The Left's e-War On Rush

by Dan Riehl

As part of their 2012 battle strategy, the Left is busy spinning myth from fiction and pressuring advertisers to abandon the Rush Limbaugh show. Despite an apology from Limbaugh, AOL suspended advertising today, making it sponsor number eight to do so.What is now obvious is, this is not about civil discourse, as some would allege. One can find instance after instance of television and radio hosts on the Left making the same comment Rush did, and much worse, against Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham and other conservative women, yet, there was no outrage from the Left then, supposedly in the defense of women, none at all. To her credit, Kirsten Powers, no far-right ideologue, was honest in pointing that out.

Yet, even today, alleged victim Sandra Fluke went on television's The View and suggested people should get their information from Media Matters. That, as much as anything, should tell you precisely what's going on here.

This story is about freedom of speech and liberty, from the left and the Obama administration's attack on freedom of religion that started it, as pointed out by Big Journalism editor, Dana Loesch - to now trying to opportunistically silence Limbaugh.

The Obama administration withered for several weeks under the intense criticism from Catholic leaders regarding the forced violation of religious liberty within the HHS mandate. In an effort to turn the tables, Democrats suggested that the GOP want to abridge womenís rights because Republicans expect women to obtain and pay for their own birth control.

What conservatives in and on New Media must comprehend is, that by using Twitter, Facebook, email and other means of communication, the left has become practiced at applying pressure in a manner that creates controversy, than takes advantage of it. In this case they are doing that by contacting Limbaugh sponsors and even other media outlets to influence coverage, or opinion.

In a post titled, "Welcome to total political war," Bill Jacobson highlights another radio host being pressured to get on board and slam Limbaugh. This is an e-empowered institutional left, the same one we fight every day and at every turn. And we must fight it today, not only, or even chiefly for Rush Limbaugh, but for conservative values, freedom of thought and expression and liberty. Ths ugliness is orchestrated, happening by design, not happenstance, and Stalinesque in spirit. Yet, the mainstream media will likely draw no attention to that.

Certain sponsors of The Kim Komando Show were also sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh Show. To that end, I had not brought pressure on those sponsors to discontinue their advertising schedules with The Rush Limbaugh Show. Therefore, I must, in some way agree with Mr. Limbaughís positions. Further, as a woman, I should be especially sensitive to his comments and should have been among the first to denounce him.

Former Reagan speech writer Jeffry Lord takes up the cause at the American Spectator. You will find everything there you need to become engaged and fight back. Failure to do that now will only ensure that the day will come when they will be targeting you, or this, or that conservative voice or leader that you appreciate, even if not a Limbaugh fan. This is not Rush's, or any one person's battle, like it, or not, this is our battle, now - and we must stand up together and with Rush and be heard.

Rally for Rush
Carbonite CEO tied to MoveOn.org: time for conservatives to fight blacklisting?
Right on cue, the blacklisting crowd came out of their Stalinist caves. Having driven Lou Dobbs from CNN, cut off Beck's windpipe at Fox, severed Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, thus emboldened they have now set their sights on Rush.

Big Journalism

The Bell Tolls for Breitbart

March 4, 2012
By Clarice Feldman

The untimely death of the conservative media genius, Andrew Breitbart, came during a week where the lesson he taught us about media manipulation of the voters in support of leftwing Democratic goals was yet again manifest.

William Jacobson set out perfectly the danger of a second Obama term in office:

The threat of an Obama unrestrained by the need to be reelected is a theme I've hit on repeatedly with regard to Israel. There is no doubt that but for the need to keep Jewish votes and money coming, Obama would have lowered the hammer on Israel even more than he has. Obama will force his vision of a settlement on Israel in a second term.

Domestically, Obama has shown a willingness to use the power of his presidency to force deals (e.g. auto bailout) which extinguish or diminish property rights, direct government funds to companies run by campaign donors, slow walk compliance with judicial orders (the Gulf drilling ban), direct stimulus funds as de facto public sector employee union subsidies, and use regulatory powers under the sweeping ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank bills to reshape almost every aspect of the economy.

And all that is knowing he needs to be reelected.

The Fourth Greatest President Ever in his own mind wants to be the Greatest President Ever in his own mind.

We cannot afford the Greatest President Ever in his own mind.

He has no positive accomplishments, no record on which to run so he and his party are reaching once again to the bottom of their bag of tricks, charging their opposition with racism and sexism at every turn.

Caught by surprise when the Catholic Church dug in its heels at his effort to emasculate it by forcing it to fund abortion, contraception and sterilization insurance against its own tenets, they and their media cheerleaders decided to pose the fight as one between those who are for womens rights and those who oppose them.

Senator Roy  Blunt (R.,Mo.) offered up an amendment  which would have  given the administration a face saving way out of the quicksand, an amendment to Obamacare to include a conscience protection which existed for more than 220 years before the wonks at HHS decided to do away with it.  The New York Times shamelessly mischaracterized the Amendment:  

The proposal, offered by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, as an amendment to a highway bill, says that health insurance plans and employers may refuse to provide or pay for coverage of "specific items or services" if the coverage would be "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan."

Mr. Reid denounced the proposal, saying it "would allow any employer anywhere in our country to deny coverage for virtually any health service for virtually any reason."

Contrary to the Times' make believe version of the Bill, a fantasy pushed by liberal opponents of it, the Bill stated only this:

(b) RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.-

''(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.-A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title...

It was defeated 51-48 almost on a pure party line vote. (The exceptions were Democrats Joe Manchin, Bob Casey and Ben Nelson who are up for re-election and voted for it, and Republican Olympia Snowe who surprisingly announced this week she was not running for re-election.)

The NYT's utter mischaracterization of the issue should be no surprise to careful readers of the paper. This week it ran this preposterous headline:  "Beheadings Raise Doubts That Taliban Have Changed."  And Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) asked if this  week's correction was the best NYT correction yet:  "A previous version of this article misstated how many of the president's proposals to reduce the country's reliance on imported oil were new in his speech on Wednesday. None of them were, not one of them."  My friend Rick Ballard says the paper and the rest of "the maintrickle media exist to deceive and mislead and they move ever closer to disproving the 'no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American' adage."

Not only did the Democrats push away the lifeline Blunt offered them, but they continued to mischaracterize  and demagogue the issue. Chuck Schumer said the amendment was the equivalent of a "contraception  ban." 

The president of NOW , an organization that  should have lost all credibility when it continued to support Bill Clinton, announced that the bishops really want the police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control.

Still, even they must have known that this wasn't  winning over a lot of the skeptics, and so Nancy Pelosi offered up space to a Georgetown University Law school student named  Sandra Fluke, who whined that because that Catholic university doesn't provide contraceptive coverage in its health care insurance she had to pay $3,000 over a three year period for it.  Representative Pelosi trembled with joy to have a dog and pony show artiste like this to make her point to the low information voters. It matters not, I suppose that the Weekly Standard went to the Target near Georgetown and found that the cost of generic birth control pills was $9 per month, which meant the true cost of allowing the university to follow its religious precepts over Fluke's need for contraception was about $300.00. Nor did anyone note that the $300 tab would be paid by students who were less randy than Ms Fluke.  (To the outrage of ObamaCare supporters, Rush Limbaugh and others dared to make fun of this absurd testimony.

The extent of the Fluke deception is becoming clearer by the day, as revealed by Jammie Wearing Fools:

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving "coed".  I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women's right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown's insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn't cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

You can be sure that Ms Fluke will not vanish from the spotlight after this bit of silliness. She surely will find a nice post-graduation slot at some "public interest" outfit, yammering for more free stuff for women and children.

Some critics demanded that Republicans admonish Limbaugh for using "the public airwaves" to attack a citizen. These same defenders of private citizen's are silent as the President uses the power of the White House to demonize and personally attack the Kochs, oil companies, and others.

As the media focus our attention on poor Ms Fluke and demonize Obama's critics, the Administration sends the First Lady out for photo ops of her supporting the troops while with little media coverage her husband slashes soldiers' medical benefits.  Breitbart's Big Government turned the spotlight on this real outrage. 

President Obama's new medical proposal seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget and $12.9 billion by 2017, the latter amount adding up to 0.99% of the $1.3 trillion deficit for a single year built into Obama's proposed budget. To accomplish this spending reduction, service members should expect a 30% to 78% increase in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. In five years, service members will expect an increase ranging from 94% to 345%.

The average annual salary for a four year single enlistee is approximately $34k. If that service member were married with dependents, the salary increases to approximately $42k. Are those numbers enough to make any sane person want to enlist today, knowing they will likely ship off to some foreign land to fight a losing war like that in Afghanistan? Are those numbers enough to justify risking one's life-enough to afford an increased medical premium that could be raised by 78% just this year or 345% by the time their initial enlistment is over?

Make no mistake; the President is downsizing our military, and this new military medical initiative is one sure way he will see volunteers leave the military knowing their benefits are jeopardized.

At a time when Iran threatens the free world, Afghanistan's violence is on a rise, and North Korea remains unstable, is now the time to play with our service members' well-being?

President Obama has taken an unprecedented action, crippling the livelihoods of our most worthy federal employees-our troops. And it's easy to see who's pushing for this change-the very elements that pushed for Obamacare and the recent contraception scandal, the political donors who represent America's health industry.

American Thinker

Judge Martin, Sharia, and Islamic Kadi ‘Justice’

Posted by Andrew G. Bostom Mar 3rd 2012 at 1:01 pm in Justice/Legal, Politics, human rights, united states

Judge Mark Martin—now infamous for presiding over the “Zombie Muhammad” case—was incorrectly identified by me as a self-professed Muslim, based upon a faulty audio recording of the court proceedings (see blogs here and here by Andrew C. McCarthy for the audio sleuthing, and clarification).

Nevertheless, the salient points remain: Martin’s alarming deference to Islam’s Sharia-based understanding of blasphemy—a non-existent “crime” in American constitutional law—and his concurrent warped misinterpretation of the First Amendment led him to behave as a de facto, albeit non-Muslim, kadi.

The “Zombie Muhammad” which sparked the case decided by Judge Martin

Moreover, before ever again belching forth uninformed, pious platitudes about Islam in his court room, I suggest Judge Martin read and ponder this sobering account written by Col. Felix A. Mathews, July 20, 1879. Mathews was an American consul to Morocco, serving in Tangier, from 1869-1893. What follows are extracts from Mathews’ unsparing analysis of the Sharia—Islam’s religio-political quintessence—and the consequences of its administration as “law,” based upon his intimate firsthand experience, after an entire decade in residence.

There is no code of laws in the Empire of Morocco, but instead of a civil they have a religious code. The practice of jurisprudence is reduced to the application of certain principles to be found in the Koran, and is the practical knowledge of the precedents established in the various jurisdictions. There are kadis and governors in the cities and countries for the administration of justice and notaries or talbes to certify deeds, and all which relates to the security of property. The laws of the Koran admit no evidence but from those professing the Mohammedan religion. [Parenthetical note: One could argue Judge Martin, assuming the role of de facto Kadi, did nearly the same in rejecting the video evidence of the atheist plaintiff!]


The kadis or judges are appointed by the Sultan, with a salary barely enough for subsistence…Pillage, extortion, corruption and injustice are universal, so with the almost unpaid kadis or judges, the longest purse invariably prevails. Justice is not administered; it is sold. Even the police are unpaid or receive only a slender allowance, which is supplemented by what they can extract from those who come within their clutches. The judgments of the governors are always arbitrary, and generally consist in distributing the bastinado with equal liberality to the guilty and innocent, committing them to some days’ imprisonment, whence they are released by money. The rich, therefore, rarely suffer any great punishment, though they should have been concerned in criminal affairs.


To this wretched system of administration the chronic state of disorder which always exists is in greater part to be attributed.

Three quarters of a century later, Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954), who also served as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, made these more expansive, complementary observations in his foreword to a treatise on Islamic law:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. 

Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

Judge Martin’s demonstrated inability to grasp these stark differences between the totalitarian, basic human rights-abrogating Sharia and US constitutional law renders him unfit for the bench.

Big Peace

Palin Punches HBO In The Face

...with the facts.

SlutGate: Obama’s Manufactured Media Tactic

Posted by Warner Todd Huston Mar 4th 2012 at 4:30 am in Democrats/progressives, Editorialism, Featured Story, First Amendment, GOP, Justice/Legal, Mainstream Media, News, Obama, Old media, Religion, Sexism, conservatives, journalism, media bias, newspapers

You know the story by now, right? Republicans run the he-man women haters club. As the media has it the story goes like this: poor, unassuming, innocent Georgetown coed, accidentally ends up in front of Congress pleading for “reproductive rights.” Evil mean conservatives led by scalawag Rush Limbaugh unfairly call her a slut and announce a war on women to end their “access to contraception.”



Of course, that’s the left-wing media’s narrative. The real tale is that this is as manufactured a story as you can find, one created for the purpose of assisting Obama and his Democrat cohorts win the upcoming election.

It’s all a scam.

The “coed” in question is one Sandra Fluke, a young woman that has been presented as some sort of expert in “reproductive rights” (another one of those faux rights we that have been foisted onto the public debate of late), but is she? Where did Mz Fluke really come from and what is her background? Why was she presented as some sort of “expert” by a sitting Congresswoman, the former Speaker of the House, no less?

The media is presenting this Fluke character as if she is just a fresh-faced, wide-eyed, 23-year-old coed that has been accidentally swept up in this story. But the fact is, this Fluke woman is hardly the simple Georgetown coed that she’s being portrayed as. Fluke has years of big government, left-wing activism under her belt. It’s hardly a “fluke” that she was the one picked to ladle out this coordinated election season campaign game plan.

As early as 2009 Mz. Fluke was involved in left-wing efforts to create the nanny state. As her bio on the Georgetown Law website tells us:

…Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

Other notations include her gay rights activism and other “women’s rights” activism. No mention made of her concern for the rights of men, naturally.

She is also not an innocent young kid. She’s 30 years-old despite being reported as but an innocent 23-year-old student.


There’s something else she is not, and that is just an aggrieved student accidentally caught up in this media maelstrom. In fact, she is an activist against conservatives. Last year, for instance, Fluke took her campaign against “conservative” universities on the road and led seminars to that end held at Berkeley. (Thanks JWF)

In other words, we’ve been sold a bill of goods. This woman is a hardcore, middle-aged, political left-winger, not any innocent law student.

Another thing is that Democrats tried to foist this faux “expert” on a congressional committee hearing before.

In the middle of February, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to hear expert testimony on President Obama’s decision to force religious organizations to fund contraception use for employees.

The hearing had actual experts that spoke on both sides of the issue but the meeting was about the Constitutional issue of religious freedom, not so-called “reproductive rights.” Mz. Fluke’s inclusion as a speaker was therefore denied because she is neither an expert on the Constitution, interested in religious freedom, nor is she an actual expert on the medical uses of contraception. She was merely a left-wing activist with no pertinent expertise.

This is why Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) held her own special hearing to give Fluke her platform for activism. Amusingly, while Democrats complained that it was a crime Fluke was not allowed to testify at the earlier hearing, in Pelosi’s dog and pony show, Fluke was the only one allowed to speak. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

Democrats are also attempting to fund raise off this issue. Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently sent out a fundraising email lamenting: “Why we’re debating a woman’s access to birth control is beyond me.” Schultz lying continued in the letter when she said, “we need to stand up for the women and men whose access to care would be denied if the GOP has their way.”

Of course, those are outright lies. No one is trying to keep women form access to birth control. What Republicans are saying is that there is no reason to expect taxpayers to give free contraception to horny — and rich — Georgetown law students! Or any other student, for that matter, rich or poor. There is no right to taxpayer-funded contraception. Further government has no right to tell private, religious entities that they have to pay for it either despite that it may violate their religious consciences. The Constitution rather prevents such assumed government powers, actually.

Now, we know that this controversy was fueled by Rush Limbaugh’s off handed comments that Fluke (or the coeds she was pleading to get free contraception) are “sluts.” But, injudicious as his comment was, Limbaugh did not start this fire. The Democrats did and chief among them is President Obama whose decision to rip the Constitution to shreds and supplant it with his left-wing powergrab is what started this whole ball rolling.

If President Obama had not decided to summarily dispense with the First Amendment — one of America’s original, founding principles — by Presidential fiat, this discussion would not be in the offing. And why is this the story of the day? Because Obama thinks it is in his best interest to try and keep the GOP portrayed as anti-woman and the Old Media establishment — Obama’s defacto campaign press office — is pleased to help him do that.

This story has been manufactured from day one. It is a false narrative invented in the White House, furthered by the President’s extremist, left-wing Party, and kept rolling by their lapdogs in the Old Media establishment.

Big Journalism

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 - FULL SPEECH

In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Posted by Larry Solov Mar 1st 2012 at 5:58 am in Featured Story, News 

With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart.



Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.

Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.

***

Media inquiries: jpollak@breitbart.com

Big Journalism