Yes, it’s one of those days. According to the calendar it’s Presidents Day. You know, that artificial holiday created by merging Washington’s and Lincolns birthdays to give public employees a 3-day weekend in the middle of February.
Overnight we received 3-4″ of snow. So far this winter, the snow has passed either to the north of us or to the south of us. Last night’s big dump passed south again but we were within the outskirts. So instead of getting 6-8″ as did some parts of Missouri, we only got 3-4″ according to my Mk I eyeball measurement of the snow sitting on the railing of my backyard deck. With a temp of 13°F this morning, I think I will stay inside today.
My lack of motivation seems to be mirrored by the news, too. I usually receive eight to a dozen newsletters/updates/breaking news announcements. This morning, it was only two newsletters and they were short to boot. I wonder if the whole world has decided to take the day off and join the local kids and my g’kids for a snow-day.
As for news. It seems to be a habit for the feds to release their edicts over the weekend for the MSM to ignore. Apparently they hope that if something is dumped on Saturday, by Monday morning, with the MSM ignoring it, the news will just slip away.
The M855 is the US equivalent of the NATO cartridge known as SS109. The bullet had a steel core. When the M855 appeared on the market, the BATFE rightly determined it was not armor-piercing because it did not meet the BATFE definition of ‘armor piercing.’ Some gun-grabbers claimed that the steel core automatically meant the round was designed for armor piercing. The BATFE said it was not.
Over the weekend, the BATFE announced it will reverse itself next month. The instant result will be a feeding frenzy of sellers and buyers for the existing stocks of M855 before the ban is enacted.
It’s just another step of federal tyranny. If they can’t ban firearms, they ban the ammunition for those firearms, one small piece at a time.
Here’s a couple of cartoons from Glenn McCoy that were published this week.
When Obama tried to block the Fox Network from the While House news pool, the others balked. I think they finally realized they were in jeopardy as well if they ever ran a story the White House disliked.
Anita Dunn has publicly praised Mao Tse Tung as one of her heroes. This is the same man who, during his rise to power, kill more people than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined. When this came out, what did Obama do? He hired another Mao worshiper for another White House post. When we finally get rid of Obama, we’ll have to have the White House fumigated.
Just another straw on the camel’s back.
And finally, a Tip of the Hat to Jake Tapper, who, although a democrat, is a real journalist.
I hadn’t heard about this new gas tax until I was informed by a friend (H/T to Rick A. Shay). With the Dollar in a plunging spiral and the oil producing nations about to switch to another currency standard, what this country DOES NOT NEED, is another tax on gasoline.
I used to be amazed that the democrats were willing to destroy this nation solely to acquire and retain political power. Silly of me, wasn’t it?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Democrats’ hidden gas tax
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sen. Christopher S. Bond
There’s something the Democratic lawmakers who are pushing cap-and-trade legislation don’t want the public to know. The controversial climate-change legislation winding its way through Congress will impose a massive new national gas tax on the American people. We discovered this by analyzing what the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would do to gas prices and what Americans spend on gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. We found that cap-and-trade legislation will levy a $3.6 trillion gas-tax increase that will impact every American and important segments of our economy.
The goal of this climate-change legislation is actually to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy such as coal, gas and oil so that consumers will respond by using less of it. Some lawmakers call this “setting the price on carbon.” Economists refer to this kind of policy as a price signal. But the bottom line is that the price of energy will go up. Ultimately, all Americans will pay directly or indirectly for the higher fuel prices the cap-and-trade legislation will cause.
Americans travel more than 200 million vehicle miles each month, and annually we spend nearly $1.2 trillion on gasoline and oil. The average household spends 5 percent of its annual budget on fuel. For many, gasoline is a mandatory expense. And this legislation disproportionately hits middle and lower income households that tend to have longer commutes to work and must drive in order to work. These families will be hit especially hard by the projected $1 per gallon increase for the additional gas tax the cap-and-trade legislation will bring.
Further, Americans will be double-hit by the gas tax when it raises the costs of goods and services such as groceries and utilities they must continue to purchase. Energy costs are among businesses’ top operational expenses already. While companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their work space to powering equipment and lighting, operating their vehicles is the most costly. Every company, from the small-town local florist to a package delivery service with nationwide operations, will be hard hit. In order for these businesses to withstand the heavier tax burden and to remain profitable, they will be forced to pass these energy cost increases along to consumers through higher prices.
Several industries will be penalized more severely by the gas tax than others. Our nation’s farmers and ranchers, who are tasked with producing high-quality goods for much of the world, will be harmed by Waxman-Markey’s $2 trillion tax on gasoline and $1.3 trillion tax on diesel fuel. Gas- and diesel-powered equipment, ranging from tractors to combines to fertilizing systems, are the operational foundation of American farms and ranches. Under the climate-change legislation, they will face $550 million in higher fuel costs in 2020 and $1.65 billion in 2050.
The American trucking industry will be another target of the cap-and-trade gas tax. In 2007, 1.7 million drivers of tractor-trailers logged 145 billion vehicle miles, consuming 28.5 billion gallons of fuel. That equates to $34,560 in annual fuel costs per driver. That number will skyrocket under Waxman-Markey. And when you consider that the average self-employed truck driver earns $43,545 in net revenue, the gas tax is essentially a new tax on the middle class. Of course, truckers will not suffer these higher gas taxes alone. Their costs are shared by all consumers. At some point, nearly everything bought or sold must be shipped from a manufacturer to a retailer. Thus, the sweeping effects of the gas tax will actually harm our entire economy.
Despite all this pain for families, farmers, truckers and businesses, there is no gain for our environment. Even U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson admits that unless China and India impose similar draconian taxes and regulations, there will be no effect on world temperatures. So what is the purpose of the increase in costs to every American, and the consequent loss of jobs, if they will not have an effect on the global environment?
Under the majority congressional leadership, trillion-dollar figures have been discussed so nonchalantly in Washington recently that, unfortunately, they’re starting to lose their shock value. Americans must know that the $3.6 trillion gas tax is a very real number with consequences for all of us. That is why we will fight the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills. (Emphasis mine.) We can improve the environment and economy through American ingenuity and technological advancement, not with taxes and mandates that increase costs and burden American families and businesses.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Republican senator from Texas, and Christopher S. Bond is a Republican senator from Missouri.
I hadn’t heard about this new gas tax until I was informed by a friend (H/T to Rick A. Shay). With the Dollar in a plunging spiral and the oil producing nations about to switch to another currency standard, what this country DOES NOT NEED, is another tax on gasoline.
I used to be amazed that the democrats were willing to destroy this nation solely to acquire and retain political power. Silly of me, wasn’t it?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Democrats’ hidden gas tax
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sen. Christopher S. Bond
There’s something the Democratic lawmakers who are pushing cap-and-trade legislation don’t want the public to know. The controversial climate-change legislation winding its way through Congress will impose a massive new national gas tax on the American people. We discovered this by analyzing what the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would do to gas prices and what Americans spend on gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. We found that cap-and-trade legislation will levy a $3.6 trillion gas-tax increase that will impact every American and important segments of our economy.
The goal of this climate-change legislation is actually to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy such as coal, gas and oil so that consumers will respond by using less of it. Some lawmakers call this “setting the price on carbon.” Economists refer to this kind of policy as a price signal. But the bottom line is that the price of energy will go up. Ultimately, all Americans will pay directly or indirectly for the higher fuel prices the cap-and-trade legislation will cause.
Americans travel more than 200 million vehicle miles each month, and annually we spend nearly $1.2 trillion on gasoline and oil. The average household spends 5 percent of its annual budget on fuel. For many, gasoline is a mandatory expense. And this legislation disproportionately hits middle and lower income households that tend to have longer commutes to work and must drive in order to work. These families will be hit especially hard by the projected $1 per gallon increase for the additional gas tax the cap-and-trade legislation will bring.
Further, Americans will be double-hit by the gas tax when it raises the costs of goods and services such as groceries and utilities they must continue to purchase. Energy costs are among businesses’ top operational expenses already. While companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their work space to powering equipment and lighting, operating their vehicles is the most costly. Every company, from the small-town local florist to a package delivery service with nationwide operations, will be hard hit. In order for these businesses to withstand the heavier tax burden and to remain profitable, they will be forced to pass these energy cost increases along to consumers through higher prices.
Several industries will be penalized more severely by the gas tax than others. Our nation’s farmers and ranchers, who are tasked with producing high-quality goods for much of the world, will be harmed by Waxman-Markey’s $2 trillion tax on gasoline and $1.3 trillion tax on diesel fuel. Gas- and diesel-powered equipment, ranging from tractors to combines to fertilizing systems, are the operational foundation of American farms and ranches. Under the climate-change legislation, they will face $550 million in higher fuel costs in 2020 and $1.65 billion in 2050.
The American trucking industry will be another target of the cap-and-trade gas tax. In 2007, 1.7 million drivers of tractor-trailers logged 145 billion vehicle miles, consuming 28.5 billion gallons of fuel. That equates to $34,560 in annual fuel costs per driver. That number will skyrocket under Waxman-Markey. And when you consider that the average self-employed truck driver earns $43,545 in net revenue, the gas tax is essentially a new tax on the middle class. Of course, truckers will not suffer these higher gas taxes alone. Their costs are shared by all consumers. At some point, nearly everything bought or sold must be shipped from a manufacturer to a retailer. Thus, the sweeping effects of the gas tax will actually harm our entire economy.
Despite all this pain for families, farmers, truckers and businesses, there is no gain for our environment. Even U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson admits that unless China and India impose similar draconian taxes and regulations, there will be no effect on world temperatures. So what is the purpose of the increase in costs to every American, and the consequent loss of jobs, if they will not have an effect on the global environment?
Under the majority congressional leadership, trillion-dollar figures have been discussed so nonchalantly in Washington recently that, unfortunately, they’re starting to lose their shock value. Americans must know that the $3.6 trillion gas tax is a very real number with consequences for all of us. That is why we will fight the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills. (Emphasis mine.) We can improve the environment and economy through American ingenuity and technological advancement, not with taxes and mandates that increase costs and burden American families and businesses.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Republican senator from Texas, and Christopher S. Bond is a Republican senator from Missouri.
His foreign policy brings to mind Jimmy Carter, or perhaps Ethelred the Unready.
By John R. Bolton
October 18, 2009
Weakness in American foreign policy in one region often invites challenges elsewhere, because our adversaries carefully follow diminished American resolve. Similarly, presidential indecisiveness, whether because of uncertainty or internal political struggles, signals that the United States may not respond to international challenges in clear and coherent ways.
Taken together, weakness and indecisiveness have proved historically to be a toxic combination for America’s global interests. That is exactly the combination we now see under President Obama. If anything, his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize only underlines the problem. All of Obama’s campaign and inaugural talk about “extending an open hand” and “engagement,” especially the multilateral variety, isn’t exactly unfolding according to plan. Entirely predictably, we see more clearly every day that diplomacy is not a policy but only a technique. Absent presidential leadership, which at a minimum means clear policy direction and persistence in the face of criticism and adversity, engagement simply embodies weakness and indecision.
Obama is no Harry Truman. At best, he is reprising Jimmy Carter. At worst, the real precedent may be Ethelred the Unready, the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying of Danegeld — literally, “Danish tax” — to buy off Viking raiders made him history’s paradigmatic weak leader.
Beyond the disquiet (or outrage for some) prompted by the president’s propensity to apologize for his country’s pre-Obama history, Americans increasingly sense that his administration is drifting from one foreign policy mistake to another. Worse, the current is growing swifter, and the threats more pronounced, even as the administration tries to turn its face away from the world and toward its domestic priorities. Foreign observers, friend and foe alike, sense the same aimlessness and drift. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had to remind Obama at a Sept. 24 U.N. Security Council meeting that “we live in the real world, not a virtual one.”
Examples of weakness abound, and the consequences are readily foreseeable.
Canceling the Polish and Czech missile defense bases is understood in Moscow and Eastern European capitals as backing down in the face of Russian bluster and belligerence. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened the day after our 2008 election to deploy missiles targeting these assets unless they were canceled, a threat duly noted by the Russian media when Obama canceled the sites. Given candidate Obama’s reaction to the 2008 Russia-Georgia war — calling on both sides to exercise restraint — there is little doubt that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s project to re-extend Russian hegemony over as much of the former Soviet Union as he can will continue apace. Why should he worry about Washington?
Obama’s Middle East peace process has stalled, most recently because he set a target for an end to Israeli settlement expansion, couldn’t meet it and then proceeded as though he hadn’t meant what he said originally. By insisting that Israel freeze settlements as a precondition to renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama drew a clear line. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withstood Obama’s pressure, Obama caved, hosting a photo-op with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that strengthened Netanyahu and weakened Abbas just when Obama wanted to achieve exactly the opposite. However one views the substantive outcome of this vignette, Obama himself looked the weakest of all. It could well be years before his Middle East policy gets back up off the ground.
…
Iran is revealed to have been long constructing an undeclared, uninspected nuclear facility that makes a mockery of almost seven years of European Union negotiation efforts. Forced to deal publicly with this deeply worrying threat, Obama proposes the equivalent of money-laundering for nuclear threats: Iranian uranium enriched in open, unambiguous defiance of four Security Council resolutions will be enriched to higher levels in Russia, and then returned to be burned in a Tehran reactor — ostensibly for peaceful purposes. Sarkozy again captured the growing international incredulity in his noteworthy Security Council speech: “I support America’s ‘extended hand.’ But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges.”
Finally, Obama’s agonizing, very public reappraisal of his own 7-month-old Afghanistan policy epitomizes indecisiveness. While there is no virtue in sustaining policy merely for continuity’s sake, neither is credit due for too-quickly adopting policies without appreciating the risks entailed and then fleeing precipitously when the risks become manifest. The administration’s stated reason for its policy re-evaluation was widespread fraud in Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential election. But this explanation is simply not credible. Did not the administration’s generals and diplomats on the ground, not to mention United Nations observers, see the election mess coming? Was the Hamid Karzai administration’s cupidity and corruption overlooked or ignored during Obama’s original review and revision of his predecessor’s policy?
…
None of these explanations reflect credit on the president. He is dithering. Whatever decision Obama reaches on Afghanistan, his credibility and leadership have been badly wounded by his continuing public display of indecisiveness.
Our international adversaries undoubtedly welcome all of these “resets” in U.S. foreign policy, but Americans should be appalled at how much of our posture in the world has already been given away. If Obama’s first nine months indicate the direction of the next 39, we still have a long way to fall.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.”
His foreign policy brings to mind Jimmy Carter, or perhaps Ethelred the Unready.
By John R. Bolton
October 18, 2009
Weakness in American foreign policy in one region often invites challenges elsewhere, because our adversaries carefully follow diminished American resolve. Similarly, presidential indecisiveness, whether because of uncertainty or internal political struggles, signals that the United States may not respond to international challenges in clear and coherent ways.
Taken together, weakness and indecisiveness have proved historically to be a toxic combination for America’s global interests. That is exactly the combination we now see under President Obama. If anything, his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize only underlines the problem. All of Obama’s campaign and inaugural talk about “extending an open hand” and “engagement,” especially the multilateral variety, isn’t exactly unfolding according to plan. Entirely predictably, we see more clearly every day that diplomacy is not a policy but only a technique. Absent presidential leadership, which at a minimum means clear policy direction and persistence in the face of criticism and adversity, engagement simply embodies weakness and indecision.
Obama is no Harry Truman. At best, he is reprising Jimmy Carter. At worst, the real precedent may be Ethelred the Unready, the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying of Danegeld — literally, “Danish tax” — to buy off Viking raiders made him history’s paradigmatic weak leader.
Beyond the disquiet (or outrage for some) prompted by the president’s propensity to apologize for his country’s pre-Obama history, Americans increasingly sense that his administration is drifting from one foreign policy mistake to another. Worse, the current is growing swifter, and the threats more pronounced, even as the administration tries to turn its face away from the world and toward its domestic priorities. Foreign observers, friend and foe alike, sense the same aimlessness and drift. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had to remind Obama at a Sept. 24 U.N. Security Council meeting that “we live in the real world, not a virtual one.”
Examples of weakness abound, and the consequences are readily foreseeable.
Canceling the Polish and Czech missile defense bases is understood in Moscow and Eastern European capitals as backing down in the face of Russian bluster and belligerence. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened the day after our 2008 election to deploy missiles targeting these assets unless they were canceled, a threat duly noted by the Russian media when Obama canceled the sites. Given candidate Obama’s reaction to the 2008 Russia-Georgia war — calling on both sides to exercise restraint — there is little doubt that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s project to re-extend Russian hegemony over as much of the former Soviet Union as he can will continue apace. Why should he worry about Washington?
Obama’s Middle East peace process has stalled, most recently because he set a target for an end to Israeli settlement expansion, couldn’t meet it and then proceeded as though he hadn’t meant what he said originally. By insisting that Israel freeze settlements as a precondition to renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama drew a clear line. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withstood Obama’s pressure, Obama caved, hosting a photo-op with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that strengthened Netanyahu and weakened Abbas just when Obama wanted to achieve exactly the opposite. However one views the substantive outcome of this vignette, Obama himself looked the weakest of all. It could well be years before his Middle East policy gets back up off the ground.
…
Iran is revealed to have been long constructing an undeclared, uninspected nuclear facility that makes a mockery of almost seven years of European Union negotiation efforts. Forced to deal publicly with this deeply worrying threat, Obama proposes the equivalent of money-laundering for nuclear threats: Iranian uranium enriched in open, unambiguous defiance of four Security Council resolutions will be enriched to higher levels in Russia, and then returned to be burned in a Tehran reactor — ostensibly for peaceful purposes. Sarkozy again captured the growing international incredulity in his noteworthy Security Council speech: “I support America’s ‘extended hand.’ But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges.”
Finally, Obama’s agonizing, very public reappraisal of his own 7-month-old Afghanistan policy epitomizes indecisiveness. While there is no virtue in sustaining policy merely for continuity’s sake, neither is credit due for too-quickly adopting policies without appreciating the risks entailed and then fleeing precipitously when the risks become manifest. The administration’s stated reason for its policy re-evaluation was widespread fraud in Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential election. But this explanation is simply not credible. Did not the administration’s generals and diplomats on the ground, not to mention United Nations observers, see the election mess coming? Was the Hamid Karzai administration’s cupidity and corruption overlooked or ignored during Obama’s original review and revision of his predecessor’s policy?
…
None of these explanations reflect credit on the president. He is dithering. Whatever decision Obama reaches on Afghanistan, his credibility and leadership have been badly wounded by his continuing public display of indecisiveness.
Our international adversaries undoubtedly welcome all of these “resets” in U.S. foreign policy, but Americans should be appalled at how much of our posture in the world has already been given away. If Obama’s first nine months indicate the direction of the next 39, we still have a long way to fall.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.”
Many of you are aware of the lynching that has taken place in professional football. Rush Limbaugh was a member of a consortium to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. The State Media wouldn’t have it. Despite Limbaugh’s long association with professional football from his being an employee of the Kansas City Chiefs organization in the 1960s to his aborted stint as a commentator for ESPN several years ago.
His ESPN association was terminated in another media lynching and they have not been successful lynching Limbaugh again. He’s been dropped from the consortium bidding for the Rams.
The smear campaign was filled with lies that Limbaugh was a racist, that he’d spoken words favorable to slavery, that James Earl Ray deserved a Medal of Honor. All lies. Everyone of them and easily proven to be a lie. The State Media however, couldn’t be bothered to do any fact checking.
Limbaugh, this week, detailed each lie, each smear and repudiated each one. All the statements supposedly spoken by Limbaugh never happened. You can find the transcript from that show here.
Even the Europeans are appalled by the actions of the US media. Here’s a column from the UK Telegraph that speaks volumes.
Which public figure can be quoted as having said something bigoted and disgusting and it doesn’t matter whether he did or not because he might have? Who can Big Media brand a racist without checking the facts? Who has to prove he did not say something racist, rather than the accuser proving he did?
A pat on the back for anyone who guessed the answer: Rush Limbaugh (OK, the blog headline was a clue). From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this:
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
Here’s CNN’s Rick Sanchez baldly stating at the 1.14 point that Limbaugh made the slavery comment:
Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book – a hit job that doesn’t cite any sources. They’re also included in this internet list posted a year ago and endlessly ripped off ever since.
The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.
Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic.
Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.
OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?
And Burwell caps it off by implying – nudge, nudge, wink, wink – that Limbaugh’s really lying: “Fine, let’s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book.” I’m no fan of British libel laws but, again, if that had been printed in the UK it would have led to a hefty payout for aggravated damages.
Limbaugh is, understandably, on the war path because the smear of racism is one is very, very difficult to wipe clean:
When race is brought into it, that you can’t let stand. I mean, if you, if people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life, and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and, like that.
Now we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions, with the force of legal action, against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray.
I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity, but we know where they came from – a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page and Wikiquotes, unsourced.
Wikipedia says, ‘Well, this is in dispute.’ It’s not in dispute. They were never uttered. I never said them. And I’ve even told reporters I never said them.
As Mark Steyn points out, in this instance it’s for Limbaugh to prove the negative – an impossible task. And Dan Calebrese asks why if Limbaugh really is a racist then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?
What’s the term for those who are setting about “racist” Rush Limbaugh right now? Ironically, it seems to be “lynch mob”. And they’ve succeeded – word is that Limbaugh’s been dropped from the consortium seeking to buy the St Louis Rams.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a Limbaugh fan or not. All of us should appose actions like this.
Some of you may think Limbaugh deserves to be taken down a notch or two for being so outspoken against the democrats, liberal and socialist; for being a supporter of conservatism, personal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution as written by the Founders. If that is your view, you’re part of the problem. You’re no better than the liars and propagandists of the State Media.
