RSS

Author Archives: PEB

Sean Hannity is a Coward?

15 May

sean_hannity_waterboard

On his Fox News Program on April 24, 2009, while talking to actor Charles Grodin, Sean “I’m a Great American” Hannity said he would consent to be waterboarded for charity, specifically to benefit families of our fallen troops.

Here’s how the discussion played out.

Grodin asked Hannity, “You’re for torture?”

Hannity replied, “I am for enhanced interrogation.”

Grodin asked again, “You don’t believe it’s torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?”

Hannity glibly replied, “No, but Ollie North has.”

Grodin then asked, “Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?”

Again Hannity glibly replied, “Sure.”

To which Grodin asked, “Are you busy on Sunday?”

Hannity bravely answered, with a smile upon his lips, “I’ll do it for charity. I’ll let you do it. I’ll do it for the troops’ families.”

The next evening MSNBC host Keith Olbermann offered to pay the families $1,000 for each second Hannity withstood the torture – enhanced interrogation technique – and he said he would double the payment if Hannity acknowledges he feared for his life and admits that waterboarding is torture.

As of today, Mr. Hannity has failed to locate his manhood and accept the offer.

Come on Sean, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that it’s not torture then what are you afraid of? If you really wanted to show support for our troops, and for their families, and you really wanted to shut Keith Olbermann up you’d do this.

Then again I guess great Americans like Sean Hannity don’t follow through on what they say. It’s easy to support shoving our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors into harm’s way, but you won’t allow yourself to undergo some “enhanced interrogating techniques” for them?

You, Sean Hannity, are not a great American. You are a hypocrite, and a coward.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 15, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , , ,

Is Rush Limbaugh a Racist?

13 May

limbaugh debate

If you talk about President Obama wanting to enforce reparations by increasing the food stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and expanding the welfare state, you just might be a racist.

On Monday morning, during his daily blow fest, Rush Limbaugh attempted to articulate what the “true” economic objectives of the Obama Administration were.

Rush said, “This is the objective. The objective is unemployment; the objective is more food stamp benefits; the objective is more unemployment benefits; the objective is an expanding welfare state; the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return it to the nation’s rightful owners.

“Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.”

Think reparations?

What reparations are we talking about paying here Rush? Reparations to Japanese-Americans held unconstitutionally during World War II? Can’t be. The U.S. Government paid reparations to those families to the tune of $1.6 billion in 1988.

So, to whom are you referring Rushbo?

Must be the families of former slaves? Don’t know about you Rush; but that sound like a racist statement to me.

If it walks like it’s wearing a white sheet; and it talks like it’s wearing a white sheet, it’s wearing a white sheet. No question about it Rush. You’re a racist

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 13, 2009 in Lunatics

 

Tags: , , ,

Who Should the GOP Listen To?

08 May

powell-limbaugh2

If my political party was on the brink of a complete political melt down, who would I choose to listen to? Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh?

Former Secretary of State Colin Luther Powell was born April 5, 1937 in Harlem, New York City, New York. Powell attended Morris High School, a former public school in The Bronx, from which he graduated in 1954. He earned a bachelor’s degree in geology from City College of New York, attaining a C average, according to his 2006 graduation address at Marymount University. He earned an MBA from The George Washington University, after his second tour in Vietnam in 1971.

Powell joined the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps at City College, graduating from City College in June 1958; he received a commission as an Army second lieutenant. He was a professional soldier for 35 years, holding a variety of command and staff positions and rising to the rank of General. Powell served two tours of duty during the Vietnam War, serving as a South Vietnamese Army adviser from 1962 to 1963. While on patrol in a Viet Cong-held area, he was wounded by stepping on a punji stake. He returned to Vietnam as a major in 1968, serving in the Americal Division (23rd Infantry Division), then as assistant chief of staff of operations for the Americal Division.

Powell became senior military assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whom he assisted during the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1986 airstrike on Libya.

