Wednesday, November 19, 2014
ANP Hot News.....Around the Web
Links to Hot News.... Around the Web, via All News PipeLine
Putin: The U.S. Will Never Subdue Russia
Massive Fireball Was Just Caught On Russian Dashcam
Russia Warns Of Military Assault On The East
Senate Dems Defeat Keystone Pipeline Vote
Russia Launches Mysterious Object Into Space
Why is Putin Buying Gold?
St. Louis Cop: ‘Get a Gun, We Can’t Protect You’
Cold Weather Breaks 1,360 Daily Records
Record Breaking Cold Blankets United States
5 Killed In Jerusalem Synagogue Attack
US Orders Its Europe Troops To Keep Low Profile
US Military Looks For Elusive Mothership
95% Of Families Of Illegals Being Released
#Ferguson Protest Group Releases List of Targets
Limbaugh Unleashed: Obama Sociopathic Liar
Another Rude Obamacare Surprise Awaits
The Next Big Mideast Explosion
9/11 Co-Conspirator: Saudi Prince Financed Operation
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Rush Limbaugh Suspects False Flag in Syria Chemical Weapon Attack (Video)
In the video below, Mark Dice discusses the latest high profile personality to suggest that the Syria chemical attack was a false flag, meaning a set up of the Syrian leadership for no other purpose than to justify an attack against Syrian president Assad, to weaken him so the Obama Syrian rebels, who are loyal to al-Qaeda, can topple him.
Below is the segment where Rush Limbaugh asks the question "What if Bashar is being framed?"
Cross posted at Before It's News
Monday, May 07, 2012
Liberal's Selective Outrage
You know, it is an age old story, but one worth repeating. Why is it that the liberals get upset about things like Rush Limbaugh’s politically incorrect reference to Sandra Fluke as a slut, and yet left-wing advocates like Bill Maher can get away with calling Sarah Palin… a word I won’t repeat here?
Why are they fighting graphic depictions of abortions? Shouldn’t the same protections afforded to smokers- a lifestyle choice- be given to women seeking abortions? Isn’t that their battle cry: pro-choice? If smoking is a choice, and yet they want to warn smokers- visually- of the dangers, then shouldn’t they give similar warnings to women looking to abort?
Author Bio
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Arby's: Late To The Game, Messing With The Wrong People, Then Twitter Blocks Critics
Obligatory Arby's post.....
Anyone remember Sandra Fluke?
Well, long story short for those that have moved on, which almost everyone has, Fluke testified in an unofficial Pelosi hearing that law students had to pay up to $3,000 for contraceptives to which she and other liberal activists believed should be free.
Rush Limbaugh asked what people who think others should pay for their sex habits (paraphrasing here)are called, and mentioned sluts and prostitutes as the answer.
Liberals went nuts, started boycotting Rush advertisers for affiliates that carry the Rush Limbaugh show, suspended their advertising, then some started begging to go back and Rush refused to let them and accepted others in their place.
Of course in our 24 hour news cycle world, that was soooooooooo yesterday's news.
Except for Arby's, who evidently decided to make a Twitter announcement:
@StopRush We’re aware of this issue and have taken the necessary steps to discontinue advertising during this show as soon as possible.
— Arby's (@Arbys) April 4, 2012
A little late to the game and the reaction from conservatives was swift. Not appreciating those critical of their late to the game decision, @arbys over on Twitter started immediately blocking any user that criticized their decision.
The Atlantic Wire decides to have a little snarky fun with the whole Arby's/Twitter thing, headlining with "Arby's Is Messing with the Wrong Slice of America."
Arby's! Not a smart move. Maybe you think you're serving a lot liberals with your delicious Jamocha shakes but you're first and foremost a fast food chain, and if you knew anything about fast food customers, you'd be careful not to anger conservative America. As we speak, the blogging foot soldiers of the right (Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, iOwn the World, etc) are raising hell and the sandwich peddler better hope it doesn't catch on. As studies have shown, conservatives are more likely to consume fast food than liberals. The latest of these was gathered by a collective intelligence decision-making system at Hunch.com last year, which found that "liberals are 92 percent more likely to eat fast food rarely or never." Meanwhile: "Conservatives are 64 percent more likely to eat fast food a few times per week." They even made a big infographic:
Obviously someone was a little slow at Arby's and just didn't know that news had moved on to Obamacare in the Supreme Court, back to gas prices soaring, Obama's legal precedent gaffe, Ryan's budget proposal, Trayvon Martin, NBC's deliberate editing of Zimmerman's 911 call which led to a "seasoned producer" being fired or any of the remaining hundreds of issues that are being reported in the news since the whole Limbaugh/Fluke fiasco.
Watching Twitter from a @arbys search, I see they are still catching quite a bit of flack for their unwise actions.
