Pol·i·tics: the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Posts in this category pertain to local and national politics.

An Open Letter to Target Interim CEO, John Mulligan

Filed in PoliticsTags: CCW, Second Amendment

I am a concealed-carry permit holder, and a long-time Target patron. Unfortunately, due to debatable advocacy tactics on the part of some Open Carry groups, and the Astroturfed response of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, Target was dragged into a foray in which I doubt your corporation really cared to find itself involved. In response, you issued a corporate statement "respectfully requesting" patrons to leave their guns at home.

A reading of the statement seems clear that it was intended to do little more than to shut up a busy-body activist group, without invoking any legal compulsion of Target patrons to comply. Your approach is identical to that of Starbucks last year, as well as Chipotle, Sonic, and Chili's recently. The problem with this approach is two-fold. First, it villianizes a hundred million, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens due to the lawful, if disagreeable, actions of a handful of people. Second, it claims to have decided after considering the many "nuances" of the debate, but in the end completely ignores the primary issue: open carry of long guns. In so doing, the approach impacts the far more prevalent, and entirely unobtrusive, practice of concealed carry.

Your policy implies that all firearms owners represent the type of people you don't want in your stores:

Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

Statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate that concealed-carry gun owners are, by an order of magnitude or more, more lawful than the public at-large. Concealed-carry gun owners are exactly the people any business should want to patronize its stores - not because they'll help protect your stores (unlike anti-gun activists would have you believe, the vast majority of gun owners do not have a hero complex; we simply wish to exercise our rights and maintain the ability to defend ourselves), but because they are much less likely to commit crime or to cause problems in your stores.

And that point brings me to my primary issue with your policy: it unfairly lumps concealed-carry gun owners into a problem not of our making. Even though you preface the request with a mention of the concern regarding open carry, the policy, and the request as-stated, fails to differentiate between open and concealed carry:

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

Agree or disagree with the tactics of open-carry advocates (I make no argument here, as it is not the point of this letter), those tactics forced your hand (in no small part thanks to well-funded and well-organized anti-gun advocates who themselves caused every bit as much disruption in your stores) into crafting a response. You could have - understandably - created a policy that addresses the specific concern that prompted you to act, and issued a "respectful request" that guests not open carry long guns (or open cary any firearmms). Such a policy would have continued to remain silent regarding concealed carry. The consideration of open versus concealed carry can scarcely be considered a nuance; nevertheless, even allowing for the benefit of the doubt, it is clear that your policy does not reflect such consideration, despite claiming to do so:

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved.

If you had intended the policy to address only the matter of open carry, this statement:

But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

...would have read differently; for example:

But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not openly carry firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

With all due respect, your policy completely fails to respect the rights of the single-largest group impacted by the policy: concealed-carry gun owners. Concealed-carry gun owners cause no disruptions in your stores due to the concealed carry of their firearms. As we are wont to say: concealed is concealed. Neither Target employees nor its customers knows that a concealed-carry gun owner is carrying a firearm. That, after all, is the point of carrying concealed. And yet, your policy "respectfully requests" that we, too, forfeit our rights in order to continue to patronize your stores.

And perhaps most importantly, your policy is counter-productive:

In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This policy implies that a gun-free zone "create[s] an atmosphere that is safe...for our guests and team members." In reality, every mass shooting in the past 50 years (except for the Gabby Giffords shooting, which would more correctly be identified as an assassination attempt and not a mass shooting) has taken place in gun-free zones. The only people for whom a gun-free zone is more inviting are the criminals who see them for what they are: a target-rich environment of defenseless victims.

You see, criminals don't care for your "respectful request" any more than they care for the law. Statistics demonstrate that where concealed carry is encouraged, violent criminals leave for areas with more-suitable victims. If you want to create a safer atmosphere for your employees and guests, you would publicly welcome the practice of concealed carry.

That this new policy continues, as always, to follow local laws in regard to carry within your stores - relying instead on a mere, and legally unenforceable, "request" - results in the incredible irony that the policy relies on the overwhelming law-abiding and conciliatory nature of gun owners (and especially concealed-carry gun owners) in order to be effective. But just because we are lawful, respectful gun owners does not mean that we will give up our second-amendment rights in order to kowtow to hoplophobic rhetoric funded by a power-hungry narcissist who wishes to impose on Americans not only his view on gun rights, but also his views on how much salt Americans should add to their food and the size of cups Americans should use to consume soft drinks.

When Starbucks implemented a similar policy last year, my response was that I would respect the request, but in so doing I would no longer patronize their stores. After much reflection, and discussion with other gun-rights advocates over the course of months since Starbucks implemented that policy, my views have changed. While I empathize with the efforts of open-carry advocates, I recognize the inherent risk in their tactics, and that, largely driven by well-funded, well-organized anti-gun advocacy groups, the tactics of open-carry advocates often force corporations to take an explicit stance, where a Laissez Faire approach formerly sufficed. But just because a corporation chooses to implement a legally impotent policy in order to placate hoplophobic, anti-freedom activists does not mean that I must comply.

Unless a situation presents itself in which I need it, neither your employees nor other patrons will know that I am carrying a firearm. I will not intentionally create a disturbance; I will not threaten to boycott your stores. Instead, I will do what both open-carry advocates and anti-gun advocates should have done: I will attempt to engage in dialogue - the very dialogue this letter represents. As for patronizing your stores: should any of your stores post legally enforceable signage prohibiting firearms, I will follow the law, and not carry in such a store - which means that I will not patronize such stores. But for any stores that do not post legally enforceable signage, I will continue to carry concealed wherever I am lawfully allowed to do so.

In Which Bryan Fischer Doubles Down on Todd Akin’s Pseudo-Science Stupidity

Filed in Politics, Science, Social IssuesTags: Conservatism, Elections, Pseudo-Science, Rape

I used to enjoy a good Fisking, usually of an article by a liberal columnist from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. But today, the honor goes to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.

In the wake of Todd Akin's profoundly stupid comments asserting pseudo-science in defense of a policy position, Mr Fischer has chosen to double-down on Akin's stupidity by attempting to defend the scientific credibility of Akin's statements.  First, for background, Akin's quote:

From what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down.

Now, both this comment, and the response it has elicited, is fertile ground for discussion (not the least of which is the left's absurd attempt to claim that Akin somehow expressed "pro-rape" views due to the term "legitimate rape"); but the bottom line is that Akin's assertion is prima facie absurdity. Debate whether or not such comments should be grounds for pressuring Akin to withdraw from the Senate race, but don't be foolish enough to try to defend the validity of his assertion.

Alas, that is precisely what Bryan Fischer has done. And because of such manifest foolishness, I must respond. Let's roll tape on Fischer's on-air remarks in defense of Akin. Fischer accompanies those remarks with a blog post, from which I will quote liberally (all emphasis added by me):

Akin’s words, for which he apologized even though he had no need to, were right. He was entirely correct to say that pregnancies in cases of forcible rape are rare. Even if the exaggerated figures of the pro-abortion medical community are accurate, pregnancies due to rape amount to just 0.005% of all pregnancies. That’s rare in anybody’s book.

In defending the assertion that a woman's body can somehow reject or stop conception from rape, the relevant question is not whether total pregnancies resulting from rape are rare with respect all total pregnancies, but rather whether rape results in conception less frequently than conception from consensual, unprotected sex. The given statistic is silent on this comparison.

Fischer later says:

Unfortunately for the nattering nabobs of negativism who think Akin is some kind of medical Neanderthal, the London Daily Mail has a headline story TODAY which has this as the very first paragraph: “Stress can make women infertile, research has revealed. Scientists found that those with high levels of a stress hormone stop ovulating and are therefore unable to conceive.”

Who look like the dumb ones now?

Who looks like the dumb ones, indeed? Implying that the linked study proves his point requires one to ignore the cardinal rule of data analysis: correlation does not prove causation. Did Fischer consider any of the following questions:

  • Does the study involve acute stress, chronic stress, or both?
  • Does the study address the effects of acute stress on ovulation?
  • Assuming that acute stress can adversely impact ovulation, how often does rape occur within the extremely small window  of time required for the rape-induced stress to have that impact?
  • What impact does rape have on the body's production and sustained levels of cortisol?
  • Can rape interrupt or stop altogether the victim's menstrual cycle?

In fact, the referenced study can't answer any of those questions. It was merely an epidemiological study intended to suggest a potential correlation between stress levels and ovulation/menstruation. Sound science doesn't take a small, epidemiological study that can do nothing but suggest a correlation that may warrant further study, and turn it into an assertion of causation. Unfortunately, Fischer is not similarly disciplined:

Here’s the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: “In an occasional woman, too much stress can change her hormone levels and therefore cause the time when she releases an egg to become delayed or not take place at all.” Sounds like maybe her body can shut down the process after all.  

Such an assertion is an unwarranted jump to conclusion, and is as foolish as it is absurd. Suggesting a link between stress levels and ovulation in no way whatsoever proves an assertion that a rape victim has an innate physiological response that inhibits ovulation, and therefore conception.

Unperturbed by scientific and logical discipline, Fischer finds yet another epidemiological study to attempt to defend his position:

How about the New York Times, the Bible of wingers on the left? Here’s the headline of a May 11, 2011 feature article: “Lowering Stress Improves Fertility Treatment.” The article refers to findings published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, and quotes Dr. Alice D. Domar, a psychologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who serves as director of mind-body services at Boston IVF, a large fertility center.

Said Dr. Domar, “If you’re really stressed out and depressed, the body seems to sense that’s not a good time to get pregnant.” Hmm. Sound suspiciously like the body shutting down, no?

Multiple epidemiological studies suggesting the same correlation still do not prove causation; rather, they merely provide a stronger argument for further studies. So I'll refrain from quoting the third such example Fischer uses.

Instead, I'll turn to relevant analysis of the assertion, by attempting to make a meaningful statistical comparison: the percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy, versus the percentage of consensual, unprotected sex that results in pregnancy. To that end, I'll reference three studies linked by PopSci.

Using this study as the baseline, 3.1% of unprotected, consensual sex results in pregnancy. How does that compare to pregnancy rates from rape? This study indicates that 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and this study indicates that anywhere from 6.4% - 8% of rapes (factoring in birth control usage) result in pregnancy. Thus, according to these studies, rapes result in pregnancy at a rate around 2-3 more frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

I don't know if those studies controlled for forcible versus statutory rape. But even such distinction likely won't change the numbers significantly enough to lend credence to the "magic uterus" pseudo-science. While hard numbers are difficult to acquire immediately, I did find this reference to a study from 1949 that indicates that statutory rape constitutes 30 percent of all sex crimes, and this site that asserts that 3/4 of all juvenile rape is forcible. Taken together, the two studies would indicate that non-forcible, statutory rape accounts for anywhere from 7.5% to 30% of all rapes. So even assuming the worst-case scenario, the statistics still indicate that rapes result in pregnancy with a frequency equal to or higher than consensual, unprotected sex.

I welcome more precise statistics, but based on what I've found, I don't see any reason to believe that differentiating between forcible rape and other forms of sexual assault (statutory rape, incest, etc.) would alter the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that rapes result in pregnancy less frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

Thus, both Todd Akin and Bryan Fischer are foolishly and dangerously peddling pseudo-science. In so doing, the least of our worries is that Todd Akin will lose a Senate race. The bigger travesty is that, by changing the narrative to a defense of pseudo-science, those who peddle that pseudo-science forfeit the ability to hold a legitimate policy discussion regarding rape and abortion. Those who are pro-life, who believe that life begins at conception and that an innocent, unborn child should not be murdered simply because his father is a rapist, lose the opportunity to have that debate.

Thus, Todd Akin, Bryan Fischer, and anyone else who chooses to peddle such pseudo-science (or defend those who do) actively harm the objectives of the pro-life movement.

Anders Breivik: NOT a Christian

Filed in Politics, ReligionTags: Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias

Anders Breivik in his own words:

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

Jesus Christ in His own words (from John 14):

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. f you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

And this is instructive, too (James 1:22-25):

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

And James goes even further: (James 2:14-19):

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

I rest my case: Anders Breivik, by his own admission, is not a Christian. He claims to be only a "cultural" Christian - a term that has absolutely no meaning in Christian doctrine.

(H/T: cordpt @ RedState)

Jared Loughner: Raving Lunatic

Filed in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Media Bias, Republicans, War on Terror

I present, in all its dubious glory, the text contained in a video, written by Jared Loughner, the alleged gunman who shot U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), wounding her and others, and killing at least 5.

The slideshow-format video is titled Introduction: Jared Loughner. The text follows (transcribed as accurately as possible; "---" indicates a new slide):

My Final Thoughts: Jared Lee Loughner!


Most people, who read this text, forget in the next 2 second!


The population of dreamers in the United States is less than 5%!


If 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 is the year in B.C.E. then then the previous year of 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 is 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,619 B.C.E.

987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 is the year in B.C.E.

Therefore, the previous year of 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 is 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,619 B.C.E.

If B.C.E. years are unable to start, then A.D.E. years are unable to begin.

B.C.E. years are unable to begin.

Thus, A.D.E. years are unable to begin.


If A.D.E. is endless in year then the years in A.D.E. don't cease.

A.D.E. is endless in year.

Therefore, the years in A.D.E. don't cease.


If I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation then the mentally capable 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronunciation that's replacing an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes.

I teach a mentally capable 8 year old for 20 consecutive minutes to replace an alphabet letter with a new letter and pronunciation.

Thus, the mentally capable 8 year old writes and pronounces the new letter and pronunciation that replaces an alphabet letter in 20 consecutive minutes.


Every human who's mentally capable is always able to be treasurer of their new currency.


If you create one new currency then you're able to create a second new currency.

If you're able to create a second new currency then you're able to create a third new currency.

You create one new currency.

Thus, you're able to create a third currency.


You're a treasurer for a new currency, listener?

You create and distribute your new currency, listener?

Don't allow the government to control your grammar structure, listener?


If you create one new language then you're able to create a second new language.

If you're able to create a second new language then you're able to create a third new language.

You create one new language.

Thus, you're able to create a third language.


All humans are in need of sleep.

Jared Loughner is a human.

Hence, Jared Loughner is in need of sleep.



If I define sleepwalking then is the act or state of walking, eating, or performing other motor acts while asleep, of which one is unaware upon awakening.

I define sleepwalking.

Thus, sleepwalking is the act or state of walking, eating, or performing other motor acts while asleep, of which one is unaware upon awakening.

I am a sleepwalker - who turns off the alarm clock.


All conscience dreaming at this moment is asleep.

Jared Loughner is conscience dreaming at this moment.

Thus, Jared Loughner is asleep.



If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

I define terrorst.

Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad Hominem.
You call me a terrorist.
Thus the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad Hominem.


Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix.

Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None.


The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution.

You don't have to accept the federalist laws.

Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.

You're literate, listener?


If the property owners and government officials are no longer in ownership of their land and laws from a revolution then the revolutionary's from the revolution are in control of the land and laws.

The property owners and government officials are no longer in ownership of their land and laws from a revolution.

Thus, the revolutionary's from the revolution are in control of the land and laws.


In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications; The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won't trust in God!


What's government if words don't have meaning?

Assuming the video stays online, you can watch below:

Sadly, Loughner has published a total of 5 such psychotic videos.

This man is a highly disturbed, psychotic lunatic. Please, don't fall prey to the knee-jerk reaction from the Left that he is a "rightwinger" or part of the TEA party.

If anything, he leaned to the left, rather than to the right. The guy enjoyed watching the US Flag being burned, and listed Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto among his favorite books.

But most importantly, his psychosis likely transcends the liberal-conservative spectrum.

Senate Projection for October 21

Filed in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Elections, Polls, Republicans, Senate

With the latest batch of Senate polling results, Neil Stevens of Likely voter has updated his Senate Projection. According to his latest model, he projects R+7, with a 3% chance of Republicans reclaiming the majority (R+10 or greater).

The problem I have with the Likely Voter projection model is two-fold: one, it factors in races that are, for all intents and purposes, already decided; and two, it seems to assume a normal distribution. If a projection were performed in which seemingly non-competitive races were removed, and the ANOVA based solely on the actually competitive races, intuition tells me that such a projection (especially with a right-leaning distribution) would have to center around R+8, if not +9. To wit:

Introducing Uncertainty Based on Non-competitive Races

Range of Possible Outcomes

First, let's set the table:

  • Seats not up for election: 63 (23R, 40D)
  • Seats up for election: 37 (18R, 19D)
  • Bondary of Possible Results: R-18 to R+19

Now, let's add in some realistic boundaries to those results.

Range of Realistic Outcomes

Lower Boundary of Realistic Outcomes

  • All 18 R-held seats are 100% likely R. (R+0)
  • The following D-held seats are 100% likely R: AR, IN, ND, PA (R+4)

It is logical to conclude that, at this point, any projection that shows anything less than R+4 is just not consistent with reality.

Upper Boundary of Realistic Outcomes

  • The following D-held seats are 100% likely D: HI, MD, NY, OR, VT (R+14)

It is logical to conclude that, at this point, any projection that shows anything more than R+14 is just not consistent with reality.

Range of Realistic Outcomes

So, at this point, the range of realistic outcomes is R+4 to R+14. Anything outside of these numbers should be considered 0% likely.

Range of Likely Outcomes

  • The following D-held seats are 90% likely R: CO, WI (R+6, lower)
  • The following D-held seats are 90% likely D: DE, NY (s) (R+12, upper)

So, at this point, the range of likely outcomes is R+6 to R+12. Anything outside of this range should be considered unlikely.

Likely Voter's current projection distribution curve has a mean of R+7, and R+5 - R+8 accounts for 77% of all outcomes (R+7 22.6%, R+6 22%, R+5/R+8 35.4%). If I assume that Likely voter's probability curve is normally distributed, then, IMHO, the mean simply must be shifted too far left. There is just no possible way that R+5 has 18% probability. I'd say, at the absolute upper end, it has 5-10% probability. Balancing the 90% Likely R pickups against the 90% Likely D holds lowers the probability even further.

So, just using back-of-mental-napkin calculations, I would say:

  • <R+5: 0% likely
  • R+5: 5% likely
  • R+6 - R+12: 90% likely
  • R+13: 5% likely
  • >R+13: 0% likely

Analysis of Actually Competitive Races

The eventual outcome will be determined entirely by the results of six races: CA, CT, IL, NV, WA, and WV.

Two or three weeks ago, I would have rated those races as follows:

  • Lean-R: The following D-held seats are 55% likely: IL, WV
  • Toss-Up: The following D-held seats are 50% likely: NV, WA
  • Lean-D: The following D-held seats are 45% likely: CA, CT

However, things have shifted a bit; I would now rate these races as follows:

  • Lean-Likely-R: The following D-held seats are 60% likely: WV
  • Lean-R: The following D-held seats are 55% likely: IL, NV
  • Toss-Up: The following D-held seats are 50% likely: CA, WA
  • Lean-Likely-D: The following D-held seats are 40% likely: CT

As you can see, aside from CT (which, to be honest, I am close to writing off as a potential Republican pick-up), all of the competitive races have shifted in the Republicans' favor. I put together a quick Monte Carlo simulation of my own, and here are the results:

Senate Projection 21Oct10

So, my model projects a mean +9 seat gain for Republicans, and a 40.1% chance that Republicans will regain control of the Senate (a gain of +10 or more seats). Results:

  • n = 10,000
  • μ = 5.2
  • σ = 1.4
  • max = +13
  • min = +5
  • +8 - +10 = 73.1%
  • 10+ = 40.1%

At first blush, these numbers appear to me to be more realistic, given the current state of the races in play (and not in play).

Evaluating the Normal Distribution Model

It seems that the Likely Voter projection model is based upon the assumption that the outcomes of competitive races will be normally distributed. I wouldn't expect a normal distribution for these outcomes, even in a "normal" election year - but especially not in a "wave" year.

Just as the outcome distribution of competitive races was biased toward the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, I fully expect the distribution to be biased toward the Republicans in 2010. This bias is due primarily to two factors that are not easily accounted for through pre-election polling: the enthusiasm gap and shifts in party affiliation.

In short, pollsters simply don't have a reliable means of estimating the breakdown of voter turnout, and it is entirely likely that they will tend to err on the side of a conservative estimation of the shift from 2006/2008 to 2010.

In a later post, I will examine some of these factors in each of the six competitive races.

Is Sestak Closing on Toomey in PA?

Filed in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Elections, Media Bias, Polls, Republicans, Senate

The latest news out of the Pennsylvania Senate race between Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak is that a few recent polls have shown Toomey's 10-point lead evaporate. First, Quinnipiac showed Toomey up only 48-46. Then PPP showed Sestak up 45-46. Now Morning Call shows the race tied at 43-43. So what gives? Is this race, that Rasmussen still lists as "Solid GOP", actually in trouble?

In a word: no.

To explain why, we'll need to look more closely at the crosstabs of these polls. But first, so you don't have to take my word for it, read what Jim Geraghty has to say over at NRO's The Campaign Spot.


Now, onto the analysis of the polls. For the sake of expediency, and since their crosstabs are available in the poll report, I'll focus on Quinnipiac. Specifically, I'll look at the party-affiliation breakdown for the Senate race, and for Obama's job approval.

Poll Results


  • Toomey: 46%
  • Sestak: 48%
  • Don't Know/No Answer: 5%


D R I Total
Toomey 7% 88% 56% 48%
Sestak 89% 8% 35% 46%
DK/NA 4% 3% 9% 5%

Obama Job Approval

D R I Total
Approve 85% 11% 30% 44%
Disapprove 13% 87% 64% 53%
DK/NA 2% 2% 6% 3%


The poll doesn't indicate its party-affiliation weight values, but based on the above polls, I calculate that this weighting is as follows:

  • D: 38.0%
  • R: 34.5%
  • I: 27.5%

And there's the problem with this poll: this party-affiliation weighting bears little resemblance to reality. Jim Geraghty's piece linked above does a great job of explaining how these numbers are completely inconsistent with the electorate. But to prove the point, I'll look at some comparisons (previous-election party affiliation breakdowns taken from the Geraghty post).

Obama Job Approval

First, I'll examine jjust one change from the previous Quinnipiac poll to this one:

President Obama gets a negative 44 – 53 percent job approval rating, compared to a negative 40 – 56 percent September 22.

Note that overall, Obama's approval numbers continue to decrease, not increase. Yet somehow, this poll (miraculously) discovered a seven-point swing in Obama's favor since the previous month. That, alone, is enough to raise questions about the validity of the poll's topline. Interestingly, adjusting the party-affiliation weighting from 38.0%D / 34.5%R / 27.5%I to 32%D / 38%R / 30%I returns Obama's Approval/Disapproval numbers to 40% Approve / 56% Disapprove, and result in a 52% - 42% Toomey lead over Sestak (which is essentially right where the race has been for some time).

Democrat Best-Case Scenario: 2008

Next, I'll adjust the party affiliation weighting from the above numbers to the 2008 election numbers. In 2008, the turnout was 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 17% Independent. These numbers, which clearly represent not only a best-case scenario, but also an absolute pipe dream, result in a 48% - 45% Sestak lead over Toomey.

Get that? In a pipe-dream scenario, the Democrat would only be leading this race by 3%.

Democrat Second-Best-Case Scenario: 2006

Since the 2008 results are clearly out of reach, let's examine the 2006 results, in which the turnout was 43% Democrat, 38% Republican, and 19% Independent. These numbers, which represent a huge Democrat midterm election (again, something that will not be repeated in 2010), result in a 48% - 47% Sestak lead over Toomey.

So, once again, a pipe-dream scenario results in the Democrat leading this race by only 1%.

Bad News for Democrats: 1994

Since 2010 is clearly a Republican wave year, let's examine the poll results adjusted for 1994 turnout in the state, which was 39% Democrat, 41% Republican, and 20% Independent. These numbers result in a 50% - 45% Toomey lead over Sestak.

The problem for Sestak is that even the clearly skewed Quinnipiac party-affiliation weighting shows a lower Democrat turnout in 2010.

The even bigger problem for Sestak is that not only is the Democrat vote suppressed, but also the Independent vote is breaking 2-to-1 in favor of Toomey, and the Independent vote is highly motivated (by similar 2-to-1 ratios, Independents disapprove of Obama's job performance, disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, prefer their Senator to oppose Obama's agenda, would prefer the Senate to be controlled by Republicans, and believe that Toomey rather than Sestak shares their personal values; also, 82% of Independents are dissatisfied/angry with the way government works).

Charting The Results

For comparison, here are the results of the above analyses:

D R I Toomey Sestak
Quinnipiac 38.0% 34.5% 27.5% 48% 46%
Obama 40% Approval 32% 38% 30% 52% 42%
2008 Turnout 44% 37% 17% 45% 48%
2006 Turnout 43% 38% 19% 47% 48%
1994 Turnout 39% 41% 20% 50% 45%

Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Race

Perhaps the worst news yet for the Sestak campaign is that the Pennsylvania Senate race isn't the only statewide election this year. Pennsylvania also has a gubernatorial race, and that race has exhibited a very steady, 10-point lead for the Republican candidate.

Pennsylvania voters are not likely to switch parties between Gubernatorial and Senate candidates, and vice versa. Thus, if the sudden tightening of the Senate race is real, it should translate into a similar tightening in the Gubernatorial race. Unfortunately for Sestak, no such tightening exists.


Much ado about nothing. Make of it what you will, but the conclusion that Sestak is leading Toomey - or that he has even closed the gap - simply doesn't withstand a reality check.

By all appearances, Republican Pat Toomey will win the Senate race by 5-10 points over Joe Sestak.

The Slaughter Rule: Unprecedented

Filed in PoliticsTags: Constitutional Rights, Democrats, Legislature, Media Bias, ObamaCare, Republicans

Congressional democrats promoting the use of the so-called "Slaughter rule" - a self-executing or "deem and pass" rule that would allow the House of Representatives to "deem" as passed the Senate health care bill without bringing the bill to the floor of the House for consideration are attempting to rationalize their actions by claiming that Republicans have used self-executing rules in the past, and that, therefore, their opposition to the Slaughter rule is hypocritical.

On the surface, their claim sounds rather damning for Republicans, such as Mike Pence, who oppose the Slaughter rule. However, upon closer inspection, the democrats' claim proves specious.

Mike Pence: Hypocrite?

Democrats claim that Pence has voted for a self-executing rule three times. Let us examine those votes.

HR1003 (109th Congress, 2006)

HR1003 reads as follows:

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution 1000, amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution, is hereby adopted.

Thus, HR1003 used a self-executing rule to deem as passed HR1000, which modifies the order of proceedings for the House of Representatives.. However, this use of a self-executing rule differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. HR1000 was a resolution that amended the order of proceedings for the House of Representatives. It was not a legislative act.
  2. HR1000 was originally brought to the floor of the House, and was referred to and amended by the Rules Committee. The use of the self-executing rule in HR1003 merely allowed House members to deem as passed the resolution as amended by the Rules Committee, rather than bringing the resolution to the floor again. Thus, the use of the self-executing rule was intended to circumvent normal House procedure, not to avoid voting on HR1000.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in HR1003 in order to deem HR1000 as passed does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

H.Res.653 (109th Congress, 2006)

H.Res.653 reads as follows:

Resolved, That the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

H.Res.653 represents the passage of a conference report for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and is a classic example of how bills typically become law in the U.S. Congress:

  1. The House or Senate (always the latter, if the bill involves levying taxes) passes a bill
  2. The other chamber considers and passes the same bill.
  3. If the second chamber amends the bill as passed by the first chamber, either the first chamber must pass the bill as amended by the second chamber, or else (as is typically the case), the two chambers seat a Conference Committee to iron out the differences between the two versions of the bill. The outcome of this process is known as a Conference Report.
  4. Both the House and the Senate then each pass the Conference Report, and the bill is then presented to the president.

In fact, the 109th Congress followed this process exactly in enacting the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

  1. The Senate passed S.1932 on November 03, 2005.
  2. The House passed H.R.4241 on November 18, 2005.
  3. The two bills were reconciled via Conference Report.
  4. The House passed the Conference Report on February 01, 2006, via H.Res.653.
  5. The Senate passed the Conference Report on February 08, 2006, via S.Con.Res.80.

Thus, H.Res.653 used a self-executing rule to deem as passed the Conference Report for S.1932, which the House originally passed as H.R.4241. However, it also differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. H.Res.653 deemed as passed a bill on which the House of Representatives had already voted: H.R.4241.
  2. H.Res.653 did not further modify the Conference Report for S.1932/H.R.4241. The Slaughter rule attempts to deem as "passed" the Senate health care bill, while at the same time amending that same bill. (The Slaughter rule "deems as passed" the Senate bill only upon House passage of a Reconciliation bill that amends the Senate bill.) Thus, the House will be engrossing a bill that it has at the same time amended.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in H.Res.653 in order to deem the S.1932/H.R.4241 Conference Report as passed does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

H.Res.572 (109th Congress, 2005)

The germane section of H.Res.572 reads as follows:

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 308 is hereby adopted.

Thus, the self-executing rule of H.Res.572 deems as passed a "technical correction", per H.Res.308, in the enrollment of H.R.3058 (an appropriations bill). However, it also differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. H.Res.572 merely deemed as passed a "technical correction" to a bill on which the House of Representatives had <em>already voted</em>: H.R.3058.
  2. H.Res.572 did not further modify the H.R.3058. The Slaughter rule attempts to deem as "passed" the Senate health care bill, while at the same time <em>amending</em> that same bill. (The Slaughter rule "deems as passed" the Senate bill only upon House passage of a Reconciliation bill that <em>amends</em> the Senate bill.) Thus, the House will be engrossing a bill that it has at the same time amended.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in H.Res.572 in order to deem as passed a "technical correction" amendment to the already engrossed H.R.3058 does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

Verdict: Mike Pence

Pence's opposition to the Slaughter rule cannot be considered to be hypocritical with respect to his previous support of self-executing rules in the House. None of his previous votes represents, supports, or justifies the intent of the Slaughter rule, since, in all cases in which Pence voted for a self-executing rule, he was doing so with respect to bills that had already been voted on and passed by the House.

Bonus: Et Tu, Steny?

Liberals in the media are bending over backward to paint the Republicans as hypocrites on the self-executing rule issue - but, ironically, in so doing, they merely display the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Consider Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader. Time, that bastion of liberal group-think, quotes a hyperventilating Hoyer in 2003. After complaining about the Republican majority limiting debate in the House (paging Nancy Pelosi... paging Nancy Pelosi...), Hoyer unloads this corker:

Not content with the denying the Minority to offer amendments and substitutes, the Majority has even refused to permit Democrats the chance to vote on the Majority's own bills. That is precisely what happened on June 12. This being the 23rd, that was 13 days ago. When the Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing for the adoption of the $82 billion plan over 10 years and an almost trillion-dollar plan over 20 years, accelerating the increased child tax credit for low-income people families, we didn't even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in? I would remiss to fail to note that barely 1 hour later, the House passed on a bipartisan vote -- you talk about bipartisan votes -- a nonbinding motion to instruct the conferees to accept the substantially more responsible Senate version of that bill, doing exactly the opposite of what a half an hour the House had voted on. Why? Because it had no full debate, and it was very ambivalent, and we knew the House was ambivalent, and you knew the House was ambivalent, and you were afraid, fearful that 12 or 15 Republicans, if allowed to vote on the substance as opposed to voting procedurally on a rule where party loyalty is so important, you were afraid to put the substance to the test of democracy, fearful that you would lose 12 to 15, and we would prevail in our position. House Democrats, of course, are trying to offer the same Senate bill as the substitute, but the Republican Majority blocked us from doing so.

Wow, sounds bad, huh? Sounds exactly like the Slaughter rule, doesn't it?

Except, it isn't.

Notice, if you will, Hoyer's mention of conferees. Why, those would be the sitting members of a Conference Committee, who return Conference Reports. That means that the House of Representatives had already voted on and passed the bill in question. The Conference Report regarded H.R.1308, which passed the house by a voice vote. The self-executing rule to deem the Conference Report as passed was in H.Res.270, which passed by roll-call vote. When Hoyer claims that the minority didn't get to vote on the bill, he is lying.

Dare I say it? Hoyer's ardent defense of the Slaughter rule is the epitome of hypocrisy. To wit, here is what Hoyer has to say about the Slaughter rule:

“We’re going to vote on a bill, on a rule, which would provide for the result that, if a majority are for it, that will adopt a bill, the Senate bill, which has had extensive debate, extensive exposure,” Hoyer said.

“Does anybody in this room doubt that you have to vote on that?” he said. “We will vote on it, in one form or another.”

I rest my case.

Other Self-Executing Rules in Republican-Controlled Houses

Clerical/Technical Corrections to Already Passed Bills

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to deem as passed "clerical" or "technical" correction amendments to bills that have already been voted on and passed by the House:

  • H.Res.180, 104th Congress, 1995 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.393, 104th Congress, 1995 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.232, 105th Congress, 1997 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.71, 108th Congress, 2003 (amending a Conference Report)

All of the above uses of the self-executing rule apply only to amendments to bills already voted on and passed by the House of Representatives. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.

Consideration of Conference Reports

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to deem as passed the Conference Report to already passed House bills:

  • H.Res.63, 1933
  • H.Res.510, 1948
  • H.Res.391, 104th Congress, 1996

All of the above uses of the self-executing rule apply only to deeming as passed Conference Reports for bills already voted on and passed by the House of Representatives. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.

Specifying House Procedures in Consideration of Other Bills

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to specify the procedures and rules of debate in consideration of other House bills:

  • H.Res.336, 104th Congress, 1996
    (specifying the rules of debate for another bill under consideration by the House)
  • H.Res.386, 106th Congress, 1999
    (tabling a Conference Report)

The above use of the self-executing rule applies only to specifying the procedures and rules of debate for other bills under consideration by the House. These self-executing rules do not deem any bill to be passed. The first represents merely a procedural motion, and the second tables a Conference Report. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.


The 12 uses of self-executing rules referenced above break down as follows:

  • Consideration (passage or tabling) of Conference Reports: 5
  • Passage of clerical or technical correction amendments to Conference Reports: 5
  • Passage of rules of procedure for the House: 2

None of the referenced uses of a self-executing rule represent passage of a bill that has never been brought to the floor of, debated, and voted on by the House of Representatives. Thus, none of the above referenced uses of a self-executing rule justify, rationalize, or support the use of the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill.

The use of the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which has never been brought to the floor of, debated, or voted on by the House of Representatives is, therefore, unprecedented.

Judicial Malfeasance and Bills of Attainder

Filed in PoliticsTags: ACORN, Constitutional Rights, Judiciary, SCOTUS, Separation of Powers

When the US Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to cut off federal funding of ACORN, one may have believed that Congress was exercising its constitutional authority to legislate the appropriation of government funds. According to activist liberal District Judge Nina Gershon, one would be wrong.

ACORN sued the US Government, claiming that the de-funding legislation constituted a bill of attainder, the issuance of which, per Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, Congress is expressly prohibited. Unsurprisingly, Judge Gershon agreed, and in December issued a temporary injunction against the congressional ACORN funding ban. Yesterday, she made that injunction permanent.

Historical and Constitutional Context

First, some background on bills of attainder. Here is the general definition:

attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict]

TechLawJournal goes into more detail:

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

Bills of Attainder and The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has construed several cases as representing bills of attainder.

  • In Ex Parte Garland (1866), SCOTUS held that a law that prohibited Civil War opponents from holding public office constituted a bill of attainder.
  • In Cummings v. Missouri (1866), SCOTUS held that the amendment of the Missouri Constitution to require an Oath of Loyalty constituted an ex post facto law that prohibited the plaintiff from practicing his profession, and constituted a bill of attainder as punishment without trial.
  • In US. v. Lovett (1946), SCOTUS held that the withholding of appropriation of salaries of government workers because of their involvement with the Communist party constituted a bill of attainder. Interestingly, the concurring opinion, which concludes that the section in question is not a bill of attainder, discusses the historical meaning and context of bills of attainder, and includes this statement:

    "There was always a declaration of guilt either of the individual or the class to which he belonged."

    And again:

    "But if it is not an ex post facto law, the reasons that establish that it is not are persuasive that it cannot be a bill of attainder. No offense is specified and no declaration of guilt is made."

    And finally:

    When the framers of the Constitution proscribed bills of attainder, they referred to a form of law which had been prevalent in monarchial England and was employed in the colonies. They were familiar with its nature; they had experienced its use; they knew what they wanted to prevent. It was not a law unfair in general, even unfair because affecting merely particular individuals, that they outlawed by the explicitness of their prohibition of bills of attainder.

    (I quote extensively from Lovett, as it is largely upon this decision that Judge Garshon bases her opinion.)

  • In US v. Brown (1965), SCOTUS held that a law that prohibited members of the Communist party from holding office in labor unions constituted a bill of attainder. In issuing his decision, Chief Justice Warren included several other historical examples of bills of attainder, including capital punishment, confiscation of property, corruption of blood (confiscation of one's estate such that it cannot be passed on through inheritance), banishment, disenfranchisement, and exclusion from holding public office. Warren also expressed that the historical context of the Bill of Attainder clause was intended to enforce the separation of powers and to prevent tyranny by preventing trial by legislature and punishment without trial.
  • In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977), SCOTUS held that a law requiring former president Richard Nixon to preserve certain presidential papers and effects did not constitute a bill of attainder, finding that:

    While the Bill of Attainder Clause serves as an important bulwark against tyranny, it does not do so by limiting Congress to the choice of legislating for the universe, or legislating only benefits, or not legislating at all.

    Further that:

    The Act's specificity in referring to appellant by name does not automatically offend the Bill of Attainder Clause.

    (These providing useful limits on the constitutional scope of the Bill of Attainder clause.)

  • In Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG (1984), SCOTUS held that a law requiring proof of registration with Selective Service in order to be eligible for federal student aid did not constitute a bill of attainder. An important finding:

    Section 12(f) does not inflict punishment within the meaning of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It imposes none of the burdens historically associated with punishment. It does not even deprive appellees of Title IV benefits permanently, since it leaves open perpetually the possibility of qualifying for aid.

    Note that this finding includes limiting the scope of attainder to "the burdens historically associated with punishment".

Summary of SCOTUS Definition and Scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause

Thus, one can readily understand the five-pronged test applied to determine applicability of the Bill of Attainder clause:

  1. A legislative act of Congress (or of a State)
  2. Specifying a readily identifiable individual or group
  3. Declaring the guilt of the person or group regarding a specific offense
  4. Enacting an attainder - or punishment - against the person or group specified
  5. For which that person or group has not been convicted in a judicial trial

To offend the Bill of Attainder clause, a law must declare the guilt of a person or group regarding  a specific offense, and must then enact an attainder in response to that guilt. As is demonstrated in the above-referenced SCOTUS decisions, the concept of "attainder" consists of "the burdens historically associated with punishment" - those burdens being generally the deprivation of life, liberty, or property; corruption of blood; disenfranchisement; prohibition from holding public office; or prohibition from earning a living by practicing one's profession.

Further, SCOTUS holds that the mere act of calling out a specific person or group does not offend the Bill of Attainder clause.

These points are crucial to understanding the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Judge Gershon's ruling.

The ACORN Ruling

Returning to the ACORN ruling, the crux of the plaintiffs' argument can be found on page 9:

Plaintiffs acknowledge that HUD, pursuant to the OLC memorandum, has paid, or has agreed to pay, for work already performed under existing contracts. They contend that congressional suspension of existing contracts and the denial of the opportunity to obtain future contracts amounts to punishment that violates the Bill of Attainder clause.

Gershon quotes from Nixon v. Administrator of General Services to define a bill of attainder as:

...a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.

She then explains the three-pronged test to determine if a statute "directed at a named or readily identifiable party" is punitive:

[F]irst, "whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment"; second, "whether the statute, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further non-punitive legislative purposes," an inquiry sometimes referred to as the "functional test"; and third, "whether the legislative record evinces a legislative intent to punish."

Of course, in quoting these criteria from Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. v. Pataki, (Con. Ed.) she gives herself an out. Further quoting:

A statute "need not fit all three factors to be considered a bill of attainder, rather, those factors are the evidence that is weighed together in resolving a bill of attainder claim."

(Notice that Gershon quotes not from SCOTUS - from which ample clarification of the definition and scope of the Bill of Attainder clause have come - but rather from a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision.)

Historical Meaning of Legislative Punishment

Having laid the groundwork, Gershon then proceeds to explain how the ACORN defunding constitutes a bill of attainder. To do so, she quotes liberally from Lovett, in an attempt to conflate the denial of duly earned salary of a government employee to the prohibition of issuing federal contracts to ACORN.

The first problem with this conflation is that, in Lovett, the plaintiffs were duly employed government workers, and the law in question effectively fired them against the wishes of their employing agencies. On the other hand, ACORN is simply a government contractor: an agency attempting to procure government grants and contracts. Thus, the government-employee plaintiffs in Lovett had a reasonable expectation not to remain employed - even a right not to be fired without cause, while ACORN has no reasonable expectation of being granted future government grants or contracts - much less a right to the same.

Gershon attempts to avoid this obvious distinction by invoking a future opportunity claim:

The government attempts to distinguish Lovett on the ground that the plaintiffs in that case had a "vested property interest" in their jobs, whereas here, as plaintiffs unequivocally acknowledge, the have no right to the award of a grant or contract from the federal government. but the Court in Lovett did not base its decision on property rights analysis. The Supreme Court found a deprivation amounting to punishment under the Bill of Attainder clause, not only because plaintiffs were derived of their earned income from existing government jobs, but also because they were deprived of any future opportunity to serve the government. As the Court stated, "[t]his permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and of a most severe type." Id That plaintiffs had no right to any particular job was of no moment.

Gershon's reasoning here is faulty. The government employees in Lovett were clearly "serving the government" in their employment. ACORN clearly was not. If anything, the government was providing a benefit to ACORN, through the awarding of grants and contracts.  Further, the government work in which the Lovett plaintiffs were employed constitutes a chosen vocation, from which the statute in question effectively barred the plaintiffs. The ACORN defunding in no way can be construed to have, effectively or otherwise, barred ACORN from its chosen vocation - that vocation ostensibly being voter advocacy, and low-income housing and mortgage counseling.

Gershon then attempts to explain how Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG is not applicable:

Further, unlike the plaintiffs affected by the statute at issue in Selective Service, plaintiffs here cannot avoid the restrictions imposed upon them. Nothing in the challenged provisions affords plaintiffs an opportunity to overcome the ban.

Again, Gershon's reasoning is faulty. The federal funding ban imposed upon ACORN does not prevent ACORN from engaging in its chosen vocation. ACORN still retains the same rights of every other business in the country, to secure funding or to solicit funds through any other means in the private sector. The inherent implication in Gershon's argument here is that ACORN has a right to government funding. To wit, Gershon then quotes from Nixon and makes the following assertion:

"[I]t has been held permissible for Congress to deprive Communist deportees, as a group, of their social security benefits, but it would surely be a bill of attainder for Congress to deprive a single, named individual of the same benefit...The very specificity would mark it as a punishment, for there is rarely any valid reason for such narrow legislation[.]"

Accordingly, a close reading of the cases indicates that a deprivation of the opportunity to apply for funding in fact fits comfortably within the definition of "punishment" for bill of attainder purposes.

Quite to the contrary, the referenced cases are quite explicit regarding the scope of a "punishment" for bill of attainder purposes. That scope includes deprivation of life, property, or liberty (for example, to pursue a chosen vocation, to vote, to hold public office). Deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding in no way resembles the clear scope of a bill of attainder punishment as determined by SCOTUS.

If anything, deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding as a claim not against the Bill of Attainder clause, but rather the Due Process clause. However, the plaintiffs have not raised a Due Process claim. In fact, as quoted from Lovett (upon which Gershon relies heavily in her decision) above, the Bill of Attainder clause specifically excludes the sort of general, broad matters encompassed in the Due Process clause [emphasis added]:

When the framers of the Constitution proscribed bills of attainder, they referred to a form of law which had been prevalent in monarchial England and was employed in the colonies. They were familiar with its nature; they had experienced its use; they knew what they wanted to prevent. It was not a law unfair in general, even unfair because affecting merely particular individuals, that they outlawed by the explicitness of their prohibition of bills of attainder.

Thus, plaintiffs may argue that deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding is unfair, and a violation of Due Process and/or Equal Protection - but that deprivation is clearly and explicitly not a legislative punishment as evinced by the Bill of Attainder clause.

Functional Test and Legislative History

Next, Gershon moves on to explaining why the statute is punitive. I see no need to discuss either the functional test or the legislative history, as without a justifiable bill of attainder punishment, the question of the punitive nature of the statute is irrelevant. Without a legislative punishment, the statute by definition cannot be punitive.

Failing the Bill of Attainder Test

The ACORN defunding ban fails the Bill of Attainder test on two counts:

  1. Declaring the guilt of the person or group regarding a specific offense
  2. Enacting an attainder - or punishment - against the person or group specified

The matter of legislative punishment has been discussed already. However, Gershon's decision doesn't even address that the statute in question neither names an offense committed by ACORN nor declares ACORN' guilt with respect to such offense. The historical and constitutional context of the Bill of Attainder clause is quite clear that declaration of guilt of a specified offense is required for a statute to be considered to be a bill of attainder. Recall the statement from the concurring opinion in Lovett, upon which Gershon relies heavily in her opinion:

“There was always a declaration of guilt either of the individual or the class to which he belonged.”

This point is quite clear - and that the ACORN statute fails to meet this criterion is equally clear. Had the government, as a result of the ACORN statute, not fulfilled its current contractual obligations to ACORN, then plaintiffs would have had an ex post facto argument; however, as Gershon explains at the beginning of her decision, the government has agreed to fulfill all contractual obligations, and ACORN is not pursuing an ex post facto argument.

Over-Stepping Separation of Power

Having ruled in favor of ACORN, Gershon then issues her ruling, which essentially permanently enjoins all listed plaintiffs (HUD, OMB, Treasury, Commerce, DOD, and EPA) against enforcing (or instructing their subordinates to enforce) the ACORN statute. As a reminder, this statute reads:

None of the funds available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.

Essentially, as the order is written, if any of the listed government agencies denies any future grant or contract to ACORN, it can be accused of violating Judge Gershon's order. In other words, Gershon has just granted ACORN a constitutional right to public funds.

Unfortunately for Judge Gershon, the Constitution grants the right of appropriation of public funds to the Legislature, not to the Judiciary.

BigGovernment.com explains further:

It’s noteworthy that in discussing the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution, the district court failed to discuss at all the Appropriations Clause. That provision states that, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” In other words, only Congress can dole out federal dollars.

The court fails to consider whether it has the authority to order the executive branch (the Treasury Department) to continue giving federal dollars to ACORN after the legislative branch (Congress) with sole possession of the power of the purse has specifically passed a law barring any such appropriation. This opinion doesn’t even raise the separation-of-powers issue of a court dictating federal spending.

By enjoining every government agency with any contact with ACORN against denying ACORN any public funds, Gershon has compelled the Legislature to appropriate funds against the expressed prerogative of the Legislature. Further, this ruling sets the precedent for any other government contractor for whom a contract (or grant) is cancelled, or not renewed, to petition the courts on a Bill of Attainder claim.

This ruling is a clear case of liberal judicial activism and malfeasance, and represents a frontal assault on the Constitution. Surely SCOTUS will vacate this decision and put Judge Gershon in her place - although, after such a decision, her place is off the federal bench entirely.

Debunking Alleged Racist Limbaugh Quotes

Filed in PoliticsTags: Media Bias, Memes, Racism

In which I prove that George Soros wasted his money on his Media Matters attempts at smearing Rush Limbaugh.

The most recent Limbaugh-is-racist meme circumnavigating the blogosphere is a list of alleged "racist" quotes by Rush Limbaugh. Many liberal websites, such as Little Green Footballs and Chasing Evil, have simply re-printed the list with Media Matters links, without any critical analysis of the list whatsoever. The list has been showing up in comments to blog posts throughout the blogosphere. It showed up, ironically, in a comment to my post detailing race-baiter Al Sharpton's threats to sue Limbaugh for pointing out Sharpton's complicitness in race-baiting.

So, now is as good a time as any to do the liberals' critical thinking for them and to debunk this attempted smear campaign.

I have divided the various quotes into categories:

Quotes That Cannot Logically Be Considered To Be Racist

Several quotes simply cannot logically be considered to be racist. To wit:

I think Obama's the second Kenyan to win [the Nobel Peace Prize]

On the Nobel Peace Prize:

I think Obama’s the second Kenyan to win.

Unless one wants to argue that Rush's point is that Kenyans are not appropriate recipients for the Nobel Preace Prize, this quote can in no possible way be construed as racist. Here is the quote in context [emphasis added]:

OBAMA: Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes, and that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the twenty-first century. These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. That's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.

RUSH: By the way, they got hold of Obama's family over there in the hut village somewhere in Kenya, and one of the family members was coming back with the day's water supply from the lake, it's three miles away. And they asked him, "What do you think of ol' Barack winning the Peace Prize?" Obama's uncle told Reuters by telephone -- a reporter took a satellite phone in there because there's no phone service in the actual Obama homeland village of Kogelo, western Kenya. They said, "It's humbling for us as a family and we share in Barack's honor, we congratulate him." I think Obama is the second Kenyan to win the prize.

Rush was pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's grandiose commentary about nations taking responsibility for the world they seek, when Obama's own family live in squalor in Kenya. He is pointing out that millionaire Obama has done nothing to change the world for his own family (when it would be a mere pittance for him to do so). The comment about Obama being the second Kenyan to win the Nobel is in reference to many Kenyans - including Obama's own Kenyan family members - believing Obama to be (and accepting him as) Kenyan.

Obama is Halfrican-American


Obama is “Halfrican-American.”

The quote appears to be a segment intro during an episode of the Rush Limbaugh Show. Here is the quote in full, as transcribed by Media Matters:

LIMBAUGH: Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans," Obama said.

He didn't say it, but -- anyway, there are those out there -- greetings.

First, I can't find another written transcript to provide context. However, context really is irrelevant in this case. The term "Halfrican American" was coined over a decade ago in a poem by Wayde Compton, is used as a self-description by bi-racial persons, and has no derogatory connotation whatsoever (unless one wants to make the absurd claim that Urban Dictionary is racist against black people).

"Halfrican" and "Halfrican-American" are simply not considered to be racially derogatory by those to whom the term applies (and there certainly exist many such derogatory terms for biracial persons).

God does not have a birth certificate, either


God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama; [Obama] has yet to prove he’s a citizen.

First, these quotes are taken out of context - literally. The second quote does not follow the first quote. Here's the first half, in context:

Pop quiz, ladies and gentlemen: What do God and Barack Obama have in common? God does not have a birth certificate, either.

And here's my own transcription of the June 10, 2009, audio posted by Media Matters:

Hey, Mr. Snerdley, you know a lot of people talk about Obama and his messianic complex. He does have one thing in common with God. Barack Obama has one thing in common with God. Do you know what it is? God does not have a birth certificate either.

Moving on, ladies and gentlemen. An interesting story here from foxnews.com. This is... you would think that you would find this at...

[laughs] Snerdley is making gestures like he's shooting himself in the head in there. God does not have a birth certificate and neither does Obama - not that we've seen.

And here's the closest I can come to a transcript of the second half of the quote - from July 20, 2009:

On his show today, Limbaugh told listeners, "As you know, I'm in the midst of another harassing audit from New York State and New York City for the last three years. We're up to 16 different ways I have to prove to New York City and state tax authorities where I have been every day – not just work week – but every day, for the past three years."

He continued, "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. I have to show them 14 different ways where the h--- I am every day of the year for three years."

Of course, the real issue here is that accusing someone of not having produced a birth certificate or of not having proven citizenship is not racist. Producing - or not - a birth certificate is not a matter of race. Proving one's citizenship is not a matter of race.

Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans “Injuns”


Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans “Injuns.”

Using this term is not racist. Its use is in response to - and rejection of - the overly sensitive political correctness that attempts to render so many things as "offensive". There is nothing inherently offensive about the term injuns. It was simply the vernacular pronunciation of indians. If you are offended by its use, take it up first with Mark Twain, Jack London, and others in classic literature. Take it up with John Wayne.

Limbaugh uses the term injuns intentionally to tweak the political correctness crowd, not for any derogatory reference to Native Americans, whom he far more often refers to as Indians than he does Injuns (which almost always is used satirically directed at liberal-white-guilt political correctness).

Quotes In Which Limbaugh Elucidates the Racism of Others

Several of these quotes are taken from comments in which Limbaugh is actually discussing the racist beliefs, philosophies, or comments of others:

The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well

The first example is so egregious that it merited its own post:

The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

I've thoroughly refuted this one already.

We have to hope he succeeds... because his father was black


We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black

Here is the quote in context [emphasis added]

RUSH: They call him "creepy" for a few brief moments, but yet at the same time he's The Second Coming. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw one night on Charlie Rose's show, I think in preparation for the fact that they don't know what he's going to do either, got into a long discussion about how neither one of them know him. "Well, I don't know who he is," Tom said. "I don't know what books he's read. I really don't know who his role models are." Charlie Rose is echoing the same sentiment. I'm shouting at the TV, "Tom, you're at NBC! Dispatch a reporter! It's your job! Find out who he is." They didn't. They only cared... See, Sean, they've got an investment. He's too big to fail. They wanted him elected because they wanted to reassert their power, the media here, in being able to sway public opinion to the result that they wanted. So they were going to cover up Jeremiah Wright and all these things that give indication of radicalism of Obama. Cover that up. Portray him as he wants to be portrayed: somebody who's not to be questioned, somebody who's not to be doubted.

We're just supposed to accept and trust because most of these guys came alive and came of age in the civil rights battles of the '60s. It defines who they are. They've trained the young Drive-Bys to look at events through the same prism. You know, racism in this country is the exclusive problem of the left. We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds; that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever; because his father was black, because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this. The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign. So I think they've done a great job, the media has, of covering up his deficiencies. He's too big to fail, and so whatever goes wrong, blame it on Bush, blame it on... I mean, MSNBC's new life will be criticizing you and me, because they can't criticize him.

Limbaugh made this statement in discussing what he means by the term "drive-by media" in the context of Obama's inauguration. He is pointing out that the media failed to uphold their obligation to find out who or what Obama was prior to the election, and their insistence that Obama must be accepted - and not criticized - because of his race. Limbaugh is editorializing on the racism of the left.

Further, look at what Limbaugh said earlier in the very same interview [emphasis added]:

HANNITY: So we have a new president now. Abraham Lincoln or FDR or Barack Obama, obviously. First of all, what are your general thoughts about him as a person?

RUSH: Well, I.... (sigh) This is really tough, you know, because I've never met him. I don't know him, except how and what I've seen on television. And I'm suspicious. When I see the media and the entire establishment on the left lay down and become cult-like and not examine who he is, what he's done; and not really examine what he says, but just praise him because of how he says it; my antenna go up. I'll tell you, a lot of people right now, they're just absorbed in the historical nature of this: "first black president" and so forth. Well, that is wonderful. That's great. But I got over that months ago after he won the election.

I mean, Sean, he is our president now, and he's not black. He's not from Mars. He's our president. He's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved. They're waiting around for something to happen for them, and he is parlaying that. So I think the fact that he's African-American -- his father was black -- to me, it's irrelevant. This is the greatest country on earth. We want to keep it that way. It is that way for specific reasons. Now I look at the things that he has said, and I'm very much concerned that our greatness is going to be redefined in such a way that it won't be great, that we're just going to become average.

We cannot have this large a government role in the private sector with so many people thinking that just because they're Americans they're entitled to things, that this guy is going to be passing them out, and keep this country great and innovative, full of entrepreneurs. These things concern me. Now my critics, and yours, when they hear me say things like this, they have knee-jerk reactions. They're not listening or parsing my words, either. They're just, "Well, Limbaugh is not with the program. Limbaugh doesn't get it! Limbaugh is not sensible." He's president of the United States. It doesn't matter to me what his race is, what his ethnicity is. What matters to me are his policies and what his plans are, and I only know what he has said he's going to do based on what he has done and how he's voted. And in terms of what I would use to define the greatness of the country, he's not it.

Limbaugh's entire point is that the "Democrat party and the left" are the ones pushing for special treatment of and consideration for Obama because of his race, and that such treatment is wrong. Obama is our president, and should be viewed only in that consideration, because race is irrelevant.

Sotomayor "a reverse racist"


Sotomayor “a reverse racist” appointed by Obama, “the greatest living example of a reverse racist.”

Here's what Limbaugh said, in context:

So it will be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does in this case where a liberal Democrat judge appointed by Clinton chastised her in writing. "In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their 'experiences as women and people of color,' which she believes should 'affect our decisions.'" Yet Obama is up there talking about how she's superb at interpreting the law. She's just said -- and she said it numerous times -- she is not about interpreting the law; she's about making policy from an extreme radical left-wing position. Obama talks about we need people with empathy. It's not even about empathy, folks, that's just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.

She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, "'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.' She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke," where you just heard the audio sound bite, the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. So here you have a racist. 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 -- you getting this, AP? -- Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court...

Clearly, Limbaugh is commenting on Sotomayor's documented racial and gender bias influencing her decisions as a judge, as well as Obama's stated desire to appoint someone with just such bias:

"I want my justice to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don't have political power," Obama said. "The people who are on the outside. The people who aren't represented. The people who don't have a lot of money; who don't have connections. That's the role of the court."

Rush is commenting on these racist and/or racially motivated beliefs held by Sotomayor and Obama. To point out the racist beliefs of others does not make one inherently racist. Such a concept is both ludicrous and illogical.

Gates an "angry racist"


Gates is an “angry racist.”

Here it is, in context:

That was funny on Friday when he did throw Gates overboard. I knew it was going to happen. We knew that if it did happen, if the focus group, polling, whatever, if it got really desperate they'd throw Gates overboard, and they did. And now all kinds of news is coming out about this guy Gates and some of his past speeches, he's got a charitable foundation that gives money to friends and Harvard colleagues, but not very much compared to what it's raised. He's a racist. He's an angry racist, and when he applied for admissions to Yale, he said, yeah, okay, I have to sit and be judged by whitey again. Mark Steyn makes a point that he doesn't even know the difference between Robbie Burns and Shakespeare and who said what, and he's supposedly this great thinker and professor and so forth.

I have already covered in detail the fact that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is, in fact, a racist.

Once again, Limbaugh is simply discussing the racism of another. To do so does not make Limbaugh himself a racist.

Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman

Next, another Gates-gate related quote:

Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman.

And here it is, in context:

I was right that the race problem is not going to go away simply because we've elected the first black president. It's been exacerbated. Obama still smokes cigarettes and he's just thrown a lighted cigarette on a can of gasoline. And he did that at his press conference the other night and he's got this thing now -- here's the important political significance of the event. And at this point I will talk about the precious moderates who vote and the precious independents who vote. Trust me when I tell you that all during the campaign these precious moderates and independents believed that we were genuinely getting over the racial hump. Post-racial, so many, so many guilty people voted for Obama just to get that legacy of sin due to slavery out of our system to be done with it. They thought the election of a black president would accomplish this.

All of a sudden this guy that they elected who they thought was all of these wonderful, perfect things, is now behaving as a community organizer and is fanning the flames of race and is calling the police stupid, and I guarantee you those people -- we've all been waiting and asking the question, "When are these Obama voters going to wake up?" Well, this incident might be -- I don't know yet, a little early to say -- this incident might be the wake-up call for some of these moderates 'cause folks, don't doubt me. You know that there were a lot of people that voted for Obama out of pure guilt, hoping that his election would just wipe the slate clean, at least make them feel better about it. And this just destroys that. Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman when he doesn't know the facts of the case, admits he doesn't know the facts of the case.

There's a big police coalition press conference going on right now, and the police union, fed up, police officers, Fraternal Order of Police all over the country, they recognize the damage and the danger this puts them in when the president of the United States runs around and calls them stupid for just doing their jobs. It's bad enough for the cops in this country as it is. This just exacerbates it.

Limbaugh is in the midst of a comment about the exacerbation of racial tension in what was ostensibly Obama's "post-racial" America. In his statement about Obama, he is specifically refering to Obama's press-conference comment at the outset of the Gates-Crowley incident. Here's what Obama said:

But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact.

Obama clearly pulled the pin on a racial hand grenade, and launched it right into the middle of the incident - and he did so from an admitted position of ignorance. His comments served only to escalate the incident and to jeopardize the efforts and personal safety of law enforcement personnel nationwide.

Once again, Limbaugh simply pointed out these things. To do so does not reveal any racism on the part of Limbaugh.

In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering

Limbaugh commenting on a white Belleville (IL) student being assaulted by two black students:

[I]n Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.

And here is the quote in context [emphasis added]:

Hey, look, folks, the white kid on that bus in Belleville, Illinois, he deserved to be beat up. You don't know about this story? Oh, there's video of this. The school bus filled with mostly black students beat up a white student a couple of times with all the black students cheering. Of course the white student on the bus deserved the beating. He was born a racist. That's what Newsweek magazine told us in its most recent cover. It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.

Limbaugh was tying this story in with one he discussed the previous day, about a Newsweek cover story declaring that babies are born racist, in the context of the media declaring that Obama represented a post-racial America while simultaneously pushing the meme that opposition to Obama's policies and agenda is racially motivated:

I kid you not Newsweek magazine's September 14th cover has a little white baby boy with the headline: "Is Your Baby Racist? -- Exploring the Roots of Discrimination." The headline of the actual story: "See Baby Discriminate -- Kids as young as 6 months judge others based on skin color. What's a parent to do?" Now, this is just lies. This is page one of the Democrat Party playbook. They're out of ideas; they're panicking. They cannot debate the ideas with us and so for -- I've been here 21 years -- 21 years they have been trying to besmirch and impugn my casualty and credibility by saying I'm a racist. And it doesn't work because A, I'm not one; and B, you who listen regularly know it. The media didn't make me; they can't break me. Only you can, and that's up to me and you, if that happens, not them. But looking at this cover, it's striking for two reasons.

I thought Obama was going to make all this go away. I thought the election of the first black president... Actually, I didn't. If you'll remember, I predicted that exactly what is happening was going to happen. I predicted that the election -- 'cause I remember we had phone calls from people. "Hey, Rush, don't you think it would be a good idea because then they can never say we're racist again. They can never say America is a racist country." I said, "No, it's only going to get worse." Cookie, go to the archives and dig this up. I don't care where it is. It's last year, late last year. First part of this year, late last year would be better. Dig something out of the archives. I know I've said it a number of times, any criticism of Obama is going to be labeled racist. It's all the left knows to do is to call names and to impugn character. They do not discuss the substance of issues.

So once again, in referencing "Obama's America", Limbaugh is discussing racism and race-baiting on the part of the media. Coupled with the actual facts of the incident in question, in which a white student is beaten up by two black students, while the other black students on the bus cheer on the assailants, leaves no evidence in support of the argument that this statement somehow demonstrates Limbaugh to be racist.

Obama is an "angry black guy"

And here begins a string of similar Obama-related quotes. First up:

I do believe” Obama is an “angry black guy.”

This quote actually comes from Limbaugh's discussion (linked above) of Obama racially escalating the Crowley-Gates situation. Here's the full quote [emphasis added]:

Bull's-eye last Friday! (rubbing hands together) Bull's-eye, bull's-eye. Well, you know, not just the Barack Nifong line, but they're finally hearing me. He's an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he's angry. I think his wife is angry. All liberals are enraged all the time anyway. They're always mad. But if he's not mad, if he's not angry, why does he run around apologizing for the country all over the place? There's something going on here, and it certainly isn't a love and devotion to the whole concept of American exceptionalism, is it? Yeah, Barack Nifong! (grumbling) "First-class intellectuals like us, that trashy Rush Limbaugh, first-class intellectuals like us, right on." (laughing) Lord, thank you for my enemies.

Again, recall: race is only an issue in this particular discussion because Obama himself escalated the racial issue in his "acted stupidly" press conference. This entire segment is a continuation of the media's and the White House's reaction to Limbaugh's discussion of Obama escalating the racial issue.

Limbaugh further explains where the anger originates: not from Obama's race, but rather from his liberal viewpoint. Limbaugh is, as he often does, pointing out the intrinsic connection between liberalism and racism. Once again, pointing out the racism of others does not demonstrate racism on behalf of Limbaugh.

Media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child

Limbaugh on media treatment of Obama during the campaign:

Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe “you can’t criticize the little black man-child.”

Here's Limbaugh's quote in context:

LA Times poll. "More striking, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating. Obama's favorable rating has slid from 59% to 48% since June. At the same time, his negative rating has risen from 27% to 35%. The bulk of that shift stems from Republicans souring on Obama amid ferocious attacks on the Democrat by McCain and his allies." That's it. See, the Drive-Bys are just so upset with these so-called ferocious attacks. These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears, Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign. Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. You know, it's just that you can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism has taken us, you can't hit the girl, and you can't criticize the little black man-child, you just can't do it because it's not right, it's unfair, he's such a victim.

Limbaugh here is discussing the media running cover for Obama during the campaign by refusing to perform any journalistic investigation into Obama's history or beliefs, while simultaneously castigating any criticism of Obama as being racially motivated, in the context of Obama being a completely unproven, un-vetted, un-accomplished candidate for President running a campaign that is entirely style over substance [ibid, emphasis added]:

I've got a story here in my Obama stack. It's from the AmericanThinker.com [ed: link]. It's by a guy named J.R. Dunn. He is a consulting editor of the American Thinker, and I've quoted his work before. He's got a piece today that says Obama just "a flake," and the American people have begun to see it.


I think this is unhinged. I think Obama is getting small. He is looking and sounding small -- in stature, I mean. The pressure is getting to him. He can't stand being criticized. I think this guy has led a protected life, a charmed life his whole life. He's always been treated as something special, a messiah. He's always looked at himself that way, and now we're in the pressure point of the campaign and he's unraveling. Listen to this again.


See, the dirty little secret is that Obama's not a thinker. When he's in those forums, he's defensive. He is trying to avoid saying something that will betray the truth. Remember, we're dealing here with a marketed package. We're dealing with a story that has been created, and that story is false, it's fraudulent, just like the John Edwards story was, but it looks good when all the lights are right. And so they gotta make sure the lighting doesn't change and gotta make sure the script is held to, and that's what they worry about with Obama when he slides off the teleprompter.

Once again, these comments represent no inherent racism whatsoever. Limbaugh references Obama being black in reference to the media's portrayal of any criticism against Obama allegedly being racially motivated. Limbaugh calls Obama a man-child because the media treat him with kid gloves, and because Obama was not responding well to any form of criticism.

The term "man-child" refers to an immature, adult man who behaves or thinks like a child. It is a term the left often used to describe George W. Bush. Calling Obama a man-child is not inherently racist.

Colin Powell only supported Obama because of race

Moving on to Powell's endorsement of Obama:

Limbaugh responds to Price; says all Dems "had to do was nominate an African-American and [they've] got Colin Powell"

First, here's the Limbaugh quote in context, in this case, a discussion of whether or not Dick Cheney is a "better" Republican than Colin Powell [emphasis added]:

PRICE: This division that we seem to be bracing across this land has just gotta go away.

RUSH: Look, throw me out of this for a second. Throw me out of the equation here. How in the world can a Republican say that Colin Powell is a better Republican than Dick Cheney? How? And that's what Tom Price said here, and Scarborough applauds him for some reason! How in the hell can you say that Dick Cheney is worse for the Republican Party than Colin Powell? It was Colin Powell who endorsed Obama after the Republican Party gave Colin Powell the exact kind of nominee he claims to want: some moderate, squishy guy who's gonna go work with Democrats. I mean, really, throw me out of this. "Are Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney better Republicans than Colin Powell?" And Price says, "No. Goodness." And then also, same show, Scarborough, Bob Shrum, who I guess you can't keep him off TV these days. Scarborough said, "To hear Dick Cheney say we'll take Rush Limbaugh in our party but not Colin Powell. Would Democrats take Colin Powell in a second?

SHRUM: We'd take Colin Powell in a second, and we don't want Rush Limbow! (sic)

RUSH: You've got Colin Powell! This is the whole point: you've got him, and you didn't even have to do any "outreach." All you had to do was nominate an African-American and you got Colin Powell. Now, the Republicans, some of them are starting to speak up here. "Republican leaders on Sunday backed Dick Cheney's attacks on President Barack Obama, calling the former vice president a strong asset for the party. 'It doesn't hurt us, it helps us,' House Minority Leader John Boehner said on CNN's 'State of the Union,' calling Cheney a 'big member in our party.' Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele meanwhile dismissed a report from the Washington Post's Dan Balz claiming Republicans 'wince' at Cheney's newfound desire for the limelight.

Limbaugh discussed this issue at the time that Powell endorsed then-candidate Obama [emphasis added]:

I said, "Secretary Powell says this endorsement's not about race. Okay, fine. What I'm doing now Jonathan is researching Powell's past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal white candidates that he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with." Then the next paragraph I sent to Jonathan Martin of the Politico said, "As for Powell's statement of concern that he would have difficulty with two more Republican Supreme Court nominees, I was unaware that he had dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Ronald Reagan making him a four-star general. I guess he also regrets George Bush making him secretary of state. I guess he also regrets George H. W. Bush naming him chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I guess he's also upset that a Republican appointed his son to head the FCC. Yeah, let's hear it for transformational figures," because Powell had said Obama's a transformational figure, and yet Colin Powell is who he is and is a household name because of Republicans.


I just want to button this up because the Drive-Bys had a tizzy over my allegation that his nomination was about race. Well, let me say it louder, and let me say it even more plainly. It was totally about race! The Powell endorsement is totally about race. People have forgotten, but I have not, ladies and gentlemen. Colin Powell publicly broke with the administration over affirmative action; specifically, affirmative action cases that were before the Supreme Court in 2003. It was a case in Michigan. I have the CBS story here, January 20th, 2003. "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he disagrees with President Bush's position on affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, as the White House called for more money for historical black colleges.

Powell, one of two black members of Mr. Bush's cabinet, said he supports methods the University of Michigan uses to bolster minority enrollments in its undergraduate and law school programs. The policies offer points to minority applicants and set goals for minority admissions." That's why he doesn't want any more Republican appointments. He is pro-affirmative action. He is also pro-abortion, in case you had forgotten. Here's a quote from Colin Powell at the Republican National Convention August 12th, 1996. "You all know that I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I strongly support affirmative action, and I was invited here by my party to share my views with you because we are a big enough party and big enough people to disagree on individual issues and still work together for our common goal: restoring the American dream."


Well, it may be unseemly, but it's totally true. Nobody has talked... Not one of them has addressed the "inexperienced" aspect of what I said, either. Remember, the whole quote here, folks, the whole quote is, "I'm now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with." Now, just so you know, I haven't come up with any. I worked diligently on this on the airplane on the trip home from Green Bay yesterday. After I got home last night, I worked diligently. I can't find any of these inexperienced white liberals that Powell has endorsed. So they're all focusing you know it's race. This has hit a nerve. So what if it's race? Why is it so hard to admit that it's race? Ninety-five percent of black people are going to for Obama because he's black. What's so problematic about admitting this? I thought it should be about race. I thought you liberals thought this is a historic candidacy because finally we're going to elect a black guy to be president. Why hide behind this? Why act like it's not about race? What, you want to tell us it's about his policies? (laughs) Still, they weren't through here. ABC's World News Tonight, a portion of correspondent John Cochran's report about me and the Powell endorsement.

And now for the kicker (as Limbaugh points out). Juan Williams (who is both black and a liberal) agrees with Limbaugh [ibid]:

Of course he does. Of course it has to do with race. It has a lot to do with this sort of senior black man, sort of the original crossover race star in American politics, Colin Powell; I think reaching out to this younger black man, and I think in so many ways it goes beyond race. But I think Rush Limbaugh's right, if he says race is a definite factor here. In terms of his legacy, I think this will stand as a real monument reaching out to the -- potentially, the -- first black president of the United States.

Is Juan Williams racist against black people? Case closed.

As Limbaugh pointed out, the Republican nominee was a Powell-esque "moderate". Yet Powell, the "moderate" Republican, endorses Obama, a far-left liberal. Also, note that Limbaugh's argument didn't solely rest on race, but rather elitism. Powell clearly cherishes his position of privilege in the beltway elite - and that also influenced his endorsement of Obama over McCain.

Limbaugh pointing out these things does not belie any inherent racism. This comment is not racist.

The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry


The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry.

And here it is, in context [emphasis added]:

CALLER: Well, it matters to me in the way that my job goes. Right now, I do alcohol and substance abuse therapy, and I meet with a group every day which is, you know, more or less total minorities. And so when this comes out eventually... You know, the therapeutic relationship is great. You know, you set up a rapport, everything is well, but the minute it comes to something that goes even the slightest bit political and the word "Republican" comes out of my mouth then it is straight downhill and to, you know, make any kind of stereotypes about a minority in the group is racist. "How dare you! How were you raised? Where did you come from?" But the second "Republican" comes out, "Ah, you're a rich white male. You're from Connecticut, blah, blah, blah. You don't even know how your people did this to us," and it's just all this like baggage that gets carried around.

CALLER: Well, what happens is, every Monday morning we do a current events group. It comes up once in a while just on little things but when the Sotomayor thing hit where she said, you know, I can make a better decision than a white male, the first thing out of my mouth was, "Why is this okay but if I were nominated to be a Supreme Court judge and I said, 'You know, I could totally make a better decision than any black male out there,' you know, you would never see me again."

RUSH: Okay, so that caused your group, some members of your group to blow up at you?

CALLER: Well, kind of sorta. I mean, they never blow up.

RUSH: I know but it got strained.


RUSH: There's tension in there. Well, that's because you told 'em the truth.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: That's all it is. You're challenging them. You're talking to people that live in a cocoon that protects them from the real world. They buy into all they've been taught. They're privileged. They're special. They're victims. You just confronted, by hitting the bull's-eye, their cocoon. You blew up the cocoon. They don't want to consider anything other than the comfort level existence they've been taught in which they live. So, bam, you hit 'em in the eye, between the eyes with the truth, and that's why they're lashing out at you.

CALLER: And even if I thought anything else, you know, that is what I'm going to keep with me. (laughs) Whatever the group comes up.

RUSH: Well, it is. Look, what you said to them is absolutely right. You wouldn't have a chance if they had discovered that you as a judge had said you're far better than an Hispanic woman, that your experiences make you more qualified. You wouldn't see the next day in your career. You've just told them the truth. But, see, they have been told that they can't be racist because they don't have the power to implement their racism. This has been the argument the Reverend Jackson has proffered throughout my life, that it's impossible for minorities to be racist because they don't have any power. Well... (chuckling) President of the United States? We're talking now about a Supreme Court justice? The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry, and they want to use their power as a means of retribution.

Limbaugh here is specifically discussing minorities who have been brainwashed into a victim mentality their entire lives, and the race-peddlers, such as Jesse Jackson, who brainwash them - in the context of a therapist who deals with such people who have been brainwashed in such a victim mentality. He is referring specifically to the notion espoused by the likes of Jesse Jackson that minorities cannot possibly be racist because they have no power to implement their racism.

So, Limbaugh is clearly referring specifically to a group of people who adhere to a victim mentality, and who have been taught that some other demographic (in this case, white males, or Republicans - which is assumed to be redundant) is responsible for their victimhood. Further, Limbaugh is clearly referring specifically to those who have made a living and an industry out of pushing such race victimhood - such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama.

Limbaugh is discussing them in the context of such people being angry or offended by the notion that Sotomayor's obviously racist comment is treated differently than such a similar statement would be if uttered by a white male.

Limbaugh is not speaking about black people as a whole; he is not stereotyping all black people. He is specifically talking about people for whom the description cleary applies. Therefore, the statement is not racist.

Minorities never do anything for which they have to apologize


[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.

And as usual, context is critical [emphasis added]:

Let's go to the audio sound bites. When the program ended yesterday, I had to cut an audio bit for the season premiere of The Family Guy on Fox. I think they told me that this is the season premiere for networks season, whenever that next season starts, and while I was waiting for the phone connection to do this, I was watching PMSNBC after the press conference from the attorney general of North Carolina. Right after this press conference, a lawyer shows up and says she still thinks something happened that night. We're back here to the libs and "the seriousness of the charge, not the nature of the evidence," as all that matters. The anchorette, the info babe, Contessa Brewer, was talking to former prosecutor Georgia Goslee, and she said to her, "Are you surprised at this reprimand?"

GOSLEE: Something in the back of my mind still tells me that something occurred in that house on that night that the -- that the victim [sic] said that she was raped. If the legal authorities in North Carolina have so ruled, then I as a lawyer, we don't have a choice but to accept it. But I just still believe that something happened that wasn't quite right in that house that night. I still will always believe -- and it's just my opinion, as an attorney who's tried many cases, investigated many cases, I just still believe -- that something happened more than a false accusation.

RUSH: Unbelievable! So even after a special investigation -- and let me point out that the attorney general of North Carolina is a Democrat investigating another Democrat, Mike Nifong. Imagine that. Even after all of this, this attorney says this charge is too serious. The nature of the evidence doesn't matter to liberals. It's the seriousness of the charge. In the back of my mind, something happened. There is no evidence that anything happened. If there were the slightest bit of evidence, the word "innocent" would not have been used, and this lawyer, again her name is Georgia Goslee, that was the point she started out with in her sound bite. I'm surprised. I couldn't believe it. I heard the word "innocent," and that's what launched her into this diatribe, and again, I have to tell you -- and I know all of you saw this, or most of you did -- Reade Seligmann, Evans, Colin Finnerty, when they got up, these three lacrosse players, America saw them probably for the first time.

They were allowed to speak in a forum like this, and I'll tell you, you were looking at quality individuals, mature beyond their years. They have had life experiences that most people will not have, at a young age. They have dealt with it. You know, character is not built by this kind of thing; character is revealed by this kind of adversity, and it was on display for one and all to see. I was just amazed. I thought I was watching seasoned media veterans of at least 35 or 40 years old, speaking off the cuff at the podium about this case. I was watching young men in their early twenties go through this and make these remarks -- and it was inescapable, the quality and the great family, support that they've had. They've obviously all been raised very well. They shot the myth, one of the parts of the template. I wonder if the Duke faculty, the faculty of 88 that signed that letter and then backed up that letter with the condemnation, if there's the slightest bit of embarrassment.

I wonder if there's the slightest bit of embarrassment on the part of the Duke University president who got rid of the lacrosse coach. I doubt it! I don't think there is. I think they're probably harboring in their minds thoughts expressed here by Georgia Goslee, "Well, something happened in there, we know something happened in there because we're smarter than everybody else, and we know." In fact, they're just a bunch of elitists who are not smarter than anybody else. They're not as smart as most people! They don't come close, but they live in this tight little enclosed world where they tell each other that they are the brains of society, and unfortunately they have all this unfettered access to young skulls full of mush in order to indoctrinate them and inculcate them with a bunch of drivel and so forth. But these three lacrosse players yesterday hit grand-slam home runs. Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360 talked to the Reverend Jackson, and Cooper said, "In looking back about how you spoke about the Duke lacrosse players, do you have any regrets?"

JACKSON: No. There were past misdemeanor charges. There was a case of these athletes obviously feel entitled, paying money to watch women dance nekkid before them. Now, did they go as far as molesting her? Apparently not.

RUSH: "Apparently not," but he's not going to apologize, and neither is Sharpton. Sharpton's not gotten [sic] apologize. Nobody can remember what he said, so he's not going to apologize. Of course, these are the arbiters now of who can say what, ladies and gentlemen! This is where you have to go. In fact... I may even do this later on in the program, so I'm not going to give it away. What if we all have to go through the Justice Brothers, Sharpton and Jackson, in order to get the content of our programs approved every day? That's what they're trying to set up. This is their end-around the Fairness Doctrine, folks, and they've both said it. Sharpton as much as said it. We're not stopping here. We're moving on -- and you'll hear the sound bite coming up in just a second. Anderson Cooper says, "Wait a second. If that's a crime," watching nekkid (It's naked, by the way, Reverend Jackson.) "If that's a crime, watching naked women dance, then most of the men in America should be arrested. There's a strip joint a couple blocks from my home," Anderson Cooper said.

JACKSON: Most men in America don't do that, shouldn't do that, and when they do it, it is never right. It is -- in fact when you reduce women to dance before you nekkid, it's the first step towards domestic violence.

RUSH: Oh, my golly gosh! Listen to that! As though these women are members of a slave troupe; they are in bondage, and they are dragged out before the polls at the Bada Bing. They are dragged out at all these strip clubs, and they are forced to dance nekkid! "It's the first step toward domestic violence." The dirty little secret here is some of these women dance nekkid -- and I'm not talking about this babe (well, it might be) -- a lot of them are single mothers. They're divorced, and they can earn a hundred grand a year at a good club doing this sort of stuff, and they're protected. This is the hypocrisy. The Reverend Jackson will climb over anybody who violates his boundaries and his rules but he has no boundaries. He has no rules. He never has to apologize like I told you. Minorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.


RUSH: Andrea Peyser today in the New York Post asks, "Will the [New York] Times Apologize?" Will the Raleigh News and Observer apologize? Everybody is demanding that everybody apologize in this country for simply breathing. It's getting to the point some people are not allowed to breathe or exhale or make syllables, and some people who make syllables are being told they better apologize in advance and after they make those syllables. But the media seems to get a free ride here. The Reverend Jackson wants a free ride. The Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton both want a free ride. They never have to apologize because they can't be racists, folks, they're members of a minority group. Don't ever forget that this is the case. Minorities, victims, members of groups, are allowed to do anything to address their grievances and to get noticed because they're just so oppressed.

They "have no power," so they cannot act on whatever -ism they have, racism. They can't be bigots. They can't be sexists. They don't have the power to be. Racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, those things are reserved for the majority because they're the only ones that have the power. Now, here's the Reverend Jackson talking about how nekkid women, being forced to dance in front of men is "the first step toward domestic violence" and no, it's wrong and nobody should be doing it. Has anybody remembered this? Have you forgotten this? Reverend Jackson himself has fathered a "love child." This is from World Net Daily in 2001: "According to the Rev. Jesse Peterson, head of the Los Angeles-based civil rights group BOND, or Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny -- 'it is not a big surprise that Jesse Jackson has committed adultery,' and that his actions are unfortunately 'all too typical' of 'black ministers and politicians in the black community.'

And once again, we see a Limbaugh quote taken out of context. In this case, Limbaugh is clearly talking about race hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being held to a double standard, with respect to acceptable behavior. In this instance, Sharpton and Jackson were intimately involved in demonizing the Duke Lacrosse players who were eventually found innocent. Sharpton and Jackson escalated the racial issues and tension in the situation, and then were not held responsible for those actions after the accused were proven not to have committed the crimes for which they were charged.

Further, Limbaugh's comments were made in the context of the media's (and liberals', in general) presumption of guilt of the accused - even in the face of no evidence whatsoever and the accused being found innocent - simply due to the seriousness of the charge of a hate crime being committed by a white person against a black person. Limbaugh is railing aginst the hypocrisy of neither the race-baiting Sharptons and Jacksons nor the liberal media being held accountable for such actions.

Again, this statement is not inherently racist. To point out the inherent hypocrisy, double standards, and racism of another is not inherently racist.

Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side


Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.

Limbaugh is discussing Obama referring to his grandmother as a "typical white person", and is making the point that Obama, despite adulations to the contrary, does not, in fact, "transcend" race. In context here and here [emphasis added]:

RUSH: How about Obama on the radio in Philadelphia? We have the audio sound bite. Listen to this. Obama threw his grandmother under the bus at the speech on Tuesday. Then yesterday, he put the bus in reverse and ran over her.

OBAMA: The point I was making was not that my grandmother, uh, harbors, uh, any racial animosity. She doesn't, but she is a, uh, typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that -- that don't go away, and that sometimes, uh, come out in -- in the wrong way.

RUSH: "Typical white person"? What does this reveal, finally, about Obama. He is not transcendent on race. Obama is telling us that he is a black-American first, and an American second. Typical? His grandmother who raised him is a "typical white woman"? And that these kinds of inordinate fears are bred? I have a question. I wonder how white college students at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill are feeling these days? I wonder if they are nervous walking down the street when they see a couple of black boys dressed in baggy clothes with their hats on backwards swaggering toward them. I wonder how they feel. I wonder if it makes them fear that they're going to be shot in the face for their ATM cards and their PIN numbers [ed: See Eve Carson murder]. Obama, do you think there might be reasons here rather than this being inbred? Typical white woman? Obama has exposed himself...


RUSH: This Obama stuff, that stuff is serious. Opening these race wounds like this, taking us back 30, 40 years, making it look like no progress has been made, what Barack Obama has done... I'm going to say something here that might offend -- not offend, but might make some uncomfortable. But it is clear to me that there has been a major transformation in Senator Obama, and it is this. Up until the videos of the Reverend Wright showed up, Barack Obama had succeeded in transcending race, and there were a lot of people -- on the Republican side, too -- who felt really good about the guy. He was smart, well-spoken. He was competent. He was able to excite crowds. He looked young and fresh and new. Furthermore, he was black, but it didn't matter to him. He transcended race. Then the Reverend Wright stuff hits. There's no escaping this, I don't care what kind of speech you make. With average Americans... Forget the Drive-Bys. With average Americans, there's no escaping that. There's no escaping what people heard Reverend Wright say.

And if, as I have heard some Drive-By Media analysts say, most white people in America were shocked at Reverend Wright when we are told that Reverend Wright's not that common in America in terms of black churches and what he said is not that uncommon in terms of what many black Americans believe... "White America was shocked! They thought so much more progress had been made on this," and so Obama, in dealing with this, has thrown his white grandmother under the bus and then yesterday drove the bus backwards and ran over her where he threw her under the bus, by calling her "a typical white person." It is clear that... This is the stuff, this is the part that might bother some of you. It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half. He's decided he's got to go all in on the black side.

So once again, it was Obama who played the race card here, with his "typical white person" comment. Obama - who is half-black, half-white - asserts here that white people have an inbred fear or distrust of black people, while at the same time portraying himself as someone who has transcended issues of race. Limbaugh is pointing out the hypocrisy of the racially "transcendent" Obama making a derogatory racial statement toward white people. Limbaugh's obvious point is that, with his "typical white person" statement, Obama has rejected the notion of racial transcendence and is instead evoking racial stereotypes.

That Limbaugh points out Obama's racial hypocrisy in no way implies that Limbaugh himself is racist.

Quotes In Which Satire Is Taken Out of Context

Several of these quotes are out of context, taken from comments in which Limbaugh is clearly using satire in order to make some point.

Barack the Magic Negro

Perhaps the most visible of these is the imfamous "Barack The Magic Negro":

Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings “Barack, The Magic Negro.”

As Limbaugh explains, the reference to Obama as the "magic negro" originates with an LA Times op-ed piece, which includes the following:

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro.

He's there to assuage white "guilt"...


The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

The title of that op-ed piece? Obama The Magic Negro.

Rush absolutely excoriated this op-ed piece, and exposed it for what it is: liberal-left racism. In a later segment that same day, Limbaugh mentioned that the story gave him the idea for a new song [bold emphasis added]:

...The whole point of this piece is to accuse white people of being racist.

They don't really like Obama. They don't really like black people. They feel guilty about what this country's done to black people. So they support Barack because he's the, quote, unquote, "magic negro." This is the same newspaper that has run a couple of stories on Is Obama black enough? This prompted a drive-by caller, Dan from Fruitport, Michigan, to suggest that the Democrats, since they feel so bad about this, should offer black credits to somebody like Obama, who is not black enough in the eyes of the LA Times and other liberals. So he can go out there and buy black credits, like Gore offsets his carbon use with carbon credits. Obama, "the magic negro," could offset his lack of blackness with black credits. He could then say he's down for the struggle and that he has roots in the civil rights movement. Reverend Sharpton is upset, Obama, where were you when we marched for justice in Selma? and so forth. So clearly it's just remarkable to continue to witness the actual racism that exists on the left, using the term "magic negro" to apply to you white people who are supporting Obama.

I was singing a song in my head here during the break, "Barack the magic negro," doo doo doo doo. [Puff the Magic Dragon tune] Uh-oh, Dawn is shaking her head on that.

Some time later, Limbaugh introduced this parody by songwriter Paul Shanklin, sung as an impersonation of a bullhorn-weilding Al Sharpton to the tune of Puff The Magic Dragon:

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's not authentic like me.

Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They'll vote for him, and not for me
'Cause he's not from the hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
Or me, or Farrakhan
Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!

Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's black, but not authentically.

(repeat Refrain)

Some say Barack's "articulate"
And bright and new and "clean"
The media sure loves this guy,
A white interloper's dream!

But, when you vote for president,
Watch out, and don't be fooled!
Don't vote the Magic Negro in
'Cause... (music stops, Sharpton rants, music returns)

(background vocalists repeat refrain & finish song)

Now, the first clue for the clueless (i.e. every liberal who castigates Limbaugh without ever having listened to his radio program) is that we are discussing a Paul Shanklin song. Hint: every Paul Shanklin song ever played on the Rush Limbaugh Show is a satirical parody of some form or another.

The obvious point of this parody is to expose the racism of the left - such as the LA Times op-ed piece, Joe Biden calling Obama "clean" and "articulate", lyrics of liberal artists such as Snoop Dogg, and liberal white guilt - as well as to lampoon the race-baiting practices of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. Limbaugh explains:

Well, I didn't say it in so many terms, but I pretty much excoriated them. I hope you heard that. These people are racists. You know, the racists in our society, Ted, are these white liberals. They're the ones that notice your skin color before anything else, and they're the ones deciding whose skin color is dark enough and therefore who's authentic enough and who's been down for the struggle. It's those people doing this. It's not me. It's not "talk radio."

And one final contextual comment from Limbaugh, when discussing the parody on a later date [emphasis added]:

Well, I can tell you think the term negro is inappropriate, that it's old hat and shouldn't be used, that it's divisive and this sort of thing, and you may have a point, but remember what we do on this program. We illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and the other element of this is that Sharpton has been quoted in the New York Post as being jealous that Obama is getting all this support as a black presidential candidate. Remember, Joe Biden said, "Hey, we got the first clean, articulate, intelligent black guy running for president." How do you think this makes Sharpton feel? He's run for president twice. How do you think it's going to make the Reverend Jackson feel? So the story was that there's a little jealousy out there. So, these two things just fit together. It was like a harmonic convergence here on this, Uriah. Now that you know the context and the details, let's listen together to Al Sharpton and "Barack the Magic Negro."

So, clearly, Limbaugh isn't expressing racist beliefs, but rather is exposing the racist beliefs, words, and actions of others.

African American Survivor tribe worst swimmers, Hispanics will do things other people won't

Next, Limbaugh on Survivor pitting racial tribes against one another:

“African-American tribe” worst swimmers, Hispanics “will do things other people won’t do.”

Here's Limbaugh's intro to his discussion of the Survivor season in which contestants were split into racially segregated tribes, as transcribed from Media Matters audio:

The new Survivor is actually a race between races, ladies and gentlemen. It premieres on September 14th. They are going to pit four tribes of people against each other - the African-American tribe, the Asian-American tribe, the Hispanic tribe, and the White tribe - and they are going to actually have a battle of races on the next Survivor. They know that it's going to be controversial, they know it's - and people at CBS behind the scenes who just heard about this just sort of scratch their heads, "what the hell are we doing? What are we going to... the swimming portion; how is that going to be fair?"

The above-referenced "quote" is taken from the after-break continuation. The entire transcript is available, but here's the pertinent context [emphasis added]:

I don't know how many people still watch this show. I guess quite a few because it's still on the air. You might cause riots on this show, or in the country as a result of this show. But here are the tribes: the African-American tribe, the Asian-American tribe, the Hispanic tribe, and the White tribe. Now, of these four tribes, just off the top of your head, who do you think has the advantage? Who do you think here is going to win? Do you think it's going to be the white tribe, the Hispanic tribe, the African-American tribe, or the Asian-American tribe? We've been looking at this here amongst ourselves, and our early money is going on the Hispanic tribe, providing they stay unified. We don't know who makes up the...

I mean, we got the names here of all these members of the tribes, but Hispanic encompasses a lot. You could have a Cuban in there. You could have a Nicaraguan. You could have a Mexican or two. You could have any number -- and, you know, if they start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves, that could lead to problems. But our early money is on them anyway because these people have shown a remarkable ability, ladies and gentlemen, to cross borders, boundaries, they get anywhere they want to go, they can do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do. So our money, early money is on the Hispanics. The white tribe, I have to tell you, I don't have a lot of hope in the white tribe.

The Asian-American tribe probably will outsmart everybody, but will that help 'em in the ultimate survival contest? Intelligence is one thing, but raw native understanding of the land and so forth, this is probably why the Native Americans were excluded because they were at one with the land here, and they probably would have an unfair advantage. The African-American tribe, it's tough to handicap on this one. You know, there are many characteristics here that you would think would give them the lead and the heads up in terms of skill and athleticism and so forth. The Asians, as I say, the brainiacs of the bunch. The Hispanic tribe, they've probably shown the most survival characteristics of any (interruption).

Well, what are you shaking your head about for? Well, I don't know that CBS is going to let them get away with that. We were talking about the white tribe. We were speculating among ourselves that if the white tribe behaves as it historically has, they will bring along vials of diseases, they will end up oppressing the other groups. They will deny them benefits, deny them their property, steal it from them and put 'em on some kind of a benefit program. The white tribe will put everybody on some kind of a benefit program but the benefit program, of course, will not be enough. There will be no education. The white tribe will not allow any health care except for themselves.

Without further impugning the intelligence (their own reaction does so sufficiently, anyway) of those who claim that Limbaugh's comments here are racist, one would have a difficult time trying to explain how these comments are anything but satire. Limbaugh is clearly demonstrating the absurdity of CBS segregating the Survivor tribes by race. To wit [ibid]:

So you look at this, you say, "Here we are, we live in a society where we're not supposed to cause racial friction. We've been getting away from this. So we're all one. We're all the same." This is incredible. Now we've got the Survivor series segregating contestants into tribes, not even groups. We're calling them tribes!

Limbaugh takes a liberal caller, and further proves his point [ibid]:

CALLER: Right. I like the way you play around with that and what you do is you tease the racism card throughout this nation right now, and instead of trying to elevate it and say you know what -- and say, you know, hold on --

RUSH: Look at this! I am playing the racism card!

CALLER: You know it.

RUSH: I'm telling you what a major network is doing in its prime-time schedule. They're pitting races against each other in this stupid Survivor format and you're telling me I'm being racist.


CALLER: The potential controversy is that they separated the races. No one ever said that they expect any particular race to do better than the other. You presume that --

RUSH: Tony!

CALLER: -- they separate the races and people will presume that.

RUSH: Tony? The show is about one tribe being better than the other three. It is a contest! It is a competition. That's precisely the purpose and the format. You say nobody talks about anybody being the best. That's what's so interesting about this. They're pitting races against races to see who's better as a race at surviving anybody else. It's not individuals, Tony. It's races.


RUSH: This is incredible. The show (Laughing.) Tony, I love you. You are so great to illustrate to this audience what liberals are like. Here we've got the show that's going to be committing all the offense, you are waiting for it to end for me to comment on who the winner is for there to be any racism involved in it. I am the racist. I didn't conceive of this. Imagine if I had. Imagine if this were an EIB production that CBS bought. (Laughing.) Or, better yet, imagine if this were an EIB production that ESPN bought and co-produced with CBS...

And it is in the exchange with this caller that the African-Americans-are-bad-swimmers thing comes up [ibid]:

RUSH: ...Now, I want to address one thing. I heard you, Tony. You accused me in a sly way of being racist by making comments about who would win the swimming competition.

I know what you're saying. You're saying I'm being racist. You're saying I'm being racist because I'm saying blacks can't swim. I have here a story, and I read this recently. It's from HealthDay News. "One of the largest studies of its kind confirms that young blacks, especially males, are much more likely to drown in pools than whites. In fact, almost half of all recorded drowning deaths among people aged five to 24 are among blacks, according to the study in the April issue of the American Journal of Public opinion. Blacks are especially likely to drown in motel and hotel pools, while whites tend to drown in private pools." Now, I mentioned the swimming comment only because since this is known this is not going to be fair if there's a lot of water competition in this. It just isn't. It is not a racial or racist comment at all. It's an example of how we're so tightly wound that I, by no stretch, am the first person to reference these studies and these facts. At any rate, Tony, I'm glad you called. I'm glad you held on.

Once again, a Limbaugh quote is taken out of context in order to give the appearance that Limbaugh believes exactly the opposite of what he believes. Limbaugh is clearly condemning the absurd decision to pit Survivor tribes against each other on the basis of race. He is using absurdity - in the form of all manner of absurd racial stereotypes - to demonstrate the absurdity of the overt racism inherent in the very decision to format the show in such a manner. Once again, this quote demonstrates no racism on the part of Limbaugh.

Limbaugh declares basketball “the favorite sport of gangs”


Limbaugh declares basketball “the favorite sport of gangs.”

And here it is in context [emphasis added]:

CALLER: Exactly. And this is really ticking me off because we were just talking about this last night. And they're wanting to pass a one cent sales tax in addition to all the other times they've done it.

RUSH: No, no, don't tell me! They're going to raise the sales tax to fight youth violence?


RUSH: And gang violence?

CALLER: Well, that's what they're trying to do. It's going up for a vote in November.

RUSH: So it's a "funding" problem?


RUSH: We're not spending enough somehow to prevent this.

CALLER: (giggling)

RUSH: Well, what is the prevention of gang violence act going to do? How are we going to spend that money? When you want to go out and prevent violence what do you spend money on?

CALLER: Well, I don't know what they've spent it on before. Because apparently it goes... I was told last night that it will go basically into some general fund, which then I guess the state can get hold on of some of it. It is really... I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be on the situation.

RUSH: No, no. Ah, ah, ah, I do not want a member of this audience insulting her own intelligence. I will not put up with that. You are smarter than you know. You just... It's not reasonable that you should understand the insanity that local and state and federal bureaucracies are doing. It's perfectly normal and understandable that none of what they do would make sense to you. My question: Okay, a one cent sales tax to "fight gang violence." What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? (interruption) After school...? Don't we already have after-school programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call them -- extracurricular events? Midnight basketball. We've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs and we've put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court. We had a hundred thousand new cops with Clinton. We've done it all, and the problem still is out of control. Liberalism doesn't work. I'm going to tell you what. If they're going to raise the sales tax in this little town Salinas, California, wherever you're talking about it. They're going to raise a one cent sales tax to handle gang violence then the money ought to go to the purchase of bulletproof vests for the law-abiding citizens when they leave their home.

Limbaugh here is referencing President Clinton's Midnight Basketball initiative - and, ironically, it was Clinton himself who first equated gangs and basketball, indicating that midnight basketball would provide a positive alternative to "the guns, the gangs, and the drugs" that were at the heart of urban violence [emphasis added]:

No issue poses the need to come together more to deal with the problems that we face than does the cancer of crime and violence that is eating away at the bonds that unite us as a people. I saw it again this week when I visited a housing project in Chicago called Robert Taylor Homes.

I went there once 3 years ago, so I'm pretty familiar with all the wonderful people who live there, the good things they're trying to do, and the terrible problems they face from violence and guns and drugs. I went there because it's a good place to emphasize to all Americans that we have begun a nationwide effort to drive the guns, the gangs, and the drugs from public housing and from all neighborhoods where Americans feel terrorized. I wanted to underscore how important it is to empower our people to take back their homes, their streets, and their schools wherever they live. Unless we do something about crime, we can't be really free in this country, we can't exercise the opportunities that are there for us, and our children can't inherit the American dream.

Now, our administration and the Congress must do our job on crime so that the American people can do their job in the communities where they live. We have waited 5 long years, through partisan and political gridlock, for a crime bill that will address the growing crisis. That's long enough. The crime bill, which has now passed both Houses of Congress, but which must be reconciled into one bill and passed one more time, does provide us with the tools we need to help prevent and punish crime.


But providing more police and tougher punishment isn't enough. We have to deter crime where it starts. This proposal also gives people something to say yes to. It provides jobs for thousands of young people from high-crime neighborhoods, particularly those who stay in school, off drugs, and out of trouble. It gives funds to keep schools open after hours. It adds support for boys and girls clubs, for community activities like midnight basketball. It builds better partnerships between our police and our young people.

Limbaugh was talking about the failure of such initiatives to curb urban violence. Referring to basketball as the "favorite sport of gangs" is clearly a satirical comment intended to criticize the absurdity of thinking that gang activity and violence would somehow be curbed by providing basketball as an alternative.

Once again, there is nothing racist whatsoever in Limbaugh's statement. Limbaugh is satirically criticizing liberalism.

Democrats’ interest in Darfur is securing black “voting bloc”


Limbaugh says Democrats’ interest in Darfur is securing black “voting bloc.”

Here are Limbaugh's comments in context [emphasis added]:

CALLER: Hey, Rush, it's great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I've been listening to you for a couple years now and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned, I know, and I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren't we going to end up in a quagmire there? I don't understand. Can you enlighten me on that?

RUSH: Yeah, you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is certainly not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?


RUSH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc they're in trouble.

CALLER: Yes, the black population.

RUSH: Right. So you go into Darfur, and you go into South Africa. You get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela, who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia, do the same thing.

CALLER: I can't believe it's really that simple.

RUSH: Well, see, I knew you couldn't believe it. But here's one that's even going to be harder to believe, and it is even more truthful. Could you tell me what vital national interest is at stake in Darfur?

CALLER: I don't know.

RUSH: Nothing. Zilch, zero, nada. Darfur is not attacking us. Darfur has not said they want to attack us. Clinton sent the US military off to Bosnia. No US national interests at stake there. The liberals will use the military as a Meals on Wheels program. They'll send 'em out to help with tsunami victims, but you put the military in a position of defending US national interests, and that's when Democrats and liberals oppose it.

CALLER: Right. Terrorists have attacked us, and our oil supply comes from Iraq and Iran and the Middle East, and yet that's not worth defending.

RUSH: Exactly right. You've got it. Now you just have to believe your own instincts from here on out.

Once again, Media Matters fails to grasp the concept of satire. In this instance, Limbaugh's satire is directed at Democrats, who incessantly intoned that the Iraq war was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", and that the U.S. had no national security interests there, and that we were there in a "war for oil". Limbaugh is demonstrating the absurdity of these assertions by providing equally absurd reasons for the country's interest in Darfur.

Do try to keep up, Media Matters.

There is no racism here. Limbaugh is using the tried-and-true method of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. He is using satire; not racism.

If “feminazis” had remembered to oppose “affirmative action for black guys … they wouldn’t face the situation they face today.”


Limbaugh says that if “feminazis” had remembered to oppose “affirmative action for black guys … they wouldn’t face the situation they face today.”

This comment comes in the midst of Limbaugh discussing the racist and sexist undertones of the heated primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton. Here are Limbaugh's comments in context [emphasis added]:

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, is suggesting that Republicans may cheat Barack Obama in November. Brad Wilmouth at NewsBusters.org website has this. Republicans are going to cheat Obama. The racism, the sexism, the misogyny, all of the irregularities are occurring in the Democrat primary. All of these exit polls, people saying they're not going to vote for Obama, not going to elect a black president, these are Democrats that are saying this. Hillary's supporters are saying if she loses they're not voting Obama, vice-versa. These are Democrats saying this. You know, it's getting bad for NBC. MSNBC, NBC, they're working in the same building out at 30 Rock. I think it would be better off if everybody at NBC just put on the official Democrat Party insignia, screw the American flag lapel pin and just put on a donkey. You know, the women can wear a donkey brooch, the male reporters could put a donkey little lapel pin in their suit jackets and just make it official here. They're just the house organ of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party: racist and sexist. I mean, that's what you take away from listening to Obama and Hillary.


But there is so much anger out there among Hillary Clinton's feminist voters, exactly as I predicted, we've got audio sound bites today to prove this and to back it up. They have huge problems. They're not going to pull the nomination away from him. They don't have the guts, and they don't have the courage to do that. But Mrs. Clinton's not getting out of this, and I heard somebody with a good analogy. In the world of sports, a football game, if you're down by 20 points with three minutes left in the fourth quarter, you don't quit, you play the game out, baseball, any sport you want to name, you don't quit until the game's officially over. But here these NBC Democrat Party reporters, everybody else in the Drive-By Media is telling Mrs. Clinton to get out, and she is not going to do it. We'll have the audio sound bites to back up all of this, and finally the Clinton campaign taking the advice of me, Rush Limbaugh, the commander-in-chief of US Operation Chaos on how to deal with Florida and Michigan. Both Howard Wolfson, Terry McAuliffe, The Punk, and even Mrs. Clinton herself spouting verbatim in some cases advice I gave them back on May the 7th two weeks ago.

And continuing, as transcribed by Media Matters: [emphasis added]

You know, the feminazis forgot one thing. Well, one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.

They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. And it's -- one of the things is affirmative action is exactly -- it's, you know, liberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. There's no question, the way he is being treated by the drive-bys and so forth and so on. The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed.

So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today.

Limbaugh isn't expressing racist beliefs here. He is satirically drawing attention to the racist and sexist undertones of the democratic primary between Obama and Clinton. Another clue to the uninformed: any time Limbaugh uses the term feminazi, he is using satire. Limbaugh is satirically referencing the Clinton supporters who are angry that Clinton has fallen so far behind in the primary race. There is no racism here.

Illegal immigrants an “invasive species.”

Next, in reference to a "federal court ruling that prohibited shipping boats from dumping of ballast water containing "invasive species," including some types of mollusks, into U.S. waters":

Limbaugh called illegal immigrants an “invasive species.”

I can't find an independent transcript. Here are Limbaugh's comments in context, as transcribed from Media Matters:

So invasive species like mollusks and spermatozoa are not good, and we've got a federal judge say, "You can't bring it in here," but invasive species in the form of illegal immigration is fine and dandy -- bring 'em on, as many as possible, legalize them wherever we can, wherever they go, no matter what they clog up. So we're going to break the bank; we're going to bend over backwards. The federal judiciary is going to do everything it can to stop spermatozoa and mollusks from coming in, but other invasive species? We're supposed to bend over and grab the ankles and say, "Deal with it." Well, the mollusks may be brought in against their will. My point is they don't know where they are, and they, frankly, don't care. So if you ship them out -- but we can't ship 'em out. It's not that we can't ship 'em out. We're not going to be able to bring 'em in now, but invasive species that, say, on their own power and of their own desire and volition cross the border and come here, we can't say diddly-squat about it.

The satire here is as dripping as it is obvious. Limbaugh is relating this federal court decision regarding "invasive species" to the general inaction at the federal level (in both the judiciary and the executive branches) to deal with illegal immigration. The satirical juxtaposition is fairly savvy. Consider the definition of "invasive species":

An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is

  1. non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and
  2. whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Invasive species can be plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions.

The satire here is obvious. There is no racist intent whatsoever.

Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he’d known they were “actually young, black Muslim teenagers”


Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he’d known they were “actually young, black Muslim teenagers.”

Here are Limbaugh's comments in context [emphasis added]:

You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

They were kids. The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That's the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.

Limbaugh then proceeds to discuss the liberal take on the situation, including David Gergen suggesting that Obama can't send in the military to wipe out the pirate havens in Somalia because it would undermine his outreach efforts to Muslims [ibid]:

GERGEN: The natural temptation is to want to go in with military force and clean out those nests of pirates and just demolish them for even touching an American in the way they did, but there are some complications. Anderson, in his case this is complicated by his diplomatic outreach to Muslims. He's done a good job laying the groundwork, reaching out in Turkey as we saw a few days ago. If he over-responds to this, if he uses force against Muslims in what seems an excessive way, it could totally undercut his own efforts.

And also Al Sharpton calling the pirates "voluntary coast guard" [ibid]:

SHARPTON: The so-called pirates, they call themselves voluntary Coast Guard in Somalia, which may be more apt.

It is Sharpton's statement that prompts Limbaugh to refer to the Somali pirates satirically as "community organizers" and "merchant marine organizers" [ibid]:

Well, there you have it, from one of America's true leaders of the civil rights movement, the black community, they're not even pirates. They are voluntary coast guards. So in fact what we have here, according to the Reverend Sharpton, these young kids, black Muslim kids, three of which were ordered shot by President Obama on Sunday afternoon, they're just a voluntary Coast Guard trying to protect Somalia, they're just patrolling off the coast of Somalia as sort of a voluntary National Guard, so-called pirates, they're not really pirates, according to reverend Sharpton. He's confirming me, Mr. Snerdley. Don't look so incredulous. They're just community organizers and they have decided to organize out on the high seas as a means of protecting their beloved country, is all this is about.

Limbaugh then takes a caller who points out that the hijacked ship was on a mercy mission to Somalia and Kenya [ibid]:

CALLER: Good to talk to you again, Rush. It's been years. Listen, as I understand it and as I'm reading here on the Internet, this ship that was attacked by the Somali pirates was carrying food aid to Somalia. Well, you know, how about treating Somalia, much of sub-Saharan Africa, like one would treat a strangler vine. If it becomes a problem, simply stop watering it.

RUSH: It is true that the ship was delivering food. It was on a mercy mission to some Muslims. You might be right it was to Somalia, and much of sub-Saharan Africa.

CALLER: Yeah, it was Kenya and Somalia.

Limbaugh then returns to his point regarding the media double-standard in treatment of Obama versus treatment of a Republican president [ibid]:

RUSH: Well, you know, Kenya, there's a bunch of Obama relatives that live there. He's got his brother, George Onyango who lives in the hut, and we learned last week, and I did not mention this. But we learned last week that he's got another half-brother who's been charged with sexual assault or something.

CALLER: In England.

RUSH: Can you imagine if a family member of George W. Bush had been charged with sexual assault.

Limbaugh then explains the liberal worldview that places the U.S. at fault for such things as this pirate hijacking [ibid]:

RUSH: Well, it was on a mercy mission, but the Somali merchant marine organizers are out for ransom money.

CALLER: Well, it appears to me to be anti-Darwinian to be feeding our enemy. Simply cut 'em off and let evolution take its course.

RUSH: No, you don't understand. You don't understand. I'm glad you called and said this to give me the opportunity to explain. We don't have enemies. Well, we have enemies, but we have enemies because of us. We have made them our enemies by being a superpower, by having such a big military, by having such a big economy, by having so much prosperity, by having so much freedom, by feeding the world, by outperforming every other civilization in the history of human existence. We are the problem. We have only been able to do this, you see, by stealing from the Somalis and stealing from the Kenyans. We have stolen all of the resources of the world to use ourselves in a selfish effort to make ourselves bigger than anybody else. And so it is guilt that forces us to send food and good wishes to our enemies like this. This is the way the left thinks. Remember, the United States is the problem in the world.

The US military is the problem in the world. The United States has created all this strife, and since we're ones... It's just like domestically, the rich are only rich because they've taken what's not theirs from the poor -- who never had anything in the first place, but still, they say that the poor is poor because everything that was theirs was taken from them. Same thing exists in the world. Kenya is poor and Somalia is poor because we, the United States, for over 200 years have raped the world of its resources. This is what liberals think. We're guilty! To be an American is to be guilty, and so of course we're going to send ships and the military around the world on Meals on Wheels programs. And we have to understand. That's why I'm stunned that President Obama did this. If he knew that it was just three black Muslim teenagers in that pirate ship that were gunned down... Again, you let George Bush's Navy gun down three black teenagers out there in the open seas, and I guarantee there would be hell to pay and war crimes trials.

Once again, Limbaugh's point is to excoriate the liberal worldview that America is evil, and the media double standard in their treatment of Obama versus their treatment of a Republican president.

Limbaugh then makes his statement regarding "if only Obama had known" [ibid]:

I stand corrected. I'm using the guidance provided for me by Victor from Boca Raton, Florida, the Russian caller. If only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers are actually young black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot. That's the correct way to look at it: If only Obama had known. Okay. So it's no big deal.

Note Limbaugh's statement that he is "using the guidance" provided by Victor. That reference is critical in understanding Limbaugh saying "if only Obama had known" [emphasis added]:

CALLER: Yeah. Well, Mr. Limbaugh, you mentioned earlier in the show a very, very important point, which I don't know how many people appreciate. When you were talking about who actually is behind this, and of course as usual, a hundred percent right. It's Obama and Napolitano basically is someone who is a figurehead. And that also reminded me how, back in the old days the Soviet Union, in the early days when Stalin was around, and my parents had to live through this, there was the same situation where all kinds of atrocities were taking place, people used to talk, and my parents told me that, if only Stalin knew what's happening, if only --

RUSH: Yeah, right.

CALLER: And this is exactly what's happening, people saying, "Well, maybe Obama doesn't --"

RUSH: If only Obama knew. If only Obama knew.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: (laughing) Obama is the driving force.

The caller, Victor, is drawing a similarity between Stalin and Obama, and the reaction of those living underneath to various atrocities committed while each was in power: "if only Stalin knew"; "if only Obama knew". His point - which he explicitly states - is of course they knew, because they are the driving forcce.

So, Limbaugh's point is of course Obama knew that he was ordering the death of "young black Muslim teenagers". And he is making this statement in the context of discussing the double standard in the media - discussing how the media would have reacted if a Republican president had ordered the military to shoot black teenagers on the high seas.

Limbaugh is criticizing the media and the liberal worldview. This criticism implies no racism on the part of Limbaugh.

Quotes In Which Limbaugh's Criticism of Obama is Wrongly Attributed to Racism

Several of these quotes represent Limbaugh's criticism of Obama being wrongly attributed to racism.

Obama's entire economic program is reparations


Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.

Limbaugh is discussing Al Sharpton's radio program, on which Sharpton is defending Obama against callers who are complaining that Obama wasn't keeping his campaign promises for economic retributions. Here is Limbaugh's entire statement:

What's happening here, folks, is kind of fascinating. The whole point here is that Sharpton's audience in his radio talk show is getting on him because they don't think Obama is sufficiently down for the struggle. He hasn't talked about reparations, what they want, this kind of stuff. And Sharpton is saying, "Yeah, I told you so," but he's defending Obama because Obama never promised the stuff people thought they were going to get. These people really thought Obama was going to get them out of their bad houses and get them into new cars and maybe new dishwashers and so forth. It didn't happen. They want reparations. What they don't know is that Obama's entire economic program is reparations! If I were Sharpton, if I'd been guest hosting Sharpton's show and I got a call like that, somebody complaining, I'd say, "Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhhh. Let me tell you the truth here. Everything in the stimulus plan, every plan he's got is reparations. He gonna take from the rich. He's going to take from the rich and he's going to give it to you. It just can't happen overnight. Be patient." It's redistribution of wealth, reparations, "returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners," whatever you want to call it. It's reparations.

Limbaugh is clearly talking here about the so-called Stimulus package. So, the question is: does Obama believe in these concepts? Does Obama believe in redistribution and reparations? Does the Stimulus package represent such redistribution?

The answer is, unequivocally, yes.

Obama adheres (for what other conclusion can one reach regarding someone who sat in Wright's church for twenty years?) to the Black Liberation Theology of Jeremiah Wright and his ilk - a "theology" that preaches Jesus must love black people only, not white people, because the latter have oppressed the former. Black Liberation Theology is nothing more than rehashed marxism, and pushes the redistribution of wealth from rich white people to poor black people. Obama himself admitted his intention to redistribute wealth in his unintentionally candid remark to Joe the Plumber during his campaign.

But what do any of those beliefs have to do with the Stimulus package, about which Limbaugh was speaking? Quite simply, the Stimulus package represented little more than egregious redistribution of wealth via welfare and other social programs, instead of the job-creation bill it was purported to be:

Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care.

By comparison, about 15 percent of the money is for transportation, including airports, highways and rail projects, according to Federal Funds Information for States, a service of the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Overall, two-thirds of the stimulus program will go toward tax cuts, relief for state budgets and direct payments to the unemployed and others hurt by the recession, part of the administration's desire to provide immediate fiscal relief. Much smaller pieces of the pie will be allocated for weatherization, affordable housing and other projects designed to create jobs.

Here's the breakdown of Stimulus spending and another for Stimulus tax changes. Draw your own conclusions, but I see $37 billion going directly to individual relief, $58 billion going directly to state government relief, $48 billion going to education, $41 billion going to energy (of which some $9 billion appears to fund actual construction/labor jobs), $19 billion to health care, $14 billion to sci-tech, $98 billion to transportation (of which some $27 billion funds actual infrastructure construction). So, altogether, out of an almost $800 billion package, about $36 billion - or less than five percent - goes directly to "shovel-ready" job creation.

So Limbaugh's argument that the Stimulus is a massive wealth redistribution program is demonstrably true. Making this argument is not racist.

Obama "more African in his roots" and "behaving like an African colonial despot"


Obama is “more African in his roots than he is American” and is “behaving like an African colonial despot.”

Boy, this one sounds just awful, doesn't it? Damning, even. Except (oops!) Limbaugh is quoting and discussing an American Thinker article by first-generation Nigerian-American L.E. Ikenga [emphasis added]:

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.

Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.


My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel...

First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious...

...Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.

The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).


The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.

Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.

Clearly, it is L.E. Ikenga who introduces the notion that Obama identifies more with his father's political ideology than with American/Western political ideology, and that Obama is behaving like an African Colonial.

Limbaugh read the article in its entirety. Here are Limbaugh's subsequent comments in context [emphasis added]:

I share all this with you because she's nailed who the guy is. Americans look at Obama, first black president, and they go, "Oh we're shedding some of our guilt here. Look at how enlightened we are, what a great country we are," when in fact we've elected somebody who is more African in his roots than he is American. Loves his father who was a Marxist, and is behaving like an African colonial despot and you can see it in his healthcare legislation, the stimulus bill, taking over automobile companies, the czars that he has that are not accountable to anybody but him and now the climate bill. All of this is about nothing other than the acquisition of power and the ability to further regulate your privacy and behavior.

So, Limbaugh is just equating Obama's policies and agenda with Ikenga's portrayal of Obama as an African Colonial. Given that both the African Colonial politician's policies and Obama's policies clearly demonstrate Marxist/socialist ideology, the portrayal fits - as Limbaugh indicates. Pointing out this article by Ikenga and explaining how it is true in no way demonstrates racism on behalf of Limbaugh.

Obama “wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya” and “wants to be the black FDR.”


Obama “wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya” and “wants to be the black FDR.”

We'll take them one at a time. Regarding the former, here are Limbaugh's comments in context (as transcribed from Media Matters audio:

I think I finally figured it out folks. I think I finally figured out why it is that Obama's pushing so hard on this health care bill. He just wants us to... have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya.

Anyone listening to Limbaugh with even a modicum of intelligence or common sense understands that this statement is satire. This statement is typical, one-off Limbaugh satire. Just as Limbaugh didn't elaborate, nothing should be read into the statement. It is satire, period.

Even if it weren't satire, it still wouldn't be racist. There is nothing inherently racist about referencing time that Obama spent in Kenya, or referencing his family that still live in squalor in Kenya (which Limbaugh does frequently, usually to demonstrate Obama's hypocrisy in various statements and positions).

As for the latter statement:

And look, you know, economic anxiety is necessary if you want to become the next black FDR, which is... well, the black FDR, that's what he wants. He wants to be the black FDR, the next FDR. And FDR fed off of economic anxiety. I'm telling you - Obama - if he was concerned about all of the pain and suffering in everyday life, nah, he wouldn't be doing anything like what he's doing. The whole point of the plan here, it hasn't changed. The whole plan is to get you so upset, so angst - so filld with angst - with no future, no food, no nothing that you will accept any government fix offered as a solution.

Limbaugh elaborates on the Obama-FDR connection the following day [emphasis added]:

In the meantime, folks, this is terribly serious now. Future deficits upgraded by the White House to nine trillion, the Congressional Budget Office to seven trillion. It doesn't matter. Seven trillion, nine trillion, it doesn't matter. We don't have it. This is going to be devastating to our economy. Hyperinflation is something Senator Charles Grassley is warning about now unless the fed gets its arms around monetary policy. Even if they do that with this much debt and this much borrowing I don't know how you stave off hyperinflation. Grassley is worried about the hyperinflation that he saw during the 1980s, but then in headline: "Obama Vows Further Deficit Cutting?" When are these people in the media going to understand this is not a game? On the very day that the White House announces $7 trillion in new deficit debt, they essentially do a stenography story: "The Obama White House on Tuesday reiterated its projection that the recession will end in the second half of 2009 and said that President Obama plans to take further steps to reduce the deficit in next year's budget. The White House Office of Management and Budget mid-session review --" by the way, this is why they didn't want any of this news coming out in August.

This is why they wanted health care done in August. This is why they wanted cap and trade done early. "Obama Vows Further Deficit Cutting." This is classic. He talks the conservative game; he talks the experience of the American consumer using free market terms and lingo while spending this nation into debt that we may never get out of. Here's the thing that you have to remember about this. I got an instant message today from a friend earlier this morning about all this just appalled at how this is going to totally screw up the Obama plan and so forth. And here's the truth. None of this, be it seven trillion, be it nine trillion, none of this is bad news for Obama, as far as his plans and intentions are concerned. His plan is to wreck the private sector. His plan is to totally deplete it. Transfer as much wealth from the private sector to the government sector as he can. This is why this is serious stuff and it's why this is dangerous. He wants to be the black FDR. If you go back and look at some of FDR's fireside chats you'll see FDR did the same thing, talked a big, big conservative game but was out there ripping private businesses and enterprises all to shreds as the big demons, as the big villains.

He's talking a good free enterprise game, Obama is, all the while destroying it. That's what you can never forget, folks. I know this sounds controversial to say, but there is no other way around it. Nobody, nobody who wanted to lift the private sector would be doing anything that they're doing, not one thing...

So Limbaugh is clearly comparing the economic and socialist policies of FDR and Obama, and indicating that both intentionally used economic anxiety to implement sweeping socialist agendas. Limbaugh is saying that Obama is intentionally emulating FDR in these actions.

Other Quotes Taken Out of Context or Otherwise Not Racist

Other quotes are taken out of context or simply misinterpreted to appear racist.

NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips


Limbaugh says “NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips.”

Here are Limbaugh's comments in context [emphasis added]:

To set the table for people who do not know, after the Chargers and Patriots game, the Chargers sitting around moping, all depressed, because they had the game won, it was just all kinds of stupid mistakes, and let me tell you what happened. Some of the Patriots went to midfield where the Chargers logo is and started doing an imitation of a victory dance done by Chargers player Shawne Merriman after he sacks a quarterback. Now, here are the Chargers who have lost a game they should have won, who lost a game precisely because of the same kind of behavior they're ripping the Patriots for, and LaDainian Tomlinson says that was classless, (paraphrasing) “We went in there, we beat them twice on their field and we didn't disrespect them. This obviously comes from the head coach," meaning Belichick. LaDainian Tomlinson was accusing Belichick of ordering his players and creating a culture that would make it okay for players to go on the field and taunt and so forth and so on.

Now, LaDainian Tomlinson to me is the classiest player in the National Football League. He doesn't do a dance, he doesn't spike the ball when he scores. He and Marvin Harrison are the two most classy individuals playing in the National Football League today, in skill positions. They just hand the ball back to the referee. They act like they've been there and done that, like scoring a touchdown is no big deal, they don't taunt, they don’t act like they've been dissed or any of this. Let me tell you, the Chargers would not have lost that game were it not for a bunch of -- I gotta be very careful here. It's not just irresponsible, but there is a cultural problem in the NFL that has resulted in a total lack of class on the part of professional players.

There was a play where Brady was third and long, he was sacked, fumbled the ball, the Patriots recovered it, it will be fourth and long, forcing an interesting decision late in the game by the Patriots. After the play is over, a Chargers player gets in the face of a Patriots player, head butts him and starts jawing. This is the reason these guys are getting shot in bars, folks, late at night. Fifteen-yard penalty, automatic first down. So for the Chargers to complain about the lack of class by the Patriots, I found laughable. I think something ought to be done about it, because I love the game of football, and I don't like the kind of culture that's taking over, that "you can't diss me, you can't disrespect me." After every sack, players are acting like they've won the Super Bowl, and they're prancing around with these idiotic dances. The latest thing is to act like they’re making a jump shot in basketball. It's all done to taunt; it's all done to taunt the other team's fans.
I don't want boring football. I don't want the no-fun league, but you can certainly have great football games without a lack of class.
I don't know how it's been allowed to happen this way. I guess the coaches don't feel confident to continue -- this was very rare for the Patriots to act the way they did, and who knows what led to it. I don't think of Belichick as that kind of coach, but Tomlinson's words reverberated around the league. A lot of people said, “I'm glad he said something, because Belichick is getting away here with an image that he doesn't deserve.” I've played golf with Belichick; he's a mild-mannered, soft-spoken man. I even saw him at a cocktail party here in Palm Beach before dinner one night. That whole organization to me exudes class, as does Tom Brady, and you don't see them doing this kind of stuff.

One of the reasons the Pittsburgh Steelers had trouble this year was a total lack of discipline, in addition to all their turnovers, total lack of discipline, 15-yard penalties, unnecessary roughness, taunting after plays are over, after successful defensive stands, they blow it. There's something culturally wrong here that is leading to all this. It’s gotta be dealt with at the top, because it simply is classless. I can I understand LaDainian Tomlinson being upset because he doesn't do this stuff. But in the current NFL climate the best way for the Chargers to prevent that from happening is win the game and keep this insidious, ridiculous, boorish, classless behavior to a minimum so that you don't lose it on account of that. It's just disappointing, and it's a mystery to me why it's being allowed to continue. Well, actually, I understand partially why it continues, and that's because of ESPN.

ESPN lives off this. ESPN created Terrell Owens. Terrell Owens is who he is, but if Terrell Owens weren't constantly on television with his antics after touchdowns -- I remember, I called this. You remember the Monday night game on ABC and Seattle when after scoring a touchdown, T.O. playing for the Fort'iners, pulls a Sharpie out of his sock, autographs the ball and gives it to somebody. I said, “Folks, this is going to lead to nothing but trouble.” Everybody said, “Come on, Rush, lighten up, that was funny.” It was classless. Go back and look at the greats who played this game. They would not do anything of the sort, maybe hand the ball off, but not pull a Sharpie out. Everybody started to talk about how much fun that was, ooh, how cool, how creative. Then we get Joe Horn of the United States Saints after he scored a touchdown pulling a cell phone out of his socks and faked making a phone call. Well, guess what shows up on ESPN? So these guys get validated, everybody wants to stand out, they want to get endorsement deals and so forth. So television, making stars out of people who engage in classless behavior helps lead to it and contribute to it. No question in my mind about it. I'll bet the guy that called from El Paso did not expect this as an answer.


Look it, 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. There, I said it.

There is obviously nothing racist in this statement. Limbaugh is criticizing the predominance of classlessness in the NFL: the lack of discipline, the unnecessary roughness, the taunting, etc. Limbaugh attributes this classlessness not to race, but rather to the cultural influence of ESPN-driven, highlight-reel fame. In fact, in the very game Limbaugh was referencing, two Chargers players, one black and one white, each extended eventual Patriots scoring drives due to unnecessary roughness penalties.

Unless one wants to make the argument that only black players demonstrate this classlessness - or that Limbaugh is implying such - there is no racist intent whatsoever in this comment.

The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives"


“The government’s been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives.”

I can't find the transcript independently, so here is the extent of the quote, as transcribed by Media Matters [emphasis in original]:

U.S. blacks -- young U.S. blacks believe in politics, according to a new study. "Many U.S. blacks are as confident" -- and we're talking about the clean ones here, folks, I must stipulate this -- young, clean U.S. blacks -- "believe in politics. Many young U.S. blacks are as confident as their white and Hispanic peers that they can use politics to make things better, but a majority of young blacks feel alienated from today's government." Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives. Why would they feel alienated from -- maybe "today's government" means the Bush administration.

'There's good news and bad news when it comes to politics,' particularly as U.S. Senator Barack" -- the clean -- "Obama, an Illinois Democrat, may try to become the first black to reach the White House, said Cathy Cohen, a political science professor who headed this project at the University of Chicago." This research, by the way, "covered a wide range of social issues from sex to entertainment, also found that young blacks think that rap music and videos are riddled with too much sex and mistreatment of women -- even though they are the biggest consumers of that entertainment. Nearly 80 percent of young blacks, whites and Hispanics think they can make a difference by getting involved in politics. Large numbers of them feel that they have the skills to do so."

So I got -- the headline says "Young U.S. blacks" -- but blacks, whites, and Hispanics. Everybody thinks they can get involved in politics here. No big -- no big shake there.

The reality is that black children are almost three times as likely as white children to receive government welfare:

High rates of child poverty in the United States are a continuing concern. The fact that poverty is considerably more common among black children than it is among white children has intensified this concern. In 1999, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children

Time lived in poverty is the single most-correlated metric to time spent on welfare (as is to be expected).

Note also that this report is a decade old. At the time of the report, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock - a primary correlator with having received welfare - was 69%. The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is now nearing 75%. Further, black children at the time of the study spent almost 50% of their lives in single-parent families - another primary correlator - versus white children, who spent less than 13% of their lives in single-parent families.

Perhaps Limbaugh's statement is a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly has documented evidence to support the claim. The argument that this statement is racist is, at best, specious.

Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race


Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race.

Once again I cannot find an independent transcript. Here are Limbaugh's comments in context, as transcribed by Media Matters.:

Somebody explain to me what the Democrats are thinking here. Why do they think running a military candidate is gonna be credible anyway, given the posture that they have had the last four or five years? It was a four-point loss. That's right -- 52 to 48, Jean Schmidt beat Hackett, and they claimed it was a win. They were out there, "Oh, yeah, a big -- oh, he got so close, this means it's over for Bush. This means in the '06 elections, that Bush is history." Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

But I -- with the attitudes that they have expressed about the military -- they have regularly done their best to impugn the U.S. military. They -- they've collaborated with the members of the media in their party to run stories about how military members are just a bunch a hayseed hicks who joined the military 'cause there's no economic opportunity in America, 'cause the country sucks. They have -- they have -- they say they support the troops, but they don't. And yet, they wanna bring out some -- some -- a bunch of guys in uniform to run.

Maybe somebody in the party has figured this out. And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that. But -- you know, "Democratic leaders say that Representative Sherrod Brown, a seven-term incumbent from Avon, has a far better chance of toppling Senator DeWine than does the -- Hackett."


Uh, Sherrod Brown's a white guy? Then I'm confusing him with somebody. OK, I'm sorry. I thought Sherrod Brown was -- I'm -- I'm confusing him with somebody then. Must be somebody in New York has got a similar name. "Nevertheless, Hackett says, 'I don't work that way. My word is my bond.' Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker. He became an icon to liberal bloggers, 'cause he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician."


For those of you who continue to email me, even though I have made the correction -- let me make the correction again. I erred when I said that Sherrod Brown is black. I'm confusing him with somebody with a similar name in the Democratic Party somewhere. But we have -- we have corrected this, and I, you know, I'm not gonna apologize, 'cause I don't think it's an insult to be black. But -- but I did err. He is -- his is -- he is -- he is not black. He's one of these white European descendents in Ohio. He's the guy that -- that the Democrats have kicked Paul Hackett out of the race for the Senate seat in Ohio against Mike DeWine. And it really boils down to a matter of money, plus they don't like military guys in the, in the Democratic Party. But Sherrod -- Sherrod Brown has much more money than Hackett could ever hope to raise. So that's that.

First, Limbaugh makes a mistake. He attributes it to confusing Sherrod Brown with some other politician - but the important point is that he points out, apologizes for, and corrects his mistake.

Second, even in making the mistake, Limbaugh's conjecture that "there's a racial component" is but a minor consideration in his discussion of why Hackett dropped out of the race. His primary point is that he wasn't a terribly viable candidate to begin with, and that Democrats use military-vet candidates to garner votes while impugning the military at the same time, and that the Democrats' inherent dislike for the military was the primary reason for the party to support Sherrod Brown over Paul Hackett. (Limbaugh would later validate this assertion when discussing the story that Harry Reid had pushed Hackett out of the race due to the existence of evidence of alleged "war crimes" Hackett committed in Iraq.)

Limbaugh didn't try to argue that the sole reason for Hackett dropping out was race-related. It was an off-hand comment based upon an error that he quickly corrected and apologized for. There's nothing racist here.


So, to recap:

  • Quotes That Cannot Logically be Considered Racist:
    Limbaugh 4, Media Matters 0
  • Quotes In Which Limbaugh Elucidates the Racism of Others:
    Limbaugh 12, Media Matters 0
  • Quotes In Which Satire Is Taken Out of Context:
    Limbaugh 7, Media Matters 0
  • Quotes In Which Limbaugh's Criticism of Obama is Wrongly Attributed to Racism:
    Limbaugh 3, Media Matters 0
  • Other Quotes Taken Out of Context or Otherwise Not Racist
    Limbaugh 3, Media Matters 0
  • Total: Limbaugh 29, Media Matters 0

Nice try, Media Matters.

Race-Baiter Al Sharpton Threatens To Sue Rush Limbaugh

Filed in PoliticsTags: Media Bias, NFL, Racism

In the wake of his false-quote and slander-induced lynching and subsequent drop from a bid to group bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams, Rush Limbaugh wrote an op-ed piece for the WSJ, in which he called out the hypocritical race-baiting of his attackers - primarily Al Sharpton and Jess Jackson:

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL.

Now, Al Sharpton, race-baiter and hypocrite extraordinaire, is threatening to sue Limbaugh for his comments:

"Unless Mr. Limbaugh apologizes and clarifies his statements, attorneys for Rev. Sharpton will move forward with a lawsuit," said a written statement released Saturday by Sharpton's spokeswoman. "He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal."

The fine folks at PowerLine explain both the AP's water-carrying for Sharpton and Sharpton's absolute lack of a case against Limbaugh. Moe Lane is salivating with his usual sardonic wit. Israpundit brings home the point in an open letter to Sharpton:

We read that you threatened to sue Rush Limbaugh for saying that you played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riots and the riot at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in 1995. We are not an attorney and cannot give legal advice, but you are not going to sue anybody; you are going squeal like a schoolyard bully whose victim has struck him back while Rush Limbaugh does what should have been done in 1988. He will demolish you as a public figure, and quite possibly take your National Action Network down in the bargain, by exposing your long history of racist and anti-Semitic hate speech. We have done our best to do this ourselves, but our voice does not have quite the reach of Rush Limbaugh’s. When he finishes with you, no political figure in his right mind will appear at your organization as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards did in 2007, any more than they would appear at a cross-burning by the Ku Klux Klan.


We are glad that Al Sharpton finally chose to attack the wrong person, even though Rush Limbaugh will regrettably deny us the pleasure of taking him and the NAN down ourselves. Rush Limbaugh will indeed show this racist and anti-Semitic liar that there is somebody who is not afraid of him, and who will treat him like what he is: a hatemongering demagogue who appeals to the absolute dregs of African-American society the same way David Duke and Tom Metzger appeal to the dregs of Caucasian society.

Hear, hear!