I took the Limbaugh challenge during the last presidential campaign. I had to listen to the guy when Obama paid millions of dollars to air blatant lies about this citizen. I couldn't help but wonder what makes this guy tick so much so that a near "saint" in the person of Obama has to lie to impugn his character. To my pleasant surprise I must say, the guy is a solid commentator of current events and an unapologetic conservative. I will like to challenge everyone here who has made him an enemy due to the soudbites they've heard, to tune in to his show for one week and get a first-hand impression of the guy. No doubt most have judged him without even knowing him.

Here is a piece in the LA Times throwing forth the same challenge.

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.
Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; y[b]ou are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views.[/b] And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind. Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.

Don't believe me? Well, then, gird your loins. Gather your courage. Accept the Limbaugh Challenge. See what happens.

I dare you.

@topic,

For the sake of being misunderstood, let me clear the air on a few things. I know the natural inclination by the nay-sayers is to call me names and do same of Limbaugh. I am not a Limbaugh-apologist. I don't get hung up on personalities. My issue here is what the guy stands for - conservatism and freedom (really this is one and the same thing).

While I have thrown out this challenge, I will apreciate if anyone also tells me who they'll prefer I listen to. Who articulates the liberalism that you guys have pitched tent with? America, nay the entire world is at a crossroads right now. We need to discuss issues and jettison this personality clashes that is the order of the day.

I welcome contributions from y'all.

Tayo-D:

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

let me understand you tayo, rush says obama should fail . . . . that was manufactured by the liberal media right?

now to encourage me to listen to your godfather, you first of all use such outlandish mannerism like ''lowdown'' , ''yellow-bellied'' , ''lily-livered'' etc, boy you are really learning from rush.

i listened to the first I0 to 20 mins of his speech at cpac,(watched it on cspan) he made no sense. just an imbecillic man prancing about like a retarded bully, talking without brains, a form or ''oro-cerebral disjuntion'' with ''verbal diarrhoea'' and his disciples were cheering.
oops, i forgot, cspan is also part of the ''drive by media'' he was talking about.

tayo change topic abeg

@pres-elect,

let me understand you tayo, rush says obama should fail . . . . that was manufactured by the liberal media right?

Have you listened to the context? What exactly was he driving at? You are smart enough to know that soundbites don't tell the whole story!

now to encourage me to listen to your godfather, you first of all use such outlandish mannerism like ''lowdown'' , ''yellow-bellied'' , ''lily-livered'' etc, boy you are really learning from rush.

This is so typical. You still fell for the bait by calling names. By the way, I did not make the statement you attributed to me.

i listened to the first I0 to 20 mins of his speech at cpac,(watched it on cspan) he made no sense. just an imbecillic man prancing about like a retarded bully, talking without brains, a form or ''oro-cerebral disjuntion'' with ''verbal diarrhoea'' and his disciples were cheering.

Again you validate my point. You have not listened to the guy but here you are agian calling him all sorts. You can't provide a superior argument, and you quickly start calling people names. This is so childish. Is 10 or 20 minutes enough for you to judge a guy?

oops, i forgot, cspan is also part of the ''drive by media'' he was talking about.

Wrong. CSPAN is not. You sure don't know much.

tayo change topic abeg

You should change this attitude of villifying those you don't agree with, even though you have no clue what they stand for.

@topic,

I thot I'll share this with y'all. It was part of the broadcast yesterday. Perhaps this will provide you the avenue to give us some more superior argument.

This is about the smallest minority on earth. Any of you want to take a guess what that is? I bet you'll never get it right. Rush is simply brilliant on his take on this. Enjoy:

RUSH: Folks, we have got to drive these people out of office. We have to start now. The Republicans in Congress need to start throwing every possible tactic in front of everything the Democrats are trying to do. This is getting absurd. Listen to this. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey are putting the finishing touches on a 648-page global warming and energy bill that will certainly finish off this country. They're circulating the bill today. The text of the bill ought to be up soon at a website called globalwarming.org. The bill contains everything you'd expect from an Algore wish list. I don't know how this will not raise energy prices to crippling levels; finish off the auto industry as we know it, 648-page global warming and energy bill. I have a quick question. What would happen to these people -- and I think it's already been done -- but let's just pretend, let's pretend that there was incontrovertible evidence that global warming is not happening. Let's say there was incontrovertible evidence that the whole thing is wrong and that the scientists who have been touting it for decades, years now, let's just pretend they came out and said, "You know what, we're wrong about this. In fact, there is no global warming, there's global cooling," I wonder how Washington politicians would react.

My guess is they would say, "We can't trust this, this is too important," and they would move ahead with all of this freedom-limiting legislation anyway because that's what this is about. Pollution controls, they're so greatly enhanced now to the point that these mini-engines that are on these fuel-efficient cars, these little three-cylinder cars, they're so overwhelmed they could barely move phone booths, they can barely move themselves. You put two people in them and you're basically ticking along. I think one of the things that's at the root of this, think of the combustible engine and what it has meant to the development of this country. People able to go anywhere in the woods, in the tundra, wherever they had to go to develop things, to build things, the American automobile is one of the greatest illustrations of human freedom. You get in it and you go where you want to go, and that's what's irritating to people. The fact that you can't go any further than 300 miles without stopping for 45 minutes or an hour to charge your electric car is a boon. T[b]he less you travel, the more that you are inspired, motivated to take mass transportation, public transportation, the more that you are conditioned to live in places where you won't have to drive, that is what these people are after. [/b]

As I said, we have a gigantic new audience to this program, the tune-in factor is just through the roof. For those of you who are new to the program, I want you to please understand that the criticism of the Obama administration here and the disagreement with practically every element of his agenda is based on one thing. We do not want to lose the liberty and freedom that we were born with in this country and that has made this the greatest country on earth, that has given us the greatest, most prosperous lifestyle any of population of human beings in the history of the planet. It has been liberty; it's been freedom; it has been the ambition and desire to use that freedom in the concept of self-interest. I want to spend more time on this in a future program. But this notion of sacrifice that the president talked about yesterday is just over the top. Liberals always talk about sacrifice, Obama, every time he opens his mouth, mentions the need for people to sacrifice. We all must suffer. We all have to jointly suffer in order for all of us to somehow be the same, and self-interest, selfishness is condemned. And self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is what built this country.

Somebody starting a business did it in his self-interest. He didn't start a business so that there would be jobs and health care in the community. He started a business because he loved the business that he was in. He loved the business that he wanted to build. He had a product or a service that he thought would improve the lives of people. He wanted to sell it to them; he wanted to make it available to them. Everybody wins when everybody's acting in self-interest. Selfishness is a different thing. Self-interest is excellence; self-interest is what's desired; self-interest is what makes people want raises; self-interest is what makes people want their families to be secure; self-interest is what makes parents want their kids to be properly educated; self-interest is what propels the United States military to victory. Not sacrifice. Not the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving something to somebody you don't know to make yourself feel altruistic. You're not sacrificing. It doesn't make you great. But giving something to your family because you provided it for them, that is good. But if you run around just giving people who do nothing for you, who are just worthless, don't have anything to do with you, you're cheating them out of their own self-interest.


When you vote for politicians who take from your back pocket to give to others, you think it's compassionate, you think it's caring? It's not. It's depriving the recipient of his own quest for self-interest. The brilliant writer and novelist, Ayn Rand, has written about this. Let me give you a couple quotes from Ayn Rand on this. "It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." That is President Obama. "Where there is sacrifice, there's somebody collecting the sacrificial offerings." What does it mean? President Obama says, "We all need to sacrifice," for this reason or that reason. What it means is we all need to pay more; we need to have less affluent lives; we need to dial down our prosperity, and we need to give the money to him, not a charity. He's going to eliminate, for all intents and purposes, the tax deductibility, it's going to be 28 cents for every dollar, charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the charitable donations. He wants to be the distributor of the goods because he wants the glory.

"So it only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's somebody collecting the sacrificial offerings." Who is it that's talking about sacrifice? President Obama. Who's going to collect your sacrificial offerings? President Obama and his government. And "where there's service, there's somebody being served." There's no sacrifice in service. The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters. He intends to be the master. You're the slave. You must sacrifice.

We have a lot of people who love to talk about minorities, do we not? The minority is put upon, needs special consideration, special rights, the minority is put upon by the majority. The minorities are not granted equal treatment, and minorities need special considerations, it's not fair that they're a minority. What is the smallest minority on earth? This is not a trick question. What is the smallest minority on earth? Mr. Snerdley, I will start with you. Nope. The smallest minority on earth is not wealthy people. Dawn, do you want to take a stab at what is the smallest minority on earth? You'll never get it, but when I tell you what it is, you will think it's brilliant. Strawberry blondes are not the smallest minority on earth. Brian, you want to take a stab at it? Don't tell me owners of Spanish speaking radio stations. What is the smallest minority? You're never going to get it. The white male is not the smallest minority on earth. People would never get this 'cause we're not conditioned to think this way.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. We are all different. We are all individuals. We are being told to sacrifice our individuality. We're being told we must assemble in other groups of victims. Well, not all of us because some of us are the victimizers. The smallest minority on earth is the individual and thus those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. This administration claims to be a minority administration, first black president, historical nature. This administration is out to destroy the whole concept of individual rights under the guise of sacrifice, pay equalization, equalization of outcomes in other areas. But the smallest minority on earth is you, as an individual. You have individual rights, as granted by God, who created you, and our founding documents enshrine them: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Those rights don't come from other men or governments or women. They come from our creator, God. Higher power, whatever, however you want to look at it.


The smallest minority on earth is the individual, and I dare say that in this country today there's no one looking out for the individual, other than me. Nobody is looking out for the individual. In fact, in this country, just as it happened in Soviet Russia, just as it happens in North Korea, as it is happening in Venezuela, and as it happened in Cuba, the individual must be stamped out, the individual must be stomped upon, the individual as a concept must be done away with, and, as such, there go individual rights. You don't have individual rights nearly to the degree that you once did, not when you have been forced by either guilt or stigma to buy a car that you don't really want. When you're buying a car because you think it will get you less criticism, when you buy a car because you think people will think you're wonderful, but not because you want that car, you have sacrificed your individual rights. You have said, "My worth as an individual, my worth as who I am doesn't count anymore. I am going to define my worth by what somebody thinks of me. I'm going to define my worth by how little criticism I will get. I'm going to define my worth by how much I can make people think I care," based on the tug of popular sentiment each and every day.

When any of you decide to do away with pursuing what you want in your best self-interest, you are sacrificing who you are. You are giving up control of your essence, and you are saying, I would rather be a member of a group that is approved by people so that I don't get criticized or so that I'm thought of as enlightened or so that I'm thought of as advanced. In the process, you are helping to destroy the very foundational building blocks of the greatest country on earth, the country in which you happen to be born and the country in which you happen to live. So giving up your individual identity, giving up who you are, sacrificing your passions and your desires and your own self-interests for the so-called common good, who gets to define the common good? I would define the common good as everybody acting as an individual, born as he or she is, pursuing self-interest. That's the common good. That built cities; that built a great country; that built railroads and engines. It built airplanes. It built everything. People denying who they are did not.

When you deny your individuality, when you give it away for acceptance into a subgroup of people, you are harming the country; you are letting the country down; you are not pulling your weight. You are seeking approval, self-love and acceptance from all of the wrong sources. You're giving up the greatest gift you ever had, and that's who you are. And we have an administration that wants you to willingly and excitedly, eagerly give up who you are for a common good they define, a common good that requires you to deny who you are, your individuality, what makes you different from everybody else, whether you're not as good or whether you're much better at certain things. You will become a number. You will become a robot who can be programmed and inspired and motivated to behave in approved ways, and you will be taught to think you are virtuous when doing so, when all you've done is sold yourself and your country out. You give up your individuality, you sacrifice who you are, you allow that to be taken away for some mythical status as a member of a group, you are giving up your passion to become a moderate, or worse. People without passion never built anything. People without passion never got one thing done. People without passion are drags on achievement and accomplishment. That's what this administration wants you to become. - http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_033109/content/01125110.guest.html

A few thoughts

I really tried not to get sucked into this Limbaugh discussion, but I guess I could not resist,

First, we all have several pulls on our time. I chose to spend my time on things/people based on prior experiences and a bit of research. Limbaugh is certainly a long way down my list; I find him the least bit appealing nor do I think he is intellectually stimulating. I admit my views of Limbaugh may be based to limited information, but my encounters with him in news articles, interviews and even after reading the piece above give me greater confidence in my views.

However, Tayo, I think your comments, about people tending to read/listen to people they agree with while relying on sound-bites to characterize the opposing view, are very true. Liberals and conservatives alike fall into the same trap. Taking that idea one step further, not only do people not really listen to opposing ideas, they set out to intentionally or subconsciously misrepresent, polarize and demonize their opponents. These tactics are frequently applied by Limbaugh and other ideologues. In the piece above Limbaugh repeatedly jumps to wrong conclusions about the intended results of some of Obama's policies. Nobody is advocating to ridding individuality. Nobody wants to jettison individual rights. I find it difficult to see how an intellectually rigorous person could come to such conclusions.

Self interest. In my mind, I see self-interest as one step removed from selfishness and self-centeredness. I guess the degree of self-interest varies on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness. There are clearly benefits from acting in ones self-interest but there are also major problems. No one would dispute that the current financial collapse was fueled, in part, by the pursuit of self-interest and disregard for others. The position held by Limbaugh appears incredibly shortsighted. I would argue that the blind pursuit of self-interest for immediate fulfillment and gratification is one of the major ills threatening the fabric of today’s society. What happened to the discipline forgoing little benefits today for greater ones in the future? Any reasonable person would be aware of the terrible ills the Limbaugh version of capitalism has caused the world; irresponsible exploitation of natural resources and people are just two.

Another larger point is the inconsistency in the arguments as presented by Limbaugh conservatives. I would suspect many of these conservatives are Christian. I see deep inconsistencies when one touts the teachings of Jesus on one had, and on the other radical capitalism. I think the Bible and the predominant Christian doctrine repeatedly calls for sacrifice, care for the poor, and selflessness.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

@Dr D-Welz,

A  few thoughts

Thanks for sharing them.

I really tried not to get sucked into this Limbaugh discussion, but I guess I could not resist,

The guy na one interesting individual.  Even Obama could not resist the tug.

First, we all have several pulls on our time. I chose to spend my time on things/people based on prior experiences and a bit of research. Limbaugh is certainly a long way down my list; I find him the least bit appealing nor do I think he is intellectually stimulating. I admit my views of Limbaugh may be based to limited information, but my encounters with him in news articles, interviews and even after reading the piece above give me greater confidence in my views.

I agree we are all biased one way or another. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, it will be good to lay out our basis for disagreeing with people and not use every opportunity to attack their person.  That is what Rush has been subjected to.

However, Tayo, I think your comments, about people tending to read/listen to people they agree with while relying on sound-bites to characterize the opposing view, are very true. Liberals and conservatives alike fall into the same trap. Taking that idea one step further, not only do people not really listen to opposing ideas, they set out to intentionally or subconsciously misrepresent, polarize and demonize their opponents. These tactics are frequently applied by Limbaugh and other ideologues.

Again I agree with your presmis even though I disagree with the conclusion regarding Limbaugh.  I started listening to him last year because of Obama's paid lying advertisement that were directed at the gentleman. I've heard all sorts of things about him and my conclusion is that many of them are outright false. I don't agree that Limbaugh demonizes people.  That is the exclusive preserve of the Liberals. They never attempt to provide a superior argument, but they aim to destroy the people who pose a threat to their goals. Unfortunately, Obama falls in this category as well.

For instance, you have articulated here what you consider a better argument to what Rush posited, but you have not called him names nor make up stories in order to destroy his person.  That is way differnet than what I have seen in many discourses, including here on nairaland.  And for this, I applaud you and welcome the breathe of fresh air.

In the piece above Limbaugh repeatedly jumps to wrong conclusions about the intended results of some of Obama's policies. Nobody is advocating to ridding individuality. Nobody wants to jettison individual rights. I find it difficult to see how an intellectually rigorous person could come to such conclusions.

What other conlusions can you arrive at? Tell me, all of Obama's actions since he took office, which one enhances individual freedom?  We might think highly of Obama, but his actions and the results of those actions are detrimental to individual freedom! Look at the budget, the spending, the unholy alliance with the Labour Union, the quest to equalise individual outcomes and success.  None of these enhances freedom, but rather restricts it.  And for what purpose if I may ask? 

Self interest. In my mind, I see self-interest as one step removed from selfishness and self-centeredness. I guess the degree of self-interest varies on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness.

Self-interest is far diferent from selfishness. Self-interest is the reason why you went to school, it is the reason why you work several hours a day to take care of your self and your family.  You cannot provided anything of interest to the society if you have not taken care of your own interest. If you do not take care of what should be your interest, you become a burden on the society that may find itself propping you up. Self-inerest is good, selfishness is not.  So you see, I agree that self-interest is closer to atruism than to self-centerdness.

There are clearly benefits from acting in ones self-interest but there are also major problems. No one would dispute that the current financial collapse was fueled, in part, by the pursuit of self-interest and disregard for others.

I beg to dispute.  The current crisis was fueled by the govt's plan to equalise all outcomes.  It was birthed when the govt decided that those who are too lazy or lack sufficient slef-interest to pursue the American Dream must be given those benefits even when thy do not earn it. The banks acting in their self-interest would not have given those loans to people who can't keep them.  The govt forced them to act contrary to their self-interests by gving out subprime mortgages contrary to which they would be flouting the law. Self-interest didn't cause the wahala, it was govt selfishness that did. And that is why I am agaisnt govt getting involved in things that shouldn't be their business.  A govt's job is not to act in self-interest (which is always selfishness), but to ensure that everyone is not hindered in their pursuit of their self-interests.

The position held by Limbaugh appears incredibly shortsighted. I would argue that the blind pursuit of self-interest for immediate fulfillment and gratification is one of the major ills threatening the fabric of today’s society. What happened to the discipline forgoing little benefits today for greater ones in the future?.

Self-interest does not seek immediate fulfillment and gratification.  If self-interests does that, then I wouldn't have graduated from College.  My self-interest propelled me to wake up early in the morning, stay up late at night and pray twice as hard to be where I am today. My relentless pursuit of my self-interest made me a valuable and responsible memebr of the society.   

Any reasonable person would be aware of the terrible ills the Limbaugh version of capitalism has caused the world; irresponsible exploitation of natural resources and people are just two

One thing that is lost on you here is that self-interest is undergirded by morality. I will not pursue a course that violates my moral code even if I think it is in my self-interest. When I violate my morale code, it becomes selfishness. The beauty of capitalism is that it is not a respecter of persons.  It rewards the producers and punishes the non-producers.  That is the way it should be. Capitalsim teaches that if you want more, you got to produce more. And your quest to produce more will not only better your lot, but the society's. A society where entitlement is the order of the day kills initiatives, and when initive is destroyed, the society suffers. What is wrong with that?

Another larger point is the inconsistency in the arguments as presented by Limbaugh conservatives. I would suspect many of these conservatives are Christian. I see deep inconsistencies when one touts the teachings of Jesus on one had, and on the other radical capitalism. I think the Bible and the predominant Christian doctrine repeatedly calls for sacrifice, care for the poor, and selflessness.

First, let me point out to you that Conservatives have been proven over and over again to be far more generous that Liberals.  There are statistics out there to support this fact.  Rush you are talking about gives millions to charity every year, compare that to someone like Al Gore whom it was revea;led only gave a few hundreds to charity in a certain year.

As for Christian teaching, you totally misunderstand the Good Book. Let me wal you through a few scriptures.

1 Tim 4:16 - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. - This teaches before you can save others, you gotta save yourself first.

Matt 22:39 -  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Can you see that you can't love your neighbour until you love yourself first?  How can you love others whne you haven't loved yourself?

Whichever way you look at it, people can only benefit from you to the extent that you have benefited yourself.  You cannot give what you do not have, and you can never have until you pursue your self-interest.  Simple.

Tayo, quite interesting reading your response.

You don’t think Limbaugh demonizes his opponents? By demonize, I mean he misrepresents and ‘extreme-ifies’ their position. Look at the piece you posted: “The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters. He intends to be the master. You're the slave. You must sacrifice.” Mr Limbaugh makes a jump from sacrifice, all the way, to slaves and masters. As in this piece, I have seen similar tactics in much of Limbaugh’s work. Presenting his opponents in such extreme and threatening ways, I think, makes him very popular with his base, but also makes it quite hard for liberal or even moderate opponents to engage in intellectual discussions with him.

I find your understanding of self-interest interesting. I would place self-interest somewhere on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness, hence my saying that it is one step removed from selfishness. The degree of self-interest is clearly a spectrum; liberals and conservatives may fall on different ends of this spectrum. I don’t see how Obama’s policies advocates complete abnegation of ones self-interest. Please educate me on any of his policies I may be overlooking. He, however, calls for greater personal responsibility.

Your analysis of the cause of the current economic and banking failures, I find quite troubling and frankly misguided. Majority of economists would agree that the primary contribution of the government to the failures was the lack of proper regulations. Banks, bankers and mortgage brokers went wild in the pursuit of their selfish interests; this was radical capitalism on steroids. The culprits pursued their interests at the expense of the welfare of others.

I would hate to live in a world where radical capitalism is the order of the day. What would happen to people who cannot be productive? Disabled people, sick people, mentally retarded? What of when you are too old to be productive? It would be a truly hellish place if everyone simply pursued their own interests.

Thanks for the Bible lesson. But I am sure you know many dodgy people historically have found Bible passages that support and illustrate their ideas. My understanding of the overarching message of Jesus and the Bible is for people to sacrifice, care for the poor and act selflessly, all of which Jesus exemplified. Please let me know if you think I am completely misunderstanding these major tenets of the religion and what you think should be.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

@Dr D-Welz,

Tayo, quite interesting reading your response.

Believe me, I enjoy yours as well.

You don’t think Limbaugh demonizes his opponents? By demonize, I mean he misrepresents and ‘extreme-ifies’ their position. Look at the piece you posted: “The president who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters.  He intends to be the master.  You're the slave.  You must sacrifice.”  Mr Limbaugh makes a jump from sacrifice, all the way, to slaves and masters. As in this piece, I have seen similar tactics in much of Limbaugh’s work. Presenting his opponents in such extreme and threatening ways, I think, makes him very popular with his base, but also makes it quite hard for liberal or even moderate opponents to engage in intellectual discussions with him.

I do see your point.  However, I think you have blurred the differences between demonizing a person and demonizing an idea/position. If I can quote Limbaugh correctly, I believe he said something like this: "on this programme, we try to illustrate absurdity by being absurd".  I think that explains exactly what he is doing right there.  You will recall that Limbaugh is not the author of that quote.  However, he used the quote to illustrate a point which I think is very apt.  I'll explain.

Obama has been talking of sacrifice.  Can you tell me one that he has made? They've been demonizing Executives who use private jets, and yet they go around in one. Al Gore has been crying global warming and still flies around in a private jet. Biden said paying taxes is patriotic, yet half of their cabinet wont pay. The truth is that they think of themselves as a separate class from the people.  The rules don't apply to them even if they insist that others keep them.  The list goes on and on and on.

I find your understanding of self-interest interesting. I would place self-interest somewhere on the spectrum from altruism to selfishness, hence my saying that it is one step removed from selfishness.

And one step away from altruism. The truth is that the path to both starts with self-interest. What determines where each ends is not a function of govt.

The degree of self-interest is clearly a spectrum; liberals and conservatives may fall on different ends of this spectrum.

Liberals tend to be at the lowest rung of the ladder, even though they claim they are at the top. This explains why they act as "Mr Nice Guy" with other people's money (taxes), but are so stingy when it comes to their har earned dough.

I don’t see how Obama’s policies advocates complete abnegation of ones self-interest. Please educate me on any of his policies I may be overlooking. He, however, calls for greater personal responsibility.

Let me share one with you. The help for mortgage owners he has proposed requires that those who are deliquent should be resqued at all cost. Republicans tries to ensure that at least, those who lied to obtain such mortgages should be exempted, but Obama and co did not accept. Personal responsibility means you have to be allowed to enjoy the fruit of your labour and not be denied with the lessons of your failure. But what we are seeing now is that the successful people are demonized and the failures are propped up. We are being told that you must be a fool to be making sacrifices by paying your mortgage, and for your effort, you must pay the mortgage of those who are deliquent. How does that promote personal responsibility?   

Your analysis of the cause of the current economic and banking failures, I find quite troubling and frankly misguided. Majority of economists would agree that the primary contribution of the government to the failures was the lack of proper regulations. Banks, bankers and mortgage brokers went wild in the pursuit of their selfish interests; this was radical capitalism on steroids. The culprits pursued their interests at the expense of the welfare of others.

Have you ever heard of something called subprime mortgage? Do you know of the community reinvestment act?  These are the roots of the problem.  If these do not exist, there won't be any banking failures. What you've been told is nothing but symptoms of the real problem. Let me try and explain a little bit.

Banks were forced to make loans by the govt to people who can't afford them. Knowing this does not make for good judgement, they were promised that the loans will be guaranteed by the govt. The govt guarantee made investors see those loans as fool proof, and so created complex derivatives guaranteed by the shaky loans that the govt guaranteed. Now these loans would not have been made in the govt did not force the bank to do it, and without those loans the market would not e where it is today. The govt may try to demonise others for its mistakes, but it is the root cause of the problem.  To now think Obama has not learned any lessosn from this.  Now he wants to keep people in those houses who may never have the means to pay it back.  The thing tire me no be small.

I would hate to live in a world where radical capitalism is the order of the day. What would happen to people who cannot be productive? Disabled people, sick people, mentally retarded? What of when you are too old to be productive? It would be a truly hellish place if everyone simply pursued their own interests.

There seems to be a fundamental differnce between the two of us.  I believe more in the goodnees of my neighbour than I do of the govt.  I belive if left unrestrained, neighbors will be neighborly and the govt will become a tyranny. The private sector will never shirk its responsibility to its society and will act out of the goodness of its heart to help those in need. Govt on the other hand alwasy act to preserve a political advantage. You think Obama is targeting the rich because he cares for the poor?  No way, it is to take sides with those who give him the edge at the polls. I have one question for you: Do you think your money is better in the hands of the govt than in yours?

Thanks for the Bible lesson. But I am sure you know many dodgy people historically have found Bible passages that support and illustrate their ideas. My understanding of the overarching message of Jesus and the Bible is for people to sacrifice, care for the poor and act selflessly, all of which Jesus exemplified. Please let me know if you think I am completely misunderstanding these major tenets of the religion and what you think should be.

And I am sure you know many don't even understand what they read. You cannot sacrifice if you don't have something to give up. You cannot take care of the poor if you don't have the money. You do not misunderstand the tenets of the faith, you may not just rrealise what it takes to practice it.  If I give to the poor, it isn't just because I love the poor.  it is because my Lord commands me to do so, and I seek His favor. My self-interest is still paramount in all of these.  Check all the Bible priciples that involves giving (sacrifice).  It is always a cycle, that begins and ends with the individual.  Check these out:
Giving and receiving goes together.
Sowing and reaping are siamese twins
Cast your bread on the waters and you'll find it after many days.
So while you may be giving, sowing and casting your bread, your actions benefits you more than the recipient.  No wondre Jesus said "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Just thought about this. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell all he has and give to the poor, do you think He said that for the sake of the poor? No, he said that for the sake of the rich man's self-interest. He wanted the rich man to be free of covetousness. The guy's self-interest was Jesus' primary concern. To the untrained eye, it may appear Jesus' primary concern at that point was the poor.

Tayo-D

I will have to admit that I am beginning to find your arguments less and less compelling. I do not anticipate we'll be agreeing on any middle ground; we are on very different ends as you rightly noted.

Presenting ones opponent or his ideas in an extreme light, in my mind, serve a very similar purpose, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Your accusations against Al Gore, Biden and his cabinets on private jets, not paying taxes and seeing themselves as separate from the rest of us, are unfounded assertions; these speculations only serve to weaken your position. Even if your statements were entirely accurate, picking out a handful of personal contradictions is not sufficient reason to discredit an entire cause.

About your take on the cause of the economic crisis, I think you've got a whole lot more home work to do. If there are any leading economists out there that share your position on the underlying reasons of the crisis, I would assure you they are certainly in the minority. The Subprime mortgages and government efforts to increase accessibility of loans and home ownership are not new ideas to me. I don't dispute these government efforts may have contributed to the crisis. However, the government did not 'force' and brokers or bankers to make loans. These unscrupulous individuals and establishment in pursuit of their own interest plainly preyed on these vulnerable population. You must have heard of practices of lenders not vetting people's income, providing deceptive and misleading introductory rates, and engaging in other dodgy practices. My friend, in pursuit of self-interest, a quick buck and disregard of the interest of others, lenders and bankers made, by far, the major contribution to the current mess. As I mentioned previously, lack of adequate government supervision and oversight was another significant contributor. For you to deny these facts rather than address them head-on further weakens your position.

Obama's housing plan proposal to help mortgage defaulters, as you have rightly said may help some people who irresponsibly obtained mortgages. How would you propose distinguishing between the responsible and irresponsible ones after the fact? Many responsible people were caught in the trap and there are no full-proof ways of distinguishing them from the others. How about hard working families with both parent laid-off because the industries in their little town have closed? Should there be no safety nets to prop them up till they can regain their footing? Should they be left to lose their housing and healthcare coverage?

Your aversion to government is quite puzzling to me. Correct me if I'm misstating your position, but it seems your ideal world would have little or no role for the government, individuals would all be in the pursuit of their self-interest. That picture seems a little too close to an anarchic society to me. Take a close look at the progressive, prosperous, admirable and happy societies in today's world. Some Scandinavian countries including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, I'll argue epitomize the importance to striking the right balance between capitalism and government. The pursuit of self-interest has to be tempered by rules and regulations which are only enforceable under a governmental structure. Banks in these countries as well as US' northern neighbor, Canada, have been spared the worst of these worldwide crises mainly because of the regulations they had in place to temper radical capitalism. I am yet to see any logical, let alone convincing, arguments that exonerates radical capitalism as the principal underlying cause of our current crisis.

If you play a little closer attention to government that have become tyrannical, I would argue that the downward spiral resulted from each of their leaders pursuing their own self-interest and disregarding the interests of their populace and underprivileged. The pursuit of self-interest and its brainchild selfishness of individuals is one of the problems plaguing the African continent. I find it amusing that you make a connection between an individual pursuing his interest and acting neighborly, sounds contradictory to me.

I am taking aback by your explanation of the message of the Bible. You are saying that the bottomline is the individual. Think of yourself first; in everything you do, your interest must be paramount- is that the your understanding of the Bible message? I thought the defining characteristic of Christianity was selfless behavior as exemplified by Jesus. Can you please help me reconcile the ultimate pursuit of my self interest with Jesus' life. Are you saying Jesus could careless about the poor and sick? Did he ultimately act in his own self interest, and are we called to simply act in our own self interest?

@Dr D-Welz,

I will have to admit that I am beginning to find your arguments less and less compelling. I do not anticipate we'll be agreeing on any middle ground; we are on very different ends as you rightly noted.

But its good we are both articulatng our views without name-calling. That is the purpose of a debate.

Presenting ones opponent or his ideas in an extreme light, in my mind, serve a very similar purpose, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Your accusations against Al Gore, Biden and his cabinets on private jets, not paying taxes and seeing themselves as separate from the rest of us, are unfounded assertions; these speculations only serve to weaken your position. Even if your statements were entirely accurate, picking out a handful of personal contradictions is not sufficient reason to discredit an entire cause.

But how do you show the hypocrisy of the movement, especially its leaders if you do not come up with real examples that can be verified? It is another matter if I make allegations that are not based on facts, but these can al be verified.

I have often wondered that if these people believe so much in the govt's ability to spend their money better than they do, why don't they give 70% of their income to the govt? Maybe I do not completely understand liberalism but what I see so far is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. I say that not to call names, but to express the state of their being. As to them seeing themselves separate from the rest of us, I am still waiting for your example to illustrate how Obama has made the sacrifice he is asking from the rest of us.

About your take on the cause of the economic crisis, I think you've got a whole lot more home work to do. If there are any leading economists out there that share your position on the underlying reasons of the crisis, I would assure you they are certainly in the minority. The Subprime mortgages and government efforts to increase accessibility of loans and home ownership are not new ideas to me. I don't dispute these government efforts may have contributed to the crisis. However, the government did not 'force' and brokers or bankers to make loans.

Tell me, does the govt's effort to increase accessibility of loans make economic sense to you? If the banks werent forced through the force of law and the threats of lawsuits to make those loans, w wouldn't have the crisis. That is the root cause fo this wahala. That many do not shed light on it does not make it untrue. The only reason they are throwing more light on the complex derivatives is basically due to political leanings and ideology. I do stand to be corrected on that though.

These unscrupulous individuals and establishment in pursuit of their own interest plainly preyed on these vulnerable population. You must have heard of practices of lenders not vetting people's income, providing deceptive and misleading introductory rates, and engaging in other dodgy practices. My friend, in pursuit of self-interest, a quick buck and disregard of the interest of others, lenders and bankers made, by far, the major contribution to the current mess. As I mentioned previously, lack of adequate government supervision and oversight was another significant contributor. For you to deny these facts rather than address them head-on further weakens your position.

I am not denying theose facts, rather I am saying that situation would not have existed if the Bankers were not compelled to have acted in ways that violates theri self-interest. the govt set the ball rolling, and those guys atempted to make money because of the gov's guarantee.

As to preying on unsuspecting homeowners, I agree that situation took place but it has nothing to do with self-interest but selfishness and in most cases ignorance of the consequences of those actions. I have told you, when self-interest violates moral code, it becomes selfishness. Now do you believe the govt should be the one dictating our moral code? I think not. Now those homeowners would not have found themselves in that situation if the banks maintained their prior standard of asking for at least 20% down and verifying people's income. The community reinvention act eroded all these checks and balances that used to guide the banks actions.

And by the way, if you feel that the govt is complicit in the problem, what makes you think the same govt is the solution?

Obama's housing plan proposal to help mortgage defaulters, as you have rightly said may help some people who irresponsibly obtained mortgages. How would you propose distinguishing between the responsible and irresponsible ones after the fact? Many responsible people were caught in the trap and there are no full-proof ways of distinguishing them from the others.

Of course there are ways to know. Those facts can be easily verified wthout much ado. And by the way, how does bailing them out promote personal responsibility. What is personal responsibility without personal accountability, punishment and reward?

How about hard working families with both parent laid-off because the industries in their little town have closed? Should there be no safety nets to prop them up till they can regain their footing? Should they be left to lose their housing and healthcare coverage?

If you are asking that everyone should be bailed out, who will bail out the govt that keeps running up trillions of dollars in debt. Why should I continue to live in a million dollar home if I do not have an income. Why should the person who is working hard to pay his bills be forced to sustain my lifestyle which is still higher than his even though he has a job? You don't see any moral conflict here?

Your aversion to government is quite puzzling to me. Correct me if I'm misstating your position, but it seems your ideal world would have little or no role for the government, individuals would all be in the pursuit of their self-interest. That picture seems a little too close to an anarchic society to me. Take a close look at the progressive, prosperous, admirable and happy societies in today's world. Some Scandinavian countries including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, I'll argue epitomize the importance to striking the right balance between capitalism and government.

I am not an anarchist. The founding fathers were very sceptical of the govt which explains why they wanted the govt in as little contact with their lives as possible. The govt's role in the society is to ensure that nothing stands in my way in the quest of my self-interest. The govt is to ensure fairness, and justice and not to enforce equality or picking winners and losers in the society. As Mark Levin was quoted as saying: "government should exist only for the preservation of ordered liberty, or civil society."

The pursuit of self-interest has to be tempered by rules and regulations which are only enforceable under a governmental structure. Banks in these countries as well as US' northern neighbor, Canada, have been spared the worst of these worldwide crises mainly because of the regulations they had in place to temper radical capitalism. I am yet to see any logical, let alone convincing, arguments that exonerates radical capitalism as the principal underlying cause of our current crisis.

Capitalism gave us the greatest country ever in the history of the world. Capitalism is very pragmatic making room for boom time and austere time. Things are never ever going to be boom, boom all the time. That is a fact of life. The govt's insistence on creating a false reality by ensuring economic boom all the time is the cause of our present predicament. Capitalism has a way of correcting unsustainable models if left alone. Govt's actions will always create a bubble that will eventually burst by creating an artificial demand and sustaining unrealistic hopes in citizens whose drive and ambitions are tempered by govt regulations.

If you play a little closer attention to government that have become tyrannical, I would argue that the downward spiral resulted from each of their leaders pursuing their own self-interest and disregarding the interests of their populace and underprivileged. The pursuit of self-interest and its brainchild selfishness of individuals is one of the problems plaguing the African continent. I find it amusing that you make a connection between an individual pursuing his interest and acting neighborly, sounds contradictory to me.

There is nothing contradictory about both concepts at all. My pursuit of self-interst has so far brought me to a place where I am a more productive memebr of my society. I decided to be an Engineer, not because of my society, but because of my personal gols and ambition. To achieve that goal, I disciplined my appetites, avoided certains relationships, lived my life basically on a routine and lived a quiet and peaceable life wih my friends and neighbours. Though the primary concern is me, every one receives the benefit. What do you think will happen if all lived that way?

And by the way, you keep swapping self-interest with selfishness. I have explained the difference over and over again, but you just keep ignoring it. You mind taking that into consideretion next time? Believe me, many of the things you wrote here will not be necessary if you do.

I am taking aback by your explanation of the message of the Bible. You are saying that the bottomline is the individual. Think of yourself first; in everything you do, your interest must be paramount- is that the your understanding of the Bible message? I thought the defining characteristic of Christianity was selfless behavior as exemplified by Jesus. Can you please help me reconcile the ultimate pursuit of my self interest with Jesus' life. Are you saying Jesus could careless about the poor and sick? Did he ultimately act in his own self interest, and are we called to simply act in our own self interest?

Let me make this a little more global. As Christians, the center of our worship must be God. That is why the scripture says: In Him, we live and move and have our being. To go a step further, we will see that God acts in His own self-interests. If you think that God will do anything for you that does not bring the final attention to Him, you are simply mistaken.

Now to bring the ultimate glory back to Him, he create us to worship Him and have fellowship with Him. To each one of us, He gave a goal, a roadmap, a vision. That vision comes first before any other thing. God having a better view of the entire picture knows how everything will fit together to make the greatest harmony. In that regard, to make a better world, I have to follow His plan for my life and not any others. Let me illustrate with an example.

Remember when that lady broke that alabastar jar to put perfume on Jesus' feet? Remember what Jesus said to Judas who claimed the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor? "The poor you will always have with you, but this perfume is needed for my burial." (my paraphrase). Doesn't that sound cold to you? And doesn't Judas sound more to you like today's liberal? They cry more about the poor but they really don't care about them! (again that's my opinion based on the facts I see). Jesus was definitely motivated at that point by His self-interest to fulfill His Father's will. And fufilling His self-interest brought salvation to the entire human race.

And like I quoted from the Bible before, you can only love others to the extent that you love yourself. How can you be of use to otheres when you have not been of use to yourself? Please answer that question.

Good discussion! However, I don't think I am prepared to continue with the back and forth. I look forward to reading from you on other threads. It would be a relatively short post this time around, mainly reiterating some main points.

I think your analysis of the main contributors to the current financial crisis is erroneous, or at best extremely narrow. You seem to simply dismiss the factors that a majority of experts would agree are major contributors.

I also observe that your are completely unwilling to admit that there are possible ills from radical capitalism. You happily claim all the benefits from the practice of capitalism and very readily ascribe the ills to 'government.' You also don't seem to think any problems can possibly arise for ardent pursuits of ones self-interest.

I agree that the primary role of the government is to ensure fairness and justice. Under this role I would include tempering people's pursuit of their self-interest when it conflicts with the interest of society as a whole, or with another persons pursuit of his/her own self-interest. To me, fairness, justice and protection of civil society includes protecting basic human rights of the poor, protecting workers pay and entitlements even when it is in the self-interest of their employers not to, and ensuring adequate access to basic life necessities. Beyond the financial crisis, I would argue that the major failures of today's American society are from our oversubscription to radical capitalism. The failures include perpetuating socioeconomic inequalities and lack of access of millions of people to basic healthcare; these failure do not represent a civil society.

I could also not disagree more on your position on the Christian message. I am not advocating for a total disregard of one self-interests but instead a cautious evaluation and pursuit in the light of the interest of others. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would emphasize that some overarching and radical messages of Christianity are self-sacrifice, selflessness and care for poor. Completely turning that message on its head and claiming all those are ultimately in the pursuit of self-interest, hmm, I think is completely misguided.

http://africa-onecountryaweek..com/

@Dr D-Welz,

Good discussion! However, I don't think I am prepared to continue with the back and forth. I look forward to reading from you on other threads. It would be a relatively short post this time around, mainly reiterating some main points.

I have enjoyed it too and look forward to more discussions on other threads.

I think your analysis of the main contributors to the current financial crisis is erroneous, or at best extremely narrow. You seem to simply dismiss the factors that a majority of experts would agree are major contributors.

Let me explain this in another way. There are at least two ways to look at a scenario in which a fourteen story house collapses after it was built on a foundaton that can only handle 2 floors. Someone can claim that the problem is the too many floors that were built. The house would not have collapsed if too many floors were not erected. This represents your position on the financial crisis. On the other hand, I see the problem as the foundation. If the foundation was strng enough, the house would stand, even if it was built up to 20 floors. So in effect, the superstructure may have been well built, but the foundation remains the weakest link.  The foundation for this financial mess was laid with the bad mortgages that the govt made the banks create. the superstructures would have stood had the foundation being well laid. That is my point!     

I also observe that your are completely unwilling to admit that there are possible ills from radical capitalism. You happily claim all the benefits  from the practice of capitalism and very readily ascribe the ills to 'government.' You also don't seem to think any problems can possibly arise for ardent pursuits of ones self-interest.

See, I would rather have unrestrained capitalism than unrestrained govt.  Capitalism and Statism (state-ism) share one thing in common, the desire to preserve itself. So while capitalism's self-preservation will benefit the society, Statism's self-preservation does not. It leads to tyranny.

I agree that the primary role of the government is to ensure fairness and justice. Under this role I would include tempering people's pursuit of their self-interest when it conflicts with the interest of society as a whole, or with another persons pursuit of his/her own self-interest. To me, fairness, justice and protection of civil society includes protecting basic human rights of the poor, protecting workers pay and entitlements even when it is in the self-interest of their employers not to, and ensuring adequate access to basic life necessities. Beyond the financial crisis, I would argue that the major failures of today's American society are from our oversubscription to radical capitalism. The failures include perpetuating socioeconomic inequalities and lack of access of  millions of people to basic healthcare; these failure do not represent a civil society.

If this discussion continues, perhaps I wll get to share with you what my ideal model is. The government does not need to overeach by coming to temper most of the things it is extending its hand into. For instance, the practice of engineering isn't regulated by the govt but rather its members. This can be done in every area of our life. The idea of a democracy is pople watching and tempering the govt, not the other way round.

By the way, the poor do not have any human right that is exclusive to them. Human rights are God-given and transcends race, status or religion. Any right extended to the poor must also be extended o the rich. It is not the govt's job to protect people's pay. Forces of demand and supply is able to do that perfectly. When the govt dictates and mandates a minimum wage, it affects the laws of supply and demand which is basic to economics.  And when the fundamentals are flawed, what can you build on it?

I could also not disagree more on your position on the Christian message. I am not advocating for a total disregard of one self-interests but instead a cautious evaluation and pursuit in the light of the interest of others. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would emphasize that some overarching and radical messages of Christianity are self-sacrifice, selflessness and care for poor. Completely turning that message on its head and claiming all those are ultimately in the pursuit of self-interest, hmm, I think is completely misguided.

I can see that you have consistently ignored answering the asic questions that will clarify this issue for you. How can you look out for and meet other people's interest if you do not know and meet yours? Let's pick the virtues you listed one at a time.
Self-sarifice and sleflessness: My sacrifice changes me more than it changes you. If I give to you, I am more blessed than you are.  That is the Bible principle.
Care for the poor: I give to the poor with the knowledge that for ever dollar that I sow, I will receive a hundredfold return. Remeber what Jesus said about those who leave houses, lands etc for his sake? They will receive 100-fold returns. Again, I may sound monotonous, but I see self, in all this.  Not selfishness, but self-interest. When i am the best that I can be, the world is better for it.

Let me round this up by sharing the following with you.  I chose to become an Engineer not because I felt that is what the society needs, but because I knew that was my destiny. My self-interest trumps that of the society hands-down. But in serving my self-interest, my society has one of the best engineers they could ever ask for. Be honest, when you were thinking of a career, did you look at your society to determine what it needs best or did you look deep inside to find out what you have to do to live a happy and fulfilled life?  Your honest answer shoudl put paid to this back and forth. 

@topic,

Never quite sure where to post this. But since it was written by Rush Limbaugh's father and posted on his website, I decided to have it here. It is a brief history of the Signers of America's Declaration of Independence. Stories are very moving and shows what these people had to sacrifice to give us the greatest country ever known in the history of the world. Enjoy the reading.

The Americans Who Risked Everything


My father, Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr., delivered this oft-requested address locally a number of times, but it had never before appeared in print until it appeared in The Limbaugh Letter. My dad was renowned for his oratory skills and for his original mind; this speech is, I think, a superb demonstration of both. I will always be grateful to him for instilling in me a passion for the ideas and lives of America's Founders, as well as a deep appreciation for the inspirational power of words which you will see evidenced here:

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"


It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.


Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."



"Most Glorious Service"

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

· Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

· William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

· Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

· John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."

· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.


· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.



Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."


My friends, I know you have a copy of the Declaration of Independence somewhere around the house - in an old history book (newer ones may well omit it), an encyclopedia, or one of those artificially aged "parchments" we all got in school years ago. I suggest that each of you take the time this month to read through the text of the Declaration, one of the most noble and beautiful political documents in human history.

There is no more profound sentence than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, "

These are far more than mere poetic words. The underlying ideas that infuse every sentence of this treatise have sustained this nation for more than two centuries. They were forged in the crucible of great sacrifice. They are living words that spring from and satisfy the deepest cries for liberty in the human spirit.

"Sacred honor" isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears.

- Rush Limbaugh III

Where was this Limbaugh when Bush led America into Golgotha?.  Where was he when Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfield ran white house like Guantanamo?.You guys are helping that uneducated obese cigar chewing three time divorcee become an injurious star.  As far as am concerned, Limbaugh is partisan and I hate partisan politics whether you are liberal, conservative or moderate. It's like a pentecostal christian  criticizing a catholic and vice versa when all of them are guilty of the same crime. Conservatives have controlled the American govt more than liberals especially in the last 20 years which means they helped land America into this shit they are today and contributed immensely towards it. It also means that whatever they are preaching may only be good in theory because it has never worked. You guys should stop being doomsday prophets and try something new and I believe that most Americans are fed up with their idiosyncratic logic and have decided to dump them into the basket of history. How can a party like the GOP allow a school drop out like Limbaugh to speak for them?. Whether Limbaugh or Hannity and Colmes, it doesn't matter because they are after one thing: their career and the money that comes with it. Your interest is the last thing on their mind. Shoot!

@Aloy.Emeka,

To say I am dissapointed with your input will be putting it mildly. You took a page out of the Leftist book by attacking your perceived opponent's personality while not addressing the issues. When are you guys going to grow up? In order to avoid this unwarranted personal attacks, I have provided enough talking points here that I expect any one interested in engaging in a debate can mull over and address. You have not done any of that so far.

What is wrong with dropping out of school? You have a problem with Bill Gates too? See how shllow your contribution is! As to where these guys were during the Bush Admin, if you had cared to follow what they had been saying since, you would have found out things have not changed. But of course since it is Obama in office, he is above criticism. If anything at all, people like Rush opposed Bush on many of his policies that expanded govt and increased social welfarism. But since Bush does not have a black skin, you summarily failed to take notice.