Angry Libs: Limbaugh Incites “Riots in Public Mind” and Fans Flames of Racism for Money.
Angry liberals attacks Limbaugh constantly, but it is their attacking him on friday night last week that I wanna focus on here in this post. They falsely accused him of “inciting riots” and other things. On Friday night last week, Bill Moyers said this on PBS:
MOYERS: Some of you remember the Fairness Doctrine, adopted 60 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission. It said that opposing points of view had to be presented on radio or TV in a way that was honest, equitable and balanced. If not, said the FCC, a station could lose its license. Ronald Reagan abolished the doctrine in 1987, but mention it today, and the Rush Limbaughs of the world still scream like martyrs being stretched on the rack. These people earn millions inciting riots in the public mind. If they were required to be fair they would soon be penniless out on the street, cup in hand.
Folks, there are a few things I have to say about this:
1. God has endowed each and everyone of us with certain unalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If somebody wants to start a program – TV, radio, magazine, or some other – he/she has the full right to do so. The first amendment of the US constitution protects the right to freely speak and write. And it’s his program, so he can do whatever he wants with it. And there is nothing political about this, those on the left side of the political aisle can do the same; we still live in America. The Fairness Doctrine – as Moyers explained – is simply unconstitutional, and that is the reason Ronald Reagan abolished it in 1987.
2. Inciting riots in the public mind!? Are you insane!? How absurd can you be!?
Who stirred up the flame that caused the pitch forks coming up at the homes of AIG executives?? Who is impugning the work ethic of police officers and exacerbating the racial divide just last week? Who’s accusing doctors of taking kids’ tonsils out to line their pockets? Who’s fanning the flames against the insurance companies? If there’s anybody “inciting riots in the public mind,” it is none other than the lifelong community agitator Barack Obama, helped by you Mr. Moyers and your buddies in the media.
More importantly, what Rush Limbaugh does is not incite riots in the public mind; what he does is simply report the truth and the facts. All he Limbaugh did is inform people what Obama said in the press conference. Another example is in the health care debacle: Rush informs what’s in the health care bill; he doesn’t simply label it “socialized health care” without backing it up with facts. All you have to do is read the health care bill, and you’ll see what Limbaugh is saying is true.
3. “These people” do earn millions, but not by inciting riots in the public mind; they do so by providing content that their target market wants. There’s a demand for the program, and “these people” simply supply. And they make a lot of money in satisfying that demand.
4 “Required to be fair?” What’s unfair? If you view “these people” as right-wingers, then lemme tell you, the left-wingers have the same right to start a similar type of program, just with leftist content. And there are left-wing talk radio programs. So what’s unfair? Fairness is always an effective argument appeal because everybody wants fairness, and it is the intentions of Mr. Moyers and the likes of him to define what “fair” is.
In my opinion, Mr. Moyers is just upset and jealous of the “Rush Limbaughs of the world.” Why? Because Mr. Moyers used to have the monopoly on what you were told and thus what you knew. . And I can’t help but notice Moyers’ jealousy, since he keeps bringing up the money that “Rush Limbaughs of the world” make. Moyers is jealous of the kind of money that’s being made by those who took the monopoly power away from him.
Also on the same night, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said this on MSNBC:
GIBBS: The president wants to have constructive dialogue with people that clearly want to have constructive dialogue on issues that are as important as race. Uh, whether or not Rush Limbaugh wants to be part of, uh, a constructive dialogue or whether he wants to get ratings to sell commercials, uh, on a radio show, I’ll let him answer that question. Rush is paid a lot of money to fan the flames, uhhh, again so he can sell advertising on his radio show. Uh, I — I — I don’t think that’s what’s important. I think what’s important is obviously these are important issues, they have been over the lifetime and the history of our country, and the president takes them seriously and wants to deal with them seriously. I think that’s what it’s going to take. I think that, uh, very few of our issues are going to be solved yelling at each other on talk radio.
1. Obama does not want to have “constructive dialogue.”
Obama does not care about anything anybody says that doesn’t agree with him. All he cares about is advancing his agenda. One of proofs for this is before the stimulus bill was passed, Rush Limbaugh was the first to offer a truly bipartisan stimulus plan: use half the money to do whatever the Democrats wanted to do with it, and half for Republican plan, such as tax cuts. The op-ed was published in the Wall Street Journal. Of course Obama didn’t care. Rush Limbaugh asked Obama to debate him, and of course Obama never debated Limbaugh.
Dyson, sociology professor from Georgetown University, said this on MSNBC on the same night:
DYSON: Rush Limbaugh has perverted the nature of the conversation. To call Barack Obama an angry black man is as ridiculous as calling Rush Limbaugh a first-class intellectual. So the reality is that, uh, President Obama — with equanimity and poise — articulated his viewpoint, talked about the competing forces that, uh, made this situation untenable, and then tried to resolve it by acknowledging that perhaps, uh, tempers flared on both sides but not denying the legitimacy of the point that m-must not be lost here in all of the discourse: The president is committed to using his bully pulpit to inform, to enlighten, and to elevate the conversation beyond the trashy character that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to.
Folks, before we move on, if you listen to the tone of voice Dyson had when speaking this, he was the one who sounded angry.
Rush Limbaugh has never perverted the nature of the conversation. Informing people what Obama said in the audience, and reporting that Obama was the first one to inject race into this, were the things Limbaugh did. And you want to label this perverting the nature of the conversation?
And Obama is an angry black man. He says in his own book that he keeps a smiling face so people can accept him.
The president is not committed to “using his bully pulpit to inform, to enlighten, and to elevate the conversation;” His choice of words couldn’t possible have informed and enlightened anybody. The first thing he said was that he was biased and didn’t know all the facts; and he never gave us the facts, and played the race card in that press conference where he was first asked the Gates question. All you have to do is listen to the whole press conference to see that. Obama basically was saying, “I am biased and don’t know the facts, but I tell you; the cop is wrong and stupid.”
DYSON: Rush Limbaugh does not play to the better angels of their nature. Rush Limbaugh, his entire modus operandi is to deconstruct the sheen of genius and of incredible popularity around this president. The Republicans must be willing to be self-critical. We’ve heard of driving while black, now housing while black, being housed while black, is that a sin as well?
Not true, Dyson. Rush Limbaugh’s entire modus operandi is to tell the truth; pure and simple.