Following the Iran Contra scandal, Powell became Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. In 1989, Powell was promoted to General and briefly served as the Commander in Chief, Forces Command headquartered at Fort McPherson, Georgia. Later that year, Reagan selected him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Powell’s awards include: Defense Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM) with three oak leaf clusters; Distinguished Service Medal (DSM) with oak leaf cluster; Defense Superior Service Medal; Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster; Soldier’s Medal; Bronze Star Medal; Purple Heart; Air Medal; Joint Service Commendation Medal; Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters; Presidential Medal of Freedom; Presidential Citizens Medal; National Defense Service Medal with one bronze star; Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star; Army Service Ribbon (ASR) and the Army Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral 3.

Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; Honorary The Most Honourable Order of the Bath (KCB) (United Kingdom); Légion d’honneur or Ordre national de la Légion d’honneur (French: “National Order of the Legion of Honour”); Meritorious Service Cross (Canada) and the Order of Stara Planina in the First Order (Bulgaria).

Congressional Gold Medal; the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal, and the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award.

In 1991, Powell was inducted into the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, which “honors the achievements of outstanding individuals in U.S. society who have succeeded in spite of adversity and of encouraging young people to pursue their dreams through higher education.”

On November 9, 1993, Powell was awarded the second Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, by President Ronald Reagan. Powell served as Reagan’s National Security Advisor from 1987-1989.

On December 15, 1993, Colin Powell was made an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

In 1998, he was awarded the prestigious Sylvanus Thayer Award by the United States Military Academy for his commitment to the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country.”

The 2002 Liberty Medal was awarded to Colin Powell on July 4 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In his acceptance speech, Powell reminded Americans that “It is for America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, to help freedom ring across the globe, unto all the peoples thereof. That is our solemn obligation, and we will not fail.”

In 2005 Powell received the Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award for his contributions to Africa.

AARP honored Powell with the 2006 AARP Andrus Award, the Association’s highest honor. This award, named in honor of AARP’s founder, Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, is presented biennially to distinguished individuals who have generated positive social change in the world, and whose work and achievements reflect AARP’s vision of bringing lifetimes of experience and leadership to serve all generations.

Powell is a recipient of the Silver Buffalo Award, the highest adult award given by the Boy Scouts of America.

Rush Limbaugh was born January 12, 1951 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, “he flunked everything”, even a modern ballroom dancing class.

Limbaugh’s birth date was ranked as 175 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. He was classified as “1-Y” meaning, “Registrant available for military service, but qualified only in case of war or national emergency. Usually given to registrants with medical conditions that were limiting but not disabling (examples: high blood pressure, mild muscular or skeletal injuries or disorders, skin disorders, severe allergies, etc.). Class discontinued in December 1971.”  Rush was later reclassified “4-F” due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.

Limbaugh was the 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005 recipient of the Marconi Radio Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (given by the National Association of Broadcasters), joining the syndicated Bob & Tom Show as the only other four-time winners of a Marconi award. He was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1993.

In 2002, Talkers magazine ranked him as the greatest radio talk show host of all time.

March 29, 2007, Limbaugh was awarded the inaugural William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence, by the Media Research Center, a conservative media analysis group.

On January 5, 2008, the conservative magazine Human Events announced Limbaugh as their 2007 Man of the Year.

December 1. 2008, TV Guide reported that Limbaugh has been selected as one of America’s top ten most fascinating people of 2008 for a Barbara Walters ABC special that aired on December 4, 2008.

Gee, I don’t know. Who should I listen to? The college dropout turned talk show host who has never served his country, and who has zero foreign policy or national security experience? Or the former four star general, who has served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as Secretary of State?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 8, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , ,

Is Rush a Billionaire?

06 May

rush smoking

By all reports, Rush Limbaugh, the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, lives in a 24,000-square-foot Florida seaside estate. He rides in a $450,000 car to the airport to ride in his $54 million jet.

What’s his net worth?

Known revenue includes:

$285 million salary and bonus for 2001 through 2008 ($35m bonus, salary of approximately $31.25m/year)

$400 million salary and bonus from 2009 through 2016 ($100m plus bonus – the exact figure was not disclosed, except for “nine digit bonus” – and $38m/year salary)

So, through his salary itself, he has earned $285 million for current work, $400 million for future. And that only covers back to 2001. Rush has been on the air since 1988. While he certainly earned less in his early days, it can be assumed his salary was significant. Additionally, Limbaugh himself controls 25 percent of the ad slots for each hour of his program, which represents ad dollars that never end up in anyone else’s coffers, which would be quite large, considering his self-estimated 20 million listeners each week.

Rush Limbaugh is close to, or just over the billionaire net worth mark. With at least $685 million, and advertising revenue joined with previous contracts which must be in the hundreds-of-millions range, Rush can be assumed an essential billionaire.

So, can Rush even begin to relate to what is going on in the economy? He is not a little guy. He is nowhere close to being a Joe six pack. Yet, millions of adoring listeners think he’s just like them. OK, ditto-heads, you’ve been duped. Rush Limbaugh is not like you or me. How many of you live in 24,000 square foot homes? Home many of you have cars worth $450,000? How many of you have a private $54 million dollar jet? How many of you make $38 million a year? The answer is clear, not many of you, if any of you at all.

Rush is wealthy enough that when he got caught red handed abusing prescription pain killers he paid no penalty. How many of you would have gotten the same treatment? He spent no time in jail.

When he lost his hearing, due to his drug abuse, he was able to afford the best doctors to perform implant surgery. How many of you can do the same?

He is not a regular guy. He’s your atypical rich Republican fat cat. And like most – if not all – atypical rich Republican fat cats, he doesn’t give a damn about you. The only rights he wants to protect are his own.

He doesn’t want the fairness doctrine reintroduced, not because of his so-called love for the Bill of Rights, but because he’d lose his gravy train.

He doesn’t want President Obama to raise taxes on the top 5% because he’s part of it. It has nothing to do with the nation’s economy; it has to do with his personal economy.

He wants President Obama to fail not out of a love for America’s prosperity; but out of love for Rush Limbaugh’s prosperity.

He defends AIG and the protection of the executive bonuses, because Rush Limbaugh received an obscene $400 million contract extension, coupled with a $100 million signing bonus at a time when Clear Channel Communications is laying off thousands of employees across the country. Rush is a self-inflated, self-promoting, self-indulging phony.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! It’s just Rush Limbaugh bloviating into his golden EIB microphone while Clear Channel Communications burns.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: ,

Did Reagan Really Cut Taxes?

05 May

ronald-reagan

During today’s bloviations, Rush, while supposedly giving a eulogy for Jack Kemp, attempted yet again to sell the country on the righteousness of the supply-side genius that was Ronald Reagan. He tried to promote the idea that Reagan’s cuts brought about untold economic prosperity, and literally drove the country out of the recession that had helped propel him into office. According to Rush, Reagan’s tax cuts were revolutionary, and helped create the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Rush, of course couldn’t just praise Reagan, he had to take the opportunity to attack President Obama, “My friends, read his books. Barack Obama’s primary objective is undoing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. Now why would that be? That’s all he’s doing, returning the nation’s wealth to its so-called rightful owners. He operates on the belief that every achiever in this country is a thief, that every achiever has stolen or has something that’s genuinely not his or hers — that they’ve come by it unfairly.” But wait, that’s not all, rush continued, “We’re just not going to allow it to happen. But I — there’s no question that he’s defining prosperity down. I mean, his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts. Now if his objective is to undo the Reagan tax cuts, I guess those are really big tent moderate ideas, huh? We know Obama is a left-wing radical. He takes a look at anything right-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

And in so defining President Obama, Rush defines himself with his own words: “We know Rush is a right-wing radical. He takes a look at anything left-wing and he wants to destroy it.”

Now for a little truth about Ronald Reagan’s “revolutionary” tax cuts; first, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes Ronald Reagan did cut taxes. Sort of. However, these wonderful, growth expanding, economic exploding tax cuts never fully took effect. You see, they were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years.

Second, part of the Reagan tax cut myth is that everyone never had it so good as they did under Reagan. However, the economy actually grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family – adjusted for inflation – rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

While President Reagan managed to ram his huge 1981 tax cut through a Democrat controlled Congress, he had to follow it with two large tax increases. Fact of the matter is, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. Yes, you heard that right, NO PEACETIME PRESIDENT HAS RAISED TAXES SO MUCH ON SO MANY PEOPLE!

The first two Reagan tax increases came in 1982. That year, he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 which raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. These increases, coming only a year after his “monumental” tax cut were needed because the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly over optimistic. Over all, the 1982 tax increases undid about a third of the 1981 cut; and truth be told, as a share of the Gross Domestic Product, the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase. According to the United States Treasury Department, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the G.D.P., making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Listen carefully ditto-heads, because I want you to remember, Ronald Reagan oversaw the “LARGEST PEACETIME TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”.

President Reagan’s next tax increase was known as the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Reagan’s income tax cuts of 1981. This is a tax increase that lives on, because it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. Thanks to President Reagan, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. Once again ditto-heads, thanks to who? Come on, you can say it, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

According to 1980 Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent. The increase in the payroll tax share outweighed, or canceled out, any benefit from lowering of the income tax share paid.

But wait! We’re not done! The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of G.D.P. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion

OK, now wait just a darned minute! Reagan passed the historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, achieving in startling clarity his supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates

Well, not quite. The “historic” Tax Reform Act of 1986 in reality imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. OK ditto-heads, repeat after me, “THE LARGEST CORPORATE TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY”.

With the simple stroke of his pen, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

So, what does it all mean?

It means tax cuts during a recession do not work. They didn’t work for Ronald Reagan in 1981, and they certainly didn’t work for George W. Bush in 2001. Tax cuts during a recession coupled with increased federal spending really do not work. Reagan cut taxes and increased federal spending in order to fight, and win, the cold war. George W. Bush cut taxes and increased federal spending to fight the war on terror, and to fund his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So, what are the differences between Reagan and Bush? Reagan understood his tax cuts were hurting the economy, and did a 180 turn and increased taxes – in spite of what Rush, Hannity, et al claim – while George W. Bush plowed straight ahead off the cliff.

Did Ronald Reagan cut taxes? Yes he did. But then he raised them. Two things to remember about the Gipper and his tax cuts:

First, Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

Second, Ronald Reagan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

Once again, Rush proves that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

President Obama Voted to Commit Infanticide?

01 May

What exactly is it with conservatives and their continued bogus, ridiculous, and hyperbolic talking point that President Obama supports “infanticide,” and the extravagantly wild claim that he “voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it?”

I’ll tell you what it is. It’s the ongoing irrational hatred of this President by the right-wing in this country. This argument of President Obama being for infanticide comes up about once a month, basically whenever the right-wing radio types can tie it to anything. And I do mean anything. The most recent attacks have surfaced because of the mini-controversy surrounding Notre Dame University’s invitation to President Obama to speak at its commencement, which incidentally is a long standing tradition at the school, a tradition to invite the newly elected President.

During a recent broadcast,  Rush Limbaugh attempted to revive the infanticide myth, “The truth is that President Obama, by virtue of his votes as a member of the Illinois Senate and as a member of the United States Senate, is perhaps the most anti-life — well, there’s no question — he is the most anti-life president we have had in American history.

“This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it. If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times.

“That’s — I mean, that, to me — I don’t know what — care what your position on abortion is, but now we’re not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide.”

Of course, once again, Rush is not only just stretching the truth, he’s bending it, twisting it and contorting it to the point that it in no way resembles what is true. Obama’s opposition as an Illinois state senator to SB1093 amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, was based upon the fact that the amendment was not necessary as the existing law already protected infants who were born as a result of an attempted abortion. Indeed, the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 states, “No abortion shall be performed or induced  when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion.”

The proposed amendment also attempted to redefine what protections should be given to a “live child born as a result of an abortion”. It stated, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.  All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”

The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 had already provided for such protection, “Subsequent to the  abortion,  if  a  child  is  born alive,  the  physician  required  by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the  same  degree  of  professional skill care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would  be  required  of  a  physician  providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a  pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.  Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly,   or   recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.”

As the proposed amendment did virtually nothing to change the state’s abortion law it must be asked why propose the amendment? Allegedly the amendment was necessary because babies which were live born were being left to die in Illinois. However, investigators with the Illinois attorney general’s office looking into allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment were unable to substantiate the allegations, but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law.

The National Right to Life Committee (the group from which Rush, Hannity, et al receive their info) claims that Obama “really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, ‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’ And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.”

This is as ridiculous an argument as Liberals wanted the United States to lose the war in Iraq, or that Conservatives hate the environment. If I am to believe the NRLC, and Rush, Hannity et al., I have to then believe that President Obama is a monster. That he is someone who would be capable of killing a child born alive from an abortion. Talk about extremism. This is political extremism at its worst, and because it is so extreme it removes itself from intelligent discussion.

Rush, once again, the self proclaimed “truth detector” is wrong; President Obama never, repeat never, voted in support of infanticide. He voted to protect a women’s right to choose, in the face of fellow legislators who it would appear were attempting to amend Illinois state law in such a way that as to give the unborn fetus the same rights and protections of a born child, thus negating a woman’s right to choose. Sometime, maybe you’ll do a little research before you pounce on something Rush. But then again why change your MO? Why change from being the GOP’s chief hit man? And you accuse the media of committing drive bys?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 1, 2009 in Abortion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Winston Churchill Tortured German POWs?

30 Apr

churchill

This morning, April 30, 2009, during his self aggrandizing morning talk fest, Rush claimed that Barack Obama lied during his primetime press conference last night when he said Winston Churchill didn’t torture captured German pilots.

Answering a question addressing the use of torture by the Bush Administration, the President said, “We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values,” he said, “in ways that were consistent with who we are.”

Using Britain’s experience in the Second World War, “when London was being bombed to smithereens”, President Obama pointed out that Winston Churchill had refused to allow torture of 200 German prisoners because to have done so would have corroded “the character of a country”.

While Rush said nothing about the point the President was making, which was although the British certainly would have had a reason to torture, in order to find out information on future raids, or locations of airfields etc, they didn’t. Rush instead attacked the British and Mr. Churchill’s memory, stating that it was a well known fact that Britain tortured German POWs after the war, starving them, beating them, etc…

Rush also stated that when British Intelligence Operatives during the war gave captured German spies a choice to be hanged as spies, or to assist MI5 by sending false or misleading messages regarding the allied landings in France, that this was torture. Spies are hung Rush. The British gave them a choice. They didn’t hang them until they almost died and then got them to help. They were told, in essence, help fight the Nazi Government of Adolph Hitler, or die as the spy you are.

During the Bush Administration we weren’t capturing spies in America and then giving them a choice; we took prisoners and tortured them. The men at Abu Ghraib and GITMO were not spies. And oh, by the way, you’re not allowed to torture spies either. You can execute them, but you can’t torture them.

Rush continued to try to show that Churchill wasn’t a paramour of virtue to be held up as a shining example, “One thing, about Obama last night, all of a sudden singling out Churchill as some moral guidepost for not torturing, or being cruel or mean, or whatever you have to do to get information from prisoners.” Rush tried to make a connection between Churchill’s government and the torture of German prisoners at one of two locations Bad Nenndorf, near Hanover, or the “London Cage”  following the end of World War II.

Is this the same Rush who was furious over a statue of Churchill being returned to the UK? The same Rush who on so many occasions has sung the praises of Churchill’s courage and leadership, who claims that Britain is our strongest ally? Um, Maha Rushdi, pretty sure Brits aren’t going to think very highly of you demeaning a national icon and hero like Winston Churchill.

There is of course one huge historical problem in trying to tie the British torture of German POWs to Churchill; Churchill was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 10, 1940 to July 26, 1945. The torture of POWs took place beginning in late 1945 to 1948, during the government of Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee, of the Labour Party; wrong PM “truth detector”.

Rush, why attack a man who has been looked at for years as a great and inspirational leader? Why? Because Rush has an irrational hatred of President Barack Obama that’s why. If Obama praises someone then they’re a target for El Rushbo. So Rush, who’s next on your hit parade? Moses?Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan? Jesus Christ?  I mean after all the President claims to be a Christian, you’d better make sure no one holds up Christ as a paramour of virtue either.

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 30, 2009 in Politics, Torture

 

Tags: ,

War on Poverty a Failure?

30 Apr

During his daily radio bombast yesterday, 29 April 2009, Rush Limbaugh, America’s self-proclaimed “truth detector”, who claims to have been certified as being right 99.9% of the time, claimed, “Not one government program has ever worked…the War on Poverty is a failure. The percent of poor people has not changed in this country”.

Once again Rush you’re wrong. The facts of the matter – according to the United States Department of Commerce – are that in 1959 there were almost 40 million Americans living in poverty, or 23% of the population. As of 2005 there was about 12.5% of the nation’s population living in poverty.

