HEARTBREAKING: Rush Limbaugh Dies at 70


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/02/17/breaking-rush-limbaugh-dies-at-70-n1426245;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh passed away on Wednesday. Kathryn Adams Limbaugh, Limbaugh’s wife of eleven years, announced his death on his iconic radio show.

“It is with profound sadness I must share with you directly that our beloved Rush, my wonderful husband, passed away this morning due to complications from lung cancer,” his wife said. “Losing a loved one is terribly difficult, even more so when that loved one is larger than life.”

“Rush will forever be the greatest of all time,” his wife added. “Rush was an extraordinary man, a gentle giant, brilliant, quick-witted, genuinely kind, extremely generous, passionate, courageous, and the hardest working person I know.”

“Despite being one of the most recognized powerful people in the world, Rush never let the success change his core or beliefs. He was polite and respectful to everyone he met,” she added.

President Donald Trump awarded Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom last February, recognizing the conservative giant’s achievements over decades on his iconic show.

PJ Media will have a long list of tributes to the Legend of Limbaugh, as Bryan Preston called him. Look for forthcoming stories from Victoria Taft and Megan Fox.

Limbaugh had always been an inspiration for me, as my father listened to him on the radio as I grew up in rural Colorado. Rush often was the key voice of sanity in a politics gone mad. While I have not always agreed with the man behind the EIB microphone, I have always admired his passionate commitment to conservatism and the truth.

All hail Rush Limbaugh, truly the greatest of all time.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

What Did Rush Limbaugh Mean When He Said America Is ‘Trending Toward Secession’?
The Legend of Limbaugh
Trump to Award Rush Limbaugh With the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Double Standards on Rush Limbaugh’s Presidential Medal of Freedom



The Passing of Rush Limbaugh

The Passing of Rush Limbaugh


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/the-passing-of-rush-limbaugh;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Radio legend and conservative commentator Rush Hudson Limbaugh III has died today at age 70, ending an era of broadcasting in which he revolutionized the talk-radio industry. He had suffered from lung cancer, first announcing his condition last February. His wife, Kathryn, announced his passing on today’s Limbaugh show — he had been off the program for the past two weeks.

I first recall hearing Rush in 1989 while driving on the freeway in Oklahoma City. At first, I thought he was a local radio talk-show host and was impressed that KTOK Radio had been able to obtain such an entertaining personality. His show was marked by humor, usually missing from most hosts. Accompanied by martial music, Limbaugh was ridiculing the adoration being afforded Soviet Communist ruler Mikhail Gorbachev. It was refreshing to me, as I was sickened by how much of American media praised Gorbachev like he was a cross between Thomas Jefferson and Billy Graham, or even Mother Teresa.

Humor was an integral part of Rush’s show. While often ridiculous, he remarked he used humor to illustrate the absurdity of the Left by being absurd. Years ago, when the transgender movement was still in its infancy, he did a bit about being a “male lesbian,” who needed women to come forward and help him with his unique situation.

His humorous efforts were in stark contrast to liberals, who are usually humorless. His mock bravado irritated the Left and amused his fans, such as his oft-repeated message that he would have “half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair” in his verbal jousts with liberals.

One of the most memorable aspects of his programs were his “parody” songs, performed by Paul Shanklin, such as his remarks on Bill Clinton via the song, “All your money, I will tax from you,” sung to the tune of the Beatles’ song, “All My Lovin’.” One of my favorites was his criticism of Senator John McCain and his neoconservative interventionist foreign policy with a song set to the music of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann,” in which Shanklin sang, “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!”

It all had a point. Rather than present conservatism in dry, and often pessimistic, tones, Limbaugh used various types of humor to make a point. For example, I remember well the time that he spent several minutes discussing the “radical environmentalist wackos,” as he called them, and their concern about the Spotted Owl losing its “habitat.” Finally, he concluded the discussion with, “At the end of the day, if the Spotted Owl can’t make it, screw it!”

Following the 1992 election, in which Bill Clinton had won the presidency, former President Ronald Reagan wrote Rush. “I know the liberals call you the most dangerous man in America but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same things about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear ‘the way things ought to be,’” a play on Limbaugh’s book by the same title.

It was Reagan’s push, through the Federal Communications Commission, to repeal the Fairness Doctrine (which required equal and free time be given on a radio program if the host or a guest on the program criticized someone) that made Rush Limbaugh possible. Because few or no radio stations could afford to be giving away free time to everyone who did not like what a radio host had to say about them, they just avoided politics and public affairs. Instead, AM Radio was reduced to gardening and home-improvement shows (music was going to FM). But after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh’s show went national and he became not only successful but an integral part of the culture.

In addition to writing popular books for adults, in recent years Limbaugh had turned to children’s books about American history — the Rush Revere series — in which he attempted to give a more patriotic (and accurate) version of American history than kids are likely to receive in school.

The success of his show predictably spawned several imitators, such as Sean Hannity, none of which were as successful as Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2009, Rush demonstrated that he could be quite serious, as well. Explaining “who we conservatives are,” Rush said, “We love people. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims.”

He added, “We believe that a person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations, and too much government. We want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our Creator, we’re all individuals.”

One complaint that some conservatives have made about Limbaugh is that he avoided certain topics, such as the globalist push for world government. But in recent years — especially during the Trump years and in the last year of his life — he turned increasingly to warn Americans about the push for one-world government from the globalists.

No man is perfect, but Limbaugh certainly made his mark on the world during his 70 years on the Earth. In 2020, President Donald Trump awarded Rush the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union address. “Here tonight is a special man, someone beloved by millions of Americans,” President Trump said. “He is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet.”

May he rest in peace.

The Biggest Lie of All – The Dan Bongino Show

In this episode, I discuss the REAL story behind the ongoing crisis in Texas. Liberals are lying to protect their Green New Deal dreams. I also discuss the enormous lie Joe Biden told last night on CNN.

Looking for news?

The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information. https://bonginoreport.com/

Biden Dismisses China’s Uyghur Genocide as Difference in “Cultural Norms”

Members of the Muslim Uighur minority hold placards as they demonstrate in front of the Chinese consulate on December 30, 2020, in Istanbul, to ask for news of their relatives. (Bulent Kilic/AFP via Getty Images)

Refuses to denounce re-education camps.


SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/biden-dismisses-chinas-uyghur-genocide-as-difference-in-cultural-norms/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden refused to denounce China’s Uyghur genocide during his CNN appearance last night, asserting that the Communist country’s systematic oppression of minorities was just a different cultural norm.

Yes, really.

Despite the Trump administration and his own characterizing Beijing’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims as a genocide, Biden furiously backpedaled after he was asked about the issue.

“If you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home,” said Biden, going on to say that President Xi Jinping is aiming to achieve a “tightly controlled China.”

“I’m not gonna speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in the western mountains of China…culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” he added.

More than a million Uyghurs and other minorities are held against their will in re-education camps throughout the Xinjiang region.

After Xi Jinping directed authorities to show “absolutely no mercy” towards prisoners, reports began emerging of the forced sterilization and systematic gang rape and torture of women by guards.

“Tursunay Ziawudun, who fled Xinjiang after her release and is now in the US, said women were removed from the cells “every night” and raped by one or more masked Chinese men. She said she was tortured and later gang-raped on three occasions, each time by two or three men,” reports the BBC.

Victims have also reported that guards use electric batons to rape women, electrocuting them from the inside.

Apparently, according to Joe Biden, this is just part of Chinese ‘cultural norms’ and shouldn’t be questioned.

UK Supermarket Calls Police On Disabled Man For Not Wearing Mask, Tries to Make Him Wear Yellow Sticker LIKE THE JEWS IN NAZI GERMANY

"It's not law, she's going to phone the police over a policy."



SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/supermarket-calls-police-on-disabled-man-for-not-wearing-mask-tries-to-make-him-wear-yellow-sticker/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

British supermarket Morrisons called the police on a disabled man who was medically exempt from wearing a face mask after attempting to make him wear a yellow sticker.

Yes, really.

The clip shows the man involved in a confrontation with a security guard and staff as they try to make him wear the sticker.

The man calls them out by asking how a sticker could stop the spread of coronavirus.

When he refuses to wear the sticker, he is asked to leave the store as staff claim they are just doing their job.

“Weren’t they just doing their job in the Nazi Germany? Can you remember how they said that during the Nuremberg trials?”

The staff then call the police, although are unsure if they should be calling the ‘999’ emergency number.

The security guard says the yellow stickers are to “explain to other people in the store that you’re medically exempt,” despite this not being part of the law.

“It’s not law, she’s going to phone the police over a policy, you can’t phone the police over a policy,” explains the man, who ends up paying for his shopping and leaving before any police arrive.

According to the law, people do not have to answer questions as to why they are medically exempt and are not required to signal to others with any kind of sticker or badge that they are medically exempt.

The dark undertones of forcing disabled people to wear yellow stars hardly needs to be explained.

This underscores how the obsession with forcing people to wear face masks, despite their efficacy being disputed by numerous studies, is being abused to target the vulnerable.

Big Brother Watch asked Morrisons to apologize for the behavior of their staff, but the company is yet to respond.

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION: Statement on President Biden’s Renewed Promise of Gun Control

NRA-ILA Biden Yelling

Former VP Joe Biden yelling at dozens of his supporters at a rally. IMG NRA-ILA


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/fpc-statement-on-president-bidens-renewed-promise-of-gun-control;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- President Biden renewed his declaration of intent to launch a new assault upon the People of the United States and their rights and property, “calling on Congress to enact” unconstitutional and immoral policies including bans on common semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. Prior to the election, FPC warned that the Biden-Harris campaign, which promised a massive number of new and expanded anti-rights policies, was “a clear and present danger to liberty, freedom, the Constitution, and the values that have made America the greatest country in the world” and “a uniquely grave threat to all that we hold dear[.]”

The Biden Administration’s promise to enact “gun law reforms” is nothing less than calling for further tyranny and paternalism cloaked in the false promise of so-called “public safety.” FPC remains firm in its belief that laws which threaten the rights, liberty, and property of the People are immoral, should be abolished, and must be fiercely opposed by all Americans who value liberty and the Republic.

The recently seated 177th Congress has already introduced nearly five-dozen firearm-related bills, many of them outrageous acts to criminalize constitutionally protected items and conduct. And following the President’s statement yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi similarly promised to pass a range of gun control legislation. And since his inauguration, President Biden has already signed 30 executive orders, showing that he is unafraid of constitutional limits on executive powers, and will, to the extent he deems acceptable, use ‘a pen and a phone’ to implement his dangerous and un-American agenda.

FPC will continue to closely review proposed legislation, regulations, and executive actions for statutory violations, constitutional violations, and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. And as we have before, such as in the case of former President Trump’s bump-stock ban, FPC will take whatever actions are necessary, possible, and prudent to protect the rights and liberty of law-abiding gun owners and our members against immoral and unconstitutional laws, as well as abusive government agencies and policies.

Individuals who wish to fight and oppose gun control bills can send a message to Congress at FPCAction.org and join the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.Firearms Policy Coalition

Ken Paxton to Biden: You “Won’t Undo the 2A in Texas on My Watch.”

Ken Paxton to Biden: You “Won’t Undo the 2A in Texas on My Watch.”


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/ken-paxton-to-biden-you-wont-undo-the-2a-in-texas-on-my-watch/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Seizing the opportunity to use the third anniversary of the Parkland school shooting for his anti-gun purposes, Biden called on Congress on Sunday to enact “common sense” gun laws to prevent such a horrific event from happening again.

He said:

Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change.

The time to act is now.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately saw through the façade, tweeting:

The Parkland shooting 3 years ago was an act of unspeakable evil. But Democrats cannot be allowed to use this tragedy as an opportunity to cram down unhelpful and unconstitutional gun laws.

Biden won’t undo the #2A in TX on my watch.


That’s exactly what Biden’s newly restructured ATF is going to have to do, as the vast majority of Americans “clinging” to their rightfully purchased and owned firearms aren’t likely to give them up willingly. At present, there appears to be no plan to do so. So far, it’s all just words, words, words.

Nearly a year ago The New American reviewed Biden’s plan to disarm every American. The keystone is abolishing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, that protects gunmakers from frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt them.

The other planks follow a similar pattern: banning the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons”; mandating that existing “assault weapons” be registered under the National Firearms Act, which at present regulates items such as machineguns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles. Under the NFA, potential buyers must pay $200 for the privilege of owning such weapons. Or, of course, such weapons may be turned over to the government in a “buyback.” 

Background checks will be required for all firearms-related transactions. Biden also wants every state to enact “red flag” laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or ERPOs), which can forcibly disarm citizens who have not been charged with a crime.

Ghost printing of receivers would be banned as well. The penalty would apply to anyone downloading the 3D printing plans from the Internet.

There would be new “safe at home” requirements, limits to how many firearms one may purchase in a month, and so forth.

When the National Rifle Association (NRA) learned of Biden’s plans to disarm the populace, the five-million member group laughed it off:

Joe and his supporters fear-monger using words like “assault weapons” to describe America’s most popular home defense rifle — the AR-15 — or “AR-14” to Joe.

Joe — We’ll say it real slow. Come and take it.

Biden doesn’t care that none of those mandates would have kept the Parkland murderer from carrying out his ghastly work. The shooter legally owned the rifle, having already passed the requisite background checks.

And suggestions emanating from that tragedy that teachers be allowed to arm themselves fell on deaf ears.

Biden’s anti-gun henchmen face the same problem every other anti-gun politician faces in the United States: the unique problem that nearly half the populace owns a firearm (or several firearms). And they aren’t likely to roll over just because Biden says to.

Hitler had a similar problem with Switzerland. He developed Operation Tannenbaum to invade the small Alpine country. The plan called for using 21 German divisions and 15 Italian divisions, totaling some 500,000 troops. History records that, after considering the cost, the difficulty, and the potential armed resistance from every Swiss male between age 18 and 34, Hitler bagged the plan.

The dictator had a similar problem with the Jews. After nearly 400,000 of them were sent to the Warsaw ghetto, being slowly starved to death or sent to death camps, they decided to fight back. An operation that was supposed to take just three days took nearly a month as the supposedly disarmed and starving denizens fought off Hitler’s troops. When the last Jew had been killed an arsenal of firearms — rifles, pistols, and hand grenades — was discovered.

The lesson Hitler learned, and which Biden and his anti-gun tyrants will have to learn, is that, driven to the wall, Americans won’t cave.

Paxton is right. If Biden wants the guns, he’ll have to come and take them. 

Related articles:

Biden Declares His Intention “To Defeat the NRA”

Under Biden, Gun Ownership Would Be a “Heavily Regulated Privilege”


Support for a Third Party Reaches All-Time High, Making It Likely There Is a New Coalition Forming


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/stacey-lennox/2021/02/15/support-for-a-3rd-party-reaches-an-all-time-high-making-it-likely-there-is-a-new-coalition-to-be-built-n1425677;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A recent Gallup poll shows record levels of support for a third party in the U.S. In reviewing the details, it seems as if there is a significant opportunity to reform one of the current parties, which could lead to indefinite political wins for the one that does it correctly. More data is certainly needed on specific policy preferences, as it is not abundantly clear what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean anymore. However, since the election, I have been asserting that if the country’s vast economic middle could settle on critical priorities, they could form an overwhelming coalition in electoral politics.

Let’s look at the numbers, first. A record 50% of Americans surveyed now identify as political independents. It is an even split for those identifying as members of the two major parties at 25% apiece. This finding is a net drop of 5% identifying as Democrats and an increase of 1% for Republicans since early January. The Gallup poll found that 62% of U.S. adults say the “parties do such a poor job representing the American people that a third party is needed.”

According to Gallup’s historical trends, 60% supported a third party in 2013, which increased to 61% in 2017. These surveys followed the reelection of Barack Obama and the election of Donald Trump, respectively. It is interesting to note that it has not fallen below 57% since 2013. In cycles since 2003, it fell into the 40s during election years. That did not happen in 2016 or 2020. In September of 2020, with two candidates to choose from in November, it sat at 57%. Since the election, the desire for a third party has risen to 62%.

Because they lean left, Gallup seems to think the cause for the increase in support for a third party comes from anti-Trump Republicans from prior administrations. That idea is debatable. There are just as many Trump supporters disillusioned with moderate GOP members. There was also a significant amount of support for President Trump’s rumored Patriot Party.

It would be great if folks on both sides of the aisle could understand that our representatives all have various constituencies and may depart from the party line for reasons other than personal animus. On the Democrat side, senators like Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who represent red and purple states, deal with similar ire from their left-wing. Our politics would be less toxic if our party leaders and the corporate media understood that we are a vast nation with varying perspectives on many policy issues.

Republicans want a third party at a rate of 63%. They are second only to independent voters at 70%. Democrats and Republicans have switched places since September, when members wanted a third party at 52% and 40%, respectively. Likely the reversal is due to the election outcome that handed Democrats the legislative and executive branches. However, there are still divisions within the Democrat Party:

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are evenly divided on the direction their party should go — 34% want it to become more liberal, 34% more moderate, and 31% to stay where it is.

Democratic identifiers tilt more toward wanting the party to go in a liberal direction (34%) than a moderate one (25%), while Democratic-leaning independents tilt toward wanting the party to become more moderate, 42% to 35%.

Republicans have a split as well, but a plurality of party members and Republican-leaning independents want the party to move further right, according to the survey:

A 40% plurality want the party to become more conservative, while 34% want it to stay the same and 24% to become more moderate. While Republican identifiers are about twice as likely to say the party should become more conservative than moderate (44% to 21%), Republican-leaning independents are split, with 36% wanting it to move further to the right of the ideological spectrum and 30% to move toward the center.

The primary problem both of these responses present is what do those terms even mean anymore? Does becoming more liberal mean moving more to the left? Because going further left in the Democrat coalition means becoming more illiberal. That is Wokeville, the provenance of safe spaces, speech codes, and cancel culture. It is also the wing that wants to destroy our longstanding institutions by ending the Senate filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and eliminating the Electoral College.

Likewise, what do “farther right” or “more conservative” mean? Conservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, and Candace Owens seek out conversations with decent liberals who agree on foundational principles. There is agreement on free speech, freedom of religion, skepticism of concentrations of power, and open inquiry, even if they disagree on policy solutions. In many ways, it seems those who agree on those fundamental principles are closer to forming a coalition than either party’s wings.

Does “more conservative” mean closer to the policies of the Trump administration? Those policies were a mix of populist objectives aimed at benefitting those dispossessed by years of movement toward a global economy and what once would have been considered moderate policies, like tax reform and deregulation. There was a significant deviation in foreign policy toward China, but treating them as anything other than an existential threat was a feature of both parties, beginning with Nixon.

Even during the pandemic, 56% of Americans said in October of 2020 that they were better off under President Trump’s policies than they were four years ago. In July of 2020, a record 73% of Americans had an unfavorable view of China. While this was undoubtedly related to the pandemic, it was also associated with Hong Kong protestors’ treatment and the revelations about China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims. A majority prioritized human rights in China rather than economic relations. This view opposes the opinion of many of those in our political class and global corporations.

It seems more than possible that a platform that returns us to intelligent energy independence, a foreign policy that clearly defines our allies and enemies, with a focus on Americans’ prosperity and security at its core, could appeal to a broad coalition. A return to a shared and more patriotic national identity is popular among 57% of likely voters. The party that can define it, communicate it authentically, and find candidates to support it will be the undeniable winner in the future.