@Arbys Dumbest business decision ever...you fail to understand the demographics of your customers...do a little market research next time.
— Stallion2011 (@Stallion2011) April 7, 2012
@Arbys @EndHateRadio I'm aware of Media Matters disinformation campaign, and have taken the necessary steps to discontinue eating at Arbys
— Calvin Dodge (@caldodge) April 7, 2012
@Arbys You really ditched Limbaugh? Hope you take food stamps.
— Craig Rice (@KhongLo) April 7, 2012
@arbys you really screwed up dropping Rush. Guess Ill go to Chick Filet
— Danny (@patton160) April 7, 2012
@Arbys We now see who you really are, I will no longer eat at Arby's#boycottarbys
— Scott Long (@scottlong71) April 7, 2012
@Arbys get out of politics, and back in the kitchen. #MAKEMEASAMMICH
— keith barry (@keithbarry1959) April 7, 2012
It goes on and on and on...........
I bet Rush Limbaugh is getting a good laugh out of this today and thanks to Arby's I will be listening to Rush next week to hear his response, and generally I don't listen to radio talk shows at all.
.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Audio- Small Business Owners Created Ads To Run On Rush Limbaugh To Defend Free Speech
Steven Eimers, who runs a local window cleaning service and recorded the advertisement at WOKI Knoxville yesterday, says he bought the ad on Rush Limbaugh's show not just to earn business but because he wanted to support free speech. This is his first radio ad in ten years. (Via The Politico)
Listen below:
Today (Via The Politico), Eric Dixon of New York sends in his own contribution to Limbaugh's cause: a 60-second spot he recorded on March 6 and ran on New York's WABC.
Listen below:
.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Michelle Malkin's #TWITCHY Puts Money Where Her Principles Are, Buys Advertising On Rush Limbaugh
I may not agree with every single thing Michelle Malkin says or does, we aren't robots we are not meant to agree on everything but I will say she takes a principled stance on issues and remains consistent across the board when she takes such a stand.
Via TWITCHY, a new startup of Malkin's which we discussed here, has just announced the site will be advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Colorado Springs, Col., March 9 – Michelle Malkin, owner and founder of new Internet start-up TWITCHY.COM, issued the following statement:
“As a small business owner, defender of capitalism, and advocate of free speech, I am putting my money where my conservative, free-market principles are. TWITCHY.COM is proud to join companies across the country that advertise with talk show giant Rush Limbaugh and his Excellence In Broadcasting network. Today, we will begin running ads on the RushLimbaugh.com website.
“Double standards and feigned outrage about Rush’s comments fit a decades-old pattern of liberal attempts to shut down his show and silence his voice. President Obama himself explicitly attacked Rush in 2009 at the very start of his presidency. But Limbaugh not only has survived countless protests, boycotts, media smears and political attempts to kick him off the airwaves. He has emerged each time with a higher profile, greater influence, and a strengthened hand.
“Our business is fledgling and the ad revenue we generate may be small, but we are grateful for the opportunity to reach Rush’s massive audience – and to show our support for his work.”
Show your refusal to allow double standards to rule the day and Make a statement: Advertise on the Rush Limbaugh Show .
.
Flashback- Rush Limbaugh Skewers Jane Fonda; The Grapes are Still Sour
Flashback- The year is 2006 and Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem become two of the founders for feminist talk radio network Greenstone Media, which had ties to Air America as documented by Radio Equilizer at the time.September 2006, Rush Limbaugh had a few things to say about Jane Fonda on two separate shows, the quote below is from the September 14, 2006 show:
....Jane Fonda was being interviewed by Rita Cosby on PMSNBC about the new women's talk radio network. By the way, we have the stations that that network will appear on. They've got four stations: WNAG, WCRY, WFEM and WPMS. They're working on a fifth affiliate, WBI-ITCH, but they're having to get FCC approval on those call letters because it's too long. You're allowed three or four, and they can't figure out how to put WBI-ITCH in the call letters (actually three after the W). But nevertheless Rita Cosby is talking about male talk show hosts and just asks her specifically -- we've got the audio of this coming up; Cookie is working on it now -- "What do you think of Rush Limbaugh?"
She got this sour look on her face and she turned away from the camera and just was so pained, and said, "Oh, toxic! Toxic! Are you kidding? I worry about the future of my country. I worry about my children and my grandchildren." This from the woman who sat atop a tank over in North Vietnam! Yeah, Hanoi Jane Fonda is worried about the future of the country because of me. You know what the smart answer would be? -- and, folks, this is not ego speaking. You know what the smart answer would be? Here are these babes trying to start a talk radio network, right? She gets a question about me or anybody else, say, "You know, it's amazing the success that they've had, and we hope to duplicate it." Just say something like that and be done with it.
By August 2007, Hanoi Jane and Steinem's radio network was over, it tanked and backers pulled the plug.
Now it is 2012 and Rush Limbaugh committed a crime in the eyes of the left, he called a liberal activist, Sandra Fluke, a slut. A Woman who put herself in the spotlight by going public by testifying in a Pelosi hearing and asserting that American taxpayers should pay for college student's contraceptives because they can cost up to $3,000 for a law student.
OMG, how dare he???!!!???
Rush hasn't learned that it is okay to call a woman a c*nt, a twat, a boob or a bimbo, but do not dare refer to one as a slut.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, he needs to also learn that the acceptability of calling a woman a c*nt, a twat, a boob, or a bimbo is also dependent on whether she is a liberal activist or a conservative woman.
I digress.
Yesterday CNN blasts the headline, "FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves," and the opinion article below is written by... wait for it............ Hanoi Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem!!!
If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"
Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.
Sour grapes anyone?
This, from a women who proudly took pictures sitting with anti-aircraft shells that were ready to be used to shoot down American planes.
This from a woman who helped in the organization of a production group called the F.T.A. (F*** The Army).
Jane Fonda once said "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism." Washington Times July 7, 2000
Note to Hanoi Jane- Guess what, we don't live in a socialist society, we are not a communist country and America enjoys something we call the First Amendment. Just as the First Amendment allows you to spew your ignorance and vitriol it also allows Rush Limbaugh to continue to speaking to his audience which is one of the largest radio audiences for talk radio.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Limbaugh Rejects Company, Sleep Train, That Suspended Ads From Show Over Fluke Remarks
Irony.... beautiful irony.
TheBlaze:
Rush Limbaugh has rejected an advertiser’s apparent attempt to reunite with his show after the company initially dropped its ads from the program following his remarks about contraception advocate Sandra Fluke.The company, Sleep Train, calls itself “the No. 1 Bedding Specialist on the West Coast, and most recognized mattress retailer in the region.”
In an email to Sleep Train President Dale Carlsen (obtained by The Blaze), a representative of the show says that Limbaugh personally considered the company’s request, but denied it considering its public comments following the controversy.
“Thank you for your requests last week and this week to restart your voiced endorsement in local markets of The Rush Limbaugh Show,” the email begins. “Rush received your requests personally.”
“Unfortunately, your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh’s character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the future.
“Rush appreciates your long friendship and your past support, and we wish you good luck in the future.”
Rush can easily replace Sleep Train but Sleep Train will have to do a lot of work, pay quite a bit in advertising costs to reach the amount of people they used to reach with Limbaugh.
Speaking of irony, Limbaugh has received a snarky apology from Wapo's Alexandra Petri for her misinformed, unverified story.
Related:
Rush Limbaugh: Clearing Up Misinformation On Our Sponsors
Video- Sarah Palin On Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
Rush Apologizes, Will Sandra Fluke Apologize For Expecting Americans To Pay For Her Sex Habit?
Sandra Fluke: When Activism Backfires As Rush Limbaugh Becomes Center of Attention
Eyes Back On The Ball: Obama's Abortion Mandate, Cardinal Dolan And Confusion
The Pattern Of Company Obama Kept
Read a piece earlier where Alexandra Petri over at Wapo is insulting those that advertise on Rush Limbaugh and a comment, at the end, caught my eye.
"But they say you know a man by the companies he keeps."
[Update] Either Ms. Petri is a liar or severely misinformed and didn't bother checking her sources according to Limbaugh.[End update]
[Update#2] Alexandra Petri apologized to Limbaugh on a post this afternoon and said the previous post contained incorrect information about AshleyMadison.com and SeekingArrangement.com. [End update]
Happily it is a member of the left that said that because Breitbart.com has also begun the Barack Obama vetting process and has pointed to another Obama association, a radical named Derrick Bell Jr., which has members of the mainstream media jumping to Obama's defense vehemently.A portion of Breitbart's vetting process is pointing to the company that Barack Obama kept, some of which was discovered but played down by some major media in 2008, while other media outlets did report on it.
In and of itself, the discovery of video showing Barack Obama embracing and defending Mr. Bell is not a bombshell, the explosive nature of the spotlight on Bell at this time is the addition of his name and the pattern of Obama associations with radicals and convicted criminals.
THE COMPANY OBAMA KEPT
Jeremiah Wright, the pastor infamous for his "God Damn America" mutterings on the pulpit, who was Obama's pastor and "spiritual mentor" for almost two decades. Wright was also part of Obama's 2008 campaign until he became a political hot potato.
Flashback- More about Obama's pattern of associations from 2008, via Washington Times:
Antoin Rezko: “Tony” Rezko is a businessman who has helped raise campaign money for Mr. Obama and many other Illinois politicians. He was convicted Wednesday on 16 of 24 counts involving mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and aiding and abetting bribery.
The charges have no connection to Mr. Obama, but Rezko is tied to the Illinois senator in other ways.
Rezko and his family donated at least $21,457 to Mr. Obama and helped raise over $200,000 more, though not for his presidential bid. He also advised Mr. Obama on the purchase of a new Chicago home and, in his wife’s name, purchased a vacant lot next door to the new Obama home when the seller wanted to dispose of both properties at the same time. Rezko then sold a slice of the property to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama has donated Rezko’s contributions to charity and says it was a mistake to work with Rezko on buying the house.
William Ayers: Today, Mr. Ayers is a university professor and a member of Chicago’s intellectual establishment. Forty years ago he was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.
Mr. Ayers was a fugitive for years with his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn. But after surrendering in 1980, the charges against Mr. Ayers were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers served together on the board of a Chicago charity and were co-panelists on at least two academic panel discussions and an academic testimonial — two of them at the University of Chicago. In the mid-1990s, when Mr. Obama first ran for office, Mr. Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate session for Mr. Obama at his home.
Emil Jones Jr.: Mr. Jones, the president of the Illinois Senate, amounts to Mr. Obama’s political godfather and was an important part of his longshot victory for U.S. Senate in 2004. He helped the little-known politician meet the right people, and he picked Mr. Obama to handle high-profile legislation during the two years leading up to the election.
Mr. Jones is known for steering state money to a few favored institutions, including some that employ his relatives. Several of his relatives have gotten state jobs, and his wife’s government salary jumped 60 percent after he became Senate president. He has played an important role in blocking ethics legislation in Illinois.
Rashid Khalidi: Mr. Khalidi is a Palestinian scholar and author on Middle Eastern affairs who has called Israel a racist state bent on creating “an apartheid system.” He’s also a friend of Mr. Obama.
They met while both were teaching at the University of Chicago and living in the same neighborhood. Mr. Obama and his wife sometimes had dinner with Mr. Khalidi and his wife, Mona. The Khalidis hosted a political fundraiser for Mr. Obama in 2000, and the Woods Fund charity gave money to the Arab-American Action Network, run by Mrs. Khalidi, while Mr. Obama served on the charity’s board.
Mr. Obama has said they hold very different opinions on Israeli issues, though Mr. Khalidi praised Mr. Obama as “the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause” and for his willingness to hold talks with Iran, which has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
The Rev. Michael Pfleger: Father Pfleger, the white, longtime pastor of a mostly black Catholic parish in Chicago, has been protesting everything from gun shops to Jerry Springer. Mr. Obama has referred to him as a spiritual adviser and used him as a political supporter.
Last month, he visited Trinity United Church of Christ, Mr. Obama’s church at the time, and preached a sermon in which he mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as expecting to win the presidential nomination because she was white. Mr. Obama, who condemned the remarks and resigned from the church, was not nearly as close to Father Pfleger as he was to Mr. Wright.
Back to Washington Post's Petri comment about judging people by who they keep company with, where she speaks about advertisers that Limbaugh probably never even met, certainly didn't sit down and have dinner with or associate with on a personal level.
"But they say you know a man by the companies he keeps."
Agreed.
.
Rush Limbaugh: 'Clearing Up Misinformation on Our Sponsors'
Make a statement: Advertise on the Rush Limbaugh Show
Rush Limbaugh explained yesterday how sponsorship works and why the hype over his show losing sponsors makes for good headlines but doesn't hurt him one iota.
Limbaugh transcript, 3/7/12:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPTRUSH: I want to ask if you will indulge me for just a brief few minutes for some inside baseball stuff before we move on to our review of the issues of the day, politics and so forth, Super Tuesday, the results, and where we are. The reason for this is, once again, so much misinformation about this program and advertisers is in the mainstream media. People are reporting things that, A, are not true, and B, I don't even think the people reporting it have the slightest idea what they're talking about, nor do they have the ability to understand it.
But I know that many of you are spending a lot of time -- God bless you -- on the Web doing what you can to express your support for the program. And judging from the reaction of my own brother, who sends me a note last night, "You really lost 28 sponsors?" No, we have not lost 28 sponsors. "Well, how can they say it?" Because they lie and because they don't understand how it works, and that's what I want to try and explain. In fact, folks, we have three brand-new sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks. Now, obviously, I'm not gonna tell you who they are today, but we've got three brand-new, full-fledged sponsors starting in the next two weeks.
Two of the sponsors who have canceled have asked to return. We are being very careful about that. Not gonna give you any names here. One of them is practically begging to come back. Everything is fine on the business side. Everything's cool. There is not a thing to worry about. What you're seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect. And let me try to explain how this works. Let's take the claim that we've lost 28 sponsors. Sponsors on this program are both local and national. We deal with the national sponsors on this program. We have 600-plus stations. They sell their own commercials. We don't have anything to do with those sponsors. We don't get paid by those sponsors. We have no idea who those sponsors are.
Let's make up a company, ABC Widget Company. And let's say that ABC Widget Company says, "We are no longer going to appear on the Rush Limbaugh Show." Well, ABC Widget Company isn't on the Rush Limbaugh Show. What happens is, advertising agencies order advertising buys on a series of local stations from market to market to market. A controversy like this erupts. They put out a notice to the stations, "By the way, for the time being we don't want our commercials run when Limbaugh is on." But they are not canceling their advertising on the station. They're just saying they don't want it running on my program during the local affiliate's commercial time, not ours.
So this 28 or 32 -- and I don't even know if that number's accurate, numbers are coming from Media Matters. There's no way anybody could know this, but I'm gonna put it in further perspective in just a second. What it means is there have been -- let's use the number 28 -- 28 advertisers who none of us are aware are even advertising on our local stations who had sent out orders that their commercials are not to run on my program. But that is not revenue to us. They are not our sponsors. They are not even canceling their advertising on the local station. They're just saying for the time being they don't want it run from noon to three. And let me tell you, this happens every day. It's been happening for 23-plus years. And it's not just to me. There are clients, advertisers, that tell stations, "I don't want this to run in Beck's show. I don't want it to run in Hannity's. I don't want it to run in Howard Stern's." It's all part of the business.
But because there's a focal point on this in trying to dispirit you and trying to present a picture of this program that doesn't exist and that's untrue, they're trying to make it sound like this is unprecedented -- that it's never happened before, it's at an all-time high -- and it simply isn't the case. We have not lost 28 national sponsors. There are not 28 advertisers who were paying us who aren't anymore. They are local commercial buys. Many of them may not even be running in my show to begin with. The advertisers are just saying, "If they are, pull 'em. We don't want 'em in there for now," but they're staying on the local stations. These advertisers are not abandoning EIB affiliates.
Nobody is losing money here, including us, in all this. And that is key for you to understand. They are not canceling the business on our stations. They're just saying they don't want their spots to appear in my show. We don't get any revenue from 'em anyway. The whole effort is to dispirit you. It's to make you think the left is being successful in its campaign when it isn't. In fact, the left is so fed up, they can't see straight. They thought they had me. They thought I would be off the air by now. They can't understand why I still am on the air. There is also another rumor going around that I am going to be suspended for a week. It is utter BS.
I would have to suspend myself!
Now, let me put this in further perspective for you, this number of 28 or 32, and then we're gonna move on to other things. Sponsors of our program are both nationwide companies, like Two If By Tea (my tea company), and local companies, like "Mike's Auto Body Repair" or a local bank. If we added up all of our affiliates (let's choose the number 600) and we assumed that each of those affiliates had 30 such sponsors in the course of our three-hour program, there might be -- all across this country -- as many as 18,000 different sponsors of this program. Let me put it another way: There might be 18,000 different people buying advertising within this program alone.
That is a conservative number: 600 stations, 18 commercial minutes an hour. We take whatever we take to sell ourselves and the local station keeps the rest. They have local advertisers. You add up all those over the course of 600 stations, over three hours a day, five days a week, and we're talking 18,000 different sponsors, okay? ABC News, who understands how this works and are purposely misrepresenting it, is out there ballyhooing that we have lost 28 sponsors. Twenty-eight sponsors out of 18,000! That's like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it's delivered to you at the drive-thru. You don't even notice it. If we lose 28 of those sponsors, the majority of them being in one city or another out of 18 thousand, it's a sad occurrence.
But, folks, I would venture to say that this happens every day anyway in the course of doing business. Advertisers come and go. New businesses start up; they start advertising. Some businesses go under, they stop their advertising. None of what's happening is out of the ordinary. It's just part of an onslaught to try to convince you that this show's history and our days are numbered. And I'm happy to tell you nothing could be further from the truth. The point is we have tens of thousands of companies who advertise in this program. We're appreciative of all of them. The vast majority, we don't even know. They are local sponsors.
As I say, we're going to be debuting three (and maybe more) new sponsors in the coming days and weeks. And I'm sure that our affiliate stations are going to be replacing advertisers with new ones. It's the cycle. Nothing stays the same. It's all dynamic; nothing is static. All you need to know is there are no losses. There is only growth. There are only gains; we're moving forward. There is good in everything that happens. You look for it, you find it, you build on it, and you expand it. They have not taken this program out. They have not taken me out. They're the ones who are frustrated. They're the ones who are angry. They're the ones who are gonna be blowing gaskets in the next couple of weeks. I hope I've made this clear.
It's such inside baseball stuff, but 28 sponsors -- 32, whatever number they're using -- that have been lost, are not direct advertisers here. And they may not even be advertising within my three hours on the stations they're running. It's impossible to know. Now, you might say, "Well, whatever it is, these people are putting out statements." Yes, they're putting out statements because they're hoping to make political gains -- and it's gonna backfire. You can look at the stock price of some of these companies. I'm not gonna say any more, but it's going to backfire. So you have a bank say (pompously), "We are announcing today that none of our commercials will ever again run on the Rush Limbaugh Show." They're not a sponsor of ours, folks. They may buy sponsorships on 10 or 15 of our affiliates around country, but they're not sure they're being inserted in my three hours; they want to make sure they're not. They'll run elsewhere on the station.
END TRANSCRIPT
The Right Scoop has the full video of the segment.
Related:
Video- Sarah Palin On Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
Rush Apologizes, Will Sandra Fluke Apologize For Expecting Americans To Pay For Her Sex Habit?
Sandra Fluke: When Activism Backfires As Rush Limbaugh Becomes Center of Attention
Eyes Back On The Ball: Obama's Abortion Mandate, Cardinal Dolan And Confusion
.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Video: Sarah Palin On Rush Limbaugh
Sarah Palin added her two cents in on the ongoing Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, "slut" controversy.
Palin: "I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless. So I think that’s the definition of hypocrisy, and that’s my two cents for you."
Video below:
Other updates on this: The Daily Caller talking about something we wrote about yesterday, Carbonite, who pulled their advertising from Limbaugh's show but never pulled their advertising from shows where liberal media personalities called a conservative woman "right-wing" sluts, has seen on of the largest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday.
Bill Maher defends Rush Limbaugh. Not surprising since Maher himself has been known to call conservative women bimbos and twats. So, whatever.
Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) March 7, 2012
Dan Riehl at Breitbart.com reports "EXCLUSIVE: DEMS INCITE DEATH THREATS AGAINST LIMBAUGH."
Related:
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
Rush Apologizes, Will Sandra Fluke Apologize For Expecting Americans To Pay For Her Sex Habit?
Sandra Fluke: When Activism Backfires As Rush Limbaugh Becomes Center of Attention
Eyes Back On The Ball: Obama's Abortion Mandate, Cardinal Dolan And Confusion
Rush Still Tops News, Liberal Radio Host Mocks Storm Victims As 'Grease Spots' And Silence On Left
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Carb Stock Watch- Carbonite Suffering For Double Standard Stance?
Via PJ Tatler:
Carbonite led the advertiser exodus from Rush Limbaugh’s show. The Democrat-owned company continues to advertise on Ed Schultz’s show, despite the fact the Schultz is guilty of a thought crime nearly identical to Rush’s: Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “slut” on the air, and later apologized for it. As I argued on America’s Radio News on Monday, the only real difference between what Rush did and what Schultz did is the politics, since both Ingraham and Sandra Fluke are public figures. Schultz hit from the left, Rush hit from the right, but Carbonite has only canceled on Rush. Why?
Carbonite Stock Watch- According to Market Watch, Carbonite is now at 52- week low.

Since we are discussing Carbonite's double standards, head over and check out Legal Insurrection's "Announcing The Carbonite Accountability Project", piece.
Liberals might have pushed Carbonite to drop Rush Limbaugh's from their advertising, but it seems conservatives not happy about Carb's double standards are hitting their wallets.
[Update] The Daily Caller reports on the Investors fleeing Carbonite after they dropped Rush: "It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday."
Related:
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
Rush Apologizes, Will Sandra Fluke Apologize For Expecting Americans To Pay For Her Sex Habit?
Sandra Fluke: When Activism Backfires As Rush Limbaugh Becomes Center of Attention
Eyes Back On The Ball: Obama's Abortion Mandate, Cardinal Dolan And Confusion
Rush Still Tops News, Liberal Radio Host Mocks Storm Victims As 'Grease Spots' And Silence On Left
.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Rush Still Tops News, Liberal Radio Host Mocks Storm Victims As 'Grease Spots' And Silence On Left
I spoke about the hypocrisy on the left for screeching in outrage when Rush Limbaugh called a female liberal activist by the name of Sandra Fluke, a slut, after the majority of liberals ignored liberal personalities calling conservative women twats, cunts, right wing sluts etc... and now we see that same hypocrisy highlighted easily enough as Rush Limbaugh is still topping the political news, even after his apology and Mike Malloy, a liberal talk show host mocks storm victims and liberals are completely silent.
"Their God … keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in Alabama, and Mississippi, and Arkansas, and Georgia, and Oklahoma,” Malloy says in his broadcast from Friday. “You know, the Bible belt, where [in a mocking voice] they ain’t gonna let no goddamned science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah blah. So, according to their way of thinking, God with his omnipotent thumb reaches down here and so far tonight has smashed about 20 people into a grease spot on highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to."--- Mike Malloy, March 2, 2012
Audio below:
Let's look again at the Memeorandum screen shot of reactions, first the ongoing outrage over Limbaugh's comments close to a week later.
Screen shots of Memeorandum, March 5, 2012, 2:00 PM:
#1

#2

#3

That was the ongoing bruhaha because Limbaugh, a conservative radio host, called a liberal activist a slut to which he has now apologized.
Now, the reaction over a liberal talk show host mocking states ravaged by storms where people have lost their homes and died.
Screen shot of Memeorandum, March 5, 2012, 5:15 PM

Yep, that is it.
People are dead, homes destroyed, businesses ruined whole towns are devastated and Malloy mocks them three days ago, on March 2, calls them grease spots on the highway, and yet Limbaugh is still getting attention for calling Sandra Fluke a slut.
Wow... just wow.
.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Rush Apologizes, Will Sandra Fluke Apologize For Expecting Americans To Pay For Her Sex Habit?

Sandra Fluke tells tells Congress she is paying $3,000 a year on contraception and that is why health insurance plans should cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products.
"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke told the hearing.
Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut. Massive hypocritical uproar from "outraged" liberals who never bothered to be outraged when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "twat" or a "cunt" or when he decided to joke about a vibrator and Michelle Malkin saying she would name it Obama, or when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut."
Rush Limbaugh now has offered a public apology to Fluke:
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.
Now, I fully believe Sandra Fluke owes the American taxpayers an apology for publicly stating that she thinks they should be responsible for paying for her sexual habits.
More on Sandra Fluke found HERE.
Related:
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Limbaugh Called Fluke A Slut, Now It's A Big Deal: Did Obama Call Malkin Or Ingraham or Palin?
[Update] Rush apologizes. Now will Fluke apologize for asking American taxpayers to pay $3,000 a year for her sexual habits?
Quite a bit if virtual ink is being dedicated to Rush Limbaugh, who evidently called Sandra Fluke a "slut", then doubled down and reiterated his position again today saying "I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit! This is "phony soldiers" times ten. Oh, ten times worse than phony soldiers. The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is -- the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."
This is such a big deal that Barack Obama himself, the president, felt the need to call Ms. Fluke to find out of she was okay.
Here is my question: Did Obama call Sarah Palin to find out of she was okay when Obama supporters were posing with T-shirts saying "Sarah Palin is a cunt"?
Did the people that are so outraged now, dedicating all this virtual ink and time into expressing said outrage, dedicate the same type of virtual ink or outrage over the "Sarah Palin is a cunt" T-shirts?
Did Barack Obama call Laura Ingraham to see if she was okay when Ed Shultz called her a "right wing slut."
Did the people that are so outraged now, dedicate the same type of virtual ink or outrage over the "right wing slut" remark by Shultz?
Nope, some said Ingraham deserved it in their esteemed (snark) opinion.
Did Obama call Michelle Malkin to see if she was okay after Bill Maher said "She’d ‘Name Her Vibrator “Obama"
Did the liberals now howling in outrage stand up to defend Malkin? Nope, only conservatives seemed to step up for Malkin.
Let us compared the screen shots, shall we?
Maher's vibrator remark, Memeorandum screen shot from October 22, 2011, 6:20 PM:

Limbaugh's slut remark, Memeorandum screen shot(s) from March 2, 2012, 3:15 PM:



Compare that also to the reaction over Shultz's right wing slut remarks where we can count on one hand the amount of liberals that were outraged.
It took 2 1/2 screen captures to capture the discussion over Limbaugh's remarks, yet not even one full one over Maher's remarks and not even half a screen over Shultz's.
Gotta love Obama's and the left's double standards and hypocrisy huh?
[Update] Dan Riehl provides more Maher examples.
Less than a year ago, in March of 2011, Maher called Palin a “dumb tw*t,” as reported here by the Daily Caller. On March 29, 2011, the Caller also reported that Maher called Palin the “C-word.”
Did Obama call Palin then and ask if she was okay?
Did Liberals demand the Democrats to cut Maher out of their liberal cliche? No, in fact, Maher is a proud Obama supporter and has donated $1 million to his SuperPAC.
Liberal's manufactured outrage is a bit too late.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Post-Dispatch Editor's Note Admits Limbaugh Quote "Cannot Be Verified'
A quote in Bryan Burwell's column Oct. 7 attributed to Rush Limbaugh about the merits of slavery in the United States cannot be verified, and its use did not meet the Post-Dispatch's standards for sourcing.
From NBC Sports:
As you know, we've never contended that Limbaugh uttered the words that have been attributed to him by Huberman. Unless and until Huberman identifies a compelling source, there is absolutely no evidence that Limbaugh uttered the words.
In our view, Huberman should not be permitted to hide behind legal advice. He needs to either identify a source or publicly admit that the quote is false. Until Huberman (or anyone else) identifies a compelling source, we will assume that the quote is false, and that Limbaugh is telling the truth.
Funny, but one would think NBC Sports as well as the original paper and all the others that repeated those quotes, would have tried to actually verify those quotes before originally publishing hearsay.
.
Friday, October 16, 2009
They Admit Limbaugh Quotes Cannot Be Substantiated
From Hot Air:
No harm in admitting the lie now that his NFL bid’s dead. First, via the Standard, comes this belated HuffPo postscript to a post that’s three years old:
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post contained quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which Limbaugh has since denied making. As is our policy when a fact in a blog post is called into question, we gave its author 24 hours to substantiate the quote. Since he has not been able to do so, the quotes have been deleted from the post.
And now here’s Sanchez, kinda sorta apologizing — on Twitter — for airing the bogus slavery quote on his show earlier this week:
i’ve know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he’s right tho. we didn’t confirm quote. our bad.
Such responsible journalism huh?
.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Rush Limbaugh Bruhaha
So, the back story is someone said Rush Limbaugh made racist comments years ago and the news has just reported those comments without any form of verification.
Linkage for you.
First we go straight to Rush, who is kind of entertained by the whole thing and who is waiting for someone to provide some type of proof.
Then you have others that think Rush should be the one proving he didn't say what he is accused of saying.
Ace of Spades is at the top of memeorandum, visit there.
The Daily Telegraph provides a question by a reader, to which I find to be a very good question:
UPDATE II. Dave S. in comments:
How is it that when Righties quote Lefties, they have video, audio, and notarized confirmation from the Pope, but when Lefties ‘quote’ Righties, they have Wiki entries contributed by ‘Cobra’?
Ed Driscoll digs a little and finds the source:
The first of these quotes has already been debunked most thoroughly, long before Rush’s bid to buy the Rams. It is self-evidently the complete fabrication of someone with a wiki account, which was then picked up by the unscrupulous Huberman and reported as fact (with no citations at all) in his book. The other, also attributed to Huberman, has never been sourced, and Huberman has never cited any original article, or even given any indication as to when this alleged statement was made. Of course, these facts make it utterly impossible to refute the claim; without any date or context, Rush cannot even call witnesses who were present during the alleged confirmation to confirm or deny that he ever made such a statement. It is literally impossible for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to offer convincing proof that they have never at any time made a given statement (other than their own denial, which Rush has already given). It is preposterous to ask anyone to prove that they did not make a statement if you cannot even so much as offer a time and place where the statement is alleged to have occurred.
You can find many more reactions on this in the blogosphere but I just have to ask, is this all they have on Limbaugh? Is this the best they can do? Offer up comments with no proof, no video, no audio and no witnesses?
This is definitely the ridiculous item of the week.
.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Democrats Plot To Make Rush Limbaugh The Boogeyman
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.
"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”
The problem with this line of attack, which the Democratic strategists will discover too late, is that while many moderates might give Barack Obama a chance, he has been squandering it by lying about cutting into earmarks and breaking campaign promises left and right, and Rush Limbaugh has been putting a bright spotlight on those broken pledges, which means that Limbaugh will be able to take full advantage of highlighting each and every thing, and the bright glare of the lights, giving him his soapbox will have been provided BY the Democrats.
Tony Campbell over at The Moderate Voice, points out the bait and switch the Democrats are trying to pull on the American people:
I am really, really going to try to write a column this week outside of the black hole of the Limbaugh, Steele, White House triangle of political death. The sad thing about all of this drama is that it doesn’t mean anything that positively impacts the life of one single American citizen. All this drama between Emanuel, Rush, George Stephanopoulos and Steele is a smoke screen to keep your minds off of what is really important: the fact that Obama and the Democrats have no clue on how to fix the economy and that the Democratic Congress is giving away BILLIONS of your tax dollars in pork in this stimulus package.
Guess we will see if this backfires... 2010 is not that far away.
.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Rush Limbaugh Responds To Michael Steele

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele recently spoke about conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh saying he was an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”
Limbaugh responded today, which has got the news reports flying and bloggers reacting.
From Limbuagh's transcript:
HUGHLEY: Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party --
STEELE: No, he's not.
HUGHLEY: Well, I'll tell you what, I've never --
STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: Then you know what? Then I can appreciate that, but no -- no one will -- will actually pry down some of the things he says, like when he comes out and says that he wants the president to fail, I understand he wants liberalism to fail.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency? Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly --
RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
There is more but this gives the flavor and tone and has prompted a response from Michael Steele, video below:
From The Politico:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”
Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”
Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon.
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."
“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”
Bloggers and news outlets have been having a field day with this and reactions are still coming out, to see them and keep track, head over to memeorandum.