Now I don’t know how they teach percentages in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, but 12.5% is about half of 23%. I would have to say that’s a significant change in the percentage of poor people in America, don’t you think Rush?

Has the War on Poverty been won? Obviously not; but, to claim, “The War on Poverty is a failure, and that the percent of poor people has not changed in this country”. That’s a flat out lie. So, either you’re a liar, or an ignoramus. Which is it Rush?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 30, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , ,

Arlen Specter a Traitor?

29 Apr

Senator Arlen Specter (R/D) Pennsylvania decides to switch parties, and everyone on the GOP side of the political spectrum is surprised? Come on Republicans, wake up. What exactly did you expect him to do?

As early as his January 6, 2009 broadcast, Sean Hannity was threatening that Specter and others who voted for the President’s stimulus package should be driven from the party. Hannity said he feared that Specter would sell us out (meaning the GOP) on the stimulus package and added “that any Republican [Senator] who supported the package needs to be thrown out of office.”

Senator Specter said he made his decision based partly on the GOP slide to the far right, “As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.”

He also said he made it because it had become increasingly more obvious that he wasn’t going to be able to win the Republican primary in 2010. So, once again my question to the GOP propaganda ministers, Rush, Hannity, et al, still stands; what would you expect him to do?

Specter’s a senior United States Senator, with a lot of power which translates into benefits for himself and especially for his state. I suppose he should have just kept running along as a Republican, and then lose the primary? Specter may be a lot of things but he isn’t stupid.

I thought it very telling that this morning I received an e-mail message from the “alleged” head of the GOP, Michal Steele. He of course wasted no time throwing out the hate, blame and fear cards.

On the Senator’s decision to switch Steele said, “Specter claimed it was philosophical–and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats.

“I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word he said.”

I suspect this is not so much a case of “don’t believe” as it is a case of “won’t believe”. Steele and the propagandists won’t allow themselves to believe there is anything wrong with the Republican Party. The patient is dying and they don’t want to hear it. The patient is dying and they don’t want to think about what might be necessary to save it. How can anyone leave the party of Rush and Hannity? Why would they ever want too?

Steele continues, “Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party–and the principles–that elected him and nurtured him.”

So, a United States Senator’s loyalties, according to the RNC chairman are to the party? I thought they were to the state from which they were elected? To the people who voted for them? Ever watch the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Mr. Steele? I wonder which set of characters you, Rush and Hannity would be supporting? Here’s a hint, you wouldn’t be with Jimmy Stewart.

Chairman Steele then moves from the world of “I can’t believe anyone would leave the GOP” to the land of “The leftists are coming the leftists are coming”! Along these lines he said, “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists’ nearly absolute power in the United States Senate.”

“…his band of radical leftists”? Band meaning a group of thieves, or outlaws? Like Robin Hood’s band of merry men? So, the attempts by the GOP of spreading fear and gloom just never seem to go away.

Steele continued, “In leaving the Republican Party–and joining the Democrats–he absolutely undercut Republicans’ efforts to slow down Obama’s radical agenda through the threat of filibuster.”

“…radical agenda…”? As in “relating to or affecting the basic nature or most important features of something”? Or did you mean the more contemporary definition, “excellent, admirable, or awe-inspiring”? No, what Steele meant was the sweeping move away from the traditional GOP way of doing things. Things like torturing prisoners, wire tapping homes, deregulating financial institutions to the point of collapse, cutting taxes while starting two wars, you know, those good old fashioned American values everyone loves and admires.

“Facing defeat in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services–and his vote–to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan”, Steele said.

See, what did I say earlier? The land of, the leftists are coming! The leftists are coming!  This of course contrasted to the path of the GOP; The path that was quickly heading down a dangerous slope into fascism. Don’t know what else to call a political way of thinking that supported torture, invading other countries based on lies and deception, willingness to wire tap private citizens homes, and talk of sending military troops into private citizen’s homes without warrants. Sounds like fascism to me. But I digress.

Steele continued to attempt to work the GOP into frenzy, “His defection to the Democrat Party puts the Democrats in an almost unstoppable position to pass Obama’s destructive agenda of income redistribution, health care nationalization, and a massive expansion of entitlements.”

“…to pass Obama’s destructive agenda…?” Come on Steele, “destructive agenda”? This is second rate fear mongering at its lowest form.

Now after all of these arguments came Steele’s appeal to the patriots of the Republican Party, “You and I have a choice. Some will use Specter’s defection as an excuse to fold the tent and give up. I believe that you are not one of those people. When Benedict Arnold defected to the British, George Washington didn’t fold the tent and give up either.

“He grit his teeth more determined than ever to succeed. That’s what I’m asking you to do today.”

So, now Senator Specter is Benedict Arnold? Well I suppose that’s preferable to being Joseph Goebbels, you know what I mean here, Rush, Hannity et al, “if a lie is audacious enough and repeated enough times, it will be believed by the masses.” Or perhaps a Heinrich Himmler type of Republican Mr. Steele? You know the type. Developing ways to torture your enemies, and to justify all in the safety of the state? Of course there wouldn’t be anyone in the GOP supporting those kinds of ideas.

Of course Steele wasn’t the only Republican to go after the senator. Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party’s “so-called” leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a “threat to the country.”

The issue, he said, “really relates to … whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance.”

Well now, Senator McConnell, let’s see? American voters voted overwhelmingly (53% to 46%) to elect Barack Obama as President, and also voted in more Democrats than Republicans in both the House and Senate. I don’t know, but that appears to me to be the voice of the American people saying they want “the majority party to have whatever it wants”. As far as claiming that President Obama, and the majority party, having no restraints and no check or balance; We the People established a Constitution to provide those. It was you – the Republican Party – that for the last eight years that seemed to conveniently forgot we had any checks or balances.

In the end, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for losing the last general election. They have no one to blame but themselves for losing control of the Congress. So, Mr. Steele, Senator McConnell, Sean, Rush, et al, what did you expect Senator Specter would do? Did you expect him to stay in a Republican Party which is becoming more and more filled with the rhetoric of hate, block and blame? You all, helped create this political mess for your party when you allowed your spokesmen – people like Sean Hannity – to call for “…any Republican [Senator] who supported the package needs to be thrown out of office.” The GOP – like Victor Frankenstein – created monsters in talk radio, and now – just like Victor Frankenstein – you can’t control what is occurring. Your creations have become your nightmare. Your move to the far right will not pay off in additional voters, it will pay off in further losses in the Congress and an eroding base of support from the electorate.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , ,

Caldera Not Qualified?

28 Apr

America’s self-proclaimed truth detector has screwed up again. Yes, the man who claims to be right 99.9% of the time has made another mistake.

Jason McLane / AP Photo

Jason McLane / AP Photo

This morning – April 28, 2009 – during his second hour of bloviation, El Rushbo, while attacking the Obama Administration’s horribly bad decision to allow the plane used as a back-up for Air Force to make low altitude flyovers of New York City, claimed the person being held out as responsible isn’t qualified to be in the position of director of the White House Military Office.

Really Rush? Are you 99.9% sure of that?

Louis Caldera, (serving as director of what Rush?) the Director of the White House “Military” Office, is a 1978 graduate of the United States Military Academy, or for all you ditto-heads, West Point. He served his country as an officer in the United States Army from 1978 to 1983.

You’ve never served have you Rush?

Oh that’s right, old football injury. Or would you have had a problem passing the drug screening?

At any rate, not only is Mr. Caldera a West Point graduate, and a veteran, he also served as Secretary of the Army from 1998 to 2001. So who isn’t qualified to do what Rush?

Now, was it a bone headed decision to allow the flyover? Yes it was. But it is important to see the quality in the man who made the decision to allow the flyover, Mr. Caldera. He said he made the decision to allow it, and he apologized for it, and he said he takes full responsibility for the decision.

How refreshing to have people in positions of power who take responsibility for their actions. The previous administration would have probably claimed the pilot made the decision to perform the flyover, and if he hadn’t stepped forward and made that announcement himself, they would have used enhanced interrogation techniques on him until he did.

You, Mr. Limbaugh, are wrong again. What else is he telling his 25% share of the Republican Party (aka his loyal listeners) that isn’t accurate?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 28, 2009 in Obama Cabinet, Politics

 

Tags: ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →