My Personal Crusade

There’s no sense in hiding it. I got a speeding ticket tonight. I was literally 10 seconds away from pulling into my apartment complex when I saw those damned blue lights. Did I have a chance of getting out of that ticket? I’m a guy. What do you think?

Naturally, the officer gave me a ticket. In his esteemed knowledge of traffic and safety, he determined that 63 miles an hour was far too unsafe a speed for a four-lane highway. Anyone traveling such inconceivable velocities must be a daredevil who is endangering every innocent life around him. Such individuals must be stopped!

Do I blame him? A little. It is true that it was a moronic Georgia Government bureaucrat that set the speed limit. And, that officer is simply enforcing the law. However, if he actually used the lump of gray and white matter located about 3 feet above his ass, instead of mindlessly following whatever protocol he was taught to except without question, he would realize that my speed was completely within reason and not a danger to anyone. He could have saved that little ticket for someone who was really “speeding” (When drivers get into the 100mph range on that road, I’d say it’s probably time to pull out that citation pad). It’s called judging the facts of the situation.

Besides, cops give breaks all the time to speeders. Why is it that I have never gotten one? Once again, I’m a guy. You figure it out.

But, I am not here to simply complain. I am on a crusade. Speed laws have always been an issue with me. I am of the opinion that they are, at their very core, oppressive and unnecessary. As always, I have evidence to back up my position. This is from a much earlier blog entry of mine. Actually, it is one of the first that I wrote. Read on:

Recently, a town in Texas unveiled the highest speed limit in the country at 80mph. Town officials decided that this long, straight, four-lane stretch of highway was not the place to post an intentionally, ridiculously low "speed limit" whose only purpose is to generate revenue for the county.

Opponents of high speed limits say that these increased speeds can only lead to more fatal crashes. But, alas, the wussy crowd has been proven wrong time and time again. Before raising this speed in Texas, Representative Pete Gallego looked at the statistics from the Texas Department of Transportation. Studies show that in the 3 years that speed limits were raised from 70mph to 75mph, fatalities went...which direction? Anyone, anyone...Bueller, Bueller. That's right. Fatalities went down.

Modern cars are made to handle safely at higher speeds. Most modern drivers, who still have all of their motor and mental capabilities, are able to exceed 55mph without putting anyone in danger. Sorry, Grandma. You gotta move. If you insist on driving 45mph, stay in the right lane.

Now, in residential areas, school zones, and small, winding roads, should drivers be more aware of their speed and drive more safely? Absolutely. But, it is unreasonable and unwarranted to establish a 45mph (or even 55mph) on a four-lane, straight road. Are you hearing me Arcade, Georgia?

The only purpose for these low speed limits is to generate revenue for the State or Local governments. It is not to keep people safe! If the government really wanted to protect drivers on the road, they would look at the facts. I just mentioned the study done by the Texas DOT. But, maybe this is an isolated study. After all, It's Texas. Texans are a different breed than the rest of the country (but that's another subject).

So, let's see. How can we get the statistics for speed limits and accidents in the rest of the country? Hmmm. I've got it. Let's have the Federal Highway Administration (part of the United States Department of Transportation) do a study of all the States! Too late. It's been done. The numbers are out. Read the report here.

The findings are obvious. But for the sake of argument here they are:

- Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered, increased by 5.4 percent.

- Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised, decreased by 6.7 percent.

So, lower speed limits increase accidents, and higher speed limits reduce accidents. Strange, huh? Based on this, why would the Government not act to raise limits and decrease accidents? The reason is this. Another finding of the report:

- Raising speed limits in the region of the 85th percentile speed has an extremely beneficial effect on drivers complying with the posted speed limits.

- Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speeds were posted in this study) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent.

With higher speed limits, drivers are more likely to abide by the law and not exceed that speed limit. But, lower speed limits mean higher rates on non-compliance. That means more people are going to speed. Which means...ding, ding, ding...more money for the Government.

I don't how to make it any clearer.

This is my crusade - the abolition of unecessary articially-low speed limits. They are useless when it comes to saving lives. They exist for one purpose and one purpose only. They are enacted by Government bureaucrats to generate more money for those same Government bureaucrats. It is a scam.

Much of the blame lies with these bureaucrats. But, the enforcement officers deserve some of the blame too. Part of their job is assessing individual situations based on the facts at hand. If a situation is deemed dangerous, the officers will take certain precautions. They make a judgement call, and take necessary action. Speeding scenarios are no different. These officers could quite easily judge each situation and determine if that speeder is really going fast enough to endanger anyone's life. If they are well within a safe speed, the driver should get a pass.

Simple as that.


More defeats for Global Warming

The religion of Global Warming has suffered a lot of defeats lately. Earlier this month, a British judge ruled that the bible of the Church of Global Warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a political work, and cited nine specific errors in the film. The judge concluded that the film should not be shown to school children without being accompanied by a significant warning of the political biases and inaccuracies contained therein. (Yes, many schools, even in this country, are showing the film to students in an attempt to indoctrinate them into the religion of Global Warming.)

Now, the Science & Public Policy Institute has released a report which details 35 errors in Gore’s “documentary.”

35 ERRORS. And, this thing won an Oscar for “Best Documentary?” Considering that the “documentary” is filled with political biases, factual inaccuracies, and deliberate misrepresentations, I’d say that the Oscar wasn’t exactly well-deserved. But, it is apparently good enough to be used as “educational material” in many classrooms around the world.

Just take a look at this piece from 20/20. John Stossel takes on Global Warming alarmists, and questions several school children about their feelings on Global Warming. Listen as all of the children repeat in mindless unison the propaganda of the Church of Global warming.

And, where did they learn all of this religious dogma? “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Nice, huh?

And, just in case you were STILL under the illusion that there is a scientific "consensus" in support of anthropomorphic Global Warming, guess again:

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

The Petition Project: 19,000 American scientists speak out


Know Thine Enemy

There are times when I think that left-wing media outlets couldn’t possibly do anything to make me think less of them. Then, the New York Times does something like this. They have headlined an Op-Ed video which amounts to nothing less than a propaganda-laden commercial for the Islamic Terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq.

The New York Times has, effectively, given our enemies a premium outlet to espouse their hatred for our country and attempted to portray them as the “good guys.” Yes, these are the same “insurgents” who regularly conduct vile war crimes by disguising themselves as civilians while attacking innocent civilians and American troops. These are the individuals that the New York Times treats as the “good guys.”

This really shouldn’t surprise me. After all, CNN gave a primetime spot to a terrorist recruitment and propaganda video. But, it still amazes me that left-wing media outlets continue to promote the idea that America is the real problem, and that the terrorists are mere victims of American imperialism and greed.

It is interesting to note that the title of the New York Times video is “Know Thine Enemy.” Notice, they don’t specifically define who the “enemy” is. But, based on the blatant terrorist propaganda and distorted worldview contained in the video, I’m guessing that the “enemy” is not Islamic Terrorism.

So, who does that leave? Who does the New York Times really view as the “enemy?”

Click here to view the full video.


Sick. Sick. Sick.

This is one of those rare cases where I am so stunned at the grotesque stupidity being presented that I am at a loss for words. If you dare, and if you have a strong stomach, reads this article from the Norwegian news source Aftenposten.

Debate flies over 'sex play' in kindergartens.

Norwegians woke up Tuesday morning to news that a respected Oslo pre-school teacher, backed by child psychologists, thinks children should be allowed to openly express their own sexuality, not least through sex play and games in the local day care centers known as barnehager, or kindergartens.

Pia Friis, leader of the popular Bjerkealleen Barnehage in Oslo and a well-known pre-school educator, told newspaper Dagbladet on Tuesday that children should be allowed to express their own sexuality at day care centers. She doesn't want to stifle what comes naturally.

Children, she said, should be able "to look at each other and examine each other's bodies. They can play doctor, play mother and father, dance naked and masturbate.

Friis said there's a lot of uncertainty around how day care center employees should handle children's sexuality.

"The only thing that is absolutely certain is that children, sooner or later, will play sexual games and examine each other at the kindergarten," she told Dagbladet. "When the personnel are uncertain, that passes on to the children, and it can be negative."


Not enough time in the world

There are so many news stories being discussed this week, that I just don’t have time to cover them all. There are, however, three main stories that I want to comment on, but I just don’t have enough time to dedicate an individual blog entry to each one. So, I’m gonna hit ‘em hard and hit ‘em fast in one single blog. Here we go:

1. General Sanchez. General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, made a speech last Friday to a group of journalists. Among the topics he discussed, he blasted the Bush Administration’s handling of the war and called it “a nightmare with no end in sight.” The General was also quoted as saying, “There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.”

Not surprisingly, all of this harsh criticism of the Bush Administration was quickly picked up by the mainstream media. The major networks lead with this story on their nightly newscasts, and the New York Times made it a front page story.

Oddly though, the media completely ignored the main point that General Sanchez was trying to make. His speech was to a group of journalists. He directly addressed the media saying:

“Over the course of this war, tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved

You are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war

For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own pre-conceived notions, biases and agendas.”

He blasted the media for their unbalanced presentation of the facts of the war. He said that their biased reporting put our soldiers at greater risk. Yet, not one of the major media outlets (other then Fox News) covered this portion of the General’s speech.

The media completely ignored it. Kinda proved the General’s point, didn’t they?

2. The Armenian Resolution. Recently, our Congress decided that they could no longer avoid one of the most pressing issues of our time. They could no longer put off a massively important resolution that had been on the books for almost 25 years. The Democrat-controlled Congress has finally decided that this measure is too imperative.

They will finally pass the Armenian-genocide resolution which will officially label the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians 90 years ago as “genocide.” That’s right. They are finally going to label these actions as “genocide.”

It certainly sounds like a pressing issue that must get top priority from our Congress, doesn’t it? Regardless of whether or not this resolution is even necessary, the main problem with the passage of this resolution is the timing.

You see, the former Ottoman Empire, the entity we would be denouncing, is modern-day Turkey, our ally in the War against Islamic Terrorism. We are using their airstrips and airspace. Now that our Congress is denouncing them, Turkey is reconsidering their status as our ally. Not good.

But, why are Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress pushing this so hard right now…in the middle of a war? Their actions could put our soldiers at greater risk and greatly reduce our effectiveness in the war. Could this be their motivation? Could this be a covert sabotage of the war effort? It has become increasingly clear that the left is invested in defeat in this war. Our success in the war is very bad news for them. I’m not saying this…they are. So, are they using this resolution to intentionally weaken our military? This is not an indictment. But, the situation is very suspect.

3. Randi Rhodes. Randi Rhodes is a left-wing talk radio host on the bankrupt Air America. If you’ve never heard her show, don’t worry. I have, and you aren’t missing much. But, it has been reported that she was attacked on Sunday night. According to Jon Elliott, another Air America personality, Rhodes was mugged Sunday night while walking her dog in New York City. Apparently, she suffered some sever injuries, including having a couple of teeth knocked out.

When I first heard about this, I was saddened. Even though I disagree adamantly with her views, I don’t want to see harm come to her. I pray that she has a speedy recovery.

Of course, when the left-wing blogs heard about this, their first thoughts were…to blame Conservatives. Message boards and comment boards started popping up claiming that this was a hit by the “right wing hate machine.” Do they have any evidence to support these claims? Of course not.

It is interesting to note, however, that Randi Rhodes, herself, never claimed that she was mugged. The New York Daily News is reporting that no mugging actually took place. Apparently, Rhodes suffered a very bad fall. Jon Elliott simply announced that she was attacked, and the rumors snowballed from there. This was NOT an attack by the “right wing hate machine.” This wasn’t an attack at all. It was an unfortunate accident, nothing more.

I still pray that Randi has a speedy recovery.


America is great because...

I have heard it said that the main difference between the political right and left in this country can be defined as the following:

“The political right believe that America is great because of its people. The political left believe that America is great because of its Government.”

Traditionally, this definition has fit. In the past, Conservatives believed that America functions best when the size and scope of Government are limited. They believed that Government is not the solution to all of our problems. In most cases, Government IS the problem. (Of course, this philosophy doesn’t define the current Republican Party. They have separated themselves from their Conservative beliefs in favor of increased Government spending and size.)

Leftists, on the other hand, tend to view Government as the one and only answer to any problem that comes our way. What happens when we recognize problems in our Health Care system? Government? Our school system? Government. Our retirement? Government. Our infrastructure? Government. To them, almost nothing can be solved by the private sector. According to Hillary Clinton:

“When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.

Case in point, check out this website.


The website is called “Government is Good.” The title alone is quite telling. Wouldn’t you agree? This website is essentially one big argument in favor of Statism. The main author Douglas J. Amy is, not surprisingly, a College Professor of politics.

The first thing that strikes me as odd, besides the fact that anyone could put this much faith in Government, is the fact that this supposedly educated man, this Professor who is responsible for educating the young minds at Mount Holyoke College in the ways of political theory, constantly refers to our system of Government as a “democracy.”

Sadly, many of you reading this don’t recognize the problem with that statement. I have stated it before, but it doesn’t seem to have registered. Thus, it bears repeating in large capital letters.


There is a huge difference. Look it up. But, this professor seems stumped by this single, simple point. That doesn’t instill the greatest confidence in his credentials. But, that is not the only problem with his writings. We’re just getting warmed up.

Take this post for instance. He attempts to argue that our daily lives are greatly improved by the amazingly proficient institution of Government. Without these wonderful Government programs, our daily lives would be in disarray. We would be miserable.

I won’t even post excerpts from this entry. You simply have to read the entire thing for yourself. It is frightening.

But, after you read the full post, read this rebuttal from TJIC. He goes through point-by-point, explaining the factual and logical inaccuracies of Professor Amy’s post. Here are a couple of good examples:

PROFESSOR AMY: Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction

TJIC: So I earn $100, and the government would normally steal $30 of that, but because I fill out certain forms, the government only steals $20 of it…and the $10 that the government would have stolen, but chose not to, is a “gift” ?

PROFESSOR AMY: As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All theseweather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency.

TJIC: Information gathering and collection… that couldn’t possibly be done by the free market.

Also: just because the government does something and provides it for free, that’s no argument that there were not private suppliers before the government stepped in, nor is it an argument that there would not immediately be private suppliers if the government stepped out.

If the government ran supermarkets, should I believe that in the absence of government supermarkets, the only alternative is that everyone would starve?

PROFESSOR AMY: And state drivers license examinations ensure that all drivers are at least minimally competent and can actually see the road.

TJIC: False. Most states require that drivers achieve this standard once in their lives…and it may have been 50 years earlier.

Professor Amy’s arguments consist largely of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies. But, the most overwhelming argument that he seems to use time and time again is that if the Government is performing some service or activity, that service or activity could not be handled by the private sector. The private sector is not capable, willing, able, etc. to handle it. If the Government didn’t do it, it wouldn’t get done.

History has shown us that this is not the case.


Top 101 Media Frauds

Yesterday, I wrote that the media makes a habit of headlining stories that turn out to be completely false. Sometimes this is due to simple irresponsibility or careless researching. Sometimes it is absolutely deliberate mischaracterization, misleading, or fabrication (i.e. the “phony soldiers” controversy). Regardless of the reason, it happens more frequently than it should.

The American Thinker has published a list of the top 101 Media Frauds. These are stories that the media promoted as being true, but were later discovered to be otherwise.

As you read this list, keep in mind something very, VERY important. According to the media, reports of a decrease in Iraq War causalities are absolutely unreliable. Such stories are to be met with firm skepticism and doubt. They can not be considered news.

However, every story on this list, all 101 of them, were considered undeniable truths by the media. They viewed each of these stories as trust-worthy. These reports were the very definition of “news.”

Click here to see the full list.


What qualifies as "news?"

It’s interesting to watch mainstream media types respond when questioned about their liberal bias. There really is nothing comparable to a reporter trying to squirm and weasel their way around targeted questions regarding their alleged “objectivity.”

Such was the case this weekend on “Reliable Sources” with Howard Kurtz. Kurtz introduced the segment by reporting that September brought a sharp decline in causalities in Iraq. Kurtz correctly pointed out that ABC was the only major network to make this a lead story. Other media outlets buried it deep inside the pages of their newspaper and confined it to a few brief sentences. Other outlets ignored the news altogether.

Progress is being made in Iraq, and many media outlets have chosen to neglect the great news!

Kurtz wanted to find out why. His guests were Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN. The YouTube video of the exchange can be found here. But, here is the transcript:

KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

Let’s pause right here. Wright claims that the numbers are “tricky.” That’s funny. The numbers don’t seem too “tricky” when they are reporting INCREASES in casualties. The numbers didn’t seem too “tricky” when the media (including Wright’s own Washington Post) touted the discredited Lancet Study of Iraq casualties.

But, if they are indeed “tricky” I guess that more research needs to be done to clarify them, which means that reporters need to do their damn job and actually research them.

Instead, Wright uses a word like “tricky” to basically discredit the report of decreased casualties. For her, “tricky” is synonymous with “unreliable.”

She also mentions that an alleged reduction in casualties doesn’t point to a trend. I fail to see why this is even relevant. Trend or not, a vast reduction in war casualties IS MAJOR NEWS! And, it deserves much more attention than a few brief sentences.

The interview continued:

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Stop. She just said that “this is not enduring progress.” Who the hell is Barbara Starr to make this judgment? How does she know that this reduction in casualties will not continue? How does she know that this progress will not endure? She doesn’t.

Kurtz appropriately called the reporters on their double-standard.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

So, let’s recap. A reduction in casualties in Iraq is not news. We don’t even know if it is a “trend,” so obviously the media can’t treat it as a credible report. However, an increase in casualties is the definition of news! They don’t need to do more research or hold a skeptical view of reports of increased casualties. Those numbers aren’t “tricky” at all. No. Those deserve to be headline stories.

FYI – Wright and Starr are essentially saying that these reports of decreased causalities are unreliable. They question their validity with statements like “the numbers themselves are tricky,” “we don't know whether it is a trend,” and “I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”

They suggest that they need more information or more evidence before they start treating these reports as real news.

That’s certainly an interesting sentiment when you consider the following:
- Dan Rather and the forged documents
- The increase in “Global Warming” hurricanes that never was

- The rapes, homicides, and cannibalism during Hurricane Katrina that never actually