LETTERS TO RUSH LIMBAUGH

First of all I would like to express my thanks to all the people who have been reading this blog. I have done three postings so far and this is number four. Last night I was working on a rather lengthly posting called "Four Animals that Christians Resemble" but that was interrupted due to sudden computer failure. In addition to that one I have planned "The Six Dimensional Universe" and also "Secrets of the Catholic Church" and possibly another called "Irrational Man". Right now I am going to post the three letters to Rush Limbaugh I have written this year:

THE FIRST LETTER Written February 1st. 2006

Dear Rush,

I have been listening to your show since March of 1989 and this is the first time I have written you. First of all I don't listen as much as I used to by any means because frankly I thought you lost your sense of humor after about 1996. I used to enjoy the parody songs. For a long time after 1996 it seems as if all the enenergy just went out of your programs, like you "gave up". Under this current President you have slid so far to the right, or perhaps I have gone the opposit way, I don't know, that I find myself disagreeing with you so much of the time now. Lately I've been listening to a new talk station that features mostly liberals. I'm really mad at the two stations in our area, KFI and KABC for sliding so far to the right that listening to them is like playing a broken record. Between your show on KFI and Sean Hannity and Larry Elder, who come on after you on another station, I have about "had enough" of the right wing.

I guess you could call me a different kind of conservative. One who actually wants to "conserve" our Nation's values. I'm a supporter of the right to life of the unborn and think Roe vs Wade was one of the worst court decisions from a legal basis. I am against gay marriage, I am against doctor assisted suicide laws like they have in Oregon, and I'm in favor of the ten commandments and morality in general.

Having said this I have a lot of problems with the rest of what you stand for. Your economic statictics are bogus. You and others keep saying the recession we had for most of Bush's first four years began in the Clinton adminestration. The economic statistics just don't bare this belief out. The recession began somewhere in the second quarter of the Bush adminestration. In fact, if you'll remember, people blamed 9 - 11 for the economic slow-down we were having. This slow-down was in effect till I believe about July of 2004 when the economy took off. You people say the deficet now isn't as bad as un named "other adminestrations". I'd be careful what you wish for because the only other two adminestrations with as bad a deficet are Ronald Reagan and George Bush 41, who first pioneered the 400 Billion mark. The solution to this problem is obvious- - raise taxes. Since taxes on the rich were primarily the things that were cut- - - it's logical that these same taxes will be what should be raised. President Clinton- - and I'm not his biggest fan- - you can say one thing for Clinton in that he was the "Eisenhaur of the ninties". We've been forever trying to get back to the "good old days" of his adminestration..

I think that President Bush's speech was flat last night. It was probably the poorest of any State of the Union speech he has given. I wasn't impressed by all the "rah -rah" securety stuff at the beginning. As for Justice Allito I'll say this. I want him to rule against Roe vs Wade but I'd have to ask myself in voting for him how many bad decisions I'd have to put up of his to get to One decision I like. I'm glad President Bush talked about energy. More importantly I'm glad he didn't talk about this gigantic Strip Mining project they have in Alberta, Canada, which is supposed to "solve our oil crisis for centuries". That area up in Alberta is becomming an ecological disaster in many respects including Global Warming. Yes, I believe in Global Warming. I think the warm winter most of the country has had is evidence of that. I think a Gulf of Mexico temperature of ninty last September is evidence of it. And we've seen things like frogs dying in Central America, and massive losses in the polar ice caps. You know, I saw a nutty article yesterday you might like. It said that oil in the earth spontaniously regenerates itrself and hasn't been there from millions of years and didn't come from dinasaurs. I know you believe massive deaths of species all over the earth is no problem because nature is "Evolving". As a Born Again Christian I don't believe in "Evolution" as you state it. Once a species is gone, it's gone.

Since this is the first time I have written you my thoughts aren't really organized and I apologise for that. In terms of the President's energy policy- - one might think this is a bright spot, getting gasoline from wood chips and switch grass. Unfornately I've learned that this "ethanol" boondoggle is bogus because it takes MORE energy to produce the ethenol or methenol than the use of it SAVES in oil. Personally I think we should give nuclear another shot. I actuall.y agree with you that the hazzards of nuclear energy have been overstated. And they can be overcome. As to Bush's talk about getting more qualified math and science teachers- I am in whole hearded Agreement. I am an "America First" kind of guy. I guess you might tag me as one of these "conspiricy nuts" who is against free trade because it stacks the deck against American products and that is unfair to the American worker. Ironically my "protectionisum" stance is the classic Republican party position. I think the American worker needs to build up pride in his own product and not let foreigners call the tune. We used to hear a lot of talk about the "New World Order". As a Christian perhaps you can understand my paranoia at the use of this phraise.

Respectfully Yours

THE SECOND LETTER Written March 13th. 2006

Dear Rush, I wrote you before once about a month or go. I don't have any real problem with Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. Personally I would have pulled out troops in 2004 after Saddam was caught and his sons were killed. If you have a cancer you cut out the cancer and let the body heal itself from there. Whether a Civil War takes place or not should be immaterial to us. I'm not one of these Negative liberals you're always talking about. I have no real problem with the way Bush has handled things in Iraq. I hope and pray for his success. He's aiming for a lofty goal.

Domestically it's another story. I don't need to remind you of all the scandles and problems Bush is facing. People say "If we have a big deficet we can grow our way out of it with economic expansion". People say we can cut taxes and "grow our way out of the deficet". The fact that the economy is in good shape now should be a source of concern rather than optimisum. You can only "cut taxzes so many times". The economy is at a peak and we STILL have a whopping deficet. What will happen when the economy even gives a hint of a recession, which it inevitably will one day and perhaps soon? Already if you compare stock market indexes with Clinton, Clinton comes of looking MUCH better. Capital growth in the Clinton years about trippled. Bush hasn't come close to equaling that. The market has "narrow leadership" and the advance-decline line is already topping out. Interest rates have been raised thirteen times, and they may go higher. Foreign nations like China, who buy our bonds, may balk at a certain point seeing our bonds are harder to sell. People for the first time since the recession have a negitive savings rate. This isn't good. The disparity between the rich and the poor is growing. You've got to be a fool to ignore all these signs. But there is still another problem- - - .

Even at full employment our nation is vastly under-employed. People retire at age fifty-five and then retire and live the next thirty years of their lives on pensions or Social Security, and get "senior discounts". This new, whopping class of "Seniors" is a growing non-productive class in America we never used to have. Of course issues like "Fair trade" and border security are issues Bush almost completely ignores. People are diagonsed as "Disabled" by doctors these days who are anything but. But despite all these people being "off the market" the unemployment still exceeds what it was in the late sixties when Nixon in 1968 said, "What we need is more people OFF welfare rolls and ON pay rolls".

Bush will lose about forty-five seats in the House and six or seven seats in the Senate come election day 2006. In 1993 you were WRONG about what the ecconomy would be like in 1996 for Clinton, COMPLETELY WRONG. I expect my prediction to be fact soon.

THE THIRD LETTER Written April 24th. 2006

Dear Rush, This is the third letter I have written your show. Today is the first day I've listened to your show in a while but that's only because Al Frankin was talking about a murdered abortion doctor. Abortion is not my thing. Last night on Sixty Minutes they clearly spelled out how George Bush routinely disregards intelligence he gets from the CIA. We know that Bush was hell bent for war from the book "Plan of Attack", which is so laboriously documented I don't even think you could dispute it. Everyone but you says that Joe Wilson looked into the yellow cake uranium thing and found the case unfounded. Sixty Minutes documented that days after Bush heard a thumbs down on evidence of mass destruction, he went ahead and put it in his Strate of the Union Speech anyhow. As to your statement about how leaking information on "rendering" of abducting a person and taking him off to some foreign country to be tortured, I think this falls less under the umbrella of "national securety" and more along the lines of ethical policies of the United States. I presume from your remarks today that it's OK with you if even grosser. more offencive things are done by our government as long as they keep it secret and the American People have no right to know what moral principles our government works under. I have to strongly disagree.

Your show has become increasingly hard right wing political. It's no longer the "entertainment" show it used to be with all those cute musical parodies you used to do. You've lost all your sense of humor. The thing is Bush is bad enough but his supporters on the right that bother me more. George Bush is trying to be moderate on the immigration issue and "you people" on the right want more. You want blood. But 95% of the time you and the other Bush groupies are just his "Kool-Aid" drinkers. Any objective person who voted for Bush like I did would ask himself questions like: - - has Social Security been rescued from bankruptsy? No. Have we made new strides in alternative energy production? No. Have we done any new space exploration? No. Is Roe vs Wade overturned yet? No. Is there an anti gay marriage amendment? No. How is the trade deficet with China? Has the US successfully been able to put pressure on China not to oppress their own people? No. Then what HAS Bush done as President? He has pursued an endless war in Iraq diverting resources that are badly needed elsewhere in the world, like Sudan, for instance, to stop the genocide there. Bush is the most sheer stubborn President since Lyndon Johnson. Bush spoke today of "Losing our nearve in Iraq". That sounds just like something Johnson would have said. Bush is "mentally frozen" seemingly unable to save either his own legasy or the Republican Party election hopes in November.

I'm getting a little fed up with Mc Cain's kiss-ass behavior, too. I was going to vote for him in 2008 but now I'm not so sure. By the way Rush you are all wrong about what liberals want. Then DO NOT want this country to fail. This is a figment of your imagination. The thing is that you are worse then Senator Joseph McCarthy of old. You're like McCarthy on steroids! According to you the following can't be trusted. The media, congress, the State Department, the CIA, and the military. Everyone is conspiring against George Bush according to you. If things get any worse I'm going to have to switch parties and become a democrat. By the way Chris Matthews was hard on democrats last Saturday. He says the reason why democrats lose is because they are too "wooden" and have too long of an explanation for everything. They need short two or three or four word expressions like the Republicans use.

Respectfully, [Marcus Arelius]