rush limbaugh: Page 1
The galling incompetence of supposed opponents of the far-left, Part 1 (Limbaugh, Fluke, "slut", Jacobson) - 03/04/12
Rush Limbaugh recently used the word "slut" when discussing Congressional testimony given by one Sandra Fluke . That activated yet another battle in the leftwing's long-term war to get him off the air, and their latest effort has been more successful than others: several sponsors have dropped their ads from his show. One of them even dropped off after Limbaugh issued an apology.
Koch family, U.S. Chamber, businesses met to plan strategy (+Glenn Beck, tea parties, "mobilize citizens for November") - 10/20/10
Twice each year, the Koch family conducts strategy meetings with corporate and thought leaders to plan how to advance their "free market" ideology. ThinkProgress has the guest list and program for their June 2010 meeting (in Aspen), and, while immigration isn't mentioned, many of the known attendees are on the wrong side.
I don't normally recommend anything at ThinkProgress, but in this case I'll suggest taking a look at their post and downloading the PDF.
The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.)The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot... The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III... Participants listened to presentations from the (US Chamber of Commerce), as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes.
Malek currently raises funds for Karl Rove.
There's also a tea parties link: one of the June sessions was called "Mobilizing Citizens for November" ("Is there a chance this fall to elect leaders who are more strongly committed to liberty and prosperity? This session will further assess the landscape and offer a strategic plan to educate voters on the importance of economic freedom.") The hosts were Sean Noble (@snoble37), Karl Crow of Themis, Mark Mix of National Right to Work, and Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. AFP has been a very active "facilitator" of the teaparty movement.
Those who spoke at the June meeting include Peter Schiff (bad on immigration), Stephen Moore (ditto}, and Michael Barone (ditto). Others are: Ramesh Ponnuru; Phil Kerpen and Jeff Crank of AFP; Peter Wallison and Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, Russ Roberts and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center (associated with George Mason University; see the link); Gretchen Hamel; Charles Krauthammer; and Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.
Those listed as attending past meetings include Haley Barbour (bad on immigration), John Stossel (ditto), Mike Pence (ditto), Bobby Jindal, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, and Tom Price.
Obviously, there's nothing wrong or that sinister about the Kochs holding meetings like these. And, George Soros and associates no doubt hold similar meetings with those on their side. However, just as Soros' loose borders policies no doubt "informs" the immigration policies that those who receive his money offer, the same is probably true of the Kochs' loose borders policies. Aside from DeMint, there are few above who might be considered "border hawks", and some of those listed are quite bad on that issue.
And, of course, this provides yet more evidence of how those in the supposedly grassroots tea parties movement are doing the bidding of the very rich, even if the teapartiers have been bamboozled into thinking otherwise.
Timothy Egan of the New York Times offers "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings" (link) in which he takes the right wing - and Rush Limbaugh specifically - to task for encouraging false beliefs. To a certain extent he's got a point, but you might expect a self-appointed arbiter of what is and what isn't true such as Egan to be able to get his facts straight. Instead, he's a more polished, much more subtle version of that which he decries.
Here's an example of Egan's sloppy thinking:
Take a look at Tuesday night's box score in the baseball game between New York and Toronto. The Yankees won, 11-5. Now look at the weather summary, showing a high of 71 for New York. The score and temperature are not subject to debate... "Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday - not that we've seen any proof of that," he said on Aug. 3. "They tell us Aug. 4 is the birthday; we haven't seen any proof of that." Of course, there is proof as clear as that baseball box score. Look here, www.factcheck.org, for starters, one of many places posting Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.
1. Egan can't even get the name of the document right, probably by design. The picture on FactCheck's site and the related photo on Obama's site is of a certification, not a "certificate" as Egan states.
2. As discussed at the FactCheck link, they aren't a credible source on this and other matters. And, the two people who they claim reviewed the document are not document experts.
3. The score of a baseball game is verifiable from multiple independent sources and from personal observation. The same isn't true of the picture. The correct analogy would be if someone posted on their site a photo of a box score from an old, out-of-print newspaper that has no archives and asked you to trust them that the photo hadn't been altered. You have no way to verify that the photo is an accurate representation, and you'd be forced to trust the site operator. While there's very little chance that Obama altered the certificate shown on his site, he - like FactCheck - hasn't proved to be very credible (see Obama misleads). Egan believes Obama and FactCheck; if they changed their tunes he'd simply fall into line. Egan isn't being skeptical in the true sense: he isn't an impartial observer but simply a hack.
Egan also claims as a fact that Obama is a Christian. In a loose sense he certainly is. However, it's false to claim that we know for a fact that Obama is not a Muslim. It's also false to claim that we know for a fact that Obama is a Muslim. If you claim to know what religion someone actually *is*, let me know how you bugged that person's conversations with their God, Gods, or lack thereof. It's correct to claim that Obama is a professed and a practicing Christian, because that's an actual fact. Egan isn't making that distinction because his goal isn't rigorous thinking but simply defending Obama.
This passage is from the new book Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Bear in mind that a John McCain spokeswoman denies that McCain ever said such a thing, and Lindsey Graham didn't repond to Ben Smith's request for comment :
[McCain aides John] Weaver and [Mark] Salter begged McCain to ease up. He was already the face of the Iraq surge. Now he was becoming the face of what opponents called “amnesty.” Just tone down the rhetoric, his advisers pleaded.
McCain refused. He was disgusted by republicans in Congress and talk radio gasbags such as rush Limbaugh who bashed immigrants. “They’re going to destroy the fucking party,” he would say.
As McCain’s town hall meetings devolved into shouting matches over immigration, the candidate let his frustration show through. He called Lindsey Graham in despair. Listen to these people, McCain said. Why would I want to be the leader of a party of such a**holes?
As was discussed here back in June, Rachel Maddow smeared Rush Limbaugh by falsely claiming that he'd said that James Earl Ray deserved a "posthumous Medal of Honor" when that quote had simply been made up by someone at Wikiquote. Now, finally, four months later, Maddow has offered a non-correction "correction". Per this, on last night's show on MSNBC she said (bolding added):
And finally, a quote falsely attributed to talk show host Rush Limbaugh recently it resurfaced during the debate over whether or not he would or should be part of a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams football steam.
On June 3rd, as I was reporting on opposition to then-Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, I was among the people who erroneously referred to the quote if Mr. Limbaugh had said it.
To set the record straight, Rush Limbaugh apparently never said that Martin Luther King Jr.`s assassin should receive the Medal of Honor. And I was in error when we reported that we had. Mea culpa.
"Apparently"? A real reporter - or a pundit with any sort of integrity - would take actions such as contacting the book's author (Jack Huberman), his publisher (The Nation), would look through Lexis-Nexis, and would take other actions so no "apparently" would be necessary.
Media Violence Fast: far-left religious groups cover up support for illegal activity with false claims of "hate" - 10/17/09
Between October 19 and 26, a group of far-left religious groups  will be conducting a "Media Violence Fast" during which they're encouraging their members to avoid violence in the media; that wouldn't be such a bad goal if all they were doing was avoiding entertainment programs. Of course, they aren't doing just that. Instead, they're using the "hate speech" label to both paper over the fact that they support massive illegal activity and in an attempt to silence those in the media who support our laws.
Huffington Post "correction": deletes one bogus Limbaugh quote, but not both (Huberman, Nation Books) UPDATED: both quotes gone - 10/15/09
As has been in the news recently, Rush Limbaugh has been attacked for various quotes he's made, and some sources have gone as far as attacking him using bogus quotes. One of those completely bogus quotes concerned James Earl Ray and was discussed here back in June.
Now, the Huffington Post - apparently in response to this blog post - has issued a non-correction correction to a 2006 post containing the bogus quote. That HuffPost post was from Jack Huberman and was a promotion for his book "101 People Who Are REALLY Screwing America (and Bernard Goldberg is Only #73" (published by The Nation Books). Not only is it not a real correction, but they only deleted one of the bogus quotes dealing with slavery, and did not delete the bogus James Earl Ray quote. The page huffingtonpost.com/jack-huberman/rush-limbaugh-is-still-sc_b_24724.html now has this prepended:
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post contained quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which Limbaugh has since denied making. As is our policy when a fact in a blog post is called into question, we gave its author 24 hours to substantiate the quote. Since he has not been able to do so, the quotes have been deleted from the post.
I saved a copy of the page and took a screengrab, and only the slavery quote was deleted, not the Ray one. If that changes an update will be provided.
UPDATE: They've now deleted the Ray quote too.
A "liberal" of my acquaintance thinks the height of "humor" is to question me about whether I listened to Rush Limbaugh that day. In fact, I rarely listen to him and I no doubt disagree with him on many topics. And, normally my concern for whether someone could buy an NFL team ranks right down there with my interest in, say, what Sting had for breakfast.
However, in the case of Limbaugh - who's considering being part of a group to by the St. Louis Rams - it's important and I urge everyone to support his right to buy the team. That doesn't mean he should, but he should have the right to do so. The reason it's important is because the "bad guys" are going all out to block him and in general the left-leaning establishment is lined up against his plan.
One way you can help is to find those who have helped spread those bogus quotes and then discuss them in the same, effective style as used at this site rather than in other, less effective ways. Holding the bogus quote against people like Rachel Maddow can be used to discredit her, reduce her effectiveness, and send a message to others, but I can't (and will not be able to and have no intention to) do that all alone.
10/14/09 UPDATE: According to this, the group led by Dave Checketts of the NHL St. Louis Blues is going to drop Limbaugh in order to move forward. And, another golden opportunity to discredit the "bad guys" has mostly been lost due to the general incompetence of many Limbaugh-supporting leaders.
...Why does anyone give a damn what (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) say?... ...There's only one way this nonsense ever goes away: When we say "enough!" and tell the race-baiters their time is up. It's too much of an industry, so it probably won't happen tomorrow.
It's not going to happen ever with people like McCarthy and the rest of those at NRO around. For a contrary example, see how I do things around here, specifically how I approach biased news stories and where I place the emphasis. Doing that would be a way to cut off Jackson and Sharpton from part of their support, but few people are willing to do it.
Lindsey Graham slams Glenn Beck; "Birthers" are "crazy" (The Atlantic's First Draft of History) - 10/01/09
The Atlantic is conducting a corporate-sponsored series of interviews they call the "First Draft of History". Me, I call them EstablishmentHackapaooza. Earlier today, one segment featured Sen. Lindsay Graham being interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic (firstdraftofhistory.theatlantic.com/analysis/graham_the_loyal_opposition.php). As could be expected, Graham wasn't exactly challenged on the various things he said.
Wikiquote - affiliated with Wikipedia - is using as a source for an almost assuredly bogus and highly inflammatory Rush Limbaugh quote a book that was published 10 months after the unattributed quote was added to the same Wikiquote page.
The 06:01, 20 July 2005 revision of en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh (by someone using the IP address 184.108.40.206, more at ) was the first appearance in the entry of this supposed Rush quote:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
No source was provided, but a "source" would be forthcoming just 10 months later. The book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America" by Jack Huberman (published by The Nation on May 23, 2006) contains that quote and is used on the current version of the Wikiquote page as the source.
In other words, an unattributed quote that appeared out of nowhere was then published in a book ten months later. Now, the only source of the quote that Wikiquote provides is... the very same book.
Note that the date of the supposed quote was first given as 2/21/03. Just three minutes later, the same IP address changed the date to 4/23/98. Note also that the quote is currently in a "Disputed" section, but the same IP address was at least until recently still actively editing that entry and has moved it out into the main part of the page at least twice. In fact, the 00:22, 10 December 2008 edit by that same IP address includes this note:
The book claims Limbaugh as a primary source for over thirty quotes. Therefore, the book uses a primary source. Vidiot, please review defs of "primary" and "secondary."
The book page containing the quote is here. Amazon's page on the book, listing the publication date, is here. The copyright date is listed inside the book as 2006. And, in a June 3, 2006 entry on the Huffington Post, the author himself referred to it as his "just-published book" (huffingtonpost.com/jack-huberman/whos-screwing-america-bat_b_22140.html).
In the book, Huberman lists several quotes, saying that many of them "come from just the short period that Media Matters monitored", providing as a footnote May 2, 2004's "Meet the New Rush, Same as the Old Rush" (mediamatters.org/research/200405020008). The Ray quote doesn't appear on that page, and no other source or specific date is provided in that section of Huberman's book.
6/20/09 UPDATE: I haven't received a reply to either email I sent to The Nation asking about this. Maybe if enough people asked them they might respond: nationbooks.org/p/contact_us
10/13/09 UPDATE: The update above was mistakenly given as a "2/20/09 UPDATE"; that was a typo and the update was actually posted on 6/20/09. I never heard back from The Nation.
10/15/09 UPDATE: See also this post discussing why this matters and related issues, and note also that the Huffington Post has issued a non-correction correction.
 The IP address might now be banned at Wikiquote. It might be a dynamic address, but that doesn't seem likely. A person using the name "michelleknows" used the same IP to post three messages at a forum; her user page is at forums.s2smagazine.com/member.php?s=e9403090394eaf26f99ec5bc853bfad7&u=13499
"Melissa & Rob" posted a message using that IP address to disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=222664;article=6520;title=Ludwig%27s%20Doodles%20Chat however, they might have been using that IP address as a proxy server; the originating IP is different.
One would think that a group that gave an award to someone who'd proposed genocide wouldn't have much of a chance at beating their opponents. Yet, the National Council of La Raza is in the lucky position that most of their leading opposition doesn't have a clue about that organization or doesn't have a clue about the best way to oppose them.
(For those curious, the way to oppose them is simple: just tell the truth. See the extensive summary of their activities at the last link.)
From July 2007 (link):
For the past decade, John Weaver had been Senator John McCain’s chief strategist, the man behind the whole Straight Talk barnstorming shtick that made the conservative Arizonan a media star. Then, after building McCain into an apparent shoo-in for the Republican nomination—a maverick savior for his party—he sank the campaign into debt and disarray, leading to his resignation last week.
From today (link):
John Weaver... said that Republicans must be careful not to allow their Democratic rivals to paint them all with the brush of (Rush Limbaugh). "The Democrats and the far left will do all they can to grab electoral turf," said Weaver. "And one sure way to do it is take some of the most controversial voices on the extreme right -- like Limbaugh and (Sarah Palin) -- and try to insist they speak for all members of the center/right movement."
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."This isn't the first time that Obama smeared Limbaugh, and there's much to discuss about this ad. First let's deal with the misleading Rush quotes. The first quote is actually from 1993 (link):
"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."
[The radio ad goes on:] "Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."
"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."The Obama campaign misquoted Rush by omitting the context; the context certainly doesn't show Rush in a good light, but it's far different from what the Obama campaign is trying to do: pretend that Rush said that all Mexicans are "stupid and unqualified". The BHO campaign is lying.
The second quote is just as bad; it was actually from a satire in which Rush proposed a series of draconian immigration laws, only to reveal at the end that those were the actual laws of the Mexican government (link). "Shut your mouth or get out" was actually his distillation of one of Mexico's laws; see for instance this example of meddling foreigners being ejected from Mexico. For video of Rush's satire, see this.
And, the first quote referred to "Mexicans" in the sense of "Mexican citizens who live in Mexico". Democrats frequently have trouble understanding the fact that (according to our laws), Mexicans can't vote in U.S. elections. Only U.S. citizens can, including those of Mexican descent. Certainly, those U.S. citizens of Mexican descent will sympathize with actual Mexicans, but some in the former camp look down on, say, illegal aliens. Obviously, to the BHO campaign there's little difference between an actual Mexican and a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent.
And, of course, some segment of immigrants do come here to engage in criminal behavior, and all those in the U.S. receive a wide range of public benefits. Those who are low-wage workers - the great majority of illegal aliens from Mexico - do take more than they pay in. And, the crimes committed by immigrants would not occur if they weren't here in the first place. As is their habit, the BHO campaign is trying to shut down a discussion of vital matters rather than having an open debate.
As for who's helping Barack Obama spread his lies:
* The first link is to an Ed O'Keefe post at the Washington Post. Needless to say, he just passes the ad on without doing what I did: spend a few minutes searching. Please write the WaPo and ask them to stop helping BHO lie: ombudsman *at* washpost.com
* Ben Smith of the Politico likewise can't be bothered to do even basic research; he also refers to the largely non-existent "anti-Immigration wing of the Republican Party": politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_vs_Rush_en_Espanol.html
* Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) also can't be bothered to do simple searches: swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/limbaugh_latinos_tv_ad_wars.html
* Eric Kleefeld is yet another searchophobe: tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_spanishlanguage_ad_ties.php
UPDATE: Rush comments on this here; he also calls Obama a liar who took Rush's quotes out of context.
UPDATE 2: The end is nigh! Worthless hack Jake Tapper fact-checks the ad and the BHO campaign's response to his concerns, finishing by saying "the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad" (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html).
* Mori Dinauer passes along the lies (prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=lightning_round_fiorina_gets_w)
* Jeralyn Merritt does the same, only worse (talkleft.com/story/2008/9/17/172619/529)
* Alex Koppelman comes close, but does including Rush's objections to the ad (letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/17/obama_limbaugh/view).
* Eunice Moscoso of the Austin American Statesman does provide the McCain camp response to the ad (defending their previous support of amnesty, a support that continues) but fails to note that the BHO campaign lied. A comment I left has not been approved (link)
* Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal includes some of the response from Limbaugh here, but also downplays the extent to which the BHO campaign took the quotes out of context. A quote I left was deleted; I left it again and that might be deleted as well.
* Beltway lightweight Ana Marie Cox links to the Tapper piece, but fails to note that taking quotes out of context was involved, only saying "An ad attempts to tie McCain to some particularly unpleasant Republicanness [in this case, a closed borders approach to immigration], but it turns out McCain was not at all associated with that particular nastiness." (link)
* Kathleen Hennessey of the Associated Press discusses a BHO campaign stop and works this in as well: One [BHO] commercial airing in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado links McCain to comments apparently hostile to immigrants made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. (link)
UPDATE 4: Even a day after Jake Tapper called the ad misleading, others are valiantly struggling with the truth.
* Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Controversial Obama ad revives immigration issue". He includes the muted response from McCain and correctly points out that, at the end of day, BHO and McCain are basically on the same page on this issue. However, Gayner completely fails to point out the problems with the quotes. A comment I left was not approved. (link).
* "shovelhood" shows the level of thinking at DailyKos by noting that Rush says the quotes were taken out of context... then using other quotes in an attempt to show that Rush is a racist and without dealing with the quotes in the ad. Whether that's an intentional attempt at distraction or an issue with the thinking processes of "shovelhood" isn't clear. Some commenters don't care about the ad being misleading, but a couple do seem to expres qualms about the BHO campaign lying (dailykos.com/story/2008/9/18/154144/680/122/602969).
UPDATE 5: Ed O'Keefe at the Washington Post - the blogger who first started promoting BHO's lying ad - offers a bit of a non-correction correction in "McCain Camp Decries Obama Spanish Ads" (link), which links to both Rush's comments and those from Tapper. I suppose the latter were key; when another member of the "club" points out that you've promoted a lying ad you just have to admit defeat.
UPDATE 6: The end is nigher! In an editorial, the New York Times says "Mr. Obama's retaliatory ad, also in Spanish, was just as fraudulent. It slimed Mr. McCain as a friend and full-bore ally of restrictionists like Rush Limbaugh, even though Mr. Limbaugh has long attacked Mr. McCain's immigration moderation. It quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling all Mexicans stupid and ordering them to "shut your mouth or get out," which he never did.".
UPDATE 7: Rush offers "Obama Is Stoking Racial Antagonism" here. This has provoked a new round of those willing to lie for Obama at any cost to whatever reputations they had.
* Digby (digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-kettle-by-digby-limbaugh-is-so.html) offers "Black Kettle". It uses the "shovelhood" technique (see above) without even acknowledging the bit about the BHO campaign taking quotes out of context. The quote she provides as a distraction from the original lies is probably taken out of context as well.
* Jonathan Stein from MoJo links to the Rush piece, and continues to take his second quote out of context. (link) Unbelievable? No, just in line with his previous "thinking".
* Adam Serwer first admits that the quotes were taken out of context and that' was "stupid". Then, he launches into the "shovelhood" technique (link).
UPDATE 8: Joe Klein offers "Take It Down, Barack" (link). Klein is such an obsequious hack that even Jake Tapper calling BHO out wasn't enough. It took a far greater authority to spur him to action: "The New York Times editorial board--once again calling a lie a lie--slams both McCain and Obama for their Spanish-language ads about immigration policy. I've given up any hope of McCain running an honest campaign, but if Obama really wants to present an honorable alternative to McCain's non-stop sleaze, he should take down his immigration ad immediately."
UPDATE 9 (9/22/08): * Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) - even after all the above - continues trying to help BHO lie (swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/john_mccain_immigration_reform.html) by saying "McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, has been going after McCain lately on immigration -- attempting to tag the Republican with radio's Rush Limbaugh and intolerant words that the talk show host has had for immigrants in Spanish-language ads airing in hotly contested Western states."
Freelance writer and Vanity Fair contributor Judy Bachrach offers a smear of Lou Dobbs in "Lou Doubts" (poder360.com/article_detail.php?id_article=549). It's yet another example of the illegal activity-supporting establishment trying to reduce his influence in order to profit from illegal activity in one way or another.
"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year... If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."Those statements are beyond reprehensible, and come close to accusing Dobbs and Limbaugh of breaking the law. And, the reason he did it is because he's completely corrupt, hoping to obtain political power by supporting illegal immigration. Rather than supporting our laws as a U.S. Senator should, he smears those who oppose law-breaking.
Moreover, Obama lied yet again. See how the SPLC's "The Year in Hate" misled about FBI hate crime statistics. See also the FactCheck discussion of one of the February debates:
However, Obama was being overly dramatic when he said, "we have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate."UPDATE: Here's a segment from the Lou Dobbs show on Obama's lie. Note the figures from the FBI that show that Obama lied, and note also that the Obama campaign couldn't tell them where Obama got his statistics:
That's saying a bit much. When we asked his campaign for documentation, they pointed us to the most recent FBI statistics, which actually show that the number of incidents classified officially as "hate crimes" went up 7.8 percent in 2006. (Figures for 2007, which would show what occurred during and after the highly charged debate on the House and Senate immigration bills last year, won't be available until much later in 2008.)
We think a 7.8 percent increase hardly qualifies as a "skyrocket." Looking only at the incidents in which Hispanics were targeted, "hate crimes" rose a bit more, 10.3 percent, but that's hardly a rocket-propelled rise either. Furthermore, the number of anti-Hispanic incidents fluctuates widely from year to year. During the last 11 years, the number of incidents nationwide has bounced around between a low of 426 in 2003 and a high of 597 in 2001, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It was 576 in 2006.
Yesterday on his show, Rush Limbaugh said this about an event where he ran into Bill Clinton and someone else:
I shook his hand, he left, comes back, the mayor of Los Angeles, I thought it was a Secret Service agent, maybe a shoeshine guy. Turns out he gives me his card, I said, "Oh, my gosh, it's the mayor of Los Angeles." I stood up, I said, "Hello, Mr. Villaraigosa."
The evil airheads at ThinkProgress claim this is an "Ethnically-Charged Insult" (thinkprogress.org/2008/05/06/media-limbaugh-villaraigosa), when in fact it appears to have another explanation. I don't know whether Rush has clarified what he was thinking of, but a commenter on that TP thread points to this story from April in which a Missoula, Montana shoeshiner wanted to give Barack Obama a shoeshine and was told to back off by Secret Service agents. The meeting above occured months before the April incident, but both had already occured when Rush made the statement above.
For ThinkProgress, getting things wrong in this way is the normal course of affairs. One might think that someone working for Conde Nast Portfolio might not be just as bad, yet Jeff Bercovici of that site thinks different (portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/05/06/la-mayor-to-answer-limbaughs-race-swipe):
Hey, you know what's a riot? Comparing one of the country's foremost Latino politicians to "a shoeshine guy" because of his race.
Somehow I think the April incident is a much stronger explanation. Note also that neither TP nor CNP are discussing the endless line of Villar issues, from his past leadership of a racial separatist group to him congratulating former Mexican president Zedillo on helping block Prop. 187.
Sadly, Villar will apparently not be releasing a statement, but Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition has:
"What can I tell you? It's the same kind of nasty, bigoted, racist type of comment that has become so prevalent in today's society, as practiced by Lou Dobbs, as practiced by [Sean] Hannity, [Bill] O'Reilly, [Michael] Savage -- all these guys who are appealing to a particular bigoted audience, and fanning the fires of bigotry and racism by doing these kinds of things without real concern about the consequences of their words. And the consequences are that these kinds of comments have helped in raising the rate of crimes against Latinos 35 percent in last three years." (He attributes that figure to the FBI.) "These guys have no civility in their makeup, no compassion, and very little intelligence when it comes to opening their mouths."
Bercovici can't seem to get anything right. Whatever Nogales said, he wasn't referring to crimes in general but to hate crimes. And, as discussed at the link, the 35% was designed to deceive. A real reporter would have gotten the types of crimes right and would have looked into the statistics.