Archive for the ‘Rush Limbaugh’ Category

The Case Against Having Sex with Sandra Fluke

The case is simply this photo. This is not an attractive woman.

But here Sandra Fluke is telling Congress that she’s having so much sex that she’s going broke buying contraceptives.

So she thinks taxpayers should buy all her contraceptives so she can have as much sex as she wants without worrying about money.

Hey, let’s add this to our Bill of Rights: The right to have taxpayers buy all your contraceptives.

What an embarrassing display . . . that now lives in Google forever. Decades from now her children, grandchildren, friends and professional associates will be reading about this with raised eyebrows.

She might need to change her name if she wants to move forward professionally outside the sex industry after this performance.

BACKGROUND: At the invitation of Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke explained to Congress the other day that she is having so much sex, she’s spending so much time on her back, that she’s going broke paying for all the contraceptives she needs.

So she wants taxpayers to pay for all her contraceptives.  She calls herself a “reproductive rights activist.”  Fluke’s parents must be so proud.

Can you believe President Obama actually wasted the people’s time to phone this bimbo personally to express his solidarity with her cause? — which, apparently, is to have as much sex as humanly possible at taxpayer expense.

Another reason no sane man would ever want to have sex with Sandra Fluke is that it would be a very dangerous activity.  With all the sex she told Congress she’s having (with who knows how many different partners?), one can only imagine all the STDs that must be lurking in there: a real Little Shop of Horrors. Crocodile wrestling is probably safer.

Rush is now catching heat for calling this woman a prostitute.

She is demanding money for sex. Isn’t that pretty close to the definition of prostitute?

Rush is also right that if taxpayers must pay for her to spend her days having endless recreational sex, taxpayers should get something in return, like videos of all her sexual romps. Perhaps she could even treat us to a 24-7-365 reality Internet TV show of her life (sort of like The Truman Show), or something.

Here’s what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this . . .

Rush Limbaugh on Ron Paul’s Strange Alliance with Mitt Romney

Have you noticed that Ron Paul never attacks Romney (ever), and Romney never attacks Ron Paul?


RUSH: Folks, I want to read to you an e-mail that I sent to some friends dated January 13th. Something took place on that day that caused me to have an epiphany. And I kept it to myself. When I got home that night and I started doing show prep for the program the following day. I composed a very brief e-mail, and here’s what I said. My brother was one of the recipients. He’ll confirm this on Twitter if any of you people doubt me. Snerdley is saying, “Just read it!” He-he-he-he.

I’m just beginning to see huge advantages to Romney if Ron Paul stays in. I can see Romney offering a plum to Ron Paul’s son (every father cares about such things.) I can see Romney offering a plum to Paul’s son and to not run third party to set his son up for the future. If you’ve noticed, Ron Paul never rips Romney, which I know Romney appreciates. In fact, Ron Paul joins the chorus of those defending Romney sometimes.

What I had detected, like an epiphany, all these debates I had never seen Ron Paul attack Romney, nor had I seen Romney attack Ron Paul. I saw Ron Paul attacking everybody else. And, of course, everybody else was attacking — well, not everybody did attack Ron Paul because he’s like the crazy uncle down in the basement. You smile when he opens his mouth, but the guy, folks, I must tell you here, Ron Paul is totally irresponsible when it comes to the subject of Iran and US foreign policy. This notion that we are responsible for Iran getting a nuke and that we can’t blame them because of what we’ve done? He almost sounds at times like Jeremiah Wright, America’s chickens have come home to roost. But Ron Paul is dangerous. They have a nuke because they feel threatened by us. I mean they’re state sponsors of terrorism for decades.

It’s dangerously irresponsible. And because he has the temperament of a lovable old uncle, people kind of wink and nod the other way. Nobody goes after him. But if you’ll notice, that’s not really the point. The point is that there is an alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. This is what I have been remiss in not mentioning. So last night after the debate, I start doing show prep and I see all this stuff in the British press about Romney may be offering Rand Paul the vice presidency and I’m saying to myself, “I know I mentioned this in an e-mail to some of my friends.” I told my brother about it and went and found the e-mail, and that’s the one that I just read to you. (interruption) No, no, no. Look, don’t misunderstand. I’m just stating an obvious.

I’m not being critical here. I’m just pointing out something that is obvious. Romney is never criticized by Paul but Paul has criticized everybody else that has become the most popular not-Mitt of the moment. Last night it was Santorum. “You’re a fake.” Well, I mean this is really cool. Here you go making excuses for it. You did it but now you’re running for president, you wouldn’t do it.


RUSH: Back to the very beginning here: What is paramountly obvious now… And, by the way, if you are a Romney guy and a supporter, you’re thinking, “This is brilliant, a brilliant campaign tactic.”

Whether it’s true or not that there has been an actual meeting of the minds in conversations and strategy developed between the two guys, it is clear that there’s a hands-off policy between Paul to Romney and vice-versa. Paul does not attack Romney. Ron Paul attacks every one of Romney’s opponents; Romney doesn’t attack Paul. And so last night, we start seeing these stories in the British press. One of them, Toby Harnden, was that Ron Paul would be offered the veep slot. Then another one followed that and said maybe Rand Paul, and then Rand Paul put out a statement saying he would be honored to be Romney’s VP.

And that’s when I said, “Damn it! Damn it, I wrote that e-mail on the 13th of January. I saw this, I knew what was happening, and I didn’t say anything about it.”


Santorum gains 13 points with GOP women since attacks began on his moral views

Women seem to like the fact that Rick is obviously a really decent guy who loves his family

WASHINGTON POST: Post-ABC poll, conducted on the heels of a week of scrutiny of Santorum’s conservative views on a variety of women’s health issues, shows that his popularity among GOP women has moved up 13 points since January, with the biggest bump in the past week, so that 57 percent hold a favorable view. Santorum is now within reach of Romney on that score: Sixty-one percent of Republican women view Romney favorably. Romney has higher negative ratings among GOP women than Santorum does — 28 percent to 18 percent — and those negative ratings of Romney have grown over time.

Read more here >>>

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney Is A ‘Stranger To Fundamental Conservatism’

I really have no interest in voting for Mitt Romney — Obama Lite.

Seriously, what’s the point? We now have a choice between getting on a train that’s speeding rapidly toward the Socialist Cliff of Bankruptcy, Poverty and Misery . . . and the Romney train that’s moving at a slower pace toward that same cliff.

We are still moving in the same direction.

Not much of a choice. I guess the slow train to destruction of America is better than the fast train.

Read more here >>>

Elliot Abrams’ Lies About Newt are the Latest in Abrams’ 26-Year History as a Serial Liar

Here’s what Rush Had to Say Yesterday About Elliot Abrams’ Lies About Newt

Rush Limbaugh has now exposed former top-level State Department official Elliot Abrams as a liar and a fraud for his dishonest accusation against Newt Gingrich in National Review that Newt was somehow disloyal to Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

Rush cites a great piece in the AMERICAN SPECTATOR by a former official in Reagan’s White House Office of Political Affairs Jeffrey Lord that documents and dissects Abram’s lies about Newt point by point.

As Lord points out, Abrams selectively strings together snippets of quotes from Newt’s March 21, 1986 “special order” speech on the House floor to make it look like Newt was attacking Reagan, when Newt’s speech was actually all about how the State Department was undermining Reagan.

The meaning of Newt’s one-hour speech was exactly the opposite of what Abrams tried to portray as the meaning.

Here’s one passage from Newt’s speech:

Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism. He personally understands the history of Lenin’s adaptation of czarist secret police oppression to the new purposes of a Soviet governing dictatorship.President Reagan personally knows there is a Soviet empire and it is a global transnational threat to America and to freedom. President Reagan personally appreciates the threat to Israel in a more powerful Soviet empire, the threat to civilization in a more powerful Soviet-encouraged network of terrorism, the threat to African freedom in the Soviet use of the Cuban colonial army to impose Communist dictatorships, the threat to freedom in the Western Hemisphere through the Soviet empire’s Cuban and Nicaraguan colonies, and finally that the long-term persistence, the massive dedication of resources, and the serious professionalism of the Soviet empire combined with its development of a transnational strategy makes it a mortal threat to the survival of America. President Reagan knows all this. He ranks with Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,and Nixon in trying to focus attention on the Soviet empire and in trying to protect freedom.

Does this sound to you like Newt was attacking Reagan?

Newt’s criticism was of the State Department, not Reagan, and was a critique from the right.

You can read Newt’s entire one-hour 1986 speech here (in context) >>>

Elliot Abrams told the same lie about me that he told about Newt . . .  this one 26 years ago, on exactly the same subject!

I had my own experience with Elliot Abrams when I was working for the Heritage Foundation back in 1986. I was in my 20s back then. I had written a paper for Heritage in January of that year titled: “RHETORIC vs REALITY: How the State Department Betrays the Reagan Vision.”

This was the paper that provided the ammunition for what Newt was saying in his speech on March 21, 1986 about how Reagan’s appointees at the State Department were undermining and sabotaging Reagan’s stated policy of wanting to arm and supply anti-Soviet resistance movements around the world — including the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and Jonas Savimbi in Angloa.

Newt sent a copy of my paper to all of his colleagues in Congress.

This paper received a lot of media coverage at the time and was cited by many conservative leaders and commentators (including George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Newt, and others) who were concerned that Reagan’s appointees at the State Department were not carrying out Reagan’s objectives — who were, in fact, undermining the Reagan Doctrine.

The Reagan Doctrine, in summary, was to arm, supply, and encourage anti-Soviet resistance movements around the world [much the way we should be doing now in Iran]. The Reagan Doctrine was to try to avoid direct military conflicts with the Soviet Union, but to make it as expensive as possible for the Soviet Empire to keep and expand its empire. It worked.

The problem was the State Department didn’t agree with the Reagan Doctrine, didn’t much like Reagan, saw Reagan as a problem who would someday be gone so that the State Department could resume business as usual. The State Department saw its job as to have good relations with the Soviets, not get them angry, and hope they would abandon their plans for world conquest.

Arming and supplying the anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola and elsewhere was thought to be provocative, according to State Department think. So was moving ahead with Star Wars anti-missile technology — all of which were part of the Reagan Doctrine. The State Department opposed all of this. The State Department wanted business as usual. The State Department wanted the status quo.

Reagan wanted to roll back and defeat the Soviet Empire. The State Department wanted to contain and accommodate the Soviet Empire. The State Department was aghast over Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech and did not like it one bit when Reagan told Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

Elliot Abrams was serving at that time as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.

Abrams was furious about my paper — the paper Newt relied on for the speech so egregiously and purposefully misquoted by Abrams in National Review.

Abrams put in a phone call to my boss, Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner (I’m told at 7 a.m.) to try unsuccessfully to get me fired and to have Heritage withdraw my paper on how the State Department was doing exactly the opposite of what Reagan wanted.

Abrams told Feulner that the thesis of my paper was false.

Abrams had a reputation as a solid anti-Communist. He was generally thought to be a Heritage Foundation friend. So Feulner was inclined to listen.

Feulner asked me to document every word in my paper. I definitely was on the hot seat at Heritage for about 24 hours.

Abrams along with the #2 man at State back then, John Whitehead, apparently were also putting heat on some members of the Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees to have the paper withdrawn and me fired. That’s the word I was hearing at that time.

This is what happens to you when you go against what the Establishment wants.  It happened to me back then. It’s happening to Newt now.

Fortunately, Feulner and the foreign policy scholars at the Heritage Foundation were satisfied that my paper was 100% accurate. I had crossed ever “T”, dotted every “i”, documented every syllable.

In the midst of this flap, Feulner (as a show of support for my work) had me deliver a presentation on the paper to Heritage’s Board of Trustees (mostly made up of billionaires and hundred-millionaires). They loved it. I received a standing ovation from these billionaires and hundred-millionaires. Phew! My job was safe.

So Abrams’ campaign against me ended up backfiring against Abrams and the State Department.

Heritage, in response, sent out tens of thousands of copies of my paper to the media, members of Congress, their staff, and to Heritage Foundation donors.

This paper might well be the most famous paper Heritage ever published. It received extensive coverage in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and certainly created a lot of waves over at the State Department.

Abrams Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of  Witholding Information from Congress — In Other Words, More Deception

I don’t know whether Abrams himself, as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, was over there also undermining Reagan’s foreign policy and sabotaging the Reagan Doctrine.  He’s a pretty well-regarded neoconservative and anti-communist.

I assume he was doing what he could to support Reagan at the State Department, quietly. He was one of the few conservatives over there (well, actually, neoconservatives, who are not quite the same as real conservatives). He’s probably one of those types of neoconservatives who think it’s best not to let anyone know what he’s doing. He did get caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal and ended up pleading guilty to some misdemeanors for withholding information from Congress.

Without the plea deal, he might well have been convicted of felony perjury. So that was yet another example of Abrams using deception to achieve what he wants, this time deceiving Congress.  He doesn’t even let the law stop him from doing whatever he wants to do — the classic Machiavellian “ends justify the means” mentality. That’s Elliot Abrams for you.

It seems Abrams’ main  job at the State Department in the 1980s was to tamp down conservative criticism of the State Department. He certainly did not want people, like me and Newt, pointing out how the State Department was mostly doing the opposite of what Reagan wanted.

So now Abrams has decided he’s for Mitt over Newt. He seems to have a habit of lying about, and trying to destroy, all who get in the way of what Elliot Abrams wants. I was a target of Elliot in the 1980s. Now Newt is a target of Elliot over the very same issue.

Isn’t it funny how the same battles keep being fought over and over again, decade after decade?

The problem for Elliot Abrams is that what he’s saying is a provable lie . . . by a proven liar who was even convicted of, well, lying (that is, convicted of unlawfully withholding important information from Congress). So this guy has zero credibility. Why any publication would give any credence to anything Abrams writes, even publish it without checking it, is a mystery.

Unfortunately, he has wounded Newt with this attack a few days before the Florida primary. Elliot’s false claims have been bull-horned in huge banner headlines across the Drudge Report and have been repeated by every news outlet.

Many Republican primary voters in Florida will be confused, will wonder if Newt was really anti-Reagan in the 1980s — a charge that could not be more false — a charge Elliot Abrams knows is false, a charge that National Review should have known was false before they published Abrams’ article.

In fact, National Review was expressing the very same concerns at that time about the State Department undermining Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy that Newt was articulating in his 1986 “special order” speech. Don’t the current editors at National Review read their own magazine?

It will be tough for Newt to get the truth out there in the next 48 hours to every Republican primary voter in Florida.  That will cost a lot of money.  It also distracts Newt from what he wants to talk about.

Newt is being bombarded with millions of dollars of negative, untrue ads by the Romney campaign. Newt doesn’t not really have the money or the organization to fight back against these smears.

What a shame it will be if Elliot Abrams’ purposeful lie ends up deciding the Presidency of the United States.

Mark Levin Had Jeffrey Lord on his Show to Talk About Elliot Abrams’ Lies and Dishonest Attack on Newt

AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh was brilliant on the media lynching of Herman Cain . . . and why it’s backfiring

Set aside an hour to enjoy this — Rush at his absolute best


RUSH:  I am starting to sense it. I am starting to see it. When I sense it, when I see it, it is probably true. That’s been my track record. I think I detect the media heading into damage control on the Herman Cain story.  A lot of media are. This day five now, and still nobody knows what he did.  Not a single media outlet can report what he did!  Some are even suggesting that The Politico had no business running this story. These are other journalists who are beginning to say this. … The media is also in damage control over the Occupy Oakland riots the night before last.  I mean, yesterday the media was trying to pretend the Oakland protests were peaceful; the very model of a love fest, but now the truth is coming out along with some of the pictures and they’re switching over to damage control mode — and they’re doing the same thing in the Herman Cain story.

Really, folks, five days now, and nobody knows what he did.  Think of all the news stories there have been, think of The Politico and how they got this ball rolling, and after five days there has yet to be a report what he did.  Nobody knows still. Five days!  As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, points out when he ran the Washington Times newsroom: If somebody like The Politico reporters would have brought this story to him, he woulda thrown ‘em down the steps — and if they survived that, he would have fired them. (paraphrased exchange) “You’re telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rotgut?  What do you got?  There’s nothing here! I want names, places, activities, things that happened.  There’s nothing here!”

“No, we want to run this, and we want Cain to respond to it. We want him to provide the information.” A lot of even seasoned journalists don’t like this. I’ve got sound bites you can tell they’re getting edgy because they’re getting all upset at me playing the race card in reverse on these guys. The reverse race card works every time it’s tried when I play it and it’s got them all ticked off. So we’ve got that to do.  Here’s Washington Post, ABC poll: “70% of Republicans say the Cain allegations don’t matter.”  Can I tell you…? Folks, behind the closed doors of the mainstream media outlets, that poll (because it’s in the Washington Post) I can’t tell you how that ticks ‘em off!  This was supposed to destroy Herman Cain, and I’ll tell you something else.

It was supposed to destroy every other Republican by shifting the focus to all of them in this matter; getting them to comment, to not comment, to pile on Cain or what have you.  I’ll tell you what: There’s a question out there that I really think needs to be asked, because the way the media is doing their backtrack on this — the way they’re doing damage control — is the same thing as yesterday. They’re starting to focus on how “poorly” Herman Cain is handling this, which of course we (on the cutting edge) were on that aspect of the story yesterday.  “He’s doing such a lousy job handling this.”  How about a poll on how good a job Obama’s doing handling the economy?  What do you think a poll like that would look like?  Well, we already have that poll, and it’s called, “What do you think of the direction of the country: good, bad, worse, horrible, what?”

Only 16 to 30%, depending on the poll, think the country’s headed in the right direction.  So on what do you want to judge a candidate or a political person’s qualifications? On how he’s handling a no-name, no-information, empty “scandal” (with quotation marks around it), or how he’s handling the US economy? As I said yesterday: I don’t care, folks.  No matter what happens here, every Republican candidate for the nomination — every one of them — is so superior to Barack Obama, it’s laughable.  Of course the Drive-Bys know that, and Democrats know that.  But when you have the Washington Post and ABC News in their joint poll saying that 70% of Republicans don’t care about the Herman Cain allegations, what that can be translated to is the following:

“Politico, you failed.  You attempted, along with others in the mainstream media, to take out the guy, and you failed.  Your influence isn’t what you thought it was.  Alana Goodman at Commentary magazine writes, “Basically, the entire Washington media could have collectively called in sick all week, and it wouldn’t have made a difference – at least not for 70 percent of Republicans. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll, one of the first to be taken post-scandal, reports: ‘Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that [Herman] Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s — allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain’s campaign — do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.’”

Could it be…? In determining why this result is what it is, you could say, “Well, maybe people don’t care as much about sexual harassment anymore.  Maybe people recognize what it’s always been: A tool for advancing liberalism,” or maybe people are just fed up with the media in its modern incarnation, particularly Republicans.  We know that’s true.  We know that most Republicans, even if they’re RINO Republicans, are fed up with the way the media is going about conducting business these days.  Herman Cain’s manager, Mark Block, was on Fox this morning, American Newsroom.  He was on there with Martha MacCallum and he said this is the last day he’s gonna talk about this.  He said the media and everybody has turned Washington into a cesspool, and we are not going to swim in that cesspool anymore. We are not gonna play by the rules that the media has established.

Block said, “The fact of the matter is The Politico article if it was held up to the same standards as the code of ethics — of the code of ethics for journalism the people involved would be fired.” This is Mark Block, who is a target of the media this week as being the architect of the guy who’s “mishandling” this; who’s advising Cain poorly, making Cain look like an idiot.  This Block guy, he’s the guy that puffed on a cigarette in the TV ad.  They hate the guy!  So he finally has awakened.  He also said that the Cain campaign’s “considering its legal options and may sue Politico over the as yet unsubstantiated allegations,” and that’s what they are.  Five days now, folks.  Do you realize, in one day we knew what Clinton had done with Lewinsky — and we knew that Newsweek spiked the story and that the estimable Matt Drudge ran it.

We knew on day one what Clinton did, and he was advised to go out there and lie about it, and it didn’t work.  Five days running, and we still don’t know what Herman Cain did and there doesn’t appear to be anybody in the media who can tell us.  The media is openly begging for the women to “come forward and tell their stories.”  Wait a minute, don’t you know?  How could you run the story without knowing what the women were gonna say?  You need the women to come forward and tell the story?  Why can’t you just report it, if you know it?  Why is it incumbent upon the women — who don’t want to come forward, apparently? So that’s where we are on that story.


RUSH: The Politico with another story.  I’ll tell you, this bunch is the most sex obsessed people I’ve seen since I don’t know when.  Imagine if Ken Starr had been this obsessed! There’s a big, long story here by Kent Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns (three people), and I can tell you what it says in six words: More anonymous Cain details from The Politico.  More anonymous details.  This bunch is positively sex obsessed, and now it’s in damage control mode.  “Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegation facing him … but POLITICO has learned new details making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman’s accusations at top levels of the National Restaurant Association within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred.” What’s new about that?  We all knew that.

“The new details — which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s — put the woman’s account even more sharply at odds with Cain’s emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.” What “new details”?  We still don’t know what they are! I’m not kidding when I say “anonymous details.”  Not anonymous sources.  We’ve got anonymous details now make up the bulk of a story!  If I didn’t know better I would say journalism had created a new standard.  Anonymous sources has now morphed into anonymous details.  “In recent days sources … have offered new details of the incident.

“The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association’s government affairs division,” we know all that, “told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group’s events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said,” but still we don’t know what!  Remember, the Duke lacrosse case? Seasoned reporters hounded those kids, based on no evidence — none, zero.  “Seasoned reporters,” and many of the faculty at Duke signed all kinds of whatever they were, supporting the accuser, condemning the lacrosse team members; and remember how that turned out?

It was a total, fabricated, made-up story that was believed simply because it fit stereotypes of the left, it fit the narrative, it fit a template — and then there’s this.  This is back to The Politico, from Jonathan Martin.  This scandal now, folks, really intensifies.  “Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained about Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association said Friday that his client’s settlement was dated in September of 1999 and signed by the trade group’s general counsel but not Cain. Cain had already left the organization by then, before his three-year term was up…”  So when was the settlement signed?  9-9-9!  September of ’99!

What will the media make of this? The settlement date, September of 1999, equals “9-9-9,” the same name of Herman Cain’s economic plan.  Somebody needs to call the dethroned Dutch sociologist and have him make something of this for us.  To the audio sound bites we go, and we are… What did I tell you, start number five?  Starting at number five, last night on PMSNBC Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was on to discuss the Americans for Herman Cain ad.  And he was asked, “Okay, obviously that was Limbaugh’s voice, and they’re calling it ‘a high-tech lynching.’  They’re playing the race card on this.  What do you think of this, Gene?”

ROBINSON:  It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card (chortling) when I write about racism and its continuing presence in American society are awfully quick to play that same card, duh, when they think it’s to their advantage.  Uh, I assume that means that Rush is now gonna change his position on affirmative action, on a whole lot of other things in this race that’s involved.  I guess not.  I guess probably not.

RUSH:  What is he babbling about?  Does somebody want to translate that for me?  They can’t handle it when their own technique is thrown back at ‘em, when their own technique is turned on ‘em, they just can’t stand it.  “It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it’s to their advantage.”  I’m doing nothing based on any advantage whatsoever.  I’m simply describing what I see, and there’s no question that this is being done to a black conservative and that the left doesn’t like black conservatives.  The left doesn’t like Hispanic conservatives.  The left doesn’t like minorities who are conservative, who show an ability to rise to the top of any organization they’re in.

The left doesn’t like it. (interruption) Well, that’s right.  I have crossed a line because the charge of racism is theirs exclusively to make.  No one’s allowed to make that charge, and here I come making the charge, and they can’t deal with it. It hits ‘em right upside the face and they don’t know what to do, except call foul.  “You can’t do that! That’s what we do.  You’re not allowed to do that! You can’t call us racists! You’re the racists! You can’t do that especially now ’cause it’s true. You can’t call us out like that.  You’re gonna blow up our whole game if you keep doing this. You gotta shut up! We’re gonna start trying to make fun of you and now maybe say you’re in favor of affirmative action!”  What an odd connection to make there, but it didn’t stop.  Different show, MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell talking to a Politico writer (sigh), Maggie Haberman about me.

The question: “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying.”

I have not said that.  Has somebody produced to me where I’ve said that?  I have never said the women are lying.  All I’ve said is, “We don’t know what happened,” and on day five we don’t know what happened because the accusers in the media have not told us what happened.  I did say, “What if there’s another version of this?”  I have pointed out instances where women have lied about this, but I didn’t accuse these women of it.  So, anyway, the premise of the question is flawed, but nevertheless the question was asked.  “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying.  Rush Limbaugh — who doesn’t know who they are, who believed every single word of every
female accusation ever sent the direction of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter but especially Clinton — firmly believes these unnamed women are lying.”

HABERMAN:  In terms of the Rush Limbaugh piece of it, I think that you’re seeing, you know, generally a lot of rallying in the conservative media around Herman Cain.  There has been a lot of criticism about the fact that this was reported on; uhhh, a lot of defense of Herman Cain, a lot of insistence that it couldn’t be true. Some of his loudest support has come from that direction.

RUSH:  It’s not support of Herman Cain, by the way, although I can see where the media might think that.  It is not support of Herman Cain so much as it is we’ve all had it with your tactics in the media.  We’ve had it with the double standard.  We’ve had it with people like you elevating Bill Clinton to superstar status.  We’ve had it with you looking the other way during the Tawana Brawley lies. We’ve had it with you in the Duke lacrosse story.  We’ve had it with you trying to cover up for John Edwards!  We’ve had it with you lionizing Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, of “waitress sandwich” fame at La Brasserie in Washington.  We’ve had it with you holding up as national heroes reprobates like this, and we’ve had it with you trying to take out our people on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever.

We still don’t know what you think Cain did — and until you can tell us, as journalists, with incontrovertible proof, we’re gonna doubt you because you have given us every reason in the world to not trust your reporting, because it is biased against us and our side and our people.  That is inarguable! That is as obvious and honest as the sun comes up.  Even Clinton has given up trying to deny the accusations against him.  Clinton doesn’t even deny them anymore.  He knows he doesn’t have to.  You’ve made him a hero, and you continue to make him a hero by telling us that Cain is not handling this the right way, and we know who you think did handle it the right way: Slick Willie!

Bimbo eruption teams! Send Carville and whoever else out to destroy Ken Starr as a sex pervert, to destroy Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey as nothing but a bunch of trailer park trash.  You supposed feminists in the media loooved Bill Clinton and wished he would come to your bedroom at night as he trashes these women who made these true allegations about him; and you come along with innuendo and five days of smears, and we don’t even know what he’s guilty of!  We’re standing up for our side.  We are standing up for each other.  We’re circling the wagons around us.  If you people were trying this against any of the candidates with the same lack of information that you’ve got, it would be the same thing.

I sit here and I wonder — you heard her sound bite — is she really this closed off and insulated from what this is all about?  Does she really think this is just the conservative media defending Cain because he’s a conservative?  Does she really think that even if Cain did it, we’d still be treating this the way we’re treating it?  Sometimes I wonder.  I see evidence every day that leads me to believe these people are closed off and walled off in a little small area that they’ve called their own reality, and it’s as distant from the real world as anyplace you could get.  So it could well be that Ms. Haberman is clueless, genuinely clueless about what this is all about — which is to our advantage, by the way.


RUSH:  I even remember one time even defended Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton (hero to the left) told a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner and said (impression), “Hey, did you hear? Huh huh. Did you hear Rush defended Janet Reno on his program the other night?  It’s only because she was being attacked by a black guy.”  The media in the room did two things.  There was a (gasp!) and then wild laughter as the president of the United States went racist. They applauded it.  Ms. Haberman, we don’t know the details of this story because you refuse to publish the details, and I’m beginning to think the details of the story might get in the way of the rest of your agenda.  So the details are gonna remain anonymous in the Herman Cain story.  Here is a montage of the Drive-By Media going full bore on Cain’s real problem.

PIERS MORGAN: Is Herman Cain handling this very badly?

JONATHAN KARL: …Cain handled this so badly.

CHUCK TODD: (outdoor noise) This is a campaign that is falling apart.  Not ready to handle this at all.

LARRY O’DONNELL: How to handle one of these stories?

CLARANCE PAGE: Not the way to handle this kind of situation.

J.C. WATTS: He didn’t handle it right.

JOHN KING: (outdoor noise) …how a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.

ERIC BOLLING: It’s no way to handle this.

RICHARD STENGEL: Voters are looking at how candidates handle matters.

DANA PERINO: You have ten days to get ready for something like this; this is how you handle it?

RUSH:  That’s Dana Perino, by the way, joining in from the Bush team, jumping all over Herman Cain.  I wonder how many of these journalists could take 30 seconds of what they dish out?  It’s happened now and then and they all start crying wolf.  “Wait a minute, you can’t do it! Who I am doesn’t matter! I’m not the story! I’m the journalist, I’m the reporter. You — you can’t — you can’t delve into my life and find out how many affairs I’ve had and whether I’ve smoked dope, You can’t do it!”

Oh, we can’t?  Well, we’re gonna do that.

“You can’t! I’m the journalist! You can’t! It doesn’t matter! I’m not the story!”

They can’t handle 30 seconds of what they dish out.  Jan Crawford, Early Show, CBS today, is stunned that Cain continues to do well.

CRAWFORD:  People are really sticking behind Herman Cain, his supporters are.  That’s reflected in a lot of the reporting that we’ve been doing, talking to voters, particularly out in Iowa; where supporters of Cain say they just think this is going to fade away. They think these charges are, quote, “sketchy,” one person told us, and it’s just not really that pertinent; and, interestingly, the campaign is still — still! — raising lots of money.  And then, finally, I think look at talk radio.  I mean you know that is very important with conservative voters.  The conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, they are really rallying to his defense, and that could end up being a huge help to him if they stay with him.

RUSH: You know, folks, I apologize. That bite I did not read the entire transcript. I did not know I was also mentioned in that bite.  I don’t… (interruption) Well, I know it’s my show, but I’m not playing these sound bites just ’cause they mention my name.  I just didn’t read the transcript far enough to know that she did.  Where are the calls for the Restaurant Association to release the results of their investigation, which Cain says cleared him?  You know, the media will not even mention that? The media won’t even join this call for the NRA to release the results of the investigation.  They just want the women to come forward and the women don’t want to.  I wonder what’s up with that.



Rush Limbaugh on POLITICO’s hit piece on Herman Cain


The Politico and the mainstream media has launched an unconscionable, racially stereotypical attack on an independent, self-reliant conservative black because for him that behavior is not allowed. Now, if we had…

I want to look at a couple things today from a different perspective. What would the left be doing right now if, let’s say, there were an assault on Obama of this nature. Let’s say that some conservative publication ran a story exactly like this: Unnamed sources, 15 years ago, with every detail of Obama sexual harassment. What would the Democrat national committee and what would the media be doing? They would be going after the women. They would be targeting these women, and they would name names, and they would destroy them. That is what the Democrats and the media would do. They would set out to find out who these women are that talked to the conservative publication and they would destroy them.

They would call these women racists for trying to destroy a black politician. They would claim that they’re working for the Republican National Committee. They would claim that these two women (or these women, whoever), had been hired by the Republican National Committee to engage in this smear and lie campaign against Obama. They would go after these women. They would destroy them. They would make the women the bad guys. They would dig into every minor thing in these women’s lives that they have ever done. They would trash them, they would make them prove the unprovable — because this is war, and that’s how they fight it. Anything goes, as far as they’re concerned, and they cannot allow a black or an Hispanic to rise to the top of a political establishment that is not Democrat.

BEN’S ANALYSIS: This absurd POLITICO piece is going to end up helping Herman Cain. This is such a transparently obvious hit piece. The POLITICO article does not contain one detail on what Cain supposedly did 15 years ago. Every conservative and Tea Partier is now rallying to Cain. They’re behind him now more than ever.

This premature, over-the-top, amateurish attack on Cain by the liberal media is backfiring on them big time. Apparently, there’s just no there there, or POLITICO would have printed the actual details of what they learned.

This POLITICO hit piece is turning out to be a gift to Herman Cain.

It serves to remind every conservative and every Tea Partier what black conservatives are up against in America. Liberals will stop at nothing to destroy any and every black American who exercises independent thought and refuses to parrot the liberal line.

Hard to see now how Romney can possibly stop the Cain Train now.

POLL: Just 36% now approve of the job Obama is doing. All-time low for all polls.

THE HILL: President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have fallen to a new low, with only 36 percent of Americans saying that they approve of the way he is handling his job overall, according to a new poll from the Economist/YouGov. A majority of Americans – 56 percent – disapprove of the president’s performance.

Read more here >>>

Just 43% now think Obama is better than Bush

GALLUP: Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. Obama compares much less favorably to Bill Clinton, with half saying Obama has been worse than Clinton and 12% saying better.

Read more here >>>

Rush on the difference in how media covers Obama’s new lows with how they covered Bush’s polling lows


RUSH LIMBAUGH: Debt deal a total waste of time


RUSH: Well, the Senate is prepared to vote on the bill. It’s a fait accompli. It is going to happen, and depending on where you look, everybody’s claiming to be winners, and in other places you look everybody’s claiming to be losers. If everybody lost, it means it’s probably a pretty good deal. If everybody’s unhappy, it’s that line of thinking. I look at this, ladies and gentlemen, and I see an absolute, total waste of effort, a total waste of time. It’s gonna come down now to how dispirited people are and just how much they want to continue to fight for this, because what happened here is typical Washington. It’s the same old, same old. There’s nothing really new in this in the way it all happened when you boil it all down.

We’re gonna reach a new debt limit here today sometime, and then we’re gonna reach another debt limit in three or four months, and then we’re gonna reach another debt limit, and we’re gonna keep spending, and we’re not gonna change the baseline any at all. And we’re gonna be told it’s the best we can do with just one-third of the government, meaning the House of Representatives.


RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, how many of you believe that there are budget cuts in the new debt ceiling bill? You’ve heard that there are cuts, have you not? We’re cutting here, we’re cutting there. Yeah, well, what I want to know is why would anybody believe that this deal includes any significant cuts in spending? If it really cuts spending, why would we have to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion? Why? And we’re still gonna get downgraded, and the markets are still not happy, and all the reasons we were sold for doing this have turned out to be bogus. Vladimir Putin, he’s out hunting. He says the United States is “a parasite on the world economy.” A parasite, meaning our growth is all phony.

It’s all based on borrowing, it isn’t real, and we are gobbling up all the resources around the world just to sustain our spending. We’re really not the rich country that we are is what Putin means. It’s all borrowed, it’s all fake, it’s all phony. We’re parasites. All the numbers in this deal are just government math. Government math’s even crazier than Farrakhan’s Million Man Math Made Easy. Rand Paul has an open letter on his website: To paraphrase Senator Jim DeMint: When you’re speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don’t set the cruise control. You stop the car. The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t stop us from going over the fiscal cliff.

“At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph. This plan never balances. The President called for a ‘balanced approach.’ But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt. The deal that is pending before us now,” get this, “Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years.” Not $2.4 trillion; $7 trillion. “The deal purports to ‘cut’ $2.1 trillion, but the ‘cut’ is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt.”

As you well know, because we’ve been explaining this in easily understandable detail all week. I love the illustration. We could prepare a budget that is a freeze next year that doesn’t spend a dime more than this year, and it would be scored as a nine and a half trillion-dollar cut because of the baseline, because of how the budget is expected to grow. “This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate — results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.” Folks, I’m gonna give you a little history. I remember when this program started — well, even before it started here, when I was in Sacramento and the show started in 1984 — getting phone calls throughout the years from people concerned about the national debt, and I pooh-poohed it.

I told these people, “You know I’ve been hearing about the national debt my whole life.” My grandfather was telling me about the national debt. My dad told me about the national debt. Everybody talked about the national debt and how it’s gonna consume us one day and it’s outta control, and I said, “I’ve been hearing it for years and years and years, and we’re still here. I’ve been hearing this national debt business for years and years and years, and we’re richer as a nation, and we’re more prosperous than ever.” So I said, “This national debt business? Big deal. We owe it to ourselves, so it’s really not any big deal.” Now, at the time that I was saying that, it was still manageable in size.

Read more here >>>

Watch Rush Limbaugh’s Independence Day speech in Joplin

What a great speech the magnificent Rush delivered in Joplin Missouri on July 4, 2011. And it wasn’t an especially political speech. It was just a celebration of America.

It was also a celebration of Joplin, Missouri — which is bouncing back after the devastating tornado.

Of course, anyone who celebrates America and America’s founding principles will be vilified by the liberal-Left.

Go Rush!

Remember what happened to Joplin six weeks ago. Here’s the horrifying tornado video that destroyed much of the town:

Total Destruction

First Person Video of Joplin Twister

Login to Join Discussion!