Rush Was Not and Cannot Be Libeled
The lengths to which supposedly "serious" conservatives are willing to go to defend Rush Limbaugh are staggering. The National Review this morning has an entire editorial fluffing Limbaugh and attacking his critics. It ends with this gem:
First, as a legal matter, Rush was not libeled, at least by the media. For something to be slander or libel (especially when it involves a public figure), you have to know that what you are saying or writing is false. What happened here was that someone circulated an email that purported to be the "Top Ten Racist Rush Limbaugh Quotes." Contrary to what the National Review and Rush's knee-jerk defenders claim, these quotes are not all fabricated. Most of them, in fact, are well-documented (his quote about Donovan McNabb, etc.). Several of them, however, are unverifiable. They come from secondary sources (books and magazine articles about Rush) and supposedly date back to very early in Limbaugh's career. It's not as if there are transcripts of everything Rush has said on air since the 70s, so who knows whether they're true.
Armed with the list of quotes, some people in the media (mainly bloggers) repeated these quotes without verifying them. That's no doubt sloppy reporting and whoever repeated those quotes--at least the ones that cannot be proven to be genuine--should issue a retraction. But it's not libel. No one said anything knowingly false. Indeed, the reason people were so willing to believe that all of these quotes were real was that many of them were, in fact, real. Limbaugh has said a number of very racist things over the years (many which didn't even make the Top Ten). Moreover, as far as I can tell, the most widely repeated quotes from the list (in the particular the McNabb quote) were the real ones, not the ones Rush claims were made up.
But let's go one step further. Suppose I were to repeat, right now, one of the quotes Rush claims was fabricated--let's use the slavery quote as an example--and attribute it to him. Would that be libel? The answer is almost certainly no. After all, I don't know that it's false. It comes from a book--101 People Who Are Really Screwing Up America--and I have no particular reason to trust Limbaugh more than the author of that book. And there's no independent way of verifying the truth; there's no comprehensive repository of all of Limbaugh's statements.
I, of course, wouldn't do that because I have higher standards, but guess who doesn't. That's right, Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has made a career out of exactly this sort of character assassination. When he isn't making stuff up himself, he is credulously repeating stuff made up by other people. Any right wing nutjob who writes a book gets invited onto to Limbaugh's show to pollute the airwaves with their outlandish claims, and Rush will then repeat it.
Was Vince Foster murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton? According to Rush he was. Was Michael J. Fox faking his Parkinson's disease symptoms? According to Rush he was.
Is Justice Sotomayor a "bigot" and "racist" comparable to David Duke? According to Rush she is. Indeed, just in the past week, Limbaugh repeated several times a false and rather despicable character attack against Obama Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. And these are just examples I came up with in 2 minutes of Googling. There are similar examples to be found in nearly every broadcast Limbaugh has ever done.
Limbaugh is a slander-merchant. That's what he does for a living. The notion that someone like him could ever be unfairly treated by the media is inherently ludicrous. To portray Rush as a victim of such tactics--as opposed to the world's biggest practitioner of them--is insulting to everyone's intelligence and a sign of the complete intellectual decay of magazines like the National Review.
Rush is a rich and powerful man and quite able to take care of himself, but the dishonest attacks on him are the template for equally dishonest attacks on private citizens in less exalted positions, from Tea Party organizers to town-hall critics. If Rush can be ruthlessly libeled by the Democrats and the media, so can they.Actually, the template for such attacks is what Rush has been doing for a living every day for the last few decades, but I'll get back to that. There is so much insanity and projection embedded in this single paragraph that it's worth unpacking it a little bit first.
First, as a legal matter, Rush was not libeled, at least by the media. For something to be slander or libel (especially when it involves a public figure), you have to know that what you are saying or writing is false. What happened here was that someone circulated an email that purported to be the "Top Ten Racist Rush Limbaugh Quotes." Contrary to what the National Review and Rush's knee-jerk defenders claim, these quotes are not all fabricated. Most of them, in fact, are well-documented (his quote about Donovan McNabb, etc.). Several of them, however, are unverifiable. They come from secondary sources (books and magazine articles about Rush) and supposedly date back to very early in Limbaugh's career. It's not as if there are transcripts of everything Rush has said on air since the 70s, so who knows whether they're true.
