no question the difference in right and wrong in terms of whatever it is you're discussing.  And it doesn't persuade anybody.  And you end up at your wits' end over this.

"The problem, you see, is that the left has shifted this entire culture battle or culture war from right versus wrong to us versus them.  There isn't any right versus wrong.

"The only way they can win this war is by obliterating the concepts of right versus wrong, 'cause they are wrong, and they know it, and they don't want to be thought of that way.  So they just obliterate the whole concept of right versus wrong, and it gets replaced by something we could call us versus them, where it becomes more important to be on the right side of an issue, quote, the correct side, the popular side of any issue than it is to be right, as in correct."
Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/limbaugh-culture-war-about-obliterating-morality-and-right-versus-wrong

[Fishrrman]

Limbaugh:
"How in the hell did this happen?"

Me:
Rush, I suggest you give Pat Buchanan a call. He was onto this years before you even started talkin' ...!

[Right_in_Virginia]

"How in the hell did this happen?" conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh asked his audience on Thursday.

Social conservatives relied on politicians--and Rush Limbaugh.

[rangerrebew]

Limbaugh:
"How in the hell did this happen?"

Me:
Rush, I suggest you give Pat Buchanan a call. He was onto this years before you even started talkin' ...!

A couple years before Buchanan was on to it, a gentleman by the name of George Washington was on to it.  This little excerpt, taken from Washington's Farewell Address which used to be taught in HS but liberals had it thrown out because of references to God.  Note how all people had to do was refer to history to learn this could happen without the pain of going through it.

"t serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric"?


We were warned but have chosen to ignore those old "racist white guys" as our liberal "friends" would say.