[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg] 26th Parallel: Defending Rush

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Defending Rush

Once again, I feel compelled to defend Rush Limbaugh, despite the fact that I'm not a big fan of his, I don't listen to him regularly and I don't think what he says represents the entire vast "right-wing conspiracy" (sarcasm).

Why, then? 1) Because it smacks of extreme bias and hypocrisy, and 2) It shows how completely laughable journalism is today. Also, it sucks to be called a racist for no real reason.

This blog post by Toby Harnden at the Daily Telegraph contains ample information an honest person needs to refute or at least put in serious doubt any and all of the racist comments attributed to Rush Limbaugh over the years. With all the attention given to Rush on a daily basis, wouldn't you think that something, anything, concrete and undeniable would have been unearthed by now? The smoking gun, if you will? Of course, but we're talking about folks who have no problem using conjecture (at best) to trash the man.

The only comment that's well publicized and 100% verifiable which bothered people was Rush's comment in 2003 about Donovan McNabb being overrated because he's black. A poor, inaccurate statement? Sure! Does that make him a racist? No. To use that comment as a springboard for the Limbaugh-is-a-racist accusations shows the extreme dishonesty and hypocrisy that exemplifies too many people on the left.

While you peruse Toby Harnden's post, please make sure to click on the video link to Rick Sanchez's comments/interview. If you need an example why journalism isn't trusted these days, Hialeah Rick is a prime example.


Blogger La Ventanita said...

In my view even if Rush were a racist what right does the media have to infringe on his decisions? Do we have it on verifiable matters that no NFL owner is racist? What was he going to do, fire the players? He can't.

I just think that from a freedom perspective this is all wrong.

3:18 PM, October 15, 2009  
Blogger Melek said...

What a scary precedent Robert!

This is troubling in so many levels ... we are letting people like Sharpton and Jackson, with their skewed moral values and the help of the MSM, infringe on the individual "free" choices of those that don't share their agenda. Sharpton and Jackson called their "victory" a moral victory ... of course, applicable only in their all encompassing liberal world of relative morality!

It's disturbing that the same people who were up in arms with having someone like Rush be a fraction owner of an NFL team, have no qualms in approving of someone like Bill Ayers being elected vice president for curriculum of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation's largest organization of education-school professors and researchers.

Ayers's radical politics have not changed since his Weather Underground days. He's still very much working to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. He's an advocate of effecting a political revolution through education (indoctrination).

But I guess Ayers is only impacting the future of our country through education versus Rush's impacting "nadie & nada" as a partial owner of an NFL team ... go figure ... MMMM, MMMM , MMMM

I wish you well :) Melek

"Once one assumes an attitude of intolerance, there is no knowing where it will take one. Intolerance, someone has said, is violence to the intellect
and hatred is violence to the heart." ~ M. Gandhi

7:45 PM, October 15, 2009  
Blogger Srcohiba said...

What such BS is that the things that they can prove he said are not racist; boneheaded and not politically correct, yes. Cause if he was a racist then you'd have to say that Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles which was written by Mel and Richard Pryor is racist beyond belief.

Of course the buttwipes out there who say he's a racist in every breath are the biggest racists of all as evidenced by their vitriol against those who disagree with them who happen to be of a different national origna and ethnicity from them.

10:55 PM, October 15, 2009  
Blogger Rick said...

Interesting theory, Senor. So when, say, an Anglo disagrees with a Cuban-American, that makes the Anglo a "bigger racist" than if he is disagreeing with just another Anglo. Brilliant!

I gotta pull that one out next time someone of a "different national origin or ethnicity" disagrees with me! Should come in particularly handy in South Florida, donchathink?


6:37 AM, October 16, 2009  
Blogger La Ventanita said...

Rick, you just couldn't stay on topic now could you?

10:11 AM, October 16, 2009  
Blogger Rick said...

So I'm not permitted to comment on other comments, LV? Jeez, you folks run a tight ship around here.


1:56 PM, October 16, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home