Armed with the list of quotes, some people in the media (mainly bloggers) repeated these quotes without verifying them. That's no doubt sloppy reporting and whoever repeated those quotes--at least the ones that cannot be proven to be genuine--should issue a retraction. But it's not libel. No one said anything knowingly false. Indeed, the reason people were so willing to believe that all of these quotes were real was that many of them were, in fact, real. Limbaugh has said a number of very racist things over the years (many which didn't even make the Top Ten). Moreover, as far as I can tell, the most widely repeated quotes from the list (in the particular the McNabb quote) were the real ones, not the ones Rush claims were made up.
But let's go one step further. Suppose I were to repeat, right now, one of the quotes Rush claims was fabricated--let's use the slavery quote as an example--and attribute it to him. Would that be libel? The answer is almost certainly no. After all, I don't know that it's false. It comes from a book--101 People Who Are Really Screwing Up America--and I have no particular reason to trust Limbaugh more than the author of that book. And there's no independent way of verifying the truth; there's no comprehensive repository of all of Limbaugh's statements.
I, of course, wouldn't do that because I have higher standards, but guess who doesn't. That's right, Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has made a career out of exactly this sort of character assassination. When he isn't making stuff up himself, he is credulously repeating stuff made up by other people. Any right wing nutjob who writes a book gets invited onto to Limbaugh's show to pollute the airwaves with their outlandish claims, and Rush will then repeat it.
Was Vince Foster murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton? According to Rush he was. Was Michael J. Fox faking his Parkinson's disease symptoms? According to Rush he was.
Is Justice Sotomayor a "bigot" and "racist" comparable to David Duke? According to Rush she is. Indeed, just in the past week, Limbaugh repeated several times a false and rather despicable character attack against Obama Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. And these are just examples I came up with in 2 minutes of Googling. There are similar examples to be found in nearly every broadcast Limbaugh has ever done.
Limbaugh is a slander-merchant. That's what he does for a living. The notion that someone like him could ever be unfairly treated by the media is inherently ludicrous. To portray Rush as a victim of such tactics--as opposed to the world's biggest practitioner of them--is insulting to everyone's intelligence and a sign of the complete intellectual decay of magazines like the National Review.
posted by A.L. at 9:00 AM
32 Comments:
When I first encountered the slavery "quote" a few days ago, I was skeptical and went to snopes (where there was nothing about it pro or con). That said, I completely agree with A.L. that Limbaugh is a slander-merchant. Have you heard him since he got the NFL boot? Remarkable. Now he's attacking the NFL for being liberal, or controlled by liberals - and his story is being misrepresented by the "state run media". It's insane.
You say that Limbaugh said that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton. But according to the article you linked to, what Limbaugh claimed was that a financial newsletter had made this allegation. In fact, what the newsletter said (again according to the article) was that Foster’s body had been moved from an apartment in Virginia to the park where he was found.
So Limbaugh exaggerated what the newsletter said and you exaggerated what Limbaugh said. Hopefully, no one will hold this against you if you want to buy an NFL team in 15 years.
BTW, when I was in law school the standard for libel was knowledge or reckless disregard of the truth. Of course that was a long time ago . . .
MLS,
Why, if Rush didn't believe the entirely made-up report from that newsletter, did he report it with additional details that he made up?
Nobody can know, for certain, what another person believes, but we can be certain that, when Rush reported the story, he wasn't reporting it as an obvious fabrication, with skepticism dripping from his voice.
mls-
I know you want to be the contrarian here on everything, but come on. the preceding material:
Limbaugh has made a career out of exactly this sort of character assassination. When he isn't making stuff up himself, he is credulously repeating stuff made up by other people. Any right wing nutjob who writes a book gets invited onto to Limbaugh's show to pollute the airwaves with their outlandish claims, and Rush will then repeat it.
Was Vince Foster murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton? According to Rush he was.
So, exactly what the right is accusing people of wrt the unverified Limbaugh quotes is what he did with the Vince Foster thing, and AL preceded the Foster rumor by noting Limbaugh will "credulously repeat[] stuff made up by other people." (although in this case, he credulously enhanced stuff made up by other people.
I like you, and I think you often make good points. But sometimes, there is no contrarian point, and you diminish your credibility by stretching things beyond reason.
The Media Matters list of his greatest (racist) hits is so comprehensive and so damning I would go with truth as a defense.
Thank you, Nerp.
MLS, perhaps I should have taken a few more sentences to spell it out so that knee-jerk contrarians like yourself couldn't pretend not to understand what I was saying. My point was that Limbaugh doesn't fact-check anything himself. If it sounds good to him, he just repeats it, which is exactly what the people he's complaining about did with the quote list. In other words, he ALWAYS does exactly what he's accusing others of now, i.e., credulously passing stuff off as true that he hasn't made the slightest effort to verify.
And by the way, when you're dealing with a "public figure" (like Rush), to prove slander/libel you have to show "actual malice," which means you need to show that the person knowingly repeated false info (not just recklessly).
Limbaugh would also have an impossible time showing causation or damages given that he has a lot of real racist quotes and those quotes are more than sufficient to create the same reaction by the NFL. As for reputational harm, good luck with that.
Well, I have been called a lot worse than a knee-jerk contrarian, so no offense taken.
But you might want to take another look at the holding of NY Times v. Sullivan ("A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" - that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.")
MLS,
If you read the cases discussing "actual malice" you'll see that reckless disregard is defined VERY narrowly. It's much more than mere negligence or sloppiness or refusal to fact-check. You have to actually have strong personal doubts about the veracity of what you're saying or publishing. That's why it's nearly impossible to win such cases. None of the people Rush is complaining about come anywhere close to this standard. He does not have a viable claim.
i love hearing lawyers argue semantics.....not! rush is an asshole, a dangerous, racist asshole. fuck him, i hope he gets prostate cancer and dies.
Anon @ 5:10: Beg to differ. Rush is a sadist.
So Limbaugh exaggerated what the newsletter said and you exaggerated what Limbaugh said.
So this is your defense of Rush? That he exaggerated a newsletter that implied that the Clintons were in on a fictitious murder? And the purpose of this exaggeration? Was it for comedic purposes, or criticism or maybe perhaps because Rush was incredibly offended by it?
In fact, what the newsletter said (again according to the article) was that Foster’s body had been moved from an apartment in Virginia to the park where he was found.
Oh… well… that's an entirely different matter, moving the body and all. Maybe you can clear up the Sotomayer being a racist exaggeration or the Michael Fox faking his Parkinson's exaggeration or any of the other gazillion exaggerations that ol' Rushbo has vomited up over the airwaves throughout his career.
Hopefully, no one will hold this against you if you want to buy an NFL team in 15 years.
You're really a lawyer? You really are invested in a form of higher education that most of us wont get? I ask because; like it or not, Rushbo is one of your party's most prominent spokesmen (as evidenced by all the Republican Congressmen who prostrate themselves before him after daring to offer any mild criticism).
And his dominant message is that everything that Liberals do and have done is not only wrong, but an evil so great that there is an underlying imperative for some loyal patriot to stop it by whatever means necessary. Anyone to the Left of Rushissimo's political ideology is a traitor. Anyone who dares to criticize his actions or opinion is an enemy. Any caller who disagrees is put on terminal hold.
And this sounds rational to you?
Well, I have been called a lot worse than a knee-jerk contrarian, so no offense taken.
I'm a humanist, secular, progressive Liberal and what I've been called from your side scares me.
I'm called an immoral, NAZI, baby killer who wants to send elderly folks and gun-owners off to concentration camps to gas them. And that's just from your mainstream Republican commentary. Your party has declared its fealty to the likes of Rush and Fox News and their ilk. And a smart lawyer like you is defending instead of questioning it.
It's a bad sign for our future and I don't think that's an exaggeration.
All this has to do with how the left sees the supposed "racism" of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives. But it's hard to take seriously the left's definition of what is racism and what is racist when the left constantly changes that definition depending on the situation du jour, just like they do with everything else.
The left tells Americans that we should look beyond skin color. But in the very same breath, the left tells Americans that skin color is something Americans should be cognizant of. We see this on a regular basis with the left's notion of diversity, and more egregiously, affirmative action and quotas (Limbaugh's comments about Justice Sotomayor). Well, which is it?
So that is one case of the double-standard applied by the left.
The example of Limbaugh and McNabb is a perfect illustration of this. Limbaugh sees McNabb as a quarterback. But Limbaugh is right when he says the liberal media, even the sports media, sees McNabb as a black quarterback, willing to overlook problems McNabb may have as a quarterback simply because they see McNabb as black. But instead of facing up to their issues, the left attributes the racism to Limbaugh. That is where the real projection is coming from.
Another double-standard applied by the left is that racism can only exist within certain groups of people of the left's choosing.
In Georgia, a guy who is white put up a horribly racist sign in front of his place of business. Naturally, he claims he isn't a racist. As far as I'm concerned, he is. I would argue that even Limbaugh would see it that way.
But, I have no doubt that the left would not see what the head of the Baltimore NAACP recently said as racist. I also have no doubt the reporter didn't bother seeing anything racist in the words by the NAACP guy because the reporter had been thoroughly brain-washed into thinking there isn't any way a black person could be racist. Had someone who was white said something similar to the NAACP guy, the left would have claimed it was the second coming of the Ku Klux Klan. Don't even think about denying it because it is absolutely true. So why won't the left think what the NAACP guy said was racist? Because of the double-standard applied by the left that racism can only exist within certain groups of people of the left's choosing. It's how it can be claimed that Limbaugh says things that are racist while other genuine racists (think Justice Sotomayor again, or even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) are given a pass.
A.L.:
And these are just examples I came up with in 2 minutes of Googling.
And I'll bet you spend no more than 2 minutes out of any given year actually listening to Limbaugh.
Exit question: If Limbaugh was such a racist, how come he has so many diverse people (as defined by the left) who work with him?
SteveAR,
Absolutely. I am also terribly concerned about all the powerful black people who are plotting to keep us white folks down. I've gotten some really dirty looks from the man who cruises our alley the day before the trash pick up, looking for salvage.
In fact, let's focus on a meaningless statement (he has no power to compel) by somebody from the NAACP and ignore the constant racism by the guy worth several hundred million dollars, a national radio show, and who has demonstrated his ability to make GOP politicians toe the line.
"But, I have no doubt that the left would not see what the head of the Baltimore NAACP recently said as racist."
SteveAR, you make an assertion in the above quote that I'm not sure you can prove. How many of The Left have you polled?
Secondly, I call myself a liberal, and I think that the NAACP's spokesperson's expressed concern about getting a white mayor IS racist. Now you have your cookie. What does this have to do with Rush?
The left tells Americans that we should look beyond skin color. But in the very same breath, the left tells Americans that skin color is something Americans should be cognizant of. We see this on a regular basis with the left's notion of diversity, and more egregiously, affirmative action and quotas (Limbaugh's comments about Justice Sotomayor). Well, which is it?
Ignoring the fact that Steve seems to be making the argument that white people are racist against white people.....
Because Steve see racism in the efforts to combat racism, it's clear that Stevie must also subscribe to the logic that all wars are the same. That invading a country to take over that country is no different than invading a country to drive out a dictatorial regime that rapes, murders, and tortures it's citizens. Or invading a country to keep that country from invading your country first - through things like, you know, the use of WMD's or something. Right Steve? Right?
I'm not sure what says more about you as a person Stevie. The fact that you make such ridiculous arguments, or the fact that you put in so much time on here making those ridiculous arguments.
I will make a contrarian note, not because I agree with mls or because I support Rush. Just because I can't help myself.
There have been some precedents (primarily in Britain and not necessarily applicable here, but one or two in cases that have not been tested by higher courts yet) that suggest the 'truth defense' is not applicable if someone maliciously and libelously uses the truth to damage someone's reputation. If a newspaper reporter deliberately prints an attack piece to damage a public figure, he could be held liable under such precedents even if all of the data published is true if 'malice' can be proved.
Now, in my view, these won't hold up if tested in higher US courts. The constitution is pretty plain language on freedom of press and the truth defense should be safe.
It is useful to be aware that some jurisdictions MIGHT consider some of things written about Rush 'libelous' even if they are true, if 'malice' can be proven.
"Limbaugh sees McNabb as a quarterback."
Actually, Steve, if Limbaugh's own words are anything to judge by, he saw McNabb as a black quarterback who was getting some sort of free pass based on his skin color.
Yeah, nothing racist there.
It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).
Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. Don’t we all feel better?
SteveAR,
I consider myself quite Liberal, and I also think the Baltimore NAACP's request was ludicrous and most definitely racially motivated. In fact, it insults me, as a white individual, because the Baltimore NAACP is implying that a white person would be incapable of properly representing the Black community. This also begs recognition of the fact that there are Black representatives in Congress actively representing majority-white electorates. So that being said, I'm not sure what Liberals you're talking about. Why would you assume that everyone on "The Left" would support the Baltimore NAACP's request when it effectively alienates every white liberal policy maker in the country who might've filled the position?
