It's Official: Rush Limbaugh Is Back On Drugs

He HAS to be, otherwise how can these batshit crazy comments be taken even remotely seriously?



So... Obama was in cahoots with the National Weather Service to falsify the track of Hurricane Isaac in order to fuck over the first day of the GOP Convention in Tampa, and the people who really WERE in harms way were basically shrugged off and considered collateral damage just to ruin some delegation fun in Florida.

And millions of people take this asshole seriously for three hours on a daily basis.

Definition of Batshit Crazy Wingnuts

What you are about to see is a video of Congressional Rep. Jean Schmidt, Republican from Ohio, when she (as Fox News and CNN did) initially thought that the individual mandate on the Affordable Care Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hold on to your seats.

 

This is an elected representative acting like a spoiled child with Tourette Syndrome in public based on what she thought was a decision in favor of her ideology. I wish (and I hope someone has video out there) that we could have seen her reaction when she found out she was wrong. Did she run down the street tearing her hair out? Did she repeatedly slam her head against a wall? Did she self-immolate?

And she wasn't the only one. It seems that other Republican and conservative politicians, talking heads, pundits, bloggers and tweeters were apoplectic and hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe their reaction.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to "repeal Obamacare on Day One" of his presidency, as has Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Radio host Michael Savage blamed Chief Justice Roberts' decision on his epilepsy medication.

Rush Limbaugh claimed "a giant, total fraud was perpetrated on this country." I don't remember such a reaction to Citizens United.

Indiana  Congressman Mike Pence compared the expansion of health care coverage to millions of Americans to the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Yes, 9/11. Seriously.

Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro likened the ruling to the Dred Scott decision. You know, the 1850s ruling that stated people of African descent were property whether or not they were slaves. And he ended his tweet (yes, he tweeted that) with "This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration." Nope. No exaggeration there!

And you have your usual, standard fare racist tweets; a self avowed Christian asking why they should pay for some "dumb nigger['s]" insurance, and one gem blaming "that nigger Coonance Thomas" for the Supreme Court's decision, even though Thomas was one of four who dissented. Classy.

This is what we find not only from fringe wingnuts, but actual mainstream and in some cases duly elected wingnuts. Is mental health covered under Obamacare?

Tweet of the Day

Limbaugh Defends Joseph Kony Solely To Be Anti-Obama

Some people will do or say anything strictly because it's in opposition to that evil, Socialist, Marxist, anti-colonial Kenyan world view, Manchurian candidate President Barack Obama. How much farther can Rush Limbaugh stick his head up his own ass. This time, Rush defends Ugandan leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony. If you don't know what the LRA is...

The LRA is a militant group with a syncretic pseudo-Christian extreme religious ideology, known for the atrocities they commit against civilians, including murder, mutilations, rape, and in some accounts even cannibalism.

Directed by Kony, the LRA has earned a reputation for its actions against the people of several countries, including northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Sudan. It has abducted and forced an estimated 66,000 children to fight for them, and has forced the internal displacement of over two million people since its rebellion began in 1986.

But because Limbaugh and most of the GOP say and do everything they can to oppose President Obama, then they've got to be against this, right? It has to be some conspiracy to defeat the Christian faith if you go after someone who's "army" is called the Lord's Resistance Army. I mean, it's right there in the name! "Lord" is part of their name, therefore they must be fighting on behalf of God. ...Seriously.



How do you combat this type of idiocy and ignorance?

It reminds me of this Key & Peele comedy clip.



UPDATE: As Rush continued his statements, which aren't in the video, here's what he said:

...So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn't you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn't just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they've done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they're criticizing it.

Lord's Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people." Now, again Lord's Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord's Resistance Army, what they're trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology." Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.

Yes, President Obama is defending Muslims and killing Christians. That was what Rush was trying to get across to his ditto heads. And they'll buy it hook, line and sinker because they want to believe it.

Let's Get This Straight

POSTED BY JHW22

I just hit my limit of hearing jackasses talk about Sandra Fluke's Congressional testimony on contraception and getting it WRONG. Tony Perkins was on Martin Bashir and said that, although he wouldn't want his daughter insulted, his daughter would never go before Congress to talking about "sexual promiscuity".

THAT DID IT! I am about as pissed as I can be.

It's painfully clear Mr. Perkins didn't hear or read Ms. Fluke's testimony or he'd know that the only mention of contraception for sex was about a married couple who couldn't afford birth control any longer. It's painfully clear he takes his cues from Limbaugh and the right-wing talking heads on the value of LYING.
But what REALLY sent me into shaking, screaming, rising blood pressure mode was the next topic of discussion: transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking access to their legal rights. He said that transvaginal ultrasounds are important for sharing FACTS with women.

Well, I suggest Mr. Perkins begin by educating himself on facts by reading and watching Ms. Fluke's testimony before he goes on air again to distort and further insult Ms. Fluke by making her out to be someone she's not. Yes, Mr. Perkins, facts are important. GET SOME! Perhaps you can help me educate Mr. Perkins by Tweeting him with facts @tperkins

Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. And I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies, and all of the student activists with us, and thank them so much for being here today.

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them -- them, not me -- to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy.

One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance, and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget any more. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face this same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a backseat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20 percent of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verification of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay -- so clearly, polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that, in the middle of the night in her final-exam period, she'd been in the emergency room. She'd been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me: "It was so painful I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor's office trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats and awaking and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it. Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age -- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis -- she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend's tragic story is rare. It's not. I wish it were. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can't be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication, the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis. Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she's struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified not to have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously, because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman's reproductive health care isn't a necessity, isn't a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered on the insurance, and she assumed that that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health.

As one other student put it, this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs. These are not feelings that male fellow students experience, and they're not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking, what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up the Jesuit creed of "cura personalis," to care for the whole person by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when 94 percent of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere and -- even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that in the 21st century anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I've shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the health care we need. The president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed, and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much.

The Notorious D.I.C.K.

Well, where to start? After Rush Limbaugh's non-apology apology for calling Sandra† Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," he tried to make excuses for himself for why he used those words, and tried to compare his profession to that of a rapper.

“Talk about a double standard,” Limbaugh said on air Monday, according to Dylan Stableford. “Rappers can say anything they want about women [and] it’s called art. And they win awards.”

Whether you like rap music or not, it's considered an art form because it's something that is created. When has Rush created anything other than a shitstorm of hate? Sorry, Notorious D.I.C.K., you're not a rapper.

And good for Sandra Fluke to reject Limbaugh's non-apology. He said he was sorry for using those words, but I don't remember him saying he was sorry for wanting to see sex tapes of Fluke in return for something he's not paying for, which also seems to be overlooked by those covering this story. In fact, calling her a slut and a prostitute was tame in comparison to the other things he said.

*One more thing: Did anyone notice that last all week, Limbaugh was pronouncing Fluke's name "Fluck" as in rhymes with "Fuck"? Only today has he been pronouncing her name correctly.


(† A previous version of this post mistakenly named Ms. Fluke as Sarah, and has been corrected.)

Rush Still Doesn't Get It

There must have been a major shitstorm in RushWorld after advertisers started pulling their spots from Limbaugh's show because of the crude, misogynist remarks he made toward Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke and her Congressional testimony. His "slut" and "prostitute" remarks were not based in any reality whatsoever. Advertisers let him know by pulling their ads and it looks like he was either scared enough or pressured enough by ClearChannel to actually apologize in a statement.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

But of course! Calling someone a slut and a prostitute is the height of humor. Ask and comedian and they'll tell you there's nothing like misogyny to get a crowd rolling in the aisles.

But this website apology only proves that Limbaugh never actually bothered to listen to or read Sandra Fluke's statement, and that he really doesn't understand how contraception works. So I'll try to explain in an attempt to make Rush and any dittohead understand what it is that he's railing about without any grasp of reality.

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress."

I think it would be absurd too, Rush, but that's not what they were talking about. If you bothered to educate yourself and actually listen to what they were talking about, you'd know they were speaking not of sex or sexual recreational activity (I know you're disappointed) but of the medical necessity of contraception. What about the woman who needs birth control to regulate her hormones because of endometriosis? What about the woman who suffers from polycystic ovarian syndrome, as Sandra Fluke testified?

"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities."

We're not. Georgetown University is a PRIVATE school buying insurance plans from PRIVATE insurance companies on which students PAY premiums, just like anyone else who has an insurance plan. Taxpayers are not paying for this. In fact, the mandate the Obama administration put forth in their compromise which effectively took the church off the hook required the INSURANCE COMPANIES to provide free contraception (i.e. prescription meds, not condoms because it's not about sex) should the religious institutions have a moral dilemma with it.

But since Rush and Co. don't understand how contraception works, this is falling on deaf ears. Some are moronically still insisting that this is about sex and crunching the numbers to calculate how much sex women are having per day depending on their contraception costs.

"...it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level."

Once again, Rush, it's not about nosing into someone's bedroom - and the only reason it reach the Presidential level is because it was you who made it about the private affairs of someone's bedroom even though it isn't about sex. President Obama actually called Ms. Fluke to support her after your misogynist attack. Do we see a pattern here?

"...what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"

Do I even have to go into comparing prescription medication to sneakers?

Rush doesn't understand. Rush will never understand. And the only reason Rush apologized was because he realized his words are hurting his wallet.

Frustrated

Okay, I had to sleep on this one - I purposely avoided any news on my television machine this morning and averted my eyes from any headlines online and in print as to not cloud my judgment or contaminate my thoughts. I wanted to take a step back after a pseudo-rant in a post outlining yesterday's events, venting on Twitter and debating with Twitter friends, and try to explain how I feel about them.

Last night I received an e-mail from Obama for America titled, "Frustrated."

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work. Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them...

...It's been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.

I know that you're frustrated by that. I am, too.

He then asked me to stand with him, which I did, and asked for a donation, which I didn't give.

You see, the President is right. I am frustrated. But this time there's more than a little frustration to go around on both sides. And I'm not normally a "both sides" guy.

Earlier in the day, the White House announced that they were finally making a highly anticipated speech to lay out a jobs plan for the struggling economy. For months, the petulant Boehner and the rest of the spoiled brats in the GOP cried, "Where are the jobs?" like a playground taunt. They swept into office in November of 2010 on the issue of "jobs, jobs, jobs" and have done absolutely nothing on that front, pivoting on a dime and making deficit reduction during a horrific recession their primary goal and doing anything and everything, including holding the debt ceiling hostage and causing a downgrade of the American economy by S & P in the process.

So here was the announcement. And the White House chose the first day that Congress is back in session. It's also the same date as the scheduled GOP Primary Debate at the Reagan Library. Now don't misunderstand. This wasn't a decision made willy-nilly. This wasn't some random "idiot staffer" throwing a dart at a calendar, as one tweeter tried to suggest. These things are known well in advance and coordination with 535 members of Congress, with major news outlets and networks are all planned. And I thought it was a brilliant strategy politically. Put the GOP between a rock and a hard place - make them choose. Do you care more about one of your many upcoming GOP debates, or are you being a serious party and really care about jobs for America despite your actions to the contrary? Perfect plan.

And then the unbelievable happened. Boehner refused the President of the United States his request for a joint session. He showed his hand - a jobs plan that he has been wailing about for months could wait another day.

FUCK YOU, BOEHNER! I thought. If you don't think this is of the utmost importance, fine. Let the President take his address to the American people from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Show the dichotomy, plain for all of America to see. A president who cares about the unemployed against the GOP whose primary stated goal is making Obama a one-term president. Except the president wasn't so resolute.

The Obama email was time stamped at 10:38pm, about an hour after another "compromise" in which the President chose a specific date, September 7th, for an important joint session of Congress to address the nation's job issue, and Speaker of the House John Boehner refused the date, an unprecedented move and one that was most likely motivated more by a GOP primary debate conflict that same night rather than the House schedule, along with some Rush Limbaugh advice. Boehner suggested one night later, September 8th. So the two men talked. And the "compromise?" Or what passes for "compromise" nowadays? President Obama will give his address to a joint session of Congress on September 8th. All within a couple of hours, President Obama acquiesced yet again to Boehner and the GOP. And then he asked me for money.

And within minutes, there was the spin. On one side: "Obama caved again." On the other: "Obama is the only adult in the room." My initial reaction was the former, not the latter. Every once in a while when you're the only adult in the room, the spoiled brat needs a spanking. I'm still waiting for that spanking. And. It's. Fucking. Frustrating.

Now logically, sure, it makes sense that people would come to the defense of the President with the "adult" angle. The Party of No proves their moniker once again. The rancorous GOP shows they refuse to agree with the President about anything to show their extremist base they won't budge. John Boehner is at fault for putting party and politics ahead of the country. I get it. But I'm sorry, I can't turn on a dime that quickly. I can't call the choosing of the initial date great political strategy and within hours dismiss it as, eh, it's just a date. And I'm not going to let other people use that excuse either. Because it wasn't just a date. It was chosen specifically by the White House as a shot across the bow and before the battle began, there was a retreat.

And let's not pretend that it's insignificant. In the grand scheme of things, a specific date isn't the issue. It's about a continuing, troubling pattern of capitulation. There is no such thing as compromise anymore. There is no 50/50 meeting of the minds. From the public option, to the threat of government shutdown in the budget deal, to the threat of government default in the debt ceiling hostage negotiations, there has been no meeting in the middle. How many times will the President draw a line in the sand and then walk away from it? Unfortunately, optics matter. Spin matters. And to me, this just looks bad. That is why I'm frustrated. And I'm allowed to be frustrated.

I'll vote for President Obama. I'll contribute to his campaign. I'll work at the local campaign office when I can. I'll proudly wear my Obama t-shirt and display my lawn sign. But I'm allowed to be pissed off every once in a while.

So now the date is set for Thursday, September 8th, coinciding with the NFL season opener. I don't have to remind readers here that the majority of the country doesn't follow politics like we do. They're not wonks or cable news junkies and probably couldn't name the Secretary of State if asked. But they loves them some football. How many potential viewers will be lost by this move? I have a feeling it will be a significant number. Yes, we'll watch it because that's what we do. But on Friday, ask the average Joe Six Pack if he watched President Obama's joint session of Congress. See what answer you get.

My good friend and co-blogger Jennifer wrote a post last night using a "ball in the dirt" baseball analogy and comparing the President to a catcher controlling a ball thrown in the dirt to induce the batter to swing at a bad pitch and miss or ground out weakly. And that's a good analogy. But the problem is that in this situation, President Obama wasn't the catcher. He was the pitcher. He pitched a plan, a date for the speech. But batter Boehner didn't swing at it. He took the pitch for a ball. He then beared down at the plate and it was the perfect opportunity for Obama to throw one in high and tight; give him a little chin music. Instead, Obama didn't even challenge him.

Boehner walked.

Boehner Seeks Approval From GOP Leader

House Speaker John Boehner is no longer hiding who the real leader of the Republican Party is.

...Boehner (R-Ohio) outlined the GOP's debt-ceiling plan to conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh on Monday before showing it to his conference.

On Monday during his radio program, Limbaugh talked about the call he received from Boehner. Limbaugh's support of the plan would be advantageous to Republicans because it might help rally the conservative base.

...Limbaugh said Boehner told him he was working on the plan with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He also said President Obama was irritated at being left out.

"Boehner told Obama that, Obama got aggravated even more that he's been left out of that," Limbaugh said.

He outlined his plan to Limbaugh before showing it to his own people? SERIOUSLY?!

Now we know why Boehner requested the largest gavel possible when he took over the Speakership. He wanted to compensate for his incredibly tiny balls. House Leader my ass.

Mitt Romney Doesn't Know How Video Works...

...or else he'd probably try not contradicting himself at such a dramatic rate.

Mitt Romney, June 3rd, 2011: "I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course," Romney said. "But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing."

And there's video to verify his quote.

Mitt Romney, July 18th, 2001, just 6½ weeks later: "...I support reasonable standards. … Do I support the EPA? In much of its mission yes, but in some of its mission no. The EPA getting into carbon footprints, and… [APPLAUSE] I think we may have made a mistake, we have made a mistake is what I believe, in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions. I don’t think that was the intent of the original legislation, and I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies."

And there's video to verify his quote.

What happened between June 3rd and July 18th that made Mitt Romney hedge his original statement?

Rush Limbaugh took Mitt Romney to task today for saying he believes in man-made global warming. After playing the clip of Romney’s comments, Rush said, “Bye, bye nomination. Another one down.”

Now, technically, are Romney's two statements different? Yes. But are they significantly linked? Of course.

If you believe greenhouse gases are in fact causing the earth to warm, causing oceans to rise, causing weather patterns to become more and more severe, causing natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes to become fiercer and more frequent as a result, then the "harm to our bodies" may come in the form of houses crashing down on us or hurricanes flooding out towns and causing mass drowning, and not a conflation between "pollutants and greenhouse gases."

Romney knows this and is trying to make it all nuance-y to walk back his statement (his correct statement) that man contributes to climate change, but hey, Mitt's gotta keep his GOP masters happy, right?

Does Limbaugh Ever Get Tired of Being Wrong?

Rush Limbaugh today railed against the Obama administration and their plans to be able to alert you via the FCC of disasters through your cell phone. There's only one problem:

This plan was authored by Tea Party poster boy, Jim DeMint in 2006 and passed by Congress and also supported by an executive order signed by President Bush. In 2006 the GOP controlled all of Congress and the White House. This is a GOP plan, not a Democratic one.

Did he actually read about this other than from his faxed talking points? Or did he purposely omit the fact that this national emergency alert system has been in the works for five years?

He's such a funny jester.

(H/T Intoxination)

Ed Schultz Responds To Limbaugh's "Freeloaders" Comment

To Rush Limbaugh, the 70,000 protesters in Madison, Wisconsin who are fighting for their rights to collectively bargain, the teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers and others, who are exercising their Constitutional right to redress grievances, those people are just "freeloaders" as if they didn't work for their money; as if they didn't pay taxes on their salaries.

Ed Schultz had a response for Limbaugh as he stood with the crowd in Madison.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rush Limbaugh is a Moron Too

The King of Conservatives, the Overlord of Oxycontin, the Viscount of Illegal Viagra, Rush Limbaugh was caught off guard and completely stumped when a caller challenged him and asked why former President Ronald Reagan, who was pro-amnesty, raised taxes eleven times, "cut and ran" from Lebanon and negotiated with terrorists, is considered a Conservative hero.

Limbaugh was dumbfounded - he stuttered, he stammered, he froze - and the only thing he could come up with was to question the "silly notion" that Reagan raised taxes, the most obvious and provable of the caller's accusations.



Well, I suppose to keep one's ample ass in comfort, one has to keep pulling the wool over the rubes' eyes.

The Brainiacs at Fox Nation and The Imbeciles Who Read It

Mediaite: "...Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm that Barack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section."

Some of the comments left by the MENSA members reading Fox Nation, which can be seen in Mediaite's screenshot, ramble on from the President being incompetent and calling his mental health into question, to suggesting he smoked marijuana and calling his presidency an affront to American exceptionalism. So exceptional was that commenter that he couldn't discern between truth and satire.

Finally someone chimed in with some realism:

professorbrown: WOW! I can't believe how many readers think this is REAL! I can't believe FoxNews is touting this as REAL news! This link will be removed within an hour.  That is if anyone with a brain is working at FoxNews today...
It's "The Onion" for God's sake!! We as a country are hurting when the right [can't] tell the difference...

Well, "professorbrown" nailed it. Here's what you get when you click the Fox Nation link now:




If you ask me, the only ones "lost at sea" are the Fox Nation editors and their readers.

ADDING... This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that some right wing ideologies have become so full of rage and rabid hate for all things Obama, they'll eat anything up and trust it as fact without the slightest hesitation or fact checking.  It's also the reason right wing humor is not funny. There's no way you can be humorous when you don't understand satire and your idea of a funny joke is a parody song called, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Seriously, when was the last time you laughd at anything Dennis Miller said since he crapped his pants after 9/11?

Very Serious Pundit

Here's Rush Limbaugh doing his best stereotypical Chinese language in reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.



Very serious Republican leader, that Rush Limbaugh.

Sarah Still Clueless

Sarah Palin's in trouble. And when she gets into trouble there's always an "exclusive" interview with Sean Hannity to lob the softballs (or just outright make excuses for her) and bail her out. But this latest interview showed that Sarah still didn't get it. She's still talking about being attacked in the "lamestream media" while using said media to try and wriggle off a hook of her own making, and still misconstruing the First Amendment while she's at it.

First she tries to backtrack on her use of the phrase "blood libel" even though she admits she knew what it meant historically.

"Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused, or having blood on your hands. And in this case that's exactly what was going on. And yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children. And you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion, because I believe that there are many on the left, many critics, who don't want, for instance, Congress, to buckle down, get back to work."

No, Sarah, maybe the criticism was that either A) you really didn't know what the term implied historically or B) if you did know, it was just an insensitive statement that you should have apologized for, which still hasn't happened yet. Because Sarah's never wrong so why should she apologize for anything? And what does any of the criticism leveled at your idiocy have to do with Congress going back to work? Maybe you'd like to think that the people's business has something to do with you, but it doesn't. I think Congress will get along fine even with criticisms being leveled against you.

But what really shows her to be the thin-skinned, feeble minded person she is, is once again deciding that criticism against Sarah Palin is somehow akin to censorship.

“I will continue to speak out,” she said. “They are not going to shut me up, they are not going to shut you up, or Rush or Mark Levin or the Tea Party Patriots or those who respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can’t make us sit down and shut up, and if thy were ever to succeed in doing that, then our republic would be destroyed.”

Who said anything about shutting her up? As has been explained over and over again, Sarah Palin is free to spout whatever ridiculously stupid thing she wants. That doesn't mean she's immune to criticism. Just as she's free to speak her mind, everyone else is free to respond to her moronic diatribes. And if we're at the point that our "republic would be destroyed" if we didn't hear the o, so glorious words of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, then we're already to late to save it.

Why Does Anyone Take This Man Seriously Anymore?

Rush Limbaugh: "What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

Rush Limbaugh's American History

A Very Special Rush Thanksgiving

Not a day goes by that Rush Limbaugh can't help himself but be on the opposite side of a Barack Obama statement. And this Thanksgiving was no different.

This time, Limbaugh tried to rewrite 400 years of American history by bastardizing the meaning of President Obama's Thanksgiving Day proclamation. While the President made reference to "the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive," Limbaugh, on cue, twisted it into some affront against America and how much Obama hates it.

"So, we were the invaders," complained Limbaugh. "We were incompetent idiots. We didn't know how to feed ourselves so they came along and showed us how and that's what Thanksgiving is all about."

"This has got to be parody," Limbaugh said. "Somebody is toying with me. Somebody is seeing if they can get one past me. Somebody is trying to take advantage of me being not as focused on the day before Thanksgiving and falling for this prank."

"He says nothing about the Constitution in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation because he's got a problem with it," Limbaugh claimed.

What does Thanksgiving have to do with the Constitution which was created 166 in the future of that "first" Thanksgiving? And about the early settlers being invaders? Uh, yeah. They were. And isn't the fact that the 1621 colonists were helped by Native Americans in learning to harvest crops in soil foreign to the Pilgrims well known?

But hey, I suppose those who listen to Limbaugh don't tune in to get accurate history lessons, or accurate anything, really. They tune in to hear stuff like this:

Obama: "This Thanksgiving Day, we reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation's heritage."

Limbaugh: "...at their casinos and on their reservations."

Happy Thanksgiving, Rush, you racist bastard.

More Like This, Please

I know this is old news, but Anderson Cooper did a great job and took the time to debunk the "$200 million a day" myth for President Obama's current trip to Asia. If only more journalists would follow suit.

I add this here for archival reasons, as I'm sure you'll eventually get an outrageous anti-Obama smear email sooner or later pertaining to this issue.

When Republicans Fail at Math and Logic

POSTED BY JHW22

President Obama is about to travel to India, Indonesia and South Korea. He begins with talking to business leaders in Mumbai, Indonesia, the G20 Summit in Seoul and Japan. And according to some top secret Indian government insider who discussed Obama's upcoming stay in Mumbai with an Indian paper,

The US would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama's visit to the city[Mumbai].

A WHOPPING $200 million PER DAY!?!?!?! And the article says that "3,000" people are traveling with Obama. And no, despite all common sense alarms that should be going off in your head, those alarms didn't go off for Drudge or Limbaugh or Michele Bachmann or the hordes of right-wing dumbasses who either believe it or are hoping their followers won't have any common sense alarms going off. And of course, no right-wing conspiracy is complete without a chain email.

A reporter for The World Net Daily insisted to Robert Gibbs in the daily White House briefing that because he's read the $200 million figure in many places, it MUST be true. He's one of those people who doesn't think to himself, "If I read something written exactly the same, word for word, in multiple places, it's still ONE story copied and pasted from ONE source".

In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Michele Bachmann appears to not be aware that the President is also traveling to the G20 Summit and suggested the President should just do a teleconference. And because she is either woefully uninformed or deceptively manipulative, she focuses, instead, on the made-up figures and changes from "3,000" people to "2,000" people and from the article's claim of the White House booking 500 rooms at a hotel to them booking 870 rooms even though the hotel only has 560 rooms. But perhaps that's because the same Indian news site printed yet another article that states:

Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459?cp

Stuff like this is what worries me about the fact that any naive, ignorant person can be elected to Congress. First, all Presidents travel. For the same reason Americans hate emails and conference calls: it's better to meet face to face. And if we want to consider our country a leader in the economy then we better meet with other countries to secure our foreign interests. Our economy and security are directly related to how well we play with others. In order to play with others we must have play dates and that often means going to someone else's house. We don't make friends staying in our own sandbox -- any stay at home mom will tell you that.

Apparently, Ms. Bachmann has no clue how many people attend one of these G20 conferences, which is where his larger posse will join him. Does it not occur to her that if "3,000" people (unsubstantiated figure) travel with the American President, that perhaps "3,000" people are traveling with the other world leaders? Can you just imagine "thousands" of world leaders and staffers all hovering over a speaker phone or leaning in to the picture on a teleconference -- and how many picture-in-picture windows would be needed? Well, I guess 20 windows would be needed since it's the G20. But then again, I think even non-G20 guests are invited but you get my point.

Hell, Korea is BUILDING ISLANDS for the Summit! Picture in Contact where they created an entirely secret place for the second secret machine. This is a big deal. The President doesn't set up a damn conference call.

But then again, she isn't really thinking about the ten day trip. She's thinking about sensationalism.

And really, why doesn't it bother a member of the United States Congress that a foreign news site is giving out detailed accounting of our President's security while traveling in an area recently attacked by terrorists?

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show said:

No president has ever anywhere close to 40 airplanes, 3,000 people, 500 rooms in one hotel. And that's just one hotel, for a ten-day trip, $200 million a day.

The claim that the entire hotel was reserved has been debunked by Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal, but even he doesn't state how he knows this. Even FactCheck.org and snopes.com have already debunked this entire thing.

According to Obama's itinerary, he will only be in the lavish Mumbai hotel, for one night. ONE NIGHT. And it is relevant that he is staying at that particular hotel because it was the site of terrorists attacks. We all watched on TV as this very hotel was under siege for days. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Obama:

...will take the opportunity to address a small group of individuals who were in one way or another marked by the attack, the officials say, noting that the president will be staying at the “centerpiece” of a four-day terrorist operation.

What IS unclear, is how many people are traveling with the President and how many are paying their own way, i.e. press and business people. The White House likely reserved the hotel as a block hold, leaving people to pay their own way. I am also guessing they got one hell of a group rate. But let's look at this: the Taj Mahal Palace charges 170,000INR a night for its top-notch suite. Not all rooms are that expensive, but for fun we can multiply that times 560 rooms and we get just over $2 million dollars. So one night of an entire 5-star hotel is around a million dollars when you adjust for the cheaper rooms IF they actually did book the entire hotel. So that leaves us with $199 million of the daily expense. What on earth could cost the $199 million the Indian Deep Throat claims the one night and two day in Mumbai will cost?

But what about that "3,000" people entourage? Aside from that being an absurd number, my guess is that the Indian Deep Throat is conflating separate legs of Obama's trip. There is no need for Obama to travel with more than a dozen, or so, aides, advisers, doctors, etc. (not including Secret Service) in India. However, he WILL need quite a few more to join him in Seoul for the G20 summit. The summit consists of days of meetings on global economy, business, finance. President Obama reportedly took 500 people to the G20 Summit in the UK. But then again, I have no clue how accurate that report is. Or how accurate this report is of Bush's trip to Sydney that included 700 people. But considering two different news sites reported similar figures in regards to two separate presidents in two separate years, I am guessing that this is a more accurate number than the "3,000" that came out of no where and is only supported by others who link to the same original source.

Another thing this monstrously high phantom figure of $200 million per day COULD include, though it shouldn't, are the costs that a nation covers associated with a head of state visit. How much of that figure includes India's expenses they cover when a foreign dignitary visits? Any security, beautification, staffing, the events that he will be speaking at, etc. MAY be lumped in this ginormous dollar figure, but that is not American tax payer dollars IF it so exists.

When I said, up top, that all Presidents travel, it's just a simple, verifiable fact. In 2000, several Senate Republicans requested to see the DOD costs of Clinton's international travel between the years of 1997 and 2000. The report presented shows that in that time span Clinton made 27 international trips. According to a separate report requested and presented a year earlier by the GAO, the cost of three of Clinton's trips in 1998:

The estimated costs of the President's trips to Africa, Chile, and China were at least $42.8 million, $10.5 million, and $18.8 million, respectively.

Granted, that was 12 years ago, but logic tells most people that a trip that cost a total of $42.8 million would not now cost 5X that amount -- PER DAY. Logic. Simple logic.

Interestingly, I did not find any reports requested by Congress to clarify the expenses associated with Bush's travel for international business -- they did, however question his request to raise his travel budget so he could fundraise for Republicans. But all Presidents do that, too. And that's a separate issue.

Now, aside from all the unfounded and bizarrely accepted claims, many take issue with the President leaving at all. Some think, "How can Obama go NOW of all times"? Well, let me remind those people that we are technically no longer in a recession because our GDP has been growing each quarter since the middle of last year. Also, since Obama's policies and budget have been in place, our deficit has DEcreased and our stock market has increased. Now, about those jobs... perhaps if we were building something we could sell, other countries would buy from us. Things like cars and wind turbines -- you know, the things Obama has spent the last two years ensuring that this country builds.

But back to the "not the time" argument let's put things in perspective: in November of 2008, post-election, then-President Bush traveled to Peru for the APEC Summit. We lost 240,000 jobs the previous month and went on to lose 533,000 jobs that month -- the largest monthly job loss to that point since 1974. Heck, he was only going to be the President for two more months. Did he really need to travel? What good was he going to accomplish?

Hell, so much happened on that trip you may as well read the pre-trip briefing and the summaries of the eventful, and highly relevant trip because I can't write a proper summary, and if that doesn't justify expensive travel during a recession, while hemorrhaging jobs, I don't know what does. Since we are better off now than we were then, then why can't this President travel on a highly relevant trip? President Obama's schedule covers so many topics it's best that you just read one of the many press briefings regarding the trip, too. But essentially, it's a big deal trip. Bush made a similar trip in 2005 and it was a pretty big deal as well.

I think part of what is ridiculous about this whole drama is that I have linked to several pieces of valuable and thorough information with deep insight into foreign relations and the world economy and an American President's effect on these issues. And yet, the right-wing wants to focus on a made-up, unsupported piece of absurdity that comes from an anonymous source who would have no idea how much money will be spent by our government. I hate to say this, but I actually agree with Sarah Palin on something:

I don't read some of it because I know that those that are impotent and limp and gutless, and then they go on, their anonymous, their sources that are anonymous, and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references. You know, it just slays me because it's so absolutely clear what the state of yellow journalism is today that they would take these anonymous sources as fact. So, when a story especially is filled with those and we know it's bogus and we're not going to read it.

But what irks me the most is that Diane Rehme now has to ask her guests to clarify the reality in an interview on her show. And White House correspondents like Mark Knoller are Tweeting about the drama. And now the issue is becoming that the stinking White House hasn't released actual figures due to security concerns. Well, I'd say the first person to answer to anything should be the reporter from the Indian newspaper who quoted an anonymous source. That reporter should have confirmed with the White House before printing the article. After all, wouldn't the White House know better than some fella who works for India's government? And the second person who should be held accountable is Mr. Indian Deep Throat.

What disgusts me most is that all of this hullabaloo even exists today because of right-wing media and the people who take it as gospel. Ridiculous and shameful. And those people voted on Tuesday.