RSS

Tag Archives: Rush Limbaugh

Greatest Generation gets the shaft by GOTP

21 Jul

They stormed the beach at Normandy, braved the cold of Bastogne, flew 25+ missions in B-17s and B-24s, raised the flag at Iwo Jima and secured for us our liberties only to be screwed by the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) when they can no longer take care of themselves.

“Thanks for your service, and sacrifice, but die already” Eric Cantor, Allen West and a host of other ungrateful conservatives seem to say by their words and deeds.

How quickly are the heroes and the heroines of our past thrown under the bus by the very people who claim to revere them and their service. It seems the GOTP Congressional Freshman class would rather cut the benefits of those who fought and bled for us than raise taxes on the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney and Rupert Murdoch.

Makes you feel proud doesn’t it?

Who do conservatives think are the ones being sacrificed by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Veteran’s benefits? Who are the ones being shoved to the side when they slash “entitlements”? It’s the ones who kept us safe; and it’s despicable, detestable, cowardly and wrong.

So, go ahead and back this pack of thugs if you must; nod your heads in agreement when Rush, Hannity, et al vilify those who are living off of “entitlements”; but just remember who they are.

If there was ever a group “entitled” to be taken care of then it’s this group. It’s the men and women who went into harm’s way in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and countless engagements throughout the Middle East and points around the globe so we could sleep secure in our beds at night. It’s the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who dared to go where lesser men like Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, Cantor, and Ryan feared to tread.

Go ahead and support their version of a “balanced budget,” and at what cost they’re willing to “balance” it.

Talk about paying someone back.

Talk about balancing the scales and rewarding those who served.

Sleep well.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 21, 2011 in Federal Budget

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Audacity of Limbaugh

11 Jun

Yesterday, 10 Jun 11, while flipping through the radio stations, I came upon a brief exchange between a female caller from Martinez, CA and Rush.

Female Caller: “Every night when I put my girls to bed Rush, we pray for you and for our country.”

Rush: “Why thank you, they’re one and the same.”

Really?

Rush and the country – the United States of America – are one and the same? This demonstrates how Limbaugh really believes he’s running the country. That through his radio show – allegedly touching 12 million listeners (which is less than half of all Republicans in the country) – he thinks he’s guiding America’s destiny.

Of course Rush – if challenged on his comment – would say he was being glib, that it was entertaining.

Problem is, Rush might say that, but he really does believe he’s some kind of king maker. A few moments earlier in the show he had ascribed Mitt Romney’s change of heart on global warming to the fact that he – Rush Limbaugh – had said how Romney’s support of that theory was the end of his campaign.

Rush is megalomaniacism personified.

The fact some family prays for Rush Limbaugh is just astounding. Some good old white bread far right tea party Christian family prays each night for Rush? The sad part is, Rush the multi-millionaire doesn’t care what happens to that woman’s family; he could care less that she prays for him, except that it plays into his ego, and reinforces to him how gullible his listeners are, and how faithfully blind they are.

It’s scary that people believe so whole heartedly in men like Limbaugh and Beck. It speaks volumes to the seemingly low level of intelligence of Limbaugh’s “faithful” listeners (the “Ditto-heads”) and of how desperate they are to have someone to tell them what to think on the issues of today.

One also has to wonder if this female listener in Martinez, CA, casually dismisses all of Rush’s sexist and demeaning comments about women? Does she clarify for her daughters that Rush is “just kidding” when he says demeaning things? Or do those comments just fly right over her head? Unfortunately, it’s probably the latter.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 11, 2011 in Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party

 

Tags: , ,

Limbaugh Is Wrong Again?

11 May

During one of his radio shows late last month, the “leader” of the GOTP, Rush Limbaugh claimed the President was going to start cutting Medicare, start the “death panels”, and the rationing of health care, and this was why seniors in USA Today had been recently granted a waiver.

“Because it’s drastic. It’s rationing. And it wasn’t supposed to happen till 2013. But now, you know, it’s happening before the election. That’s not the way it was supposed to happen. It’s been elevated some — or sped up. So here comes a waiver for the seniors,” Limbaugh claimed.

He then went on to praise the Paul Ryan plan, stating, “There’s not one rules change under Paul Ryan.” And how under the President’s plan changes were drastic and immediate, “But under Obama, it’s immediate. And not to be repetitive and redundant, but to be repetitive and redundant, it was just yesterday that Obama granted another waiver to senior citizens to keep them away from his IPAB board, who could have denied them coverage for — just because they wanted to.”

Wow, really Rush? For someone who claims to be 99.9% accurate you sure get a lot a stuff not just wrong, but really wrong; but of course when you’re making stuff up it’s hard to keep truth and reality from lies and fables isn’t it Rush?

First off, the “waivers” you’re making such a big deal about had nothing to do with the new Health Care Law, and everything to do with existing Medicare Advantage.

In fact those “waivers” were made to help those seniors – millions of them enrolled in popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare – by awarding quality bonuses to hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans rated merely average. The $6.7 billion infusion could head off service cuts to the more than half the roughly 11 million Medicare Advantage enrollees are in plans rated average.

Not rationing at all Rushdie, but actually awarding quality bonuses. Let’s see, that means one of two things, first, you just don’t know what you’re talking about, or second, you’re a liar. Well, there’s a third option, which actually suits you best, that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re a liar.

But, wait for it folks because Rush wasn’t through spinning his tale of woe and death panels in his effort to continually scare his ever aging audience, “Now, folks, you are going to be hearing — IPAB, I-P-A-B, Independent Payment Advisory Board — you’re going to be hearing a lot more about IPAB in the days and weeks ahead,” Rusty said. “And I want to tell you today, what IPAB is. IPAB is the death panels. That’s all you need to know, don’t doubt me. IPAB is where the rationing will take place.”

And he continued his bloviating, “These are the death panels. These are the people that are gonna decide who gets coverage and how much coverage will be paid for. Ergo the rationing. Congressional approval? There will be none. Whatever this board decides case by case happens by presidential fiat.

“They’re there. It’s one. There is one death panel. It is IPAB. The Independent Payment Advisory Board. Current Medicare recipients, individual cases, decided on by these 15 people. Two things. Will there be coverage or not? And if so, how much will they be paid.”

Once again Rusty, YOU”RE WRONG! The IPAB Is actually prohibited from rationing, and according to the New England Journal of Medicine the Affordable Care Act “Establishes Specific Target Growth Rates For Medicare And Charges The IPAB With Ensuring That Medicare Expenditures Stay Within These Limits.”

In its 26 May 2010 edition, NEJM states, “Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (now being referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to meet the need to oversee health care system costs. The legislation establishes specific target growth rates for Medicare and charges the IPAB with ensuring that Medicare expenditures stay within these limits. The IPAB must also make recommendations to Congress as to how to control health care costs more generally.

“The board is charged with developing specific detailed proposals to reduce per capita Medicare spending in years when spending is expected to exceed target levels, beginning with 2015. The DHHS must implement these proposals unless Congress adopts equally effective alternatives. The board is also charged with submitting to Congress annual detailed reports on health care costs, access, quality, and utilization. Finally, the IPAB must submit to Congress recommendations regarding ways of slowing the growth in private national health care expenditures.”

Gee, who to believe? Rusty Limbaugh, who dropped out of college after the first semester, unable to pass even ball room dancing, or the New England Journal of Medicine?

But hold on there’s additional expert commentary – far from what Rush ever gives. The Kaiser Family Foundation while attempting to explain the current health care reform has said, that the IPAB cannot “Ration Care, Increase Taxes, Change Medicare Benefits Or Eligibility, Increase Beneficiary Premiums And Cost-Sharing Requirement, Or Reduce Low Income Subsidies Under Part D.” From KFF’s “Explaining Health Reform: Medicare and the New Independent Payment Advisory Board”.

That sound like it can’t do what the fellow from Missouri is claiming. Once again who to believe? The guy who abused illegally obtained prescription drugs to the point he destroyed his own hearing, or the Kaiser Family Foundation?

Kaiser goes on the clarify that “… the Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase taxes, change Medicare benefits or eligibility, increase beneficiary premiums and cost-sharing requirements, or reduce low-income subsidies under Part D. Prior to 2019, the Board is also prohibited from recommending changes in payments to providers and suppliers that are scheduled to receive a reduction in their payment updates in excess of a reduction due to productivity adjustments, as specified in the health reform law. The law establishes specific rules and deadlines for Congressional consideration of the Board’s recommendations, and specific timelines and procedures for Congressional action on alternative proposals to achieve equivalent savings.”

This is the part Limbaugh listeners never get. Rush tells you every day, “Don’t worry about looking stuff up, or checking into things, that’s what I’m here for”. But he isn’t telling the truth, he isn’t right 99.9% of the time, he’s frequently never right, or even close to right. As said earlier, Rush either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s lying. Odds are it’s the latter.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 11, 2011 in Health Care, Lunatics, Politics, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Rush mocks the Obama Administration, Claims it Invented “Ludicrous Term”

26 Mar

During his Friday, 25 Mar 11, broadcast Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed spokes bovine of the GOTP decided he needed to “weigh” in – no small feat for Rush – on the United Nations no fly zone in Libya by mocking the Obama administration for using the term “kinetic” to describe the military action, saying the President’s people had “come up with the ludicrous term”.

“We’re not at war. We are engaged in ‘kinetic activity’,” Limbaugh brayed. “Here we have a headline, this is from the DC Examiner, ‘In the last few days the Obama regime — officials frequently faced the question, is the fighting in Libya a war? And for military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer’s been ‘no.’ Well, OK then, what is it?”

Gee Rush, I don’t know? Why don’t we rely on your extensive military service to explain it to us? Oh wait, you never served in the military did you? No, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III a.k.a. “Rusty” never served.

But when has a lack of knowledge and facts, either institutional or educational ever stopped Rush? And so, he attempted his own “expert” military analysis, “At any rate, this guy, the deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer said, ‘Well, I think what we’re doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals,” Limbaugh said. “‘Which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone; obviously, that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’

“Folks, this is pathetic. Literally, genuinely pathetic. ‘Kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’ Kinetic simply means motion. That’s all it means. Depending on movement for its effect, of, relating to, or resulting from motion. So, now we’ve got ‘kinetic military action.’”

There are two things wrong with Rusty’s statement. First, in terms of a military action being “kinetic” – or being set in motion – it would be “depending on motion for its “affect” not “effect”. Maybe you should’ve stayed in school Rusty. Had you done so you would’ve known that you almost always use affect with an “a” as a verb (motion as used here is considered a verb) and effect with an “e” as a noun; once again, so much for being right 99.9% of the time. Second, exactly how is this pathetic, the use of the term “kinetic” when referring to military action? In order for the no fly zone to take “affect” we, the United States and our allies, had to put the Navies and their planes into motion, allowing the no fly zone to be put into effect, thus affecting the air and ground forces of Qaddafi.

Rusty then quoted a statement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday in Moscow as he spoke with reporters about the Libya operation, “I think as we are successful in suppressing the air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline. I assume in the next few days.”

Limbaugh went on to conclude, “KMA, kinetic military activity, has replaced WTF. Winning the future — I’m sure you thought it was something else. Kick my — has replaced — what the — kinetic military — OK, so I guess we’re to assume it’s not a protest anymore, it’s a kinetic assembling action. It’s not a riot, it’s kinetic thuggery action. It’s not a vacation, it’s kinetic leisure action. It’s not golf, it’s kinetic ball-striking action. It’s not dancing, it’s kinetic food action. It’s not sex, it’s kinetic Lewinsky. It’s not — I’m not drunk, I’ve been engaging in kinetic adult beverage action. It’s not an election, it’s kinetic voting. It’s not radio, its kinetic Limbaugh action. Whatever. It’s just — kinetic means motion. Military means armed forces, action means motion. Kinetic action, moving motion. And these are the smartest people in the world. Well, the reason they can’t say it is because they don’t want to say what it really is.”

Yeah, that’s right Rusty; the President doesn’t want you to say what it “really is”. OK, whatever that means? So, why don’t you try to explain it for us?

“You know, we all know what it is, but they don’t  want to say it, they don’t want to go on record as saying what it really is because they’re actually trying to pretend it isn’t anything,” Rusty said. “It’s — and it’s not really a military intervention, it’s kinetic military action. That’s why they’ve come up with this ludicrous term. Right, that’s why they don’t want to call it a war on terror because the Muslims don’t intend to occupy us, they just blew up the World Trade Center. Of course, you might get some argument on that from certain people.”

By the way, for the record Rusty, during a Presidential press conference on 11 Oct 06 President Bush used a certain word to describe military conditions in Iraq; do you know what word that was Rusty? Let’s take a walk down memory lane and see.

A reporter asked, “I’m just wondering, two months ago, Prime Minister Maliki was here, and you talked about how we had to be nimble and facile in our approach. And my question is, are we being nimble and facile in the right way? Is what General Casey telling you the most effective advice? Because it would seem in the two months since Prime Minister Maliki was here, things have only gotten more bloody in Iraq.

President Bush answered, “No question, Ramadan’s here. No question, we’re engaging the enemy more than we were before. And by the way, when you engage the enemy, it causes there to be more action and more kinetic action. And the fundamental question is, do I get good advice from Casey? And the answer is I believe I do. I believe I do.” [Federal News Service, 10/11/06, accessed via Nexis]

And guess who else used a certain word Rusty? Why none other than your pal the former Secretary of Donny Rumsfeld during an 18 Jun 03, Defense Department operational update briefing, “Security throughout the country is indicated here. Green is what’s characterized as permissive. That’s not to say perfect, but it’s permissive. The yellow is semi-permissive and the red area in Baghdad and then in the area north towards Tikrit is considered not permissive or semi-permissive. There are now some 8,000 police officers back at work and 2,000 on patrol. And in those pockets, you’ll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean that the — that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime. That’s been going forward, and it’s been going forward in recent days, particularly, in ways that have been quite helpful. [Federal News Service, 6/18/03, accessed via Nexis]

And oh snap, Donny used it again while discussing Afghanistan during a 6 Feb 04, interview on an edition of FOX PACs’ Special Report, “The bulk of the problems are along the Pakistan border. And that is where the kinetics, for the most part, are taking place,” Don said. “And it is entirely possible that that would be the last sector.” [Fox News, Special Report, 2/6/04]

But wait Rusty, there’s more, in a 5 July 05, interview on Hot Talk with Scott Hennen, Rummy said, “Well sure. I mean to the extent people say things that give encouragement, and if you’re engaged in a test of wills as we are here, this is partly a battle on the ground using kinetics, and partly it’s a test of will as to whether or not we’ll be willing to continue to aggressively help the Iraqi people defeat this insurgency, depends on support from the American people. It depends on support from the international community. It depends on confidence level on the part of the Iraqi people. Which side’s going to win, they say to themselves. Do we want to support the Iraqi government and the coalition, or do we wait and see maybe they’re not going to have the staying power?” [Federal News Service, 7/5/05, accessed via Nexis]

But hey guess what Rusty? Military leaders regularly use that special word to describe military campaigns too; for instance when yours’ and Hannitys’ personal hero GEN Tommy Franks used it during a 15 Aug 02 Defense Department briefing, “What I prefer to do is think about the amount of energy that is devoted to what I call kinetic work in some provinces and places inside Afghanistan, where there is much work left to be done, and then work which is much more humanitarian, if you will, in nature, that goes on across 10 to 12 additional provinces in Afghanistan. [Federal News Service, 8/15/02, accessed via Nexis]

Hold on to your formerly nicotine stained fingers Rusty because Franks isn’t the only military officer to use it. BG Stanley McChrystal during a 23 Mar 03 Pentagon news briefing said, “Well, sir, we can see whether or not we hit targets, in many cases. And we’re still gathering that. But we’re running an effects-based campaign that is partially kinetic, partially non-kinetic, partially information operations. And so what we judge effectiveness by is not just whether there’s a hole in the roof of a building, but whether or not the function that that element did before ceases to be effective. [CNN, 3/22/03, accessed via Nexis]

Are you ready for more, big guy? Are you ready for more proof as to why you’re an idiot? OK then, on with facts.

LG Raymond Odierno used our special word on 17 Jan 08, “”We have not done a kinetic strike in at least six months. It might even be longer than that. I think it’s even longer than that, but it’s been a very long time. I track every one of them and they brief me weekly on that. [Political Transcript Wire, 1/17/08, accessed via Nexis]

Of course non-military types have also repeatedly used the term. Why, as a matter of fact, you – Rusty – withheld from your listeners that Byron York, in the very 23 Mar 11 column you sited said, “Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare. At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. [The Washington Examiner, 3/23/11]

From a 20 Nov 02, Slate article, “In common usage, ‘kinetic’ is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, ‘active, as opposed to latent.’ Dropping bombs and shooting bullets — you know, killing people — is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy’s communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are ‘non-kinetic.’ (Why not “latent”? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether ‘the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare,’ Donald Rumsfeld answered, “Yes!” (Rumsfeld uses the words “kinetic” and “non-kinetic” all the time.) [Slate, 11/20/02]

In trying to drive home his misguided, uninformed, litany to his generally equally misguided and uninformed listeners, Rusty closed with, “All of this is nothing more than one of these intellectual exercises to excuse Obama, give him a pass. It really isn’t war. Democrat presidents don’t like using the U.S. military. If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses.”

Really Rusty, Democratic Presidents don’t like using the military? Which Democratic Presidents would you be referring to? Woodrow Wilson? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Lyndon Johnson? Bill Clinton? Barrack Obama? News flash Rush! They all used the United States military. And what’s wrong with a President not wanting to rush into a war? To not want to place our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in harms way? Difference between Democratic Presidents and most of their Republican counterparts is that the Democrats try to use up every possible avenue before the killing and maiming begins, wherein some Republican Presidents have almost gleefully sent our young men and women off to war. So, maybe in that sense you’re right, Democratic Presidents really don’t like “using the military”. But hey Rusty, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

And WOW Rusty, did you really mean to say this, or is your drug addled mind no longer capable of rational thought? “If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses”? I’m not sure if you’re just plain stupid, or if you’re crazy. You are a certifiable jackass Rusty. You’re no longer the spokes bovine of the GOTP, you’re now the official talking spokes jackass of the GOTP. And you no longer bloviate, now you bray. This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, and it belongs right up there with comments by progressive commentators who claim Republicans hate the environment. You’re right Rush, Liberals hate America, and want it to fail. Grow up, or move on.

Rusty, the truth (something I’m sure your ten perpetually ham sandwich stained fingers could never find, even with a flash light) is first, this is a military action; an honest to goodness United Nations sanctioned military action, unlike Bush/Cheney’s “war” in Iraq; second, the term kinetic has been used frequently to describe this very type of military action, and is a perfectly suitable word to use here; finally, you Rush Hudson Limbaugh III are either an ignoramus or a charlatan, and probably both. You’re not right 99.9%, but are frequently never right. You hate the President, and I believe a good part of that hatred is due to your southern Missouri upbringing. Yes, Rusty, I think you’re a racist. Your previous comments to African-American callers and about African-American athletes are well documented and stand as a witness. You’re inability to ever base your comments on facts is shameful, and your deliberate misleading of your listeners, whether they’re gullible little sheeple or not is criminal. Rusty, one day in all probability your name will be mentioned in the same breath with Father Coughlin, and Joseph Goebels, not a place any self respecting broadcaster would ever choose to be. But who could ever accuse you of being a self respecting broadcaster?

(Many thanks to hard working folks at Media Matters for supplying the background information)

 
3 Comments

Posted by on March 26, 2011 in Foreign Policy, Libya, Military, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party, War on Terror

 

Tags: , , , ,

Rasmussen screws up another poll?

17 Mar

Latest poll numbers for the President show he’s doing a good job, except for one poll; anyone care to guess which polling group shows the exact polar opposite of five other major polling organizations? That’s right; it’s Rasmussen, the pollsters of FOX PAC!

Of polls conducted in the last week on the President’s approval:

Bloomberg = 51 approve – 43 disapprove

ABC/Washington Post = 51 approve – 45 disapprove

CNN = 50 approve – 47 disapprove

Gallup = 48 approve – 44 disapprove

Rasmussen = 42 approve – 56 disapprove

Come on guys, really? You’re going to be this transparent?

Of course, Rasmussen almost always polls significantly to the right of center. This means you can’t ever really trust Rasmussen’s polling numbers. And since Rasmussen is the exclusive poll of choice for FOX PAC, and FOX-type personalities, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly et al, this means those viewers – or listeners – are being fed daily exactly the numbers they always want to hear; and it also means Rasmussen is never going to conduct legitimate polling because it’s never going to shoot the goose laying the golden eggs.

With the exception of the FOX PAC bought and paid for Rasmussen polling, which is so absurdly opposite everyone else numbers it’s laughable, President Obama is in very good shape midway through his first term, much better shape than Ronald Reagan was at the same midterm point when his numbers had fallen to around 40%. President Obama’s positive numbers are currently anywhere from 47% to 52%.

Sorry Rasmussen, sorry Rush, sorry FOX, perhaps you need to look at a broader demographic than polling mainly middle age to elderly, angry, white, male FOX PAC viewers.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 17, 2011 in 2012 Election, Politics, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Attack in Arizona Result of Glib Political Speech?

20 Feb

This is what happens when candidates like Sharon Angle glibly talk about using “2nd Amendment remedies”, or Sarah Palin speaks about “taking aim at Democratic Members of Congress”, or “reloading”. Words have consequences, and candidates, and talk show personalities, need to remember that.

Oh look, Congresswoman Giffords has a gun site on her in this Sarah Palin poster … go figure why these kind of people pull guns and shoot members of Congress.

“Republicans don’t retreat, they reload,” Palin glibly spews at countless TPGOP rallies.

“Americans (Republicans) are going to have to start using 2nd Amendment remedies if the voters don’t get it right,” former TPGOP senate candidate Sharron Angle told a crowd at a campaign stop last fall.

This kind of speech breeds violent acts …

The attack on Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and those who were with her last month might be the work of “a single nut,” said Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, whose Arizona district shares Tucson with Giffords’ district. But he said the nation must assess the fallout of “an atmosphere where the political discourse is about hate, anger and bitterness.”

People like former TPGOP Congressional candidate  Jesse Kelly among them. During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event. But of course Jessie Kelly doesn’t want to accept that “targeting” your opponents plays into people like this. His “honor code” as a Marine only goes so far.

Sadly one of the victims killed in the attack refused to press charges people who had threatened his life.  In 2009, Judge Roll ruled that the case Vicente v. Barnett could go forward. The $32 million lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett (one of those good old white, god fearing christian fellas) on behalf of 16 Mexican plaintiffs charged that the plaintiffs were assaulted, threatened, and held at gunpoint by Barnett and members of his family. After Roll’s ruling – and prompted by several talk-radio programs – he was the subject of hundreds of complaining phone calls and death threats and he and his family were under the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service for a month. Roll declined to press charges when some of those who made threats were identified.

Funny how people like Sarah Palin think its just savey political speech to “target” opponents, and to portray them as “enemies” of freedom and democracy, but those who are “targeted” as a result, men like Judge Roll, choose the higher ground and don’t press charges, and then ultimately pay for it in the end.

‎It was Giffords father, 75-year-old Spencer Giffords, who wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies, and answered, “Yeah,” to The New York Post, “The whole tea party.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 20, 2011 in Lunatics, Politics, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

If “The Islamic Brotherhood” Takes Power In Egypt, “Then It’s World War III”?

05 Feb

According to FOX PAC talking circus performer, Bill O’Rilley (aka Bill the Clown), “If the Islamic Brotherhood takes power In Egypt, then it’s World War III”. Really Billo? It’s World War III? How do you people at FOX PAC sleep at night? Between your gloom and doom 24/7, and lying through your teeth for 99.9% of that time, how can you sleep?


It appears FOX PAC is wishing and hoping that Egypt not only becomes President Obama’s Iran, but that it also becomes the next world war. You’ve got Reverend Beck proclaiming this is the real Archduke Ferdinand moment he’s been warning us all about (we’re up to the seventh so-called moment since President Obama took office), and now Billo the Clown is proclaiming it becomes the third world war if the Islamic Brotherhood take over the government in Egypt. But, have you noticed? Not one of the gloom and doomers at FOX, not Rush, nor any of the right wing talking bovines or politicians who have been, and continue to be, so critical of the President have offered one concrete suggestion of what he should have done, or of what he should do know.

I understand the right-wing crazies got used to the Bush Doctrine (well, all except Sarah Palin who doesn’t know what that is) and I’m sure their solution would be to invade Egypt, or at the very least start bombing Cairo and Alexandria if the Islamic Brotherhood takes over; how sad for them we now have a President who doesn’t share their view that America can, and should, preemptively invade or bomb anyone we choose.

Besides talking to Mubarak on the phone and giving him advice that he really needs to step down, that the United States gravy train is not running any more, what more can the President do? And, oh, a by-the-way right wingers, Mubarak is a dictator. You know, the same kind of person you yelled and screamed had to be pushed out of Iraq. “But he was our dictator!” “He was our kind of guy!” They would all no doubt collectively shout. But, what can the President do, that he isn’t already doing? We – as a people – would never stand for another nation interfering in our internal affairs. We – the United States – do not own the world, even if it’s true we are the only true super power in the world today, we don’t have the legal the authority, or the right, to tell other countries what to do, or to invade and bomb because we can. We, like the rest of the civilized world (basically anyone not glued to FOX PAC, and listening to right-wing talk radio all day) must watch as these events unfold, and then see what has filled the vacuum in Mubarak’s absence.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2011 in Foreign Policy, Politics, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Radio, Tea Party

 

Tags: , , , ,

If Obama Weren’t Black He’d be a Tour Guide in Honolulu?

07 Jul

During his Tuesday radio program, GOPB spokesman, Rush Limbaugh decided there ain’t nothing like some good old fashioned race-baiting claiming that President Obama “wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black.” Never mind the fact that the President was elected by the largest majority since Reagan. So, by this logic Reagan was only elected because he was old?

But wait, that’s not all, if the first comment weren’t bad enough Rush added, “If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu.” Rush, don’t you mean he’d be a tour guide in Kenya?

According to Rush then, Black Americans only succeed in America because of their race. They can’t succeed because they’re qualified. What else has Limbaugh said regarding race? Well let’s have a look. On professional football Limbaugh said, “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons,” Rush claimed.

And of course there’s the famous line that got him fired from ESPN, “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.  I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

Mr. Limbaugh is a racist. He is not funny. He is not glib. He is a racist.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2010 in Lunatics, Racism, Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , ,

McChrystal “didn’t get the rules of engagement” or troops he wanted?

27 Jun

According to that consummate military expert, Rush Limbaugh, Gen. Stanley McChrystal “didn’t get the rules of engagement” or the number of “boots on the ground” he wanted in Afghanistan. However, regardless of Limbaugh’s bovistations, it is well known that McChrystal has stated the rules of engagement are based on his “experience,” and has agreed President Obama provided the “right number” of additional troops.

During his 23 Jun 09 broadcast Rush said, “Well, it made a big difference to McChrystal. It’s a big difference. He didn’t get the boots on the ground that he asked for. He didn’t get the rules of engagement that he — saddled with. But we elected the guy, so we live with it. Yip-yip-yip-yip-yahoo, ta-da-ta-da-ta-da.”

Of course Rush, being documented as being right 99.9% of the time, always gets everything right, as clearly demonstrated in declassified portions of a revised “Tactical Directive” to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan issued in July 2009, wherein McChrystal wrote that American troops should avoid “causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people” and that “excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks.” [NATO, 7/6/09]

But wait, that’s not all, McChrystal also agreed with a U.S. senator’s statement that he was not “directed” to implement rules of engagement. During a 9 Dec 09, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, GEN McChrystal was asked by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), “General McChrystal, the rules of engagement within Afghanistan emphasize minimizing civilian casualties. That was a point you made when you took over, and Admiral Mullen made the same point yesterday at Camp Lejeune.

“That is based, I think — and let — I don’t want to be presumptuous, but my understanding is based on your experience, your understanding of counterinsurgency warfare, the experience of the — the Soviets before us that it’s not — that you are not directed to do that by anyone, is that correct?”

And, oh snap, guess what the General answered? “That — that is correct, Senator. I did, before I deployed out, watch the situation going on. So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction.”

The important part of the statement is, “So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction.” He was given no “specific direction” regarding the rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. HE WAS GIVEN NO “SPECIFIC DIRECTION” REGARDING THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN! So Rush, who has
never spent a single day in uniform, needs to remember that when he – or his ditto-heads – try to blame the ROE on President Obama.

Furthermore, Michael Hastings’ 22 June profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone (the profile that consequently lead to the general’s professional demise), reported that McChrystal advocated “a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency” in Afghanistan and that “[i]n the end … McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted.” Hastings also reported that McChrystal defended the rules of engagement during a question-and-answer session with soldiers, stating in part, “What I’m telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?” Of course Rush very conveniently avoided any sections of the profile where decisions such as these were made by the general. Instead wanting to blame the President for any and all military decisions made in theater.

Concerning his “counterinsurgency” strategy, in his 30 Aug 09, commander’s assessment of the strategy in Afghanistan, McChrystal wrote that NATO forces require “a new strategy that is credible to, and sustainable by, the Afghans.” He continued: “This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment.” McChrystal also stated that his strategy “requires more forces” in order to “accomplish the mission with appropriate and acceptable risk.” [NATO, 8/30/09]

President Obama responded to the general’s request, in his 1 Dec 09, address at West Point, the president announced his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. President Obama also emphasized “a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.” He continued:

“This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

“The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.” [WhiteHouse.gov, 12/1/09]

McChrystal was pleased with President Obama’s comments and subsequently stated the “coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment” to the war. A 2 Dec 09, press release issued by Gen. McChrystal praised the President’s address on the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal said in the release that “[t]he clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.” He further stated that “[t]he 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment.”

McChrystal further praised the president’s change in strategy during congressional hearings just days after Obama’s announcement he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I participated fully in the President’s Assessment and decision-making process and was afforded multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice — which I did. Combined with insights and policy considerations from across our Government, I believe the decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach.” McChrystal went on to say: “The President’s decision rapidly resources our strategy, recognizes that the next 18 months will likely be decisive, and ultimately, enables success. I fully support the President’s decision. The President has also reiterated how this decision supports our national interests. Rolling back the Taliban is a pre-requisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda.” [Senate Armed Services Committee, 12/8/09]

But Rush – the great arm chair general that he is – has also tried to sell the opinion that the president did not provide McChrystal with adequate boots on the ground, in-spite-of the general agreeing 30,000 troops was the “right number” of additional U.S. troops to send to Afghanistan. From McChrystal’s 8 Dec 09, appearance before the House Armed Services Committee (accessed from Nexis), Rep Randy Forbes (R-VA) apparently hoping to demonstrate President Obama’s lack of support for his newly appointed general said, “Here’s the core of what every member of this committee needs to know and the American people need to know. In your experience, in your best military advice, should we send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan or a number greater than 30,000 — not what you requested, not what were in documents, not what the president ordered — in your best military advice?”

McChrystal was quick to reply, “In my best military advice, this is the right decision. The additional coalition forces that I expect will be helpful as well. But I believe that this is the right … “

Forbes cut in, “So you believe 30,000 would be the right number?”

McChrystal replied, “Of U.S. forces, yes, sir.”

But GEN McChrystal has again offered support for President Obama’s strategy in his resignation statement wherein he stated, “I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan.” Followed by an issued statement after his resignation he was again stated his support for Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, “This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment — and a desire to see the mission succeed — that I tendered my resignation.
“It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nations’ finest.”

So, once again, America’s self proclaimed “truth detector” doesn’t come anywhere close to the truth, but instead shows a lack of understanding for the subject, and a clear lack of caring whether what he say has any truth in it.

(Thanks to our friends at Media Matters for providing the quotes and background info)

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 27, 2010 in Afghanistan

 

Tags: , , , ,

Rush Urging a Coup? Sorry Rush No Detaining Today!

02 Dec

On November 25, 2009, GOP spokes mouth Rush Limbaugh expressed his hope that the Cadets at West Point would overthrow the duly elected government of the United States by taking President Obama hostage while he was there on December 1st to deliver his speech to the American people outlining his strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.

Sorry Rush, the Cadets remained true to their oaths and didn’t start the coup you hoped for.

You see Rush, unlike yourself, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, etc, who never served in any of the United State’s armed forces, the Army Cadets of West Point have sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and you don’t do that by starting a coup. Lucky for you we don’t live in the United States you claim we live in or you’d be in a gulag in North Dakota by now for speaking sedition. Thank God for the First Amendment, eh El Lushbo.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 2, 2009 in Lunatics, Politics

 

Tags: , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →