No rational doubt exists that Jeff Crouere’s Ringside Politics (7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on WGSO 990 am, streaming at WGSO.com) is deservingly the best weekday morning news talk show in the Greater New Orleans area. Crouere is a seasoned radio host, to be sure, but that alone doesn’t explain the popularity of his show. Experienced morning talk show hosts compete with Ringside on other radio stations, including the big voices, WWL and Rush Radio, but the corporate owners controlling those stations are apparently reluctant to permit meaty political (I am limiting to national) controversies without controls (read, political correctness), in particular, by banning certain fringe callers to reach their listeners.
Courere bans callers for use of obscenities as defined by the FCC, and that’s about it. Combined with Crouere’s “open line” topic policy and his gift of temperance in dealing with vile fringe callers (even those who attack his Catholic faith) allowing those callers to air their ranting is at the core of the success of Ringside. Conversely, the political correctness embraced by the big voices on their local morning shows banning these fringe callers is at the core of the mediocrity of the morning shows manifested in the blandness and predictability of their weekday local morning hosts. Likely, the big voices fear that the freedom policy of Ringside will lead to a sort of shoddy, base Jerry Springer type presentation. With a host of lesser talent, that might be so; however, Crouere possesses the skills to control those fringe callers, even the vilest ideologues among them discussed below, and even they respect the Reagan conservative Crouere, if only to protect the number of their dwindling radio-show soapboxes that allow them on air.
As well as catapulting Ringside to the top, the freedom of speech/topic policy of Ringside has created a fascinating phenomenon, as well—a loose family of regular callers of all sorts (keeping in mind that tranquility within a family is a fragile state of affairs). Planet 49er and pagan numberologist (if that’s what it’s called) “Professor Joseph,” calls in almost daily believing he is enlightening the audience in predicting all sorts of things by adding and subtracting the number of days or years relating to random and entirely unrelated events, or unraveling the most complicated and insidious of shadow governments. Fad-issue conspiracy theorists call in, too, including the now disbanded jet-trail bunch and the Bilderberg theorists, who believe the eclectic group is planning a one-world government from a New York hotel. There are the one-issue (true or contrived) callers such as the pro-lifers (of which I’m one) or “birthers,” who call in with evangelical zeal. And, of course, the nationally ubiquitous politically-driven black “reverends,” who wouldn’t know Genesis from Revelation, who call in to decry the sins of racial/social injustices (Rev. Brown, who recently morphed out of the Al Sharpton denomination into a defender of all races, once tried to pass a collection plate on Ringside). But, the most striking phenomenon is the purely politically-driven Ringside family callers. They cover the entire political spectrum—from the collectivists progressive utopians on the Left snuggled next to the totalitarians, to the fanatical Ron Paul libertarians on the Right, not far from the anarchists.
Just as in the real-life national body politic we all must endure, Ringside callers on the Right are of independent mind and without organization, and, to be fair, the same is true for the center-Left callers, who for the purposes of this article are considered merely liberal. That’s not so with the collectivist progressives, who believe that laws and regulations must be promulgated to redistribute wealth, basically a utopian concept to produce an equal result for everyone rather than equal opportunity. This article is about those progressive callers, who (as liberals and progressives naturally do in their adeptness in social organization–for example, Acorn), have organized themselves on Ringside under the name, “The Magnificent (or Sensational) Seven.” I refer to the group as “the Seven.”
Before I explain the true nature of the Seven collectively and those members I discuss below individually, I should mention that I have had two stints as a talk show host on WGSO 990 and two on another station before that. I called my show “Guidance in Broadcasting” (GIB). I didn’t have guests, as I believed I was sufficiently expert on the topics I presented as anyone else. My last edition of GIB was a two-hour show on Saturdays. Rather than renew my contract, I decided to return to my writing, which included completing two book projects and writing on this blog. On GIB, my political views were inappropriately described by listeners as “conservative Christian.” Much of Guidance in Broadcasting was Christian based; my bumper music was Sail On by the once popular, now disbanded, Christian group, The Imperials. To add insult to injury to the progressives of The Magnificent Seven, I sometimes referred to or even quoted Scripture (but never preached).
My view of The Magnificent Seven follows, beginning with an overview. I then offer what I believe is an accurate description of certain members of the Seven: David Bellinger (The Flaming Liberal), James of Metairie, Zorro (The People’s Champion), L-B, and Black Zorro. By the way, it’s unfair to criticize the last four for taking the obvious advantages of anonymity; virtually all of the regular Ringside family callers do so.
As a declared, identifiable group, The Magnificent Seven isn’t fully cohesive, as there exists a definite hierarchy. Bellinger, James, and Zorro (the Three), are the leaders. Like L-B and Black Zorro, they are progressive utopians dedicated to collectivists distribution of wealth policy, and who, much like our president, disguise their loathing of American individualism and the freedom principles upon which she was founded. L-B and Black Zorro are legitimate local callers, although just as vile. They are tag-alongs—pawns of sorts useful to the Three. I’ve mentioned only five of the Seven; I’m not certain whether there currently are seven members of the group at all. Perhaps if this article lands in the hands of those two who seem to have abandoned the cause, perhaps they will post a comment in response to this article. .
Beginning with L-B, it’s difficult to tell whether he knows what “progressive utopianism” means because his calls are near substance-less for the most part, except for his obsessive bigotry against all white people—the obvious and sole reason he supports the president. L-B possesses a high-pitched voice for a man that sounds as if he’s speaking through a cynical grin. He is a black man perhaps in his late thirties or early forties, and quite intelligent. But the vileness of his attacks against whites, enhanced by his cynical voice, overshadows that intelligence. L-B always pushes the envelope with his use of near obscenities; the tuned-in listener who has experience behind a microphone can almost feel Crouere’s anxiety that some FCC-forbidden word will slither through that grin. L-B adores The Magnificent Seven; when he mentions the Seven his countenance raises with pride as if the group collectively is his personal messiah. Just listening to L-B, one gets the sense that he would not have the courage to call even in anonymity to express is bigotry without his messiah.
Then, there’s Black Zorro. It’s easy to tell he hasn’t a clue what either “progressive utopian” or “collectivism” means. He just insults whites and Republicans in an apolitical way, for the most part insisting that they are hypocrites when it comes to their views against sexual immorality. Black Zorro possesses that slight drawl common to the black New Orleans community and the same colloquialisms and grammatical/pronunciation errors not corrected in predominantly black New Orleans government schools. He has the typical voice of a middle-aged, angry black man, and, on occasion threatens injury to any whites who oppose the views of the Seven. At the beginning of his angry comments or rebuttals, Black Zorro expresses his anger with remarkable consistency; he addresses Crouere with a quick, hard pronunciation of Jeff’s name: “JEFF!,” followed by his usually insulting rant against whites and Republicans. As evidence of the hypocrisy of the philosophical adversaries of the Seven, Black Zorro claims he operates a strip club in New Orleans. He gleefully tells Crouere that “hypocritical” white conservatives and Republicans are regulars in his club and tells Ringside listeners that he enjoys watching them either lose themselves in the sensual heat of lap dances or seek out adulterous opportunities with the women who frequent his club. Black Zorro refuses to disclose the name or location of his strip club. If he dares to identify any of the “hypocrites” to whom he only generally refers, Crouere and WGSO (while Black Zorro cowers in anonymity) would be open to a civil action in defamation, even if the individual Black Zorro condemns is a “public person.” Of course, Black Zorro’s strip club is a figment of his imagination, although, one must admit his creation of such a club is a clever device to insult conservatives, Republicans, and whites, generally in the context of their stance on family values.
Listening to the Three leaders closely over a brief period of time, not so much what each says—which is predictable—and setting aside their name-calling, lies, and insults, but assessing the depth of the substance of the comments of each, it is apparent that Bellinger, James of Metairie, and Zorro are professional talk show callers. By “professional,” I mean that they aren’t casual, local Ringside callers who merely desire “to put in their two cents”; they are connected political ideologues who call stations (perhaps under other handles) all over the country everyday, perhaps for compensation in some form or another, to proselytize their anti-American, anti-individualism, planned-society progressive utopian religion.
First, James of Metairie. He would make a perfect antagonist in a Christian suspense/murder novel. James is white, and in his anonymity, claims to be a Vietnam veteran. (Keep in mind that these are progressives giving tidbits of their lives in anonymity; they are more likely constructing a mythical persona. James possesses a voice any radio host would envy—clear, forceful, slightly below mid-range, and articulate; grammatically, he speaks at the level of one possessing an advanced degree. He rarely calls in unless Crouere has a “special” guest joining him on air to discuss a specific topic . That James does not use a cartoonish descriptive radio name as do Bellinger and Zorro, The Flaming Liberal and Champion of the People, respectively, isn’t surprising. He isn’t the type. James never involves himself in a chat; in his criticism and attacking the reputation of the guest, he is swift and slicing as a Samurai’s sword. When he calls in he begins his response always with an amicable, disarming, “Well, hello Jeff. And hello to your guest.” then ridicules either the topic or launches a well-researched personal attack on the guest, particularly when the guest is Christian, conservative, or anti-Obama. James, with a condition I mention below, is the most intelligent of the entire group, and thus most dangerous of the Three. Unique to James, is the presence of a discernable spiritual component.
Because he expresses himself at such an exquisite intellectual level, it’s especially effective, yet disappointing when he barks out gratuitous insults such as “conservative Christian white devils,” “Neanderthals,” and the like. Nonetheless, it is understandable, because James is the quintessential anti-capitalist progressive collectivist. But that’s his second religion; his first faith is his secular intellectualism. James demonstrates his religious belief in his secularist views by his irrationally angry attacks on anything Christian, particularly regarding the belief in creation and, especially, regarding the opinion of some Christians that the earth is only about 7000 years old. James most always raises a secular versus Christian debate when he calls even when off-topic. As a matter of fact, whether a guest, no matter the topic, believes in a young earth, to James, it is a litmus test for sanity. In many of his calls, he merges the secular with the spiritual within his political collectivism, social utopian view.
With James, Islam, Hinduism, Progressive Judaism (the “Judaism” of Rahm Emanuel—which itself is actually secular intellectualism), or any faith other than Christianity is tolerable (even if anyone of any other faith is conservative, he would not be one of James’s “white devils,” which he reserves for Christian “conservatives”). To understand why that is so, one has to understand the irreconcilable conflict between true Christianity and any species of collectivism, including progressive utopianism. James says he despises Christianity and its belief in evolution and as to some Christians’ belief in a young earth “because of the children.” He says he is also concerned about black voting rights. Actually, he is personally concerned about neither; each “concern” is a façade, just as the president’s concern whether Americans are insured is a facade. James’s real purpose is to promote his progressive collectivism in which control of society is the goal. As to setting up a special government program to assist blacks to vote, which he insists upon, James does so only to protect his fellow progressives because blacks traditionally vote in blocks for Democrats (usually above 95%), while whites are split according to their philosophies of governance. (I should note here that all of the Three, as well as all progressives, use the façade of black suppression of vote solely to promote the advancement of their collectivism).
As to James’s loathing of Christianity, the cause of his rage is that individualism is at the core of the faith. Progressive utopianism, as is true of all species of collectivism, is a philosophy of governance in which an oligarchy is necessarily created at best, or, worse, a totalitarian state. Individualism must be challenged at all costs because if the citizenry doesn’t need government to thrive, there can be no collectivism or utopia as progressives define it. In fact, the underlining reason progressives of any kind despise the Constitution is because of the notion of “inalienable rights” of each individual, not to mention the acknowledgment of our Creator.
James of Metairie is the most dangerous of the Three because he is the most effective communicator of the Three, and the Seven. Although he might be skilled enough to hurriedly gather his information from search engines such as Google when a guest comes on Ringside, I’m convinced he is connected to some sort of network that feeds him topical or personal information regarding guests before he calls Ringside and other radio talk shows across the country. Bellinger could very well be the head of the network. As I mentioned, James rarely calls Ringside unless Crouere has a topical guest expert. Secondly, without knowing beforehand, James is armed with even the minutia (usually skewed statistics taken from progressive-biased sources, which is a favorite technique used by Brillinger) disparaging the view of the guest and in support of his collectivist, secular view, or, if not skewed stastistics, information regarding the topic, or vetted personal facts that demean the guest only available through research, such as past convictions, failed businesses, or the like that call into question credibility. No one can be that equipped and prepared without assistance when calling in on matters without beforehand knowledge.
Because James prefers to evoke a spiritual component in his calls to Ringside, he necessarily must involve himself predominantly in social/societal subjects when he calls in, rather than current political matters everyone else focuses upon. Zorro is assigned the political aspects of the Three when he calls Ringside. Not a lot can be said about The People’s Champion. Zorro apparently enjoys the position of the vile class clown of the Three, sort of like in Stephen King’s evil clown in his horror film, IT. Most of the time Zorro calls in with scripted witty parables and metaphors on mostly political issues and sometimes cynical comments focused upon conservative, white politicians. I have heard him “off script” on occasions, and like the president with his “You didn’t build that…” off teleprompter rant, Zorro exposed himself as possessing the same adversity to American free enterprise as his utopian, collectivist president, and with equal venom.
Zorro is articulate, but not at James’s level. His sarcasm is entertaining, although sullied with purposefully thinly veiled progressive talking points and propaganda. For the most part, he focuses on national politics and rarely calls in to confront a guest (that’s James’s assignment). Though entertaining, Zorro consistently lacks depth—he is talking-point driven, as are the lemming seminar callers infecting all conservative news talk shows everywhere. For instance, lately Zorro has been on a rant against Mr. Romney, but all he manages isn his sarcasm are certain odd (and ironically antithetical Christian) tenants of Mormonism that virtually all the listeners have heard time and time again. Although, Zorro, too, is a secularist, unlike James, there is little spirituality in his calls.
Although he has tailed-off doing so lately, Zorro has two signature abrupt call-ending devices after he has read his scripted rant. The best-known one is his taunting, snark-ish “Taaa-ta” just before hanging up. The second, which he might have abandoned—he bursts out in laughter before hanging up, but not just ordinary laughter…a well-practiced, piercing laughter very much like the laughter of an insane asylum inmate in one of those old black-and-white movies. Zorro likely abandoned the call ending asylum laughter because it was perfectly appropriate for the content and presentation of his Ringside call.
The Flaming Liberal, David Bellinger. What can one say? Well…he’s blind and, as if any listener of Ringside or anyone else in the country cares, he brags about having a black, live-in girlfriend, perhaps more than one. James of Metairie would have us believe that Bellinger is the leader of the Seven, that Bellinger is the bearer of the “truth.” Of course, Bellinger tortures the truth every time he calls any radio station on the short national list of hosts who will air him. Bellinger possesses an undistinguished voice, and he spews his words rapidly. He does so because as a caller, Bellinger has mastered the art of over-talking the host or opponent in debate, or seamlessly and quickly moving on to another topic when he’s losing ground. Over-talking the host or guest-opponent and switching topics when losing is an often-used device of liberals and progressives in debates. Bellinger is also skilled in the deception of moral equivalency in his arguments, another deceptive debate device perfected by progressives and especially effective for reasons too complicated to explain here.  The simplest explanation of deceptive moral equivalency is, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” we all heard when disciplined in childhood. In real discussion, moral equivalency with progressives goes like this: “You can’t criticize my president for X, because your president did X when he was in office.” If the former president actually did X, then his doing so, if wrong or imprudent, is no justification for the current president doing the same thing; it’s still wrong or imprudent.
Bellinger is unique among members of the Seven because he tells the radio audience he is a Bible-believing Christian (“I am a Christian because I am a liberal,” he claims). He insists he is a Christian despite he, like James, believes that “conservative” Christians are white devils and his pernicious attacks on anyone else who doesn’t agree with him ether in matters of politics or on social issues. The reason I do not believe Bellinger’s vile comments have a spiritual component worthy of discussing, is, assuming he really believes he is a Christian, he is devoid of knowledge of the Gospel, and for that matter the entire Bible. I have corrected him by email in his absurd interpretations of Scripture (In one call, he insisted that topless dancers should not be taxed because the Bible refers to them as pineapples, apparently misquoting and not understanding verses in Songs of Solomon). Also, Bellinger claims he is a “senior deacon,” under an unnamed “reverend.” He preaches to a flock, he says on Ringside, guiding the members in matters of the spiritual. It’s almost funny. The problem is two-fold: the Bible clearly sets out the qualifications and duties of a deacon, and Bellinger is nowhere close to either. And, the term “reverend” is nowhere found in the Bible, despite what Bellinger and the black social justice activists who co-opt the term believe.
Above all, what is fascinating about David Bellinger is his in-your-face narcissism; the affliction has, sadly, become his personal glory. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed., DSM IV-TR 301.8 provides a list of personality traits diagnostic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPO). Bellinger is a case study; he possesses every trait on the list. Bellinger genuinely needs treatment for his NPO, which is why, despite his not realizing it, only his disciples of progressive utopianism believe what he says. I listen with amazement when he proudly proclaims to the Ringside audience, “I am the most intelligent radio talk show caller in the country,” “I am the reason for the success of Ringside Politics,” or “my romance novel (which is unpublished) is a great American classic,” and the like. As I mentioned, James seems to be the most intelligent of the Three. I stated that my conclusion is conditional because Bellinger might be far and away the most intelligent, but his extreme narcissistic proclamations makes him sound kookier than even Zorro. And, Bellinger’s raging, irrational vileness against some fellow callers, any person who disagrees with him, Tea Party activists, and all Republicans, even the moderate establishment Republicans, is antithetical to a true intellectual.
The Magnificent Seven is a nationally insignificant group of regular radical, vile, progressive fringe callers to one small, independently owned radio station. But the members, particularly the Three, demonstrate the remarkable dedication they possess along with their nationwide covert disciples to obtain their end, and the corrupt, pernicious means they use to get there, no matter how small the increment gained toward that end. Professional callers like Bellinger, James, and Zorro call into radio talk shows are in every city in this country. Collectivists of all kinds band together as a part of their natural tendency and skill in community organization, which is the reason they now control most of the federal government despite being in the small minority in governance philosophy.
But a recent political phenomenon has come into the body politic: the Tea Party. Tea Party conservatives have agreed to stay away from the usual one-issue demands, or all or nothing position, common to the conservative mindset. Tea Party activists collectively demand a small, fiscally responsible government that honors the Constitution, and thus, individualism; they avoid social issues. To add insult to the progressive utopians, the Tea Party activists are predominantly Christian. All of that is at the core of the irrational rage the Seven, especially the Three, who lose control when a Tea Party topic arises on Ringside. Another pleasing consideration is that the emergence of the Tea Party represents conservatives co-opting the strategy of the community-organizer mentality of progressives: individual proponents joining together against their foes, the strategy of The Magnificent Seven on Ringside Politics.
 By “merely liberal,” I mean the sublimely naive politicians such as Jimmy Carter, who actually love America, but haven’t a clue that individualism and individual freedom and responsibility in a capitalist system is the reason for her incomparable success in world history.
 F.A. Hayvek’s classic work, The Road to Serfdom, explains collectivism and its sub-variants, economic and social collectivism. As the Heritage Foundation urges, any reader interested in freedom and wanting to understand the gradual movement of government to a utopian, planned society, should read Serfdom, although, Havek is clearly at the intellectual level in his discipline as was Albert Einstein in his. It is not an easy read.
 What the Left and many on the Right do not understand is that there are no “Conservative” or “Liberal” Christians. Christianity is defined within and only within the context of the Gospels and the Epistles, and nowhere else. Jesus made it clear that He loathed division among his followers (that was particularly so with political division and with regard to the Progressive Utopians of His time, the Pharisees and Sadducees). Paul made it clear that sectarianism is against God’s Word; sectarianism is another word for denominations. Thus, one is either a Christian as solely defined by the New Testament, or one is something else. One is a child of God and translated into His Kingdom, or one is not. God’s Kindom has no place for “liberal” or “conservative” saints, for that matter, neither is there in Heaven.
 Bellinger did not out his identity voluntarily. One of his female surrogates unintentionally stated his name when she called into my show. I had already known the true identity of The Flaming Liberal. Once outed, Bellinger often claims he identity and proclaims that he is the only caller with the courage to do so.
 I take this opportunity to explain the belief in a young earth. Christians base their young earth belief by calculating the ages given in the genealogies of the Old and New Testament, not the general idea that to God a day is a 1000 years. The biblical record, combined with the uncertainties of carbon dating and other methods of calculating matters regarding antiquity, brings about the young earth belief. Personally, I have not researched newer methods of dating ancient things; however, even as a former scientist and having studied the theory of carbon dating, I’ve always doubted the accuracy and objectivity of the technique.
 Don’t let the progressives convince you otherwise. The core of God’s Word is choice of the individual and our personal, individual relationship with Him. The president’s statement at Georgetown regarding “collective salvation” is typical apostasy of the progressives, who must some way even convince us that salvation isn’t an individual gift.
 A photo of Bellinger sitting on his sofa in his Atlanta apartment is available if one Googles his name. As always, he looks nothing like imagined; he appears to be a regular fellow sitting there in is sad, victim countenance, whom you might even guess is a conservative.