Category Archives: Right-wing Media

October 31, 2012 · 8:03 PM

Conservative Tries To Donate To Obama As Bin Laden, Commits Crime

WND is just one of many right-wing online publications that seem to have spent a huge amount of time trying to shine the most negative and despicable light on President Obama through lies, innuendos and blatant slander….

Addicting Info

WND, one of my personal favorite right-wing propaganda machine sites, has apparently and unwittingly committed a crime while erroneously reporting that Obama is accepting money from foreign nationals.

WND made the claim that, “Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.”

First of all, that’s not true. As the Obama campaign has explained (and has, unsurprisingly, been ignored),

“If a billing address is verified via AVS, then the credit card contribution is processed without delay. Some transactions caught by AVS may initially appear to a donor to have been accepted even though this is not the case. Obama for America employs a manual process to review any transaction flagged by AVS, also taking into account other fraud risk factors, and using fraud detection services provided by our credit card processor.

“As an example, the contribution discussed here may have initially appeared to have gone through when the donor completed the transaction at 10:18 a.m. but it was rejected at 4:51 p.m. under our standard fraud detection procedures.

“So any claims that Obama for America has disabled AVS are inaccurate; any question about this would have been answered-if the question had been asked.”

Conveniently, this information is not noted in the WND article, but they don’t seem to care much about what is correct and what isn’t. They also state that, “The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law,” which isn’t true, either. Foreign donations, provided they come from U.S. citizens, are perfectly legal. What isn’t legal are donations from foreign nationals. American citizens outside of the United States must prove citizenship for the donation to be accepted.

Another bit of easily verifiable information that they failed to properly investigate comes from the Daily Caller, a well known source for totally fair and balanced conservative propaganda news:

As the Daily Caller reported, a statement accompanied the GAI’s report from former U.S. Attorney Ken Sukhia noting that 68 percent of traffic to BarackObama.com comes from foreign users, all of whom are redirected to a fundraising page operated by the president’s re-election campaign.

First of all, the domain name that the Daily Caller reported on was not – repeat, not – BarackObama.com. It was, in fact, Obama.com, and those two domain names have different traffic results entirely. However, the 68% foreign traffic number is wrong for both, as easily seen and verified on Alexa (barackobama.com site stats found here and obama.com stats here).

Here are screenshots for the traffic percentages to each:

As you can see, foreign hits are actually only 17.6% of traffic on BarackObama.com — a far cry from 68%.

Here’s the picture for Obama.com:

For Obama.com, 29.3% are from foreign countries. Also, considering Obama’s good standing in the world, it is not surprising in the least that there are foreign visitors to his site.

On another note, somebody should probably let the good folks over at WND know that donations in another person’s name are not permitted before they take the following action: “WND is preparing an affidavit for the Federal Elections Commission and the FBI on the illegal donation accepted by the Obama campaign.”

Yeah, good luck with that. Aaron Klein, the writer that published this piece of easily disproved garbage, should probably get the “worst journalist ever” award for this one. However, the real goal was never accurate journalism anyway, but rather a piece of fiction that will be seized upon and repeated ad nauseam. As reported by Media Matters:

Right-wing media are ignoring anti-fraud protections the Obama campaign has in place to allege that the Obama campaign accepted donations from someone impersonating Osama bin Laden.

Matt Drudge is hyping an article by World Net Daily’s Aaron Klein who claimed that ”Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, ‘Osama bin Laden’ has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.’ “

Have fun with that, conservatives. We’ll be looking forward to your breathless and credulous reporting on this non-story for the next week in between your hourly floggings of the made up Benghazi scandal.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 16, 2012 · 4:14 AM

Fischer: Women are Emotionally Unfit for Combat

Does anyone else see what I see regarding the GOP?  They are increasingly going batcrap insane.  Here’s another example of their extreme sexist (anti-woman) point of view:

Right Wing Watch

Last week, Rick Santorum explained that he was opposed to any plans by the Pentagon to place women in combat positions, asserting that the “types of emotions that are involved” would compromise combat effectiveness.

Santorum quickly “clarified,” saying that he didn’t mean that women were emotionally unsuited for serving in combat but rather that male soldiers would be protective of female soldiers and inclined to compromise the mission in order to defend them.

Not surprisingly, Bryan Fischer agrees with Santorum … and is even willing to defend the view that Santorum himself rejected: that women are inherently emotionally unfit for combat:

But not only are women emotionally unfit for combat but also physically unfit because, as Fischer explained in his column today, ”the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.”

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right-wing Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 14, 2011 · 11:40 AM

The Right-Wing Talk-Radio Flameout

I suppose one could say that with the passage of time, truth always prevails…

The Daily Beast

Ratings for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other hyperpartisans are declining as listeners seek honest talk from hosts like Michael Smerconish over angry rants. A more civil conversation will add value to our political debate, writes John Avlon.

There’s new evidence to suggest a demand for something different than hyper-partisanship in the world of talk radio and political media.

It’s not just the sunset of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox or the dispatch of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC to CurrentTV. It’s the shuttering of a pioneering conservative radio station and data showing the demographic decline of Rush Limbaugh.

In contrast, growing numbers of listeners are tuning in to independent voices who can be honest brokers in debates and don’t just angrily parrot talking points.

In February, I wrote a column asking whether right wing talk radio was dying and ruffled some feathers in that flock. A more accurate means of measuring listeners showed that conservative talkers’ ratings had either declined or flatlined in the heat of the 2010 election, while the world-journalism focus of the John Batchelor Show had seen a decided ratings climb. Now, a look at radical centrist Michael Smerconish’s national ratings growth since the start of the year provides more evidence of this emerging market.

First, here’s a snapshot that puts the shift in perspective: Just days after the 2010 election, the nation’s first all-conservative talk radio station, KVI in Seattle, switched back to a classic-rock format after 17 years. Its innovation had become media saturation—and music became an appealing alternative to the drone of a dozen Rush Limbaugh imitators.

Continue reading here…

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Glenn Beck, Hate - mongering, Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-wing Race-baiting, Rush Limbaugh

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 12, 2011 · 9:27 AM

Hip-Hop for Conservatives

Define irony…

Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

Ari Melber (and a couple commenters) point out that the interesting thing about Common being attacked, is that one of his best known songs is about as pro-Life as it gets. “Retrospect for Life” always struck me as being of that variety of pop art as “Knocked Up.” People end up in situations where abortion is often the outcome, but the art gives us a bundle of joy because it’s a result we find a lot more pleasing. Or, to be less cynical, its art which reflects the world as we wish it was, as opposed to how it is.

Of course social conservatism isn’t particularly original for hip-hop. ”Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth” has the obvious nod toward Pro-Lifers. Goodie Mob “Beautiful Skin” is a rather obnoxious lecture on black female modesty (Though that’s a sick track.) And Lifesava’s “What If It’s True” is chastisement for nonbelievers. But I like “Selector” better, so I think I’ll embed that.

 
Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing Media, Right-wing Race-baiting

Tagged as , , , , ,

· 12:26 AM

Jon Stewart’s Epic Takedown Of Fox News For Pushing Rapper Common’s W.H. ‘Controversy’

Jon Stewart is on top of his game with this one!

Mediaite

On tonight’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart took an artistic approach to dealing with Fox News’ substantial coverage of the controversy (or “controversy,” depending where you’re sitting) surrounding the White House’s inclusion of rapper and actor Common in a poetry event.

Stewart kicked things off by noting that Common is the cuddly, mainstream sort of rapper you might find in a Gap ad or hanging out with Elmo. Even FoxNews.com loves the guy! Stewart went after Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity for going after one particular verse within Common’s body of work which references a couple of cop killings and burning a “Bush.”

Stewart pointed to the hypocrisy of Fox News pundits going after Common, but not artists like Johnny Cash, who was honored by President George W. Bush and who also has penned a violent lyric or two in his day, and Ted Nugent, who has made violent remarks about Obama and Hillary Clinton, yet is considered a “friend” by Hannity. (Our own Tommy Christopher wrote about the whole “Nugent Thing” earlier today, as a matter of fact.)

And then… there’s Stewart’s rap. Nothing we could write here could adequately describe its scope and rhyminess, so watch it for yourself, via Comedy Central:

  

Related articles

5 Comments

Filed under Fox & Friends, Fox Nation, Fox News, Fox News Distortions, Fox News Lies, Fox News Violent Rhetoric, Racism, Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing Conspiracy Theories, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-wing Race-baiting

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 4, 2011 · 8:59 AM

“Not Bad for a Kenyan Muslim Communist!”

You know, the more I look at the right-wing talking points about President Obama’s role in killing Osama bin Laden, the more I realize that nothing Barack Obama does will make them acknowledge that he is in fact a good president.   They would rather give former President George W. Bush full credit than to even utter President Obama’s name.

On Thursday, the president will go to Ground Zero in New York City to meet with family members of the 9/11 victims.  Obama invited President Bush, but he declined.   I would imagine his refusing to go with Obama is not good publicity for the GOP contenders and clearly a political deceision.

Mother Jones

After nearly two years of relentlessly bashing President Obama, the tea party movement has been strangely quiet in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden. It seems that Obama’s powerful show of military force has done what none of his other policy moves have been able to do, which is shut them up, however briefly. And not only are they not taking to the airwaves to bash him, some are even grudgingly admitting respect for his administration’s success.

Robin Stublen, a tea party organizer in Florida who’s no fan of Obama’s, says, “I think it’s wonderful. He did exactly what a president’s supposed to do.”

Stublen says that many of his fellow activists feel the same way, and that most of the chatter he’s hearing from grassroots conservatives is pretty positive. “We realize a bad guy’s been killed,” he says. The nearly overnight change in the tea party’s focus was apparent Sunday night at the White House, where spontaneous celebrations broke out after the news of Bin Laden’s death spread. Among the many Obama campaign signs were enough Gadsden flags to give the celebration the look of a tea party rally.

Kellen Giuda is the founder of the NYC Tea Party and is already working to help defeat Obama in 2012 through a new PAC. Yet he was among the tea partiers at the White House, cheering the death of Bin Laden. He later posted online photos and video of the scene, which included the “Don’t Tread on Me” flags so ubiquitous at tea party rallies. He wrote:

Last night I, my girlfriend and a friend went down to the White House to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden. Being a Tea Party organizer I was happy to see some Gadsden flags and didn’t care at all when I saw some Obama campaign posters. 98% of the celebration was non-partisan and it was wonderful.

It was crazy with people climbing light poles, songs (someone brought a drum set), singing our national anthem, people climbing in all the trees right outside the White House, chants of USA, USA, USA, and just a great celebration with Americans for justice and freedom.

Even the cantankerous Judson Phillips, head of Tea Party Nation, was briefly forced to acknowledge that the Obama administration had sent Bin Laden “to Hell.” Even so, like other tea partiers, he was reluctant to give Obama much credit for the kill, writing:

Obama is taking credit for this. He did give the order. Did he really have a choice? If word leaked out that he had solid intelligence on where Bin Laden was and did not act, it would have killed any chance he had at reelection.

For much of Monday morning, there was serious radio silence from one of the most outspoken tea party groups even as the Internet was ablaze with the news about Bin Laden. The website for Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party umbrella groups in the country, was still focused on the debt ceiling and $4 gasoline. Eventually, national coordinator Mark Meckler commented on the big news, telling National Journal that Obama didn’t deserve any recognition for the military operation in Pakistan. “Taking such credit would be an insult to the courageous men and women in our armed forces who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way,” he said. “Any credit given is due to them.”

But more the more common sentiment was expressed by a commenter on the Tea Party Patriots website who wrote, “Obamma [sic] killed Osama bin Laden – pretty good for a Kenyan Muslim Communist!!!”

Still, as the euphoria over the initial news wears off, the tea partiers will no doubt find more reasons to be critical of the administration. Within hours of the late-night news, some of them were already starting the cries of “show me the body,” after learning that bin Laden’s body had been buried at sea—a sentiment fueled by Andrew Breitbart.

Stublen thinks this bit of conspiracy theorism about Bin Laden is on the margins of the movement. “You’ll have to really look to find some loons to find someone” who really disagrees with what Obama did or doesn’t believe it really happened, he says. Stublen recognizes, though, that “pitching his ass out there in the ocean” is going to create some lingering suspicions about whether Bin Laden is really dead that it could be a problem going forward. “I hope they got a lot of pictures. That’s the only way we’re going to convince people,” Stublen says. “They’re going to have to release the pictures.”

Related Articles

Comments Off

Filed under Obama Derangement Syndrome, Obama Presidency, Obama v GOP, Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing Conspiracy Theories, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-Wing Propaganda

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 15, 2011 · 12:21 AM

Michael Medved Calls Out Palin, Limbaugh For Alleging Obama Tries To Weaken U.S.

Mediaite

In today’s Wall Street Journal, conservative commentator Michael Medved goes after Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and other conservatives for deploying exaggerated rhetoric and “distasteful” criticism of President Obama, which Medved finds to be “destructive to the conservative cause.” However, what surprisingly seems lost on Medved is that when Limbaugh and Palin truly believe Obama’s policies will harm the country, their vocal distrust of Obama’s motives hardly destroys the conservative movement, it invigorates it.

Medved argues:

“Regardless of the questionable pop psychology of this analysis, as a political strategy it qualifies as almost perfectly imbecilic. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies. They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic.”

Yet conservative critics of Obama are sincerely concerned with the future of the country, rather than what might be the best political strategy. When Obama gave speeches abroad that millions of Americans thought downplayed American exceptionalism or when he continues to speak domestically of the need for universal healthcare and other government programs to promote a more fair and just society, these are just some of the positions that Limbaugh, Palin and others truly do believe will weaken America’s image abroad and greatness at home as a self-reliant society. Therefore, when Limbaugh and Palin loudly voice the concerns of many Americans who believe policies alternate to what Obama promotes will strengthen America, then why exactly would Medved advocate their silence, or even any restraint, on the issue?    More here…

Related Articles

Comments Off

Filed under Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing Media, Right-Wing Propaganda, Right-wing Race-baiting

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 9, 2011 · 1:03 AM

The Myth of Obama’s Big Spending

 

The Daily Beast

Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs.

Does the president really suffer from what House Speaker John Boehner calls a “spending illness”? Not according to an exclusive Newsweek-Daily Beast estimate of his outlays on new legislation since taking office.

• The Newsweek Daily Beast team found that President Obama “spent” $21 billion more on GOP-friendly tax cuts than on government programs.
• He’s laid out $884 billion for six major, immediate spending increases that aren’t offset elsewhere in the budget, from the stimulus package to Cash for Clunkers.
• But he’s made $905 billion in tax cuts, including the Bush tax-cut extension in December.
• His health-care reform will tilt his spending vs. tax-cutting equilibrium toward the former in future years.

Nothing unites Republicans quite like the unshakable belief that Barack Obama has become the Carrie Bradshaw of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, unable to stop himself from frittering away ridiculous sums of money on frivolous things. But what Republicans never mention when railing against Obama’s alleged fiscal recklessness is how much money he has spent, and what exactly he’s spent it on.

To rectify the situation, Newsweek and The Daily Beast have come up with an exclusive estimate of the amount the president has spent on new legislation since taking office in January 2009. This isn’t the sum total of all government outlays; that number would include spending on mandatory entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which no president can control, as well as spending on income-support programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, which automatically increases as citizens get poorer (i.e., during a recession). Instead, we focused on the times when Obama decided to spend money that wouldn’t have been spent if the government had simply been humming along on autopilot.    

More…

Related Articles

Comments Off

Filed under President Barack Obama, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right Wing Vitriol, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-Wing Propaganda

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

· 12:08 AM

Rush Limbaugh chats with Mike Stark (A blogger) about Ronald Reagan’s legacy

I heard this on Friday but somehow, it didn’t make the week-end cut.  (Perhaps because I have the flu and frankly, I’m out of sorts.  Maybe that was the reason.)

Anyway, Mike made a call to Rush Limbaugh on Friday.  Friday was pretty much the kick-off of the Reagan “Beatification”  and Centennial birthday celebration. 

Well, Mike called Limbaugh to find out why all the big hoopla about Reagan when Reagan raised taxes, negotiated with terrorists (Iran hostage crisis BEFORE he was president), amnesty to undocumented workers, and he cut and ran from Lebanon.

The kicker is that Mike was quite polite and actually made Limbaugh tongue tied with his remarks.  Limbaugh never answered the question.  Instead, he attacked Mike Stark.

Here’s the article on his website:

Stark Reports

Transcript:

STARK: Hi, Rush. I, um… I’m calling because… Well, first of all, I’m a liberal, and I seriously don’t understand this, uh, Reagan idolatry on behalf of conservatives. I’ll get… I’ll give you my reasons. Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security. He –

RUSH: Wait, wait. Hold it. I need to go…

RUSH: Wait. Jeez.

STARK: The Greenspan Commission. He signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

RUSH: What…? Wait, you’re talking about Reagan or Clinton?

STARK: I’m talking about Reagan. Reagan did that. He raised taxes on Social Security. He negotiated with terrorists, sending — over and over again — arms to Iran in exchange for hostages perform by contrast Jimmy Carter didn’t give an inch to the Iranians.

RUSH: What in the world…?

STARK: Not an inch. Instead Reagan (crosstalk)

RUSH: Testing the true depth of my politeness here on this call, folks.

STARK: Say that again?

RUSH: Let me ask you a question. What do you think, given all this that you believe, when you hear Obama and the Democrats cite Reagan as they have been doing since about a week before the State of the Union?

STARK: It’s funny you ask that. Because as a liberal I think Obama owes his presidency to Reagan. They’re both kinda stuffed suits that say one thing and then do another. Obama hasn’t been anywhere near liberal enough for me. He said he’d close Guantamano (sic), he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: Yeah.

STARK: He said he’d help people out with foreclosures, he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: I feel for you on that.

STARK: But Reagan, I mean, amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, “Forget about it. Stay here forever.” He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed –

RUSH: Yeah.

STARK: — and he just decided, “Well, you know, instead of the fighting the bad guys I’m gonna run away”?

RUSH: Yeah.

STARK: Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

RUSH: “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?” I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.

STARK: Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists. Why is he a hero to conservatives? I don’t think you understand it.

RUSH: No, I do. Most assuredly I do. I just don’t think that you would understand it. Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security? What websites do you read? Where did you pick that up?

STARK: Look up the Greenspan Commission. It’s not too hard to find. I mean, it’s a matter of history.

RUSH: Where did you get it? I mean, you’re asking me questions. I’m just reversing one on you here.

STARK: I’m sorry. It’s just general knowledge. It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.

RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?

STARK: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.

RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.

STARK: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal. Of course I know Media Matters.

RUSH: Amazing coincidence out there.

STARK: They’re a fantastic website. But why are you dodging the question? I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.

RUSH: Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You –

Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.” Somebody like you just has to be defeated. There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you. You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached. T his picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people.

I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.” It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened. Reagan’s not perfect. Nobody is. But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with? Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes.

The fact that he’s trying to surround himself with Reagan, the fact that he’s trying to position himself with Reagan is the best indication anybody could have of what this country really thinks of Ronaldus Magnus. I think if you want to focus in on hypocrisy, you’ve got far more of it on your side of the aisle to explain and dig through than we do. Reagan was forced to raise payroll taxes by a crisis in Social Security in 1983. He endorsed that rescue plan that was written by Alan Greenspan. It was reluctant. He was not a big supporter of that. Remember, Reagan did not have a congressional majority with him.

Everything he got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere. There were certain realities that he faced. But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton. But did you understand the notion? Ronald Reagan fought for America. He loved America. He feared where the left, based on history, wanted to take the country. Ronald Reagan set the stage for the end of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan defeated Soviet communism without firing a shot. I don’t know… But none of that would matter. So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with. I mean politically.

Related Articles

2 Comments

Filed under Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-Wing Propaganda, Russ Feingold

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 1, 2011 · 5:44 PM

Rush Limbaugh Thinks Obama Is “An Increasingly Lawless President”

It just amazes me how Limbaugh and his ilk twist words around so that their very gullible listeners hear what they want to hear and that is, that Barack Obama is an other (not like them), or a crook, or a usurper.

Now Limbaugh actually goes on to tell his listeners that because of the high court ruling in Florida on the Affordable Health Care Act, which stated in part that because the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and because the entire act rests upon individual mandates, the result is that the entire Act is unconstitutional.

When I last read the constitution, I recall that everyone including the Obama administration had a right to “due process”.  In other words, if you disagree with a lower court’s decision, you then appeal the decision to a higher court.  In this instance, that court would be the United States Supreme Court.

Limbaugh tells his listeners,  in part:

“So, is Obama going to uphold the law and comply with the Constitution or not? Whatever a court does down the road is beside the point. The ruling of the day is the law is unconstitutional. It has been voided. The regime must legally deal with this. And, if they ask for a stay, then they are acknowledging the ruling and admitting that they understand it. It doesn’t matter that it might be overturned later. The law of the land is that it’s unconstitutional…”

It’s ironic how he says nothing about “due process”.   These people are simply outrageous…

Mediaite

We are in an “extremely serious constitutional crisis” according to Rush Limbaugh. With yesterday’s ruling by a federal court in Florida that the entire Health Care law should be thrown out, the White House has to figure out its next move. If President Obama doesn’t uphold the ruling, it will be another move by, what Limbaugh calls “an increasingly lawless president.”

Limbaugh compared the situation to Watergate and asked how people would have reacted if Nixon had ignored the Judiciary. He proposed that “the Liberals would have gone nuts about it.”

“So, is Obama going to uphold the law and comply with the Constitution or not? Whatever a court does down the road is beside the point. The ruling of the day is the law is unconstitutional. It has been voided. The regime must legally deal with this. And, if they ask for a stay, then they are acknowledging the ruling and admitting that they understand it. It doesn’t matter that it might be overturned later. The law of the land is that it’s unconstitutional. We have three branches. The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. The Executive can’t tell the Legislative or the Judiciary what to do. This bunch thinks they can.”

After making his “lawless” comment, Limbaugh imitated Liberal callers (the “new castrati”) asking if he really meant it. Yes, he said. Yes he does.

Check out the audio below:

5 Comments

Filed under Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-wing Media, Right-Wing Propaganda, Rush Limbaugh

Tagged as , , , , , , ,