Speaking of which, you would do yourself a favor if you stopped using the term "The Left" as a fishnet every time you want to demonize people who disagree with you politically. Inevitably you're going to mistakenly label individuals that might actually agree with some of what you're saying, as you've done here. Let me give you an example from "The Right": Ayn Rand, the fairy godmother of free markets, would not have been very happy with Bush's Faith-based Initiatives, considering she was an Atheist. I would never assume that she and the Neo-Cons from Bush II's administration can all be mashed together into one great big label called "The Right," because they would disagree with each other on some key issues. This is precisely what you've done by proselytizing about "The Left." You assumed that because some overzealous activists in the Baltimore NAACP made a ridiculous request that was obviously racially motivated, that all "liberals" support it. I assure you that they don't. The world is not black and white, and nor are people's beliefs. I don't assume that everyone who calls themselves conservative supported George W. Bush or the war in Iraq (Patrick Buchanan, anybody?), nor should you assume that all "liberals" think alike. These over-generalizations may make for a convenient scapegoat while making comments on internet blogs, but it does not reflect reality, much less the political reality you're trying to analyze.
Julian G.:
Secondly, I call myself a liberal, and I think that the NAACP's spokesperson's expressed concern about getting a white mayor IS racist. Now you have your cookie.
craig:
I consider myself quite Liberal, and I also think the Baltimore NAACP's request was ludicrous and most definitely racially motivated.
If you are Obama supporters, then what you say has no credibility. That's because Obama has one of the most blatant racists as Attorney General:
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Not only do Democrats in the Obama administration commit racism against blacks (Holder's DoJ says blacks aren't smart enough to know how to vote for anyone but Democrats), but racists against whites as well (Holder's DoJ says whites are generally racists who won't vote for blacks unless they are Democrats). This is the same AG that had the DoJ dismiss charges against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia after they were found guilty of violating provisions of the Voting Rights Act, but refuses to say the real reason why. Even Democrats are still trying to figure out why the DoJ dropped this.
This is what you voted for. The head of the Baltimore NAACP is just a symptom of a bigger problem with racists amongst Democrats.
Not only do Democrats in the Obama administration commit racism against blacks (Holder's DoJ says blacks aren't smart enough to know how to vote for anyone but Democrats), but racists against whites as well (Holder's DoJ says whites are generally racists who won't vote for blacks unless they are Democrats).
I had to Google this since it's a pretty good bet that SteveAR's reality often differs from what is actually occurring on planet Earth. Lo and behold it's a Washington Times story (the paper that is to news what wallpaper is to a literary classic) that is being feverishly spread by right-wing media and by, surprise, Mr. Rushbo himself.
It seems that this particular part of N.C. is under a Voting Rights Act watch, no doubt due to serious irregularities in their past elections. It precludes this kind of change in election law without Justice Dept. approval. The blatant racists in the Bush Justice Dept. extended the watch in 2006 (through 2013).
The Assistant Atty General Loretta King wrote in the ruling that, "Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.” She then provided statistics to back up her ruling.
That's a more measured opinion than what the Times reports as "The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats". But since no other respectable media outlet has picked this up, in Steve's otherworldly view, that means it's the Gods honest truth.
This is the same AG that had the DoJ dismiss charges against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia after they were found guilty of violating provisions of the Voting Rights Act, but refuses to say the real reason why.
Please tell us all how it is possible to drop charges after one is convicted? I'll bet a lot of lawyers would love to know. I would imagine that the case was dropped due to the lack of evidence (apart from the assertions of the brave, racist fighting reporters at the Washington Times).
If you like true religion jeans, diesel jeans and evisu jeans , welcome to my site.
Anon y Moose:
The Assistant Atty General Loretta King wrote in the ruling that, "Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.” She then provided statistics to back up her ruling.
Here are the statistics cited in the piece:
Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.
So what you and the DoJ are telling America is that eligible black voters, nearly 60% of voting population of Kinston, NC, don't vote as often as eligible white voters, so the government has to provide special, extra-constitutional rights for Democrats in order to get blacks to vote for Democrats? And that whites won't vote for black candidates unless they're Democrats? That isn't measured; it's racist.
Please tell us all how it is possible to drop charges after one is convicted?
That's a very good question. It's one the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been asking since at least June. As of the end of last month, Holder's DoJ has refused to provide an answer.
As to why other supposedly "more respectable" "news" organizations other than the Washington Times haven't picked up on these stories can be found in my earlier comment where I linked to a Baltimore Sun piece.
So what you and the DoJ are telling America is that eligible black voters, nearly 60% of voting population of Kinston, NC, don't vote as often as eligible white voters, so the government has to provide special, extra-constitutional rights for Democrats in order to get blacks to vote for Democrats?
No… that's what the Washington Times is telling you to believe. But hey… it's probably that leftist/Democrat problem with English comprehension that you find so amusing.
For instance, I can't seem to find any record of the trial that found the Black Panthers "guilty of violating provisions of the Voting Rights Act", much less the judge, defendants or sentences handed down.
Maybe you could point me to the Wash. Times article or the Free Republic web post or the Sean Hannity video clip because it looks like the liberal media is doing a great job of covering it up.
It almost seems like it never happened!
Anon y Moose:
No… that's what the Washington Times is telling you to believe.
No, that's leftist brainwashing that is telling you the Washington Times is telling me what to believe. The Times quotes sections of Loretta King's letter to Kinston and it is quite plain to see that what I said earlier was correct.
For instance, I can't seem to find any record of the trial that found the Black Panthers "guilty of violating provisions of the Voting Rights Act", much less the judge, defendants or sentences handed down.
Maybe if you actually read the whole Times piece instead of tearing it down because it is the Washington Times, you might have seen it:
After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.
You didn't hear about the defendants because they never bothered showing up in court. As a result, The judge rendered a judgment against them; but before any sentence was handed down, the DoJ dropped the charges after that. Like I said, you actually had to read the piece instead of making the lying leftwing assumption that if it's in the Washington Times, it isn't news.
Here is the the original complaint filed by the DoJ. This page has links to all the other court documents as related to the Black Panther case. If you don't like those, then you can go to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania page (where the charges were filed) and look up the "official" versions.
Anon y Moose,
Here is the letter Loretta King sent to Kinston. If you note, the Washington Times quotes the letter accurately.
Like I said, you actually had to read the piece instead of making the lying leftwing assumption that if it's in the Washington Times, it isn't news.
Well… you got me dead to rights there. You are correct that they were found guilty of violating the Voting Rights act. And the judgement for committing the crime… er… civil infraction of the century? A restraining order.
What is at the heart of the terribly racist DOJ ruling no doubt inspired by our racist President? That candidates on the ballot should be identified as to their party affiliation.
Ye gods, the founding Fathers would be horrified of that extra-Constitutionality! They list candidate's party affiliation on the ballot in my city so I'm off to rally the local teabaggers!
Not really, I'm just lying.
The DOJ letter you link to (which the Times article's fullest extent of quoting is "candidates of choice") demonstrates a careful, legal opinion that is backed up by statistical evidence that shows that leaving off party affiliations on this city's ballots will make it a certainty that Black candidates will lose elections.
And what's the city's response? Buried deep in the very fair and balanced Wash. Times article: "The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in August."
This was due to the fact that this is the same city where President Obama met with Bill Ayers and leaders of ACORN to plot the downfall of white Americans on behalf of the Taliban and magical trolls. We need a Congressional investigation NOW!
Whoops… there I go lyin' again.
No, that's leftist brainwashing that is telling you the Washington Times is telling me what to believe.
OK, now your just giving me a headache. Buh bye.
Anon y Moose:
The DOJ letter you link to (which the Times article's fullest extent of quoting is "candidates of choice") demonstrates a careful, legal opinion that is backed up by statistical evidence that shows that leaving off party affiliations on this city's ballots will make it a certainty that Black candidates will lose elections.
It's not anything that looks like "a careful, legal opinion", but a constitutional travesty. It proves that Democrats (going back to the 1850s) and the left are the racists. It also proves that when the left attacks Limbaugh and other conservatives of racism, the left is projecting.
It proves that Democrats (going back to the 1850s) and the left are the racists.
Why yes it certainly does!
It also proves that happy elves ride enchanted unicorns under the gum drop trees in a land tucked far, far away in your verdant imagination.
I need an aspirin.
The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.
All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, (which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism, one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money (Marshall Faulk) that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well they work as a team and not on whether or not Rush is an owner.
As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)
Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last couple of days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so what is being stifled, it simply is not true, of course, you may not have a radio, so you might want to get one.
http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html
PS – I am sure someone is working to put the tapes together maybe all you subscribers can help, since you are all about getting to the truth?
PPS- Beauty Pageant Judge - Now I understand why he lost the weight, to find a new wife, creepy.
AL wrote:
"Any right wing nutjob who writes a book gets invited onto to Limbaugh's show to pollute the airwaves with their outlandish claims"
Perhaps you should do a bit of research.
Limbaugh very rarely invites guests of any kind on the show.
You might be able to find a few dozen guests in the 20 year history of the show, and most of them weren't authors.
What can National Review do? Rush is a leading "thinker" of the contemporary "conservative" movement. Rush, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg- these are the stars of "conservatism" in this country- their big brains. NR has no choice but to defend the likes of Rush. They are on his level. Not above it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home