RSS

Tag Archives: Rush Limbaugh

America is a Muslim Country?

05 Jun

Is America a Muslim Country? Yes and no; it all depends who you listen to. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, then the answer is yes and no. Yes because that’s what he claims the President said; and no because that’s what he says.

Wednesday morning during his daily blab-fest, Rush said, “Obama said that the United States could be considered a Muslim country. There are 1.6 million Muslims in this country, less than one percent of the population. Now what is going on? I mean, he lies about something that is easily demonstrated to be false. This is an out-and-out lie.”

Well, it really isn’t a lie Rush. Why isn’t it a lie? Because President Obama didn’t say that.

Greg Sargent of the Washington post had this to say about what the President allegedly said, “Hard-core rhetoricians will note that Obama was employing an obscure tense known as the ‘conditional,’ and an arcane rhetorical device known as a ‘hypothetical.’ He said that if you were to take the number of Muslims in America, then one could see America as ranking up there with other Muslim countries — in numerical, hypothetical terms.”

So, what did President Obama say?

During an interview with French television station Canal Plus, President Obama said: “[I]f you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

So, how many Muslims are there in the United States? It depends who you ask. Estimates vary greatly from 1.5 million Muslims in the United States to more than 12 million.

Now working with the lowest percentile figure – which Rush favors – in countries in the world with more than 2 million Muslims, the United States comes in at #56 out of approximately 195 countries in the world. fifty six divided by 195 = 28%. So, even using Rush’s numbers America is in the top 28% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If we take the middle estimate of 6 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 6 million Muslims, the United States comes out at #35 of 195 countries. Thirty five divided by 195 = 18%. So, using the middle number we rank in the top 18% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If you take the top estimate of more than 12 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 12 million Muslims, the United States ranks 22nd worldwide. Twenty two divided by 195 = 11%. Using the top figure we weigh in population wise in ther top 11% of Muslim nations worldwide.

We have either the 56th largest Muslim population in the world, or the 22nd.

The President didn’t lie, as Rush has tried to say, we’re either in the top 28 percent or the top 11 percent of Muslim population, either would surely place us as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

What’s the issue? Bigotry. Rush is once again showing his disdain for Muslims and for the religion of Islam. Rush cringes at the thought that we might have a large Muslim population. It scares him. He needs someone to blame. That’s how right wing extremism breeds new followers. It worked for Hitler. Here in America in the 21st century instead of blaming Jews the right wing blames illegal aliens and Muslims for the country’s ills.

Beyond his bigotry and racist views, fact of the matter is Rush doesn’t have anything of substance to attack the President on, so he just keeps on throwing everything he can hoping something will eventually stick.

Good luck with that.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 5, 2009 in Foreign Policy, Politics

 

Tags: ,

Is Associate Justice Samuel Alito a Racist?

30 May

sam alito

Following his nomination by President George W. Bush to the post of Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Samuel Alito’s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) was raised.

So he belonged to an organization at Princeton, what’s the big deal?

Well, normally membership to organizations might not mean anything, but what if a future member of the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, one of nine lifetime appointments, was to have belonged to an organization which had as its expressed goals the limiting of admissions of women and minorities to a college or university?

Under today’s standards for choosing members of the Supreme Court as outlined by Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, Justice Alito’s membership in such an organization would have been seen as “overtly racist” and as a certain “disqualification”.

Using the standards of R, H, B et al, we would be forced to make the following comparison: “What if a Latina nominated to the Supreme Court had belonged to an organization which stated as one of its founding principles the exclusion of men and especially white men from a college campus?

“We would have to conclude that such a membership was racist, and that she should be excluded from serving on the highest court in the land; that she should be excluded from being rewarded with one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court”.

But what if that Associate Justice had forgotten about his membership in this nefarious organization? Or at the very least claimed to have forgotten? When questioned by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about his involvement, his membership, in CAP Alito claimed to have no memory of being a member of the group. It was pointed out however, that in his 1985 ‘Personal Qualifications Statement’ when applying to be an Assistant Attorney General, he listed his membership in CAP as a qualification.

So, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court claims on an application in 1985 to belong to a campus organization, but 20 years later says he can’t remember belonging to the group? It can only be concluded that Mr. Alito lied. He either lied when he applied to be an Assistant Attorney General, or he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he claimed he couldn’t remember belonging to CAP.

Seems to me that a nominee to the United States Supreme Court not only appears to have belonged to a racist, sexist organization while attending law school, but that he also lied about his membership in the same organization.

Under the newly constitued rules for determining a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rules as imposed by the esteemed legal team of Rush, Hannity, Beck et al, it would appear that Associate Justice Samuel Alito is not only a racist, but also a liar. Either of which, or both of which, would certainly be a disqualification.

You can’t have it all one way fellas. A standard of qualification is a standard. You can’t have your judical cake and eat it too.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 30, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , ,

Are Obama and Sotomayor Racists?

29 May

So, Rush has declared that Sotomayor is a racist. Thus she must be a racist. At least that’s what Rush and his 14 million listeners believe. Thank God it’s only 14 million, because that means the majority of the Republican Party is still in control of its senses. Maybe one day the adults will once again run the GOP.

El Rushbo declared today, “I said this on Tuesday, to tell the American people who Obama is. She is a reflection of Barack Obama’s own racial identity, his own bigotry. That’s why she was chosen.”

On her qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court Rush said, “Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment is absolutely disqualifying.

“When a nominee for the United State’s Supreme Court, one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, one of only nine makes an overtly brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens while she is a judge and that nominee is rewarded for it with a nomination to the Supreme Court, we don’t need lectures. I don’t need lectures from any columnist or any commentator on TV about decorum.”

On commenting about opposing President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter Rush said, “But Republicans are supposed to sit by and watch this person who is utterly unqualified be confirmed? The only reason the Republicans are putting duct tape on their mouths is to appease critics. They’re being told that shutting up and holding back is smart politics.”

There’s something “self-destructive,” Rush said, about Republicans not challenging Sotomayor, adding: “Letting Sonia Sotomayor get away with her statement is renouncing decades of progress in civil rights. Do you understand what a setback this is?”

Rush Limbaugh is going to lecture President Obama about “renouncing decades of progress in civil rights”? You’ve got to be kidding me. The only “setback” occurring from this nomination is the setback to the Republican Party if it actually listens to the likes of Limbaugh, Levine, Beck, et al.

Maha Rushdi continued his attack on Sotomayor saying, “A woman as a judge makes a blatantly racist, bigoted comment and she is rewarded with a promotion to the Supreme Court?”

“So we have made a lot of progress with civil rights but now, with this? How do you get promoted in the Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do or that they’re not good — put them down, whatever.

“However, those who do vote for her are voting to enshrine bigotry on the Supreme Court and to renounce decades of racial progress.” The question needs to be asked, said Rush: How could a president nominate such a candidate? Rush added: “That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.”

So, to get promoted in the Obama Administration you have to either be a racist or do something racist? If you are Barack Obama anything you do is questioned as racist against white Americans. Did I hear correctly? Is Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of the Republican Party actually comparing a very respected, highly qualified judge to Daivd Duke?

How can someone like Rush, himself a sexist, bigoted, racist, call someone else a racist? And make no mistake, Rush is a sexist, bigoted, racist. He routinely calls women “babes” and “feminazi”, and once told a Black caller to “remove the bone from her nose” and to call him back.. He most recently claimed it must have been hard for President Obama to order the Navy to shoot the Black teenage pirates. Rush is a racist, and he and others like him are leading the GOP to its own destruction.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 29, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , ,

Is Judge Sotomayor a Racist?

28 May

Tuesday, President Barack Obama made history – once again – when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Almost immediately, numerous right-wing radio talk hosts began smearing Judge Sotomayor as a racist and a bigot.

These hosts have been citing remarks Judge Sotomayor made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002, when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a “reverse racist”; radio host Mark Levin called her a “bigot”; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard. … She sure sounds like a racist.”

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and Glenn Beck said it then it must be true.

Of course what the right-wing doesn’t do is say under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made her allegedly racists statement.

Judge Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Something a woman, and especially a woman of color, might have just a little more practical knowledge about than a white male.

So, if Judge Sotomayor is a racists for daring to suggest that a Latina might be better qualified than a white male regarding race and sex discrimination cases, then what about Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments made during his Senate confirmation hearings responding to the question of why he “want[ed] this job,” Thomas responded, “I believe … that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.”

How can Justice Thomas “bring something different to the Court”? Is his educational background significantly different than the other Justices? No. What about his legal or judicial background, is it significantly different from the other Justices? No. So the difference must be, maybe, his race?

In making such a statement, according to the standards put in place by Rush, Levine and Beck, Justice Clarence Thomas must be a racist and a bigot.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: “So here you have a racist. You might — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

So, according to Rush, not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but President Obama is a racist as well?

Rush continued his theorizing, “In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it’s appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, ‘their experiences as women and people of color’ — reverse racism. She’s a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed — and they’re not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

“In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ If that’s not a racist statement, I don’t know what is — reverse racist or whatever.

During his Tuesday radio show broadcast, Levin claimed of “so-called moderate” Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: “These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist — and I  will now say what I actually believe — who is a bigot — that’s right, I  said it — then they need to pay a political price for this.”

Levin later said, “Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted.” He continued, “Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She said, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Now I’m sure they’ll spin it. I’m sure they’ll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way — there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That’s not based on somebody’s content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That’s based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone — that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.”

So, would Mr. Levine also say that based on his “generalized statement about race and ethnicity” that Justice Clarence Thomas, based upon “that statement alone – that statement alone should disqualify him. Period?”

On Tuesday’s edition of his Fox “News” program, Glenn Beck said Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments “smacks of racism” and is “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard.” Beck later claimed, “I don’t like the charges of, ‘Oh, you’re a racist. They’re a racist.’ Very few people are racist.

“There are racists and they’re bad people. And — but it’s — most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this — I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.”

Would Beck ascribe the same standard to Clarence Thomas? If he were to listen to Justice Thomas’ statement would he say, “But when I hear this — I mean, gee. He sure sounds like a racist here?”

So, is Judge Sotomayor a racist as Limbaugh, Levine and Beck claim she is?

Well, first, considering the source; and second, looking at what was said in context, and from the position of thinking adult; The only possible answer is no she is not a racist, anymore than Justice Clarence Thomas is a racist, and the conservatives are extremely hard pressed to oppose her if this is their best shot.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , , ,

Democrats won’t fund Gitmo closing?

20 May

GOP Spokesman Rush Limbaugh, reading from an Associated Press story yesterday said, “President Barack Obama’s allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday.  With debate looming on Obama’s spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo’s 241 detainees.”

Limbaugh immediately questioned why the Democrats in Congress would turn on the President, “Now, why would this be?” he asked. “Obama said he’s going to close Club Gitmo in January 2010.  Now, the Democrats say sorry, pal, we’re not going to give you the money for that.” 

Problem is El Rushbo, under his usual motus operandi (MO for all you ditto heads), only told a sliver of truth about what was actually said. Had Maha Rushdi dug a little deeper he would have found that what Democratic Party leaders in the Congress actually said was that the Senate was not going to fund closing Gitmo until it saw what the administration’s plan was., “The administration has not come up with a plan at this point,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president’s direction on what happens to the detainees.”

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. “Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one (terrorist) has escaped.”

Durbin said the Congress simply wasn’t going to fund the closing blindly, “The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn’t been announced. And the administration said, ‘Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we’ll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'”

Rush further bloviated on the topic asking, “Why would the Democrats turn on Obama on this?  Why?  They don’t want to lose in 2010, and the polling data on closing Guantanamo must not be on the same page with Obama’s desire to do so.”

Well Rush actually polling data shows just the opposite, there’s a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. While 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.  So basically the country seems to fall in line on this issue along the same political lines as the last presidential election. No surprise there. One side wants to try to do things the right way, the legal way, while the other wants to do everything based on fear mongering. You figure out which party fits which description.

Rush said, “Fear is the reason, because the word is out that if we close Gitmo that some of these clowns are going to be released in the United States, and people are not excited about that.”

No one Rush, repeat NO ONE has ever said that anyone convicted, or currently suspected, of being a terrorist at Gitmo were going to be released in the United States. Some of the prisoners may be transferred to federal prisons in the U.S., but no one has said they would be released here. This is once again Rush playing on the fear of his listeners.

Rush, Hannity, et al jumped on the story some time ago that some of the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs held at Gitmo might be permitted to live in the United States, Chinese Muslims cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists. The part of being cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists is the part Rush, Hannity, et al always conveniently leave out when discussing the release of terrorists into America.

So, what have we learned today?

First, Democratic Party Members of Congress have not refused to fund closing Gitmo; it said they want to see the Obama Administration’s plan for doing so before it will discuss funding.

Second, Rush only tells his listeners what he wants them to hear, what he hopes and wishes to be true. That the Democratic Party is splintering, and that Americans are living in fear. You hold on to those happy thoughts Rush, those and some fairy dust and one day you’ll fly. Oh wait, you have oxycotton for that.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in GITMO, 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: , , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →