Given his tight grip on the intellectual reins of America’s conservative movement you’d think Rush Limbaugh would employ a great deal of rigor when presenting his audience with facts. Because he engages so many listeners, and because they “ditto” everything he says to their weary families, friends and co-workers, you might assume Limbaugh would work tirelessly to separate right from wrong. He’d be quick to dissect fact from fiction, conjecture from reality.
“Okay, wait for it, wait for it. You’re gonna love this. Folks, you’re absolutely going to love this. Well, wait. Maybe some of you won’t love this. Let me speak for myself. I love this. You know that magical serum that was given to two white Americans suffering from Ebola? You know what the magic ingredient is? Nicotine.”
“Tobacco is the magical ingredient in the serum. It’s a Kentucky tobacco plant from which they derive the magical serum that has caused massive reversals of the symptoms of Ebola in the two white Americans.”
First: Rush’s audience has gotten so science-skittish that the only way to dazzle them with research news is to call it “magic.” There’s no other way of impressing upon his fans how a new drug might work. Any dittohead incidentally can turn a light on in a dark room and suddenly see the carpet, but how does that happen? What’s the weird connection between the two? NO ONE knows. Let’s just say that it’s “magic.”
But now here’s the best part of the broadcast: The eye-of-newt in the magic potion would be NICOTINE? Dear sweet lord, no. The drug, ZMapp, is a mix of three monoclonal antibodies that bind to the Ebola virus. Mapp Biopharmaceutical sequenced and cloned the proteins, and then produced the antibodies in Nicotinia plants. That’s right: Tobacco plants happen to be good at growing human antibodies.
But no, it doesn’t mean there’s any nicotine in ZMapp. Maybe that sounds confusing, but it’s really not. You can think about the drug’s production a simple way. Remember back when your grampa used the family bathtub to make prohibition-era gin? He would bottle the booze and leave the porcelain behind. The tobacco plant also happens to be a handy tool, but in this case for making antibodies. The key difference would be that the ‘bathtub’ ultimately gets harvested and destroyed, but that’s a small price to pay. Congratulations, you now know more about the fight against Ebola than all of Limbaugh’s listeners combined…
Rachel Jeantal, witness for the prosecution of George Zimmerman, sat down with Piers Morgan Monday night. She said Trayvon Martin feared that Zimmerman was some sort of sexual predator.
Asked whether there was any doubt in her mind as to whether Martin “absolutely believed” Zimmerman was “pursuing him” that evening in 2012, Jeantel replied in the affirmative. He was “freaked out” about it, she said, especially after she had suggested to the late teenager that Zimmerman “might be a rapist” . .
Jeantel continued: “You have to take it as a parent, when you tell your child, you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that. You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, then you’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.”
To right-wingers this is the perfect storm. Black kids, rapists and fags all rolled up into a single mock-tastic scenario, with the punk getting blown way. The American Thinker:
If George Zimmerman had been black, we would have known nothing about Trayvon Martin’s decision to initiate a surprise attack in the dark, thinking he could easily injure or kill George Zimmerman, whose crime up to that point was being a “creepy-ass cracka” who followed Martin as a potential homosexual predator, as Rachel Jeantel told him just prior to his death. Was Martin’s attack on Zimmerman and anti-gay hate crime?
Wasn’t it then Zimmerman who got profiled? He was your typical pansy, armed only with a Kel-Tec semi-auto and a neighborhood crush. Althouse:
Call out the gay rights activists. In this interpretation, it was a gay-bashing!
Laffs! Beating up a rapist. You’ll make Elton John cry! The Florida Boar:
Rush Limbaugh offered additional commentary in the second hour of his syndicated radio program this afternoon, saying, “I have offered a viewpoint of what Rachel Jeantel said that the left does not want out there.”
He added: “. . she did allude to the homosexual aspect of this [during the trial]; but you know, if I really wanted to stir it up, I would make the case that it was Zimmerman’s civil rights that got violated. Here you’ve got Zimmerman, a properly accredited neighborhood-watch captain, or whatever his title was . . . and you’ve got this guy beating up on him because he thinks he’s gay. I mean that sounds like a civil rights violation to me!”
If Trayvon could only come back from the dead as a Pakistani Taliban. They could drone-strike him with a Zimmerman Missile and ha-har! themselves into a massive stroke.
The civilized Washington Post wades into the controversy now five years in the making. Just who does this black lady think she is, with her ass?
The latest public rant against Michelle Obama’s effort to promote low-calorie school lunches was recently caught on tape in Alabama — the usual protest against the federal government meddling in local business. And then it quickly found its way around to the first lady’s posterior.
“Fat butt Michelle Obama,” said Bob Grisham, a high school football coach who was surreptitiously recorded by one of his students. “Look at her. She looks like she weighs 185 or 190. She’s overweight.”
I guess this is what the antique media are good for. Dragging polite non-computer-owning society into a current “controversy.”
Grisham, who was suspended Monday, is neither the first nor the most high-profile person to feel moved to comment on the first lady’s physique. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly called her Michelle “My Butt” Obama. And Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican, issued an apology after he was caught commenting on her “large posterior.” (Grisham has also said he misspoke.)
So racism is back. That’s too bad. Doing what it does all over again. And all the First Lady wants is fat fuck country to give up their dreams of living like sweaty offensive linemen before dying in their forties. What a bitch.
Update: Althouse delves in with serious questions here. Who would talk about the First Lady’s ass? Very pathetic. Eventually Ann could really use a second post to flesh out her full criticism of the WaPo for featuring something so beneath Ann Althouse. Did you know that it was also called Michelle’s ‘posterior’ or ‘derriere’? It’s weird, hurry hie post number three.
Shouting Thomas said…
Get rid of Black History Month and I’ll quit making fun of Michelle’s fat ass.
I’ve been fed up for some time with the force fed veneration of blacks.
The people want Social Security left alone. Want Medicare the way it is. And would like to see rich people pay a little more to help with the national debt. These are the issues Obama used to defeat the Republicans in the election.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he “burst into laughter” Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff. . .
And yet, here we are.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that House Republicans should stop negotiating with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the fiscal cliff, saying that by doing so, they give Obama all of the leverage in the talks . .
“They are the majority. They’re not the minority,” he said, enunciating the words as if explaining the concept to someone who did not understand it. “They don’t need to cave in to Obama; they don’t need to form a ‘Surrender Caucus.’”
This is funny. Nobody proved himself to be more out of touch with America than Newt. But here he offers political wisdom, loser to loser.
The Republicans like hearing this stuff. I love it.
RUSH: So what is the leverage that the Republicans have? To my mind the only leverage they’ve got is to walk away from this, to stop playing, to stop talking, to stop playing this game . .
You’re saying, “But, Rush, but, Rush, no matter what the Republicans do, they’re gonna get blamed for it.” Yes, totally true. No matter what happens. If there is a reported recession, in fact, it will be said to be the Republicans in the House fault. No matter what happens, that’s going to be said, and no matter what happens, as we sit here now, the American people, the majority of whom, are gonna believe that.
So back out of this and make sure you don’t have any fingerprints on this at all.
We’ll fuck your country, pal. Hey ma the terrorists are here.
This is how you play politics, but on a grand scale. This is how you put a bug in someone’s ear when the ear is 1% of the country.
Rush Limbaugh yesterday came up with another theory about how we managed to kill Osama Bin Laden. Instead of our intelligence apparatus, spy drones and satellite systems providing analysts with data enough to construct a scenario — we think Bin Laden is living in a compound in Abottabad, Pakistan — some vital information came by way of an unlikely source. The CIA were tipped off by Al Qaeda:
What if Ayman al-Zawahiri and other Al-Qaeda leaders gave up Osama Bin Laden for the express purpose of making Obama look good, giving Obama stature and political capital? “Obama got Osama!” I mean, really. Do you think Al-Qaeda depends on Osama Bin Laden anymore, or did? . .
He was near death anyway from diabetes or something. He needed dialysis. So they give him up; they give up his location. We go in and SEAL Team 6 gets him. Obama puffs up. “I killed Osama! I did it! I killed him!” He gets instant credibility and gives himself some political capital.
Keeping him in power, that furthers the cause. Who gave us the Arab Spring? Who…? (sigh) Who structured things so that the Muslim Brotherhood pretty much had a clear path to power in Egypt?
The theory is absurd. George W. Bush pushed Al Qaeda around a bit. But President Obama has been kicking their sorry asses. Look at the list of senior leaders in the terrorist network that have been killed by this administration. Al Qaeda wants another four years of this president like they want pork colonics.
Rush Limbaugh, if only begrudgingly, you have to admire. You simply marvel at the way he can re-engineer reality in only a few seconds. Osama Bin Laden was sick and lame. Who cares if the old man gets killed? Obama’s team didn’t accomplish much of anything. If it weren’t for Al Qaeda, none of this would have happened. Obama got played by the terrorist network. Look at the arrogant buffoon puff himself up. Now we’re stuck with the Arab Spring (sigh). How could things possibly get any worse?
There’s something to be learned from ol’ Rush. From our perspective, his assertions are too stupid to bother refuting. They have nothing to do with reality. Why waste your time? But there’s another view: this guy is capable of manipulating huge numbers of people. By the time he’s done talking, as many as 3 million Americans will agree with him. And gullible people have the same rights to vote that you do. So who has the upper hand, in reality? Who’s got the power? The people with truth, or the people with numbers?
Who’s to blame for the carnage in Aurora, Colorado? It’s complicated. It’s complicated in the sense that there are so very many people and things to blame. It’s a wonder the country gets a decent night’s rest given all the damning Hollywood free-speechifying and deity-insulting the Kardashians and you so publicly enjoy.
We should have all gone the smited way of Atlantis by now, but thanks to whoever keeps the Jesus bolts in their quiver (Billy Graham?), only a few of us were brutally, predictably slaughtered recently. The rest of us remain to take responsibility for whatever the gods and a devil’s bargain (The Enlightenment) hath wrought.
The menu? If you’re Rush Limbaugh, it’s the movie’s fault.
“So Batman in the sixties on TV metastasizes to a sick dystopian, hyper-violent Batman movie in 23 years. Twenty-three years since Batman on TV to the first Batman movie. And the birth of the modern Batman series of films with which the killer in Aurora explicitly identified, by his own admission…”
“. . we’ve tried it the liberals’ way for sixty years now and what do we got? We have massacres in Aurora. 12 people shot dead while they’re watching a movie at midnight.”
If you’re Pastor Jerry Newcombe, it’s the atheists’ fault.
“How do we make sense out of this kind of thing? Why do things like this happen?
I can’t help but feel that to some extent, we’re reaping what we’ve been sowing as a society. We said to God, ‘Get out of the public arena.’ Lawsuit after lawsuit, often by misguided ‘civil libertarians,’ have chased away any fear of God in the land — at least in the hearts of millions.”
“Am I comparing this incredibly wicked, illegal mass murder at Aurora’s Century Theatre to the incredibly wicked, legal mass murder committed at Planned Parenthoods across the country each day? Absolutely – and you can quote me on it. . .
We as a nation – as a people – have turned our backs on God. We have rebelled against Him and have forgotten that it was He and He alone who gave us 200-plus years of prosperity, unprecedented in world history.
We have left Him, so why are we surprised He’s leaving us? We have said, “We don’t need you, leave us alone.”
And so He has.”
If you’re Russell Pearce, it’s gun control’s fault.
“Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this ‘bad’ man from most of this tragedy. He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93????”
If you’re Pastor Rick Warren, it’s evolution’s fault.
If you’re Louie Gohmert, it’s the Constitution’s fault.
“You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place . .
We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country. . . We’ve threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God’s name, they’re going to be jailed … I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don’t want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.”
BONUS: An eighth thing to take the blame. Or people, to take the blame. If you’re once again Russell Pearce, it’s the victims’ fault.
“Where were the men of flight 93???? Someone should have stopped this man. Someone could have stopped this man. Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because no one was prepared to stop it. Had they been prepared to save their lives or lives of others, lives would have been saved. All that was needed is one Courages/Brave [sic] man prepared mentally or otherwise to stop this it could have been done.”
Just because it’s pitch dark and you’re lying on the ground because you’ve taken a bullet and the shooter is dressed in a black helmet and black body armor from head to toe is no reason to be a coward.
He should ask questions. None of this has been fair after all. Women always get the easy pass in life. Never receiving the kinds of ridicule or scrutiny that we do, yet there they are in business, in government, at the Old Towne Mall. They’re everywhere. It’s as if the tender of equality weren’t fairness, but say *burp,* or the scrimshaw of slaves.
We should do something. You know what we should do? Even the score. Let’s get someone to subject women to criticism. I’m spitballing here, but Rush Limbaugh maybe? He could be interested.
What is Hillary doing at the Time ‘100 Most Influential’ bash? Exactly how influential is Hillary Clinton? What has she ever accomplished as Secretary of State?
What the hell has she done? Two wars, getting out of one, trying to extract ourselves from the other, the Egypt thing, the Qaddafi thing, the Arab Spring and getting it right over and again but, what c’mon? Hang on, Rush. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson (retd.) and Ollie North and Alberto Gonzales and Laurita Doan and Scooter Libby and Harriet Miers and government criminals and brain-disableds by the bushels you call ‘friends’ will drop by so you can altogether laugh at Hillary. Sixteen times the most admired woman in America. They don’t make losers like that. Do they?
And now Hillary has reached the pinnacle, and all she is is a secretary. She’s the Secretary of Defense – State, whatever. But still a secretary. I don’t know. The left has the strangest definitions of success.
Why this reminds me of a story. Once upon a time a warthog was invited to dinner. A dinner so special, he blogged it from his Excellence In Digital Slop trough:
American Exceptionalism Still on Display at Horatio Alger Dinner
April 12, 2010 | The Rush Limbaugh Show
RUSH: I have to tell you what I did over the weekend. I was invited to attend the Horatio Alger Association dinner on Friday night at Constitution Hall in Washington.
What made it so ptew! ptew! special? The featured guests. Their towering American achievements before the face of impossible odds made them figures of mythical stature. Like each was some crazy successful guy, from a silly story, that never existed. Except they did exist. Oh, yes, friends, they *sniff* very did:
I was overwhelmed, and I have to tell you why. Condoleezza Rice was inducted this year. There were a number of people — in fact, all of them, every one of this year’s honorees — stood up and spoke of this country in ways I haven’t heard a government official speak of this country in years . .
. . and you look at the commemorative something or menu, and there she is. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. You can just imagine goodlord where she must have started from if becoming all of a secretary made Limbaugh weep and pee his pigtail. Maybe sleeping on a steam grate all deaf and dumb with an empty bottle of Thunderbird for a wubbie.
NATIONAL REVIEW Will Maher Go the Way of Olbermann?
By Victor Davis Hanson | March 17, 2012 6:11 P.M.
David Axelrod’s moral-equivalence argument that Limbaugh’s smear is worse than Maher’s because the former is both more influential and more identifiable with Republican circles is a sad sort of sophistry. Limbaugh may have a larger audience, but I suspect if you googled “Rush Limbaugh” and compared it to “Bill Maher,” the so-called hits would be about the same . .
Seems like recent times. Not so long ago. We thought Sandra Fluke being called ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ had something to do with conservatives’ views on contraception. Apparently, we didn’t understand what was really going on at the time:
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review
. . “Let’s admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception,” Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to “the Dark Ages . . . when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to.”
That’s what I thought. No?
The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s health care decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.
It’s all so breathtakingly mendacious.
Nope. We’ve been lying shamelessly, and Goldberg’s been gasping for air. Fortunately, we went on our merry way to build a Sanger monument, and Jonah opened a window.
He had tried to tell us the truth. That this was only about the evils of abortion, nothing more. So many tried to tell us. Over and over: Contraception is a personal thing, abortion is homicide. If you want to go on the Pill, we don’t care. That’s a personal, not a criminal, matter, and conservatives are loath to mess with those.
Really, if anything, our conniption over contraception was something of a conspiracy. By shifting from their cultural indictment to a popular perception, from the evils of abortion to the benign reality of contraception, we filled the atmosphere with smoke. All the ethicists and scholars have been bumping into each other ever since, trying to find where the infanticide went:
Liberals, media try to shift debate from abortion to contraception
by Jill Stanek | jillstanek.com
I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.
. . so pro-life Jill details how Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and others got hip to the conspiracy. Look how Rush figured it out:
“Do you remember – ’cause this is a setup for what’s coming – do you remember, we were all perplexed here. George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Romney on contraception. It had not come up, nobody had said anything about it, and we were all confused, as was Romney, what the deal was…
That’s what Morris’ theory is about what happened last week, trying to get abortion off the table because it’s a loser for the Democrats. And now instead of Republicans want to ban abortion, they want to ban contraception…
So that’s the paradigm shift here, at least so goes the theory, and it does explain why Stephanopoulos was talking about something that was not even an issue.”
Contraception was never an issue. Gee, aren’t we sneaky?
By comparison, we’re amateurs. We make the occasional penny fall out of your ear, you guys palm manhole covers. Arizona State’s news reports on new Republican legislation:
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
What does this legislation mean? It means Republicans are giving Arizona businessmen the ‘OK’ to prevent women from getting the Pill through their insurance. That’s what it means.
If you’re a Catholic man who owns a factory with 500 female employees, you can deny them contraception. While it’s not against your beliefs if a worker uses the Pill to treat polycystitis, it is against your beliefs if she uses it to prevent pregnancy. So you get to deny her that coverage. And just to be sure, if you figure out an employee is using the Pill, you can demand she produce a medical reason for the prescription.
One man’s religious conviction trumps perhaps thousands of employees’ needs. If you buy Arizona politicians’ arguments, “Freedom of Religion” is no longer about the choices you make for yourself. It’s about the choices you make for others.
But, wait, it gets potentially worse. While I can’t affirm Erin’s contention, it doesn’t seem impossible. It seems entirely plausible:
Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills
Erin Gloria Ryan | Jezebel
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result.
So, to recap: Based upon his private religious beliefs, your employer could deny you and hundreds of others normal access to contraception. He could do this, even though it saves you, your insurance company and your employer money. He’d be allowed, even though everyone knows it produces healthier babies and more stable families. If you did qualify for the Pill by other means, he’d have the right to vet your medical condition. And if his intuition told him you were just another ‘Sandra Fluke,’ he could fire you. And this is only a fight over abortion.
Look at today’s lectures on fair play, they are everywhere. Lucky me, I’ve been reading how Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are the same person. You follow these rants, and they go: “These two guys, they’re identical. Bill Maher is a hideous misogynist, and Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer — who, by the way, carries enough of God’s good grace to manage an apology when he’s made a mistake. See?”
Oh, yes. Simple as could be. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin nasty things, Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke nasty things. Maher is evil, Rush is a victim. Fifty-fifty, even-steven, comme ci comme ca, wang-chung. When two different guys say roughly the same things, it’s a wash. By someone’s definition, the two statements communicate the exact same thing.
Let’s see if I’m at all following this. I remember May 1, 2003. George W. Bush stood aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and said of the Iraq War, “Mission Accomplished.” At the exact same time, watching the spectacle on TV, I thought about Karl Rove’s hard-selling the war to Americans. I mumbled to myself: “Mission Accomplished.” It’s weird how everybody chose to criticize George, instead of me.
It’s some sort of mystery how the exact same things end up different. It’s unfair, really. For instance, Bill Maher is a foul-mouthed stand up comic. And yet, unlike Rush Limbaugh, he’s not the leader of the American conservative movement or the Republican Party. While people will listen to Bill for his opinions, there aren’t millions of people who hang upon his every word. No sizable chunk of America re-posts, re-quotes and dittoes his every syllable because they believe that Bill is always right. Somehow, nobody thinks that Bill Maher is always right.
Also, unfortunately, people of similar politics may differ with Bill Maher. Plenty of people have criticized Bill for his opinions. Thankfully, this isn’t the case with Rush. Even when — especially when — you’re a powerful Republican congressman or senator, if you criticize Limbaugh, you write your future obituary.
Congressman Phil Gingrey from Georgia, for instance, mistakenly said:
“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party.”
. . then had to beg for a phone line into Rush’s radio program, to say:
“I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, … that I regret those stupid comments.”
Whew. Representative Todd Tihart of Kansas once mis-stated:
“No, no, he’s just an entertainer.”
. . then had to trot out his spokesman to correct his near-fatal mistake:
“The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America . . “
Even the pretend leader of the Republicans, GOP Chairman Michael Steele, nearly bought the farm:
“Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.”
. . until he genuflected, with humility:
“I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh… I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership…. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking.”
It’s a shame no one’s had to apologize to Bill, the comic, to prevent his professional standing and political power from being destroyed. I doubt Maher would be interested in such games, anyway, to his discredit.
And it’s particularly sad that no one thinks Bill Maher is a figure worth deifying. Though he’s practically Rush’s twin, nobody has nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. No man, or university, or foundation, has ever written an equivalent to this on his behalf, a letter to the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Institute:
Dear Dr. Mjos:
Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
We are offering this nomination for Mr. Limbaugh’s nearly two decades
of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all
mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. We fervently believe that these are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world.
This says something about us, doesn’t it? The comedian will somehow never win a Nobel Peace Prize. This is shocking. It’s as if these two men, Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, had nothing in common at all.
The fierce blogginati of the Conservative Intra-Uterine Candidates 2012 Dysfunction Filibuster shed their background roles yesterday in favor of something a little weightier. Something a little more dramatic. King Lear, probably? Staggering in a shitstorm of Rush Limbaugh’s making, they a-wailed:
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
I am warning you, I’ll GET YOU FOR THIS.
Yea, totes. Well, that’s what it looked like to me. What’s this to you?
EXCLUSIVE: DEMS INCITE DEATH THREATS AGAINST LIMBAUGH
Dan Riehl | Breitbart.com
See? Maddening regret, driven by fear. Tinged with rage.
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is being targeted by multiple death threats after President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party ignored his apology for controversial remarks and continued to single him out for rebuke.
If only death threats, rather than people, could target people. I could say, “I’ll get you, Richard Simmons” and the little word-cloud would chase him around for eternity. You think he’s skinny now?
Admit that you’ve gone nuts, Dan. Then, we’ll — no, never mind, Dan could never be sane. He’s a cliche-chucking bunghole, and he likes it that way. Dan says that after we rejected Serene Ol’ Rush’s apology — tear-stained! sincere! — we a-holes came ’round for another crack at him wielding an even nastier tactic: Single him out. Ha! We now shall mention you by name, Fat Man, oops. I call thee: Rush Limbaugh. (*satan wakes* ‘What now? Who?’) Aauugh! You’re killing him!
The mainstream media is also culpable here, as NewsBusters has pointed out in an article titled “Onslaught: ABC Airs Eight Limbaugh Stories in Less Than Five Days.”
Note: ABC News airs stories of interest. Counter, Newsbusters: “In a blatant display of partisanship, the liberal media, led by ABC, have aired 11 stories on the crash of a New York-bound jetliner that killed 23 people. HEY– just because you hate jumbo jets does not give you the right to poison our children’s minds, moonbats.” Okay, I get it. STOP. TALKING. ABOUT. RUSH.
Yet, none have yet to point out the evil, uglier, if not dangerous, side of the very same campaign now being driven directly by Obama and his sycophants in progressive New Media, with the help of complicit mainstream outlets . . the left has pressed home what it sees as a sudden political opportunity provided by Rush’s provocative reaction–despite his apology.
Yes, you’re getting your asses kicked. But the kickers are just regular Americans. They can no longer fucking stand Rush fucking Limbaugh. I have pretty good evidence of that: All my old posts and videos on him have been ‘blowing up.’ It’s as if people were double-checking, “Is he really this shitty?” So every day, they see more. This will continue for a while — America seeing more, Rush looking worse.
But just go blame someone else. Hell, that’s your job.
Somebody else must have done something to get Americans so angry. Somebody else must have driven people to the internet by perhaps the millions so they could find out who this Rush Limbaugh really is. Who did it?
Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope that he would be a trailblazer who would conduct the presidency in a new way. Well, he has: Obama has been the most divisive president in our modern history, unabashedly stirring up hate against not only his political enemies, but against private citizens who exercise their right to participate in our democracy. The most recent hatefest has been directed against Rush Limbaugh, and Obama has personally stirred the pot.
Got it, John. Just let me ask you: What exactly has Obama “personally” done? Why, John answers, I can barely count all the things the President has done to hurt America. John says that Obama “personally” tore America apart when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt.” And also when Bill Maher called Palin a “dumb twat.” And when Bill Maher “contributed $1 million to re-elect Obama.”
John also says Obama “personally” engineered the destruction of civility when Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee refused to condemn Bill Maher for calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” and a “dumb twat.” John also reminds you Obama “personally” decimated the present and future of this great nation when Rep. Jan Schakowsky refused to call for the return of Bill Maher’s donation.
Gaze from top to bottom. The evidence! Take that.
Barack Obama has been a terrible president in many ways, but perhaps his most poisonous legacy is his cynical fomenting of partisan hate to advance his own political interests.
Please, John, stop. Just stop typing before I start to cry.
After three years, we have learned that “hope” is not the word that we should associate with the Obama presidency . .
While the serious people in the serious America party continue to favor religious authority over hot sex (the former being a reason to live, the latter being a farcical mirage), Bill Buckley’s magazine continues to have itself a field day. Rarely have so many serious people given the word “serious” a back-alley rogering. In the style of “Roger” Mahony, the L.A. Archbishop who built a career out of hoarding child molesters and erecting monuments to himself. Seriously.
A couple minutes into reading yesterday’s National Review, the logic-hoarding and the victim self-regarding did blaze their way across the pages, internetted as they were. And flammable, as they were, only in the sense of ‘flim-‘. So get ready. Put on your mortician’s apron, sniper’s glasses and go-to-meeting most miserable ‘cuz the arguments are about to get real, well, you know.
A Genius for Subject Changing
By Mona Charen | National Review
The Obama administration issues an edict regarding birth control that is a) blatantly unconstitutional, b) economically absurd, and c) completely unmatched to any national need, and what are we talking about? The “Republican war on women.”
Boy howdy, there’s some whirlwind logic. Let me start by saying: a) don’t be silly, b) it saves money, and c) it’s completely necessary. Now, just yesterday morning, I posted a piece about Selwyn Duke’s article at Renew America, the Christian politics site. While Sandra Fluke never once said a word about her sex life — not a syllable — this was Selwyn’s reaction:
Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?
He makes his case clear, Mona: If a woman should testify before Congress about the need for contraception coverage in insurance plans, one’s proper and Christian response is to confer “slut status” upon her. If we haven’t descended to barbarism, that is. And if that isn’t a call to shun women who dare speak about their lives, what is? I’d call that a war.
Anyway, it’s your article, Mona. You make your case. Tell me about a) and b) and c).
Democrats are geniuses at muddying the waters and twisting the debate in a direction they find congenial. They’ve been at this a very long time. Recall that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we found ourselves ensnared in a discussion of so-called “censorship.” The National Endowment for the Arts, (a luxury no deeply indebted nation should indulge), had provided grants to two particularly obnoxious exhibits. One was a photograph by Andres Serrano called “Piss Christ” that depicted a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. The other was a series of homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, featuring, to cite just one example, a man’s anus being penetrated by a bullwhip.
Fair enough. You’d say our contraception argument is a crucifix in a jar of pee crammed up someone’s ass, back in 1989. You’re not by any chance changing the subject on me, now, are you? Because that’s the sort of yucky metaphor I’d prefer to avoid, our differences notwithstanding.
The liberals were ready with a jaw-dropping claim: To deny a federal subsidy to “Piss Christ” was censorship. Or, as Obama might put it, “It’s not who we are.”
Pretty muddy of you, Mona. Or, as Obama might put it: “Mona Charen, you’re not a particularly honest woman.” You can expect to hear that whenever you pretend the President can conduct conversations backwards through time.
Are you perhaps trying to say you don’t like it when the government pays for things you don’t like? The Pill, IUDs, smelly whips? Is there another point anywhere in here, amongst the art galleries and posters on the ceilings?
That even Catholic institutions, who object to this command on religious grounds, are to be bullied by the federal government into violating their consciences, ought to have provoked an outcry from liberals, allegedly firm guardians of the First Amendment.
Except they’re not, Mona. The premium-payers won’t cover the cost of contraception under Obamacare, the insurance companies will. The President made the policy change back on February 10th, saying: ” . . we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here — and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution,” Obama said. “As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.”
When does the adult, sensible and substantive part of a National Review article begin? Can I skip to that?
Contraceptives are not a matter of life and death. But even if they were, as for example, cancer drugs are, is that an argument for forcing insurance companies to provide them free of charge? Why not force free distribution of all medicines?
If all medicines save money in the long run, why not knock yourself out? Because that’s what contraception does. Here’s a sensible non-NR argument:
“If you look at the overall cost of providing health care to a woman the cost goes up, not down, if you take contraceptives out,” [Jacob] Lew said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “This is not going to cost the insurance companies money because, on an overall health care cost basis, it won’t cost more.”
The argument that contraception services save money over time is an old one in family planning circles. Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute says it simply costs the health care system less money when couples plan their pregnancies.
“And that means healthier pregnancies and healthier infants,” he says. “It means fewer preterm births and low birth-weight baby births. It means starting prenatal care earlier. All those things also can lead to cost savings.”
Poor Mona. She couldn’t get a single thing in her post right. Speaking of serious human beings: Jonah Goldberg. Just look at all the miserable hard work they put him through yesterday. First, he had to compare Sandra Fluke to another serious person:
Sandra Fluke v. Joe the Plumber
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review
. . I think the comparison is interesting in numerous ways. When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism . .
Yeah, they’re pretty similar in story, the women’s reproductive rights activist at Georgetown law and the ‘plumber.’ One caused and courted controversy to jump-start a career as a know-nothing political gadfly, and the other was called a slut by the leader of the GOP. Joe the Plumber got the short end of that deal, surely.
Then Jonah had to append serious commentary to these:
Here’s a relevant one:
And though you’d imagine he’d be exhausted by now, he wasn’t. Jonah then scribbled down some thoughts on Super Tuesday: