On the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Rush discusses American Life League's popular ALL Report 'Hooking Kids on Sex' mentioned in a Washington Times column on March 26, 2013.
WARNING: Explicit Graphic Sexual Images
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Rush Limbaugh - Planned Parenthood - Hooking Kids on Sex
On the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Rush discusses American Life League's popular ALL Report 'Hooking Kids on Sex' mentioned in a Washington Times column on March 26, 2013.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Dr. Ben Carson - Responds to Rush Limbaugh Comments
On this morning’s Fox and Friends (3/20/2013), Dr. Ben Carson weighed in on his CPAC talk that’s continuing to make waves and headlines around the country. In particular, the doctor reacted to comments made yesterday by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that the ripple effects of Carson’s speech are undoubtedly being felt within the Democratic party.“I think Dr. Benjamin Carson probably got everybody in the Democratic party scared to death. It’s going to be really hard to demonize this guy … really, really hard, partially because of his race, but not just because he’s African American. It’s because you can call this guy all kinds of demonic names; he just doesn’t fit the bill,” Limbaugh said.
Carson said that he hopes the host is right.
“I try to lead the right kind of life, a life that is inspired by my love of God and love of my fellow man, and it is very hard to demonize someone under those circumstances.” However, he made a point to express his belief that both political parties are guilty of trying to “rule by fear” and deceit, adding that he would be happy to expose any politician engaging in such tactics.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Dana Loesch v. Joe Trippi Debate Limbaugh's Comments and Obama Economy
Barack Obama is the Architect of the Sequestration that he now says is a 'Bad Idea'.Tuesday morning (2-19-13), President Obama pitched a plea to Congress to avoid sequestration on March 1st. The president said the series of automatic spending cuts “won’t grow the economy, won’t create jobs, and will put hardship on a whole lot of people.”
Then why did Obama devise and implement Sequestration?
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Jeannie DeAngelis - John Boehner Should Get Out of Obama’s Way
Based on the dismal state of the union and after four years of doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that he would do, by any thinking person’s standards President Barack Obama has indeed “failed.” Yet, despite the catastrophe, on Election Day the American people inexplicably invited the President to spend the next four years beating the dead horse that he killed during his first term.
The next day, after being MIA for months,
Speaker of the House John Boehner crawled out of the tanning bed long enough to publicly assure the President that House Republicans plan to work with him on his sole first-term accomplishment – the looming “fiscal cliff.”Wait a minute, wasn’t it way back in 2008 that Barack Obama told America that “this is the moment” when good jobs would be provided for the jobless, the rise of the oceans would slow, and the planet would begin to heal? Why then, as America drowns in an ocean of debt and sinks in a sea of unemployment, would the Speaker of the House tell Obama “This is your moment…we want you to succeed?”
Reminiscent of candidate Obama exalting himself while on the campaign trail in 2008, Boehner said:
Mr. President, this is your moment. We’re ready to be led not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead not as a liberal or a conservative, but as the president of the United States of America. We want you to succeed. Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.In addition to those comments, did the Speaker of the House really say that “If there’s a mandate in … [the election] results it’s a mandate for us to find a way to work together on the solutions to the challenges that we all face as a nation?”
Well, what Boehner may not have anticipated is that come January working together on solutions will likely include figuring out how to prevent the President’s ardent supporters from melting down when they realize that voting for him did not exempt them from the middle class tax increase that’s due to hit hard when the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
Nonetheless, one way Republicans can still embrace our intrepid leader is by supporting automatic cuts in defense spending. After all, as a Russian nuclear submarine trawls the waters off the east coast of the US, cutting defense spending will help Barack Obama deliver the flexibility he promised comrade Vladimir Putin.
Moreover, if “reaching across the aisle” is the Speaker’s genuine objective, maybe as an inaugural gift congressional Republicans can hand the Biggest Big Spender in American history a no-limit charge card by agreeing to increase the debt ceiling.
John Boehner did claim that the post-election plan is to help Barack Obama move the country FORWARD. But, by the Speaker continuing to insist that raising the top tax rate in a bad economy would hurt small businesses he threatens the elusive “common ground” that he seeks.
However, if Boehner believes that this is truly Barack Obama’s “moment,” why not just let the President do whatever he wants? Republicans in Congress should politely step aside and allow Obama to finish what he started. In so doing, they will inoculate themselves against any ensuing liability as well as avoid becoming the object of Obama’s notorious blame game.
And so, as conciliatory bipartisanship is cultivated and John Boehner encourages Barack Obama to forge ahead, one can only hope that the newfound collegiality in Washington DC includes Republicans helping our determined liberal leader to aim that big ole’ policy gun he has pointed at America’s head downward toward his own foot.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Rush Limbaugh - Cold Obama - Libya Deaths 'Not Optimal'
UK Daily Mail: 'If Four Americans Get Killed, it's Not OPTIMAL': Obama's Extraordinary Response to Comedy Central Question About Shifting Story After Benghazi Attack.UK Daily Mail: 'My Son is Not Very Optimal - He Is Very Dead': Mother of Diplomat Killed in Benghazi Attack Slams Obama's Comment on Raid.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
PolitiChicks - Liberal Women Go On a Sex Strike
Why are liberal women refusing to have sex? They are threatening to go on a "sex strike" if the government doesn't pay for their birth control, are men breathing a sigh of relief? Find out on this episode of PolitiChicks.Saturday, March 31, 2012
Matt Barber - Left’s Orwellian Censorship Campaign
Liberal theologian William Ellery Channing once observed, “The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.”War has indeed been declared. Channing’s contemporary liberal counterparts have declared a war for our culture. But while Channing presumably held to the oft-bandied supposition that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” today’s secular-progressive has no choice but to endeavor that “all opposition should be hushed.”
Liberals recognize that when arguing on the merits, they cannot prevail. Not only are their morally relative, redistributionist philosophies untenable and utopian, but they read the same polls demonstrating that reasonable people reject their ideas outright. In fact, Americans identify as conservative over liberal by a two-to-one margin. Even those who call themselves “moderate” lean conservative.
It makes sense. The “progressive” movement wars against natural law, pushes perpetually failed secular-socialist policies and places — above constitutionally safeguarded individual liberty — thickheaded tenets of postmodern political correctness. Liberal elites demand tolerance for all things perverse and find intolerable all things righteous.
And so, the final, desperate act of the left-wing, lemon-hocking charlatan is to marginalize, smear and ultimately shut down the competition. As a result, liberals obfuscate, propagandize and strive to silence all dissent. They no longer even try to hide it.
The evidence of this calculated assault on free speech is overwhelming, but the most recent and high-profile examples include carefully orchestrated campaigns by three well-funded, interconnected, George Soros-linked organizations: Media Matters for America (MMFA); the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
After years of trying to censor the conservative voice of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, the George Soros-funded Media Matters recently pulled out all the stops to get him booted from the airwaves.
The pretext was Limbaugh’s unfortunate word choice in describing Georgetown “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke’s attempt to compel the Jesuit university to violate its own Catholic doctrine. Democrats held a mock hearing in the Capitol building wherein Fluke demanded that Georgetown underwrite her admitted fornication practices and fork out free birth control. Limbaugh said this made her sound like a “sl*t” and a “prostitute.”
The hard-left Media Matters pounced, rolling out a pre-packaged campaign against Limbaugh. It has targeted radio stations with ads and continues a floundering crusade to get Limbaugh’s radio sponsors to drop him. Ironically, this has resulted in a revenue increase for Limbaugh, and his already millions-strong listening audience has grown significantly.
Another example of this Orwellian censorship crusade involves the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an outfit that, until recent years, was viewed as a relatively credible civil rights organization. Unfortunately, the SPLC has now cashed in most of its remaining political capital, taking the same cynical path as its fellow travelers over at Media Matters. The SPLC too has become little more than a mouthpiece for left-wing extremism.
In a “too cute by half” attempt to marginalize those who observe the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, or who embrace a constitutionalist view of government, the SPLC has moved from monitoring actual hate groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, to slandering mainstream Christian and tea party organizations with that very same “SPLC-certified hate group” label. Indeed, in its promotional materials and on its website, the SPLC indiscriminately lumps well-respected, highly influential Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association together with domestic terrorist and white supremacist groups.
But the SPLC’s transparent guilt-by-false-association ploy has largely backfired. Whereas the strategy was intended to discourage media outlets from engaging these Christian groups, the scheme has, instead, had the unintended effect of significantly marginalizing the SPLC. You can only cry wolf so many times before people ignore you.
Finally, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has picked up where the SPLC left off. This radical homosexual pressure group recently ramped up its tried-and-true practice of employing the very outrage it purports to oppose: defamation.
One of the left’s favorite pejoratives is “McCarthyism,” yet liberals employ it — as they mean it — masterfully. In an effort to strong-arm mainstream media outlets — already sympathetic to their cause — into blacklisting, once and for all, conservative and Christian professionals who oppose liberal sexual identity politics, GLAAD has issued an enemies list of 36 top pro-family leaders and luminaries (a list upon which yours truly is most honored and humbled to be included).
Engaging a scheme eerily reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, GLAAD’s euphemistically and paradoxically tagged “Commentator Accountability Project” enlists fellow progressives to dutifully report on a designated website anytime a pundit identified on the blacklist appears in media.
Because “hate is not an expert opinion,” GLAAD then takes the reports and browbeats the offending media outlet into disengaging the “inappropriate” conservative pundit.
As feeble justification for its censorship efforts, GLAAD provides a list of out-of-context, cherry-picked quotes — some accurate, some not — the organization finds offensive. This is paint-by-numbers, Saul Alinsky style: Rule 12, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
In their manuscript, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s” (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard-educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out GLAAD’s approach — something they called “jamming.”
“Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes left-wing sexual identity politics. “Jam homo-hatred [i.e., the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic] by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen (sound familiar, SPLC?). They go on to suggest that activists should try to associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks” and “Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’”
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector,” they wrote. “The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable.”
George Orwell famously said: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Today, conservative truth tellers are revolutionaries, fighting a guerilla war against an elitist establishment that blankets free speech with bunker-buster bombs.
Their motives are disgraceful, their tactics are cowardly and their actions are un-American. But these things rank high among the progressive “book of virtues.”
Paraphrasing Voltaire, British author Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It’s little wonder that today’s progressives reject this noble sentiment. The success of the left-wing socio-political agenda relies upon deliberate suppression of the reality-based conservative alternative.
Such is life for the pamphleteer of bad ideas.
Matt Barber
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Star Parker - Defining Deviancy Down
In 1993, then Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper in which he coined the phrase “defining deviancy down.”He was ringing an alarm about what he saw as a dangerous social unraveling as result of our redefining deviant behavior as normal, rather than doubling down on traditional standards of behavior.
It’s through this lens that we should view the Obama administration mandate that employers provide free contraception and sterilization and its refusal to grant an exemption to morally opposed religious institutions.
Our audacious president, as part of his ongoing enterprise to transform America, has gone beyond defining deviancy down. Abortion, sterilization, and sexual promiscuity have not just been redefined as normal. They are considered “reproductive rights” for which we all should foot the bill.
Consider Rush Limbaugh’s much ballyhooed verbal assault on a Georgetown law student for testifying before Congress in favor of forcing her Jesuit university to provide students free contraception.
In a Gallup poll done in 1969, 68 percent said pre-marital sex is wrong and 21 percent said it is not wrong. Few young women in 1969 would have felt comfortable to publicly declare they sleep around and it’s doubtful that any politician or media personality would have condoned her behavior.
By 2009, in response to the same question, 32 percent said pre-marital sex is wrong and 60 percent said it is not wrong.
Are we a fairer and more progressive nation today, or have we defined deviancy down?
If you think we’re a better nation today because sexual promiscuity is viewed as normal and acceptable, so you must also be comfortable with the rest of the social developments that go along with this.
Most notably, the transformation and breakdown of the traditional American family.
In 1960, 72 percent of American adults were married. Today 51 percent are.
The most dramatic transformation here has taken place in those communities most likely to be supporting Democrats and Obama - blacks and Hispanics.
In 1960, 14 percent of white adults had never been married. The percentage of never married blacks and Hispanics then was not much different – 17 percent.
By 2008, the percentage of never married white adults had increased to 23 percent. But among blacks it grew to 44 percent and among Hispanics 34 percent.
If you see family breakdown as a negative development, so it is clear that defining deviancy down has had the most deleterious effects on those communities in which traditional institutions were weakest to begin with.
As part of the process of defining deviancy down, the words don’t change – only their meaning changes.
So the website of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, the organization of Sandra Fluke, the young woman Limbaugh attacked, says “all people are entitled to equal protection of the law, the free exercise of rights, and the enjoyment of economic, political, and social well being.”
These noble words, which sound like they could have been written by Thomas Jefferson, are perversely interpreted to mean religious freedom may be denied to a Catholic University, while forcing it to pay for contraception and sterilization for students.
Our nation is drowning in debt, with unfunded liabilities of our Social Security and Medicare programs estimated in the range of $70 trillion.
Yet Ms Fluke’s idea of injustice is a student relating “how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered….”
This warranted a personal call from the President of the United States to assuage her hurt feelings from Rush Limbaugh’s tough language.
Today deviancy has been defined so far down it has been turned on its head. The Obama administration idea of deviant is any presumption to religious liberty and any sense that individuals should be personally responsible for the costs and consequences of their own behavior.
Star Parker
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Matt Barber - Limbaugh And the, Um, Lady
Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.
Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”
Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).
During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)
And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)
Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin a “tw-t” and a “c-nt.”
Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).
Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama's impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.
David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”
Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?
Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.
On Wednesday, (3/7/2012) Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”
This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.
Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)
Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.
It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.
Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman's “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.
This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)
But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women's movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.
Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.
Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”
There are none.
Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.
That’s all Rush was saying.
Matt Barber
Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.
Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.
Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.
Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)