Tag Archives: Rush Limbaugh

Firearms business receives multiple requests to quit advertising on Rush Limbaugh Show

Anti-Rush Facebook message

The RAM Armory has a Facebook page which has received several requests to stop advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show from what must be an organized anti-Rush Limbaugh campaign.

The RAM Armory is the online outlet for RAM Arms, a North Carolina manufacturer and retailer of firearms, ammunition and accessories.

Today, RAM’s Facebook page received some dishonest and obviously directed efforts to have them discontinue their advertising where it might be heard during the Rush Limbaugh show.

The first message was an obvious ploy and entirely deceitful in its approach:

Anti-Rush Facebook message

 

In speaking with a RAM Arms spokesman, we learned that they “don’t use an ad agency and advertise directly through Clear Channel. That was the first clue that this was a deception.”

RAM Arms also told us that they had never been informed of, nor instructed anyone to cease advertising with Rush Limbaugh.

After the first message, RAM Arms immediately contacted Clear Channel to understand if this was a concerted effort or just one person trying to change the world.

After confirming with their advertising representative that this was obviously a political stunt to deprive a Conservative host of advertising dollars, RAM Arms decided to increase their spending with Clear Channel and is considering more spending in the Rush Limbaugh time slot.

Later today, RAM Arms received more messages. Most like this one:

Anti-Rush FB Message 27

Or this one:
FB anti-rush 41Or ..

Anti-Rush FB message 56

 

and :

Anti-Rush FB message 61

 

I think you get the point….

Now things are looking much more coordinated.

While many of us wonder if these activities, designed to harm a legitimate business, are against Facebook’s terms of service, the rest wonder.. who is directing these fools?

While almost no Rush Limbaugh advertisers would back away from childish pranks like this, some will. Think about how Mozilla got tricked into ditching a CEO just for thinking like President Obama did about marital rights.

What the left is too short-sighted to understand is that they are creating a dangerous precedent. What happens when a new group decides that what they think is evil and they should be repressed into oblivion? A pendulum swings – both ways.

This is the aggressive, militant, fascist left. If you let them oppress some other group while you stand by, do not be surprised when they come after you and everyone else is just .. standing by.

Liberals, Think Critically? Not Gonna Happen!

35_hateful



35_hateful

I was surfing the web the other day and ran across this article: "35 Hateful And Stupid Rush Limbaugh Quotes That Should Anger Everyone." One quote caught my attention: "If you feed them, if you feed the children, three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer? Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple." Limbaugh said that in December 2011.


Liberals find Limbaugh’s remark hateful and stupid. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Shazam.” This attitude illustrates just how shallow, how superficial, how "un-critical" liberal thinking is. Liberals considered only Limbaugh’s words, while avoiding the message being conveyed. To see how depraved liberals are, consider this definition of critical thinking: “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.” Liberals are not clear, rational, or open-minded. They are certainly not disciplined. They purposely ignore any and all evidence that illustrates how incorrect they are. They looked only at the words Limbaugh used,
halted their “analysis” there. Liberals did not do any critical thinking.


Had the analysis gone any further, liberals would have seen that "Rush is right." Limbaugh was referring to the fact that we taxpayers feed the children during the school year, that the children are, indeed, dependent on the state, and the state cannot (for now) feed them during the summer months. His meaning was clearly that liberals make it possible for parents to shirk their responsibilities toward the children during the school year. Tell me, liberals, what is hateful about calling attention to shirking responsibility? Is there any evidence to show that parents accept responsibility and feed children during the summer months?


As these children grow up, they know of no other life, and vote to continue to allow parents to shirk responsibility.


Come on, liberals, cite any evidence that supports your contention that Limbaugh was speaking hatefully, was speaking anything but the truth. By failure to provide any evidence that supports your position, you liberals are making fools of yourselves. I know that the logic used here is far beyond most liberals, that they can’t possibly follow this argument. Liberals subscribe to the old saying, "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bulls***!"


Here is another "hateful" statement that Limbaugh made: "The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." Of the quote, the article’s author said, "Rush Limbaugh, advocating for blowing up the world." Again, this illustrates that liberals avoid critical thinking. No discussion is ever offered of how this country can benefit, which was obviously Limbaugh’s meaning, from stopping people who want to kill us. I guess that, to liberals, being killed by enemy bullets (rather than stopping them) is the preferable way to die.


This is typical liberal “analysis.” They look only at the words, never consider how personally stupid they appear. They search only for phrases or sentences that they consider favorable to their agendas. Liberal readers of the words react exactly as desired, never pausing to think for themselves, to analyze what is actually being said. They react in a “knee-jerk” fashion.


Perhaps Limbaugh’s "problem" is that he assumes that liberals in his audience will critically think, that they will look beyond his words and perceive his message, his meaning, examine (rather than ignore) evidence. Liberals
automatically consider anything Limbaugh says as hateful and stupid. We conservatives think about what Limbaugh says, but liberals (on purpose?) don’t.


Here is another article I found while surfing, "50 Liberal Quotes Which Americans Should Remember,"


  • "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." – Robert Kennedy      A liberal offered this quote, but offered not one word about the causes of plenty and poverty. But that would have necessitated critical thinking.
  • "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." – Martin Luther King, Jr.      Not one word about personal responsibility, or the fact that if we ceased spending money on military defense (we currently spend more on social uplift), we will not have a nation, spiritual or otherwise. Nor were identified the social uplift programs our enemies will continue.
  • "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." – Hubert H. Humphrey       Not one word about how liberals support and demand abortions, about the ever rising cost of ObamaCare and the resulting scarcity of healthcare availability, or about how welfare programs, evidence shows, keep people in poverty.
  • "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." – Abraham Lincoln      I’m surprised Lincoln’s “fruit of labor” comment was included, because there is no mention that capital is the direct result of labor, that capital results from disciplined saving.


These quotes were proudly presented by a liberal. It illustrates how liberals choose to focus on words rather than on evidence, on actual deeds.


Regarding "critical thinking," Rick Shenkman, in 2008, observed that the American public is "… willing to accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought suggested they were bad for the country" [emphasis mine] and "… were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic
solutions, irrational fears, and public relations babble." Liberals have dumbed-down public school curricula (in the name of “feel good”) to the point where analysis of evidence and critical thinking are no longer possible by those “educated” in public schools. They have created a nation of "mind-numbed robots" that vote liberal every chance they get. They give no thought to the future.

They’re not called "knee-jerk liberals"
for no reason!

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Évocateur – The movie about the show that started it all

Morton Downey Jr. in ÉVOCATEUR: THE MORTON DOWNEY JR. MOVIE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Morton Downey Jr. in ÉVOCATEUR: THE MORTON DOWNEY JR. MOVIE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Morton Downey Jr. in ÉVOCATEUR: THE MORTON DOWNEY JR. MOVIE, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

If you are a conservative that has paid any attention at all to the likes of Andrew Breitbart, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, you may have thought that these men were trailblazers – something new under the sun, when it comes to conservative commentary. You would be partially right in that assessment, in that they each have set their own place in the conservative political world. However, before any of them, there was Morton Downey, Jr.

“The Morton Downey, Jr. Show” was an entertainment anomaly in its day, airing in the late eighties for just under a year nationwide. Mort had a cult-like following on college campuses, and can be credited with being the father of shock television. In the beginning, the show focused on political topics, and can be credited with introducing a national audience to the likes of Gloria Allred and the Reverend Al Sharpton. Conservatives today might be tempted to curse him for that, but it can be argued that the interaction between Mort and his guests in general lead to the current tenor of commentary we see everyday from Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Today, they are more polite, so if there’s any complaining to do, it probably shouldn’t be about Mort.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the man, and his meteoric rise to fame at the close of the Reagan years, you have the opportunity to learn. Évocateur – The Morton Downey, Jr. Movie is a documentary set for nationwide release on June 7 that explores the history of the show, and the man that made it possible. From the beginning, there was no question about whether or not Mort would attempt to get in the national spotlight – the only question was how he would do it. After failed attempts at following in his father’s footsteps in the music industry, Mort moved to radio. Once he discovered he could use his flamboyant personality to move people on political causes, after speaking on Pro-Life issues, it was only a matter of time before he would parlay that into some form of entertainment.

Based in part on the 1960’s talk show, “The Joe Pyne Show”, “The Morton Downey, Jr. Show” in the New York region on WWOR in Seacaucus, NJ in 1987. Under a year later, the show went into national syndication. The show focused on politics from the beginning until shortly after the Reverend Al Sharpton’s pet cause – the case of Tawana Brawley – was found to be false by a grand jury investigation. The Brawley case was an integral part of Mort’s fame, and when it became clear that the girl had lied about being gang raped by white men, the show could no longer book legitimate guests. It became a freak show, with strippers, prostitutes, and Neo-Nazis as regular guests. Part of Brawley’s claims included racist epithets being written on her body by her attackers – something she apparently did to herself. So, when Mort claimed that he had been attacked by Neo-Nazis, and had swastikas drawn on him in an airport restroom, there was more than a little distrust in his claims. “The Morton Downey, Jr.” show was cancelled shortly after that.

“Évocateur” explores all of this, and is a walk down memory lane for anyone that remembers the man, and his show. As for current conservatives, it is important to understand the rise and fall of Mort. While even his close friend, Lloyd Schoonmaker, admits in the film that Mort’s political beliefs were whatever served him best at any given moment, one thing the man did understand was how to turn populism into real entertainment. If the show was aired today, it probably still would appeal to a large audience, because of its off-the-wall flavor, if nothing else. However, Mort would be branded as RINO, because of he would often switch stands on various issues. As shown in a very short clip in the film, it apparently was done to “see how the audience reacts” – he was a showman first, pundit second if at all. His goal was to entertain, then inform. Today, entertaining audiences has either been abandoned entirely, or takes second seat to informing the masses. Conservatives today have been debating for years about how to reach a larger audience, and if Mort can teach us anything, it is that we’re going about it backwards. First entertain the people, and then inform them.

If there is one must-see film out there now for conservatives, it is “Évocateur”. This should be the start point for anyone seeking to spread the conservative message to a larger audience, because it is about a man who did it right, before he got everything absolutely wrong. His failure was highly personal, in that he was obsessed with eclipsing his father’s fame. However, on the tactical end, his other failure was in putting so much faith in one story – the Tawana Brawley story. It is a bitter irony that story didn’t spell the end of Sharpton as well. But, none of it lessens the value of what can be learned from Morton Downey, Jr. – the man that defined the populist conservative movement in the waning days of the Reagan era.

Interview with “Évocateur” director Jeremy Newberger: Listen here

What Makes A Successful Broadcaster? Chris Baker Shares His Views!

By Jeremy Griffith

There’s exciting news for fans of CDNews Radio! Steve Hamilton and Stevie West joined the programming lineup Monday with their show “Getting Hammered”. Their first guests were Dark Side Host Kira Davis and Virginia’s Chapter of Americans For Prosperity Rep Audrey Jackson. It was a great premiere! Hear it for yourself  on the podcast here.

Steve and Stevie join a team of talented amateur blog radio hosts on CDNews Radio. Other popular shows include “In Deep” with Michelle Ray, “Married to the Game” with AI Politics, and “The Dark Side” with Kira Davis, just to name a few. Check the schedule to find your favorite show, or listen to one you haven’t heard yet.

Radio Host Chris Baker

Radio Host Chris Baker

As CDNews radio expands its lineup, we wondered, what does it take to make a successful, entertaining show? Well, I remembered an interview I did a few years ago with some great advice for broadcasters. Here is radio broadcast talent Chris Baker, formerly of KTLK FM in Minneapolis with advice for the new broadcast enthusiast. His interview is both enlightening and entertaining. Watch the never before seen interview here.

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O'Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-In-Chief Larry O’Connor

Breitbart TV Editor-in-Chief and Blog Talk legend Larry O’Connor successfully made the transition from one of the highest rated Internet radio shows to terrestrial radio recently. So, we wondered if that was a future possibility for some of our favorites, like our own Kira Davis for example. Time will tell, so tune in and listen! Conservatives and libertarians are not alone as long as we have great Internet Radio hosts like those on CDNews Radio, available on Blog Talk Radio.

Baker announced he will host the new afternoon drive time for Omaha, Nebraska radio station, 1110 KFAB. His first day as host will be February 11, 2013.

Larry O’Connor can be heard on FM 105.9 WMAL in Washington DC.

Media Matters, Rush Limbaugh, and the Delusional Left-Wing

Media Matters for America has had a hard-on to nail Rush Limbaugh to the wall for years now. Since they have taken some degree of credit for the departure of Glenn Beck from FoxNews network, they’ve been riding high on their perceived accomplishments. So when the whole Sandra Fluke affair came on the scene, they leaped into action.

Annoy Rush - MMFA

ginnerobot (CC)


Contrary to what the MMFA minions might try to say, this was definitely on the back-burner for a long time now. The stickers pictured here were photographed in 2009 in Pittsburgh, PA, according to the photographer’s notes on Flickr. Sorry, but investing in stickers is a sign that an organization either already has definitive plans to deal with a given issue, or is at least in the process of making them. Then there are the claims by the folks on Twitter that are supporting this campaign to put Limbaugh out of business that they are not employed by MMFA. Yes, they probably aren’t being paid to smear not only Limbaugh, but also his advertisers. However, they are doing precisely what MMFA wants them to do.

Jeffrey Lord, former Reagan White House political director, explores the concept of left-wing tactics against Limbaugh exhaustively here. Primary to this sort of campaign working is the recruitment of “true-believers” that will carry out what the organizers want with little or no support or direction from above. So, while these campaigners might like to believe that they are not working on behalf of MMFA, they are – inadvertently at least. Lord explores the similarities between this campaign, and previous ones from socialist ideology. Of course the MMFA troops on the ground are ridiculing his contentions, presumably because they don’t even realize that they are essentially puppets for the left-wing media organization.

But don’t be lulled into thinking that this is a harmless exercise because it is being carried out by puppets. The harm that they are causing is very real. It has moved beyond simply asking advertisers not to continue supporting Limbaugh, to rather high levels of intimidation. The following video is an interview with Mark Stevens, CEO of MSCO, a marketing firm in Rye Brook, NY. Stevens contends that the left-wing campaigners against Limbaugh have gone too far, and crossed line between protesting and terrorism.

I’ve already pointed out the poisonous rhetoric seen from the left here where it’s being vented against Rick Santorum’s daughters, and here against me personally. But in the case of Limbaugh, one only needs to Google “Kill Rush Limbaugh” to see many examples of calls to violence. In the case of advertisers, however, it’s gotten to the point where anti-Limbaugh campaigners are posting phone numbers online, encouraging fellow followers to call businesses of all shapes and sizes to stop advertising.
Left-wing economic stimulus
In case anyone missed it, the economy is still not in the best shape. Small businesses have been considered the most likely candidates to pull us out of our problems. So what does the left-wing do? Of course, they engage in a virulent campaign against small business owners over a radio personality. If it stuck to just words on a screen or on the phone, it would be fine. However, as Stevens pointed out, it has taken a more dangerous turn, to the point where protesters are invading the privacy and safety of business owners. And the only sin that these businesses committed was that they recognized that their potential client pool listens to the Rush Limbaugh show. The protesters causing all of this trouble probably would never use the services of any of these small, local advertisers, and they are contacting these businesses from other states. Complaining to businesses that one would actually use is one thing, but this is something else entirely.

But other than forcing Limbaugh off the air, what could MMFA’s agenda in this really be? Well, we need look no further than the radio industry wonks for that answer.

RBR-TVBR observation: We have to wonder if all of this is actually just plain ol’ politics. We’re heading toward the presidential election and Rush’s focus has been taken off his usual ball, onto his own crisis. Limbaugh has a lot of impact on elections. The less he says against Obama and the more he says on defending himself just diminishes the sway he has with listeners, specifically independent voters. Yes, he sure did a terrible thing, but are Media Matters’ efforts really all about him at this point or affecting the influence he has with voters? Remember, George Soros gave Media Matters a $1 million donation last year. Looks like we know where at least some of that money is going. Look, Media Matters serves a good purpose as a media watchdog, but it seems to be going a bit beyond its charter lately.

So, while it might be tempting to engage the left-wing on this one, perhaps the best advice is to essentially let it slide. Do vocally and financially support the advertisers that haven’t left the show. Do write to Limbaugh with questions and topics that will get him back on the ball when it comes to Obama. Do encourage businesses that suffer from intimidation from the left-wing to take the same route Stevens has, and refuse to back down. Don’t condescend to even communicate with the MMFA minions. Just keep an eye on them, to keep up with their shenanigans.

RFK Jr. Calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute- Media Outrage?

When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut on his radio show, he loses advertisers and outraged liberals everywhere demand that the FCC pull his broadcaster’s license.

However, when Robert F Kennedy Jr. calls Senator Inhofe a prostitute on Twitter, not only is there no media firestorm, but Twitter followers retweet his comments.

On Tuesday night, Kennedy tweeted:

Speaking of prostitutes, big oil’s top call girl Sen Inhofe wants to kill fuel economy backed by automakers, small biz, enviros, & consumers [sic]

Isn’t the bestowing of the name ‘prostitute’ on an individual exactly what the liberals are in a huff about? When Rush did it he was berated by the media. His use of the term was absurd and offensive. The same should be true of Kennedy’s use of the word right?

You might think so, however, when Kennedy was criticized over his Tweet, he once again took to Twitter and defended himself:

To my critics: What do you call a politician — democrat or republican — who sells the public interest for money?

Now when outrage erupted following his criticism of Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh issued a very sincere apology, twice, stating that his comments were outrageous and beneath him.

Despite this, a petition calling for the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s permit to broadcast over public airwaves began on signon.org. The petition states that Rush’s use of indecent language is grounds for the revoking of his permit.

According to the stunning logic of signers of this petition:

“The lies and hate of a hypocritical drug addict are NOT in the public interest and are counter to the United States Constitution”

“People can be arrested for running thier [sic] mouth in a public place as he does on the radio.”

Others call his rant racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic- which leads one to wonder- how many of these people actually listen to Rush on a daily basis and/or actually heard his comments about Sandra Fluke?

The public condemnation for Kennedy? Non-existent. When Kennedy uses the same word, where’s the media’s outrage? Not only wasn’t there any- but some of Kennedy’s Twitter followers re-Tweeted his comment calling Senator Inhofe a prostitute.

Apparently, it’s not okay to call someone a prostitute if you’re a conservative. But if you’re a liberal, it is. Thus proving the media’s double standard for the left.

Or is there no outrage because Kennedy, a man, called another man a prostitute, while Limbaugh, a man, called a woman a prostitute? Well, that’s sexism. Aren’t the liberals always calling the evil conservatives racist?

Either way, to react so strongly to one instance, and not at all to the other is outrageous. So much for freedom of speech.

Sandra Fluke And The Three Thousand Dollar Lie

First and foremost, before I’m accused of slander, let me say that I “feel” like Miss Fluke is being dishonest with us.  I might even “believe” that she’s lied.  But what I’m going to officially say is that I think she’s testified before Congress with questionable facts.  Highly questionable facts… in fact.  Let me explain.

The “lie” (or questionable fact) happens at around the 2:12 mark of the video below.  She says that contraception, without insurance, can cost a woman “over $3000 during law school”.  Let me tell y’all something, folks.  Either she’s lying, or her friends are too stupid to be enrolled in Law School.  Now that’s a pretty nasty claim for me to make, so let me back it up.

I used a run-of-the-mill map application to locate Georgetown University (her school) on a map.  I then searched for pharmacies within close proximity to Georgetown.  I then called the first one that I saw and asked how much a month’s supply of Ortho Tri-Cyclen costs WITHOUT insurance.  The name brand was surprisingly pricey.  I was quoted a cost of just under 45 bucks.  That would equal about half of the amount Sandra Fluke told Congress it would cost.  I started to think that maybe she deserved some benefit of the doubt.  But then the pharmacist offered me another option (SANS INSURANCE).

I was told that if I paid $20 for the pharmacy’s club card, I could purchase a month’s supply of (generic) Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $12 a month.  And that’s from a pharmacy within walking distance from Georgetown University.  So instead of the proposed $1000 a year that Sandra Fluke told Congress that her friends spend on contraceptives, it was closer to $164 a year.  So instead of $3000+, we are now looking at $492 for three years worth of birth control.  I mean, maybe Miss Fluke is used to Congress accepting bogus budgets, but we should all be offended that she would try to be so dishonest with us.

Married To The Game March 3rd: The Humdinger

If you have yet to hear the sensation that sweepin’ the nation, Married To The Game, then this is the episode to get you acquainted.  Ai Politics takes aim at everything from “SlutGate” to why the Republican party needs to learn some lessons from Apple.  There’s a tribute to Andrew Breitbart, and Ai discusses accusations thrown at Breitbart in regards to Shirley Sherrod.  There’s even a story in there somewhere about where to find the best snow cones in America. (really)  Married To The Game is the show that espouses conservative values without the spin.  What are you waiting for?  Click play now.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

When You Wrestle With A Pig…

Running errands Friday I heard Rush Limbaugh speak for the third day about a college student who spoke before a House Sub-Committee. Unfortunately, I could not get past his absurd name-calling to listen for the real concern.

His tirade might have been meant in some sort of humorous way but it was lost on me. As a conservative, as a woman, and as one who may have used birth control I was insulted. As a conservative I want less government involvement in my life, not more. I do not want the government to have any say what happens in my home…my bedroom. As potential user of birth control I was appalled that this issue, which was not the question of the committee, had become the center of attention. On my Twitter time line there were hundreds of tweets joking about the ease of buying condoms. In losing sight of the real topic men, in particular, spoke out how available condoms are. They portrayed the co-ed as a silly girl, hinting her knowledge of contraception was limited. Apparently they not realize accidental pregnancy rates and side effects vary greatly with the different methods of birth control. Additionally, as a woman I was upset that so many thought this was a great time to revert to abject junior high jokes and criticisms. Is it ever appropriate to refer to a stranger in such a way? Because a supposed comedian regularly makes vile remarks about conservative candidates is it appropriate for us to do so?

None the less, one has to wonder if some on the left hoped to change the issue to women’s rights of contraceptive care—of which, there is no argument from the GOP platform. However, the primary focus buried deep in the center of the firestorm, revolved around a committee hearing about Freedom of Religion. The Catholic Church, backed by others, has been speaking out against a mandate in the new health care law the required them to provide birth control and abortifacients (abortion pills). The co-ed who spoke was asking that her Jesuit school be required offer the free services and change their policy.

Because many churches, like the Catholics believe in the sanctity of life; from conception to natural death they choose to not cover birth control that may stop conception as part of their insurance policy. As an employee or student of a religious institution if I choose to do otherwise should I ask them to break their laws in order to this contraception? Does it really matter if virtually all women have used birth control? Can the government demand that a church violate its own policy and provide a service? Whether I use birth control is a personal issue between my partner, my doctor, and my God. It is not and should not be something that the government can control.

There appear to be agencies, some already receiving government funding, that offer reduced cost effective methods of birth control to any woman. Those who feel this is an important service are welcome to contribute to such agencies.

Thankfully, Rush has apologized and, in my opinion, today offered a sincere apology to the woman. In today’s radio program he explained the background of the testimony in clear language. I wished he’d done this last week. Damage has been done. As the old saying goes, “When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty…and the pig likes it.”

The Difference Between Contrived and Real Outrage: The Top Five Right and Left Insulting Comments

A blogger should never admit this, but instead pretend that he slaved for hours putting something together; but sometimes, the blog gods smile on you. This is going to be too easy.  And you have to give credit where credit is due.

In my never-ending struggle to right all that is wrong with the universe, I came up with the idea of juxtaposing the left’s contrived outrage about the Fluketroversy with real, bona fide, hateful language from the American leftosphere.

Ransacking my limited political knowledge, a couple examples immediately sprang to mind.  Don Imus. George Allen’s “macaca” moment. The usual tripe. Then a progressive blogger went ahead and did all my heavy lifting for me, proving that I’m not putting up straw men to knock down.

So with no further adieu, here goes a side-by-side comparison of the top five most offensive comments of the right vs. the left, in reverse order. The point is not that “both sides do it,” but that the left gets away with it, while conservatives do not.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comment #5: Brian Kilmeade jokes to Gretchen Carlson: “Didn’t men give you the kitchen?”

This was such a flaming ball of outrage there’s not even a YouTube video on it.  I’m going to have to admit it was… gasp… a joke and move on.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comment #5: Michelle Malkin is a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it”:

Much like Highlander, there could only be one video copy on YouTube readily available that had Olbermann using this quote. By coincidence (I assume), Olbermann mentions that Beck and Limbaugh referred to Senator Mary Landrieu (she of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” fame) in terms suggesting she was akin to a prostitute. Interestingly, I was just reading Federalist No. 66 today, and there is evidence that two of our founders thought such language appropriate, and were referring to non-females at the time: “They might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, if they prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.” Hmm.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #4: Bill Cooksey thinks Massachusetts politician Karyn Polito is hot

Again, from the policymic blog:

Bill Cooksey, WRKO-AM radio producer, made sexist comments about Karyn E. Polito on-air in response to a caller who inquired, “Is she hot?” Cooksey stated, I think she’s hot. She’s tiny, she’s short. She’s got a banging little body on her. Facial wise, I give her about a seven. Body wise, I give her about an eight-and-a-half. Tight little butt. I endorse Karyn Polito.” Tom & Todd, pictured above, responded by saying it was “delightful and humorous.”

Yes, the comments were “sexist” because Bill Cooksey is apparently a heterosexual man who finds Ms. Polito attractive. And the controversy is? Where was the outrage when media publications were fawning about Barack Obama with his shirt off? Oh, that’s not sexist.  Or George Stephanopolous laughably being drooled over on Friends? Or…

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #4: Bill Maher’s Jokes about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as “MILFS of the Republican Right”

This is just a place-holder for the litany of nasty things Bill Maher has said about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, some of which can be countenanced here and here.  For those who either haven’t seen American Pie or have been Rip-van-winkle for decades, MILF is an acronym for “Mom I’d Like to Frog.” (Although “frog” means something else).  But really, who knows where to start? There’s the comment where he talks about their breasts, and then calls them both “boobs.” These are Republican political figures, mind you. But Maher’s really good stuff is when he calls Palin what Dana Loesch calls a C U Next Tuesday. I’ll leave it up to you to figure that one out.

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #3: Don Imus’ “Nappy Headed Hoes” Outrageous Outrage

This is the infamous statement that got Don Imus fired from his job as a long-time, well-established disk jockey. But as someone who was raised in the south, I know that blacks use the term “nappy headed hoes” in a joking manner all the time. The term was not used derisively or racistly by Imus, in a manner that suggests whites are superior to blacks. Nonetheless, it was enough for Imus to be asked to pack up his mic and leave.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comment #3: Michael Moore Calls Rush Limbaugh a “Bitch”

Although it would be great to juxtapose Moore’s comments with Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” descriptor, let’s be frank: Moore doesn’t merit such a high position, because we all know his modus operandi.  He is a tendentious, unintentional mockumentary director, so what else are we going to expect from him? Nonetheless, in response to Rush’s “slut” usage in his satirizing of the now-notorious Ms. Fluke, Michael Moore did a touchdown dance and spiked the football yelling, “Who’s the prostitute now, bitch?”  Who’s the hypocritical hack, Moore?

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #2: Foster Freiss’ “aspirin” joke

This is not my list, folks. The top insulting conservative comments represent an obvious lefty’s list of the most over-the-top conservative comments he can come up with.  So who is Foster Freiss? Good question.  He is the Santorum spokesman who joked that one proven method of birth control was to put an aspirin between the knees and hold it there. Funny? Yeah, a bit.  Outrageously outrageous? Come on.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #2: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi Compare Tea Party Protesters to Nazis

This is where we start getting into the nitty-gritty, where you have public figures shamelessly and inaccurately demonizing one segment of the American population they are supposed to represent.  We won’t even get into the left calling tea party protesters terrorists here, we’ll just stick to the Godwin’s law that eventually everything on the Internet goes back to the Nazis. Well, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat’s former Speaker of the House, actually compared the tea party to Nazis. The footage can be viewed here.

But current DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ comments are even more interesting, in light of the way she has been tapped by the media to comment on the Rush Limbaugh “Fluke” controversy.  This is what she actually said: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here.  The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.”  This woman is the current DNC Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

Do we even have to mention that our sitting president Barack Obama once referred to the tea party, over one-third of the country by loyalty, as the dirty epithet “teaba**ers?”

Top Five Insulting Conservative Comments #1: Rush Limbaugh Satirizing Sandra Fluke over Condomgate

Rush Limbaugh is a talk radio personality who went after Sandra Fluke for fabricating an issue about a lack of condoms on college campuses and trying to use it to advance a Democrat agenda by comparing her to a slut. Repeatedly. Over the course of three days (sounds like a good time, doesn’t it?). But let’s not be deceived about Ms. Fluke. She interjected herself abruptly into the public forum as a law student at a major private Catholic college complaining about the lack of condoms on her campus as if she were in a third world country.  And she mischievously fails to mention she is a thirty year-old feminist activist doing this as a publicity stunt to advance the Obama agenda, so this was actually part of a political operation. If all’s fair in love and war, why not so in politics? Well, it is all fair game if you are a radical leftist.

Top Five Insulting Left-wing Comments #1:  Andrew Breitbart Post-Mortem Rage

The left tap-danced on the late Andrew Breitbart’s grave all last week. And for what? Because he tried to hold the left accountable? For exposing ACORN as a shameless organization? For his relentless pursuit of the truth about the Pigford scam? Or for Weinergate? Here is some of the truly vile things said about him.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone actually wrote an article called, “Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche.”

Matt Yglesias of Slate wrote on Twitter, “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous.The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

And the hateful bile train just keeps on a’comin.

As an afterthought, I guarantee you that not a single person on the left will be asked to apologize, let alone lose his job, nor suffer any kind of retaliation whatsoever for anything that he has said or might possibly say in the future about the late Andrew Breitbart. Now consider if any of the above-listed things about Andrew Breitbart were said about any beloved figure of the left by a notable conservative. That person would be gone in a heartbeat. No questions asked.

So why do you young skulls full of mush believe leftists get away with over-the-top hateful rhetoric, while conservatives do not? Because the corporate media are interested in the truth? Or is it possibly because lefties are actually, in a way you might not yet understand, shills for the establishment?

And just for the left-leaning folks out there: Why is it that leftists in the media are able to ridicule middle America mercilessly, such as by defaming the tea party movement, when the left is supposedly for the little guy? Don’t you people who are not so far gone to the left see the hatred, the ridicule, the detestation of supposedly uneducated folks who felt powerless and tired enough of being exploited to rise up in mass and peacefully protest? While the Occupy Wall Street protesters, as provably violent and irresponsible as they have shown themselves to be, have been the beloved children of big government and even big banking (did Ben Bernanke ever “empathize” with the tea party?)

What have been the left’s solutions to our “heated” national discourse after the tragic Gabby Giffords shooting, which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to tie to the tea party? A new tone? How about savagely mocking more than half of Americans and demanding the government exploit them more for their own good! Well, some of us have had enough!

Surprise!

Rush Limbaugh Is Not The Problem

This is not a defense of Rush Limbaugh. Rush can take care of himself. This is about a much bigger problem within a much bigger picture.

Have you seen the latest hit piece on Yahoo’s Destination 2012 web-site by David Crary of the Associated Press? Not surprisingly, this latest salvo is aimed directly at Rush Limbaugh. Contrary to the opinion being fostered by the institutionalized “progressive” left smear machine and their eager lapdogs in the “progressive” Party Pravda, Rush Limbaugh is not the problem.

Crary’s failed attempt at journalism is another premeditated, coordinated attempt by the institutionalized, progressive left to portray Conservative refusals to submit to violations of their First Amendment Rights as an attack on all women. House Speaker John Boehner and Rep. Darrell Issa are but two prominent Republicans who have already fallen for that bait, hook, line and sinker.

Sandra Fluke, a 30-year old law student isn’t some little girl fresh from mummy and daddy’s house. She just happens to be a leader of a woman’s “reproductive rights” group. No matter how much Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the whining that Fluke does about the cost of contraceptives, there’s simply no escaping the fact that Planned Parenthood gives contraceptives away. Surely a leader of a woman’s “reproductive rights” group knows this.

Of course, the current White House occupant simply couldn’t resist the opportunity to come to the rescue. Somehow, bo managed to find time between wasting taxpayer money on failing green energy companies or flying off in Air Force One to a campaign fund-raiser to contact Fluke by telephone while she was waiting to go on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports”. What a guy!

When is occupy Oval Office going to denounce million dollar campaign donor Bill Maher’s calling Sarah Palin “a c*nt”? When is White House Press Secretary Jay Carney going to admit that the left is, at the very least, equally responsible for “The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways”? Were Fluke not an operative for the “progressive” left’s smear machine, she’d describe Maher’s remark as “really outside the bounds of civil discourse”. You can bet a $5 gallon that’s not going to happen.

This is not about contraception. This is not about a Conservative attack on all women. This is about the institutionalized “progressive” left’s agenda to silence dissent…after they spent 2000 to 2008 shouting from the rooftops that dissent is patriotic.

”progressives” are pathetic, forked tongued, two faced, back-stabbing, hypocritical liars who will do whatever it takes to steal the 2012 election. Conservatives aren’t taking that anymore.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-is-not-the-problem/

« Older Entries