How to hate: Left gives free lessons

By Don Frost

            From “Webster’s New World Dictionary,” “liberal” defined, 5^th definition: “. . . tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-minded; specif., not orthodox . . .”

            Rush Limbaugh, the long-time conservative commentator, has died, sparking an outpouring of pure hatred from “liberals” who could not tolerate his views, which differed from their own.

            A sampling gleaned from Twitter posts: “Rest in piss,” “Good riddance,” and “Rot in hell.”

            More: “. . . It’s important to remember that he also brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying.” TV writer Mike Druker.

            “If I had to say something positive, I guess I’m glad Rush Limbaugh lived long enough to get cancer and die.” “Comedian” Paul F. Tompkins.

            “Feeling very sorry for the people of hell who now have to deal with Rush Limbaugh for the rest of eternity.”: musician Finneas.

            “God has canceled Rush Limbaugh.”: Erin Ryan.

            On one woman’s Facebook post: “I wish I believed in hell.” And responses from her friends:

            “If it existed, most of us would be roasting. Limbaugh would just be in a section that’s a little roastier.”

            “My first comment was I hope the devil is there to meet his wretched soul. Good riddance.”

            “My guess is that the concept of hell was created by those who found it inconceivable that such evil men could go unpunished.”

            “He made hundreds of millions of dollars driving America apart.”

            “My first unkind thoughts when I heard the news: ‘Rot in hell.’ No more evil person existed.”

            “If Rush Limbaugh isn’t in hell, none of us has anything to worry about.”

            “Trump is out. Dobbs is gone. Limbaugh is dead. Keep it up, 2021.”

            All of this venom being regurgitated from the Left is from people who would rather be caught in an act of bestiality than be caught listening to Limbaugh’s radio broadcasts. These are people who proudly boast they have never and would never have listened to his show. Yet they claim to know all about him. If they had an ounce of honesty they’d admit their pitiful knowledge of his beliefs and his views on any subject is restricted to what his detractors – fellow “liberals” – told them.

            When Limbaugh stumbled, misspoke, or said something – anything – that could be spun into an expression of foolishness, ignorance, or hate, the Left-leaning media blasted it all over the airwaves and in print. When he spoke undeniable truth, that segment of the media went dark.

            In defending the indefensible, “liberals” and others on the Left will justify their expressions of hatred by claiming that Limbaugh was a disseminator of hate himself. He was not. He disseminated views that differed from their own and they chose to view that as hate. It spared them the evident agony of having to actually think about what he said. It enabled them to dismiss his views without troubling themselves further. “Liberals’ ” attitude toward Rush Limbaugh has been consistent for nearly 30 years: “If Rush said it, it’s a hateful lie.”

            He never said he hated black people. He did say that when black people rioted, destroyed property, and looted stores it was not understandable, aka acceptable; that they were not “protesters,” they were rioters. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            He never said he hated Muslims. He did say he supported Trump’s ban on travel by people from seven terrorist-supporting countries. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            He never said he hated Hispanics. He did say he supported long overdue efforts to stop illegal immigration. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            Limbaugh’s basic philosophy, first enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, or John Locke (there’s no agreement on who said it first), was this: “The government that governs least governs best.” This is anathema to all faithful “liberals” who dissolve into paroxysm of joy with the announcement of any new government program, bureaucracy, or regulation.

            Limbaugh opposed the almost maniacal quest for “diversity” because it celebrates our differences rather than the similarities that should unite us. He saw tribalism as the inevitable result of that diversity. No proper “liberal” could endorse any of Limbaugh’s beliefs, so they couldn’t despise him for that – it wouldn’t be liberal. So they had to cultivate a myth to embrace with all their heart and soul: “No more evil person existed than Rush Limbaugh.” Then they could proudly trumpet their hate. “I don’t hate him for his views that differ from my own. I hate him because he was evil.”

            I ROUTINELY QUOTE the word “liberal” in my postings. Here I have done it an unusually large number of times. Periodically I am asked why I do this when referring to someone’s social/political belief system. Repeating the lead paragraph above: A liberal is, “. . . tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-minded . . .” But “liberals” are unapologetically intolerant of  views that differ from their own and they are, therefore, narrow-minded. Because of this some college campuses have “safe spaces” where “liberals” can go to escape “views differing from their own . . .” “Liberal” college students literally riot when they learn a speaker whose views differ from their own is coming to the campus..

            There are no “safe spaces” on campuses where conservatives can go to escape “liberal” views. Conservative students welcome “liberal” speakers with a shrug. Ironically, this makes conservative students liberal, not “liberal.” In other words, “liberals” – whether on college campuses or are your next door neighbors – are, simply, not liberal; they don’t fit the definition.

            Put another way: I saw you going into the Hot Springs Motel with your wife. Or, I saw you going into the Hot Springs Motel with your “wife.” See the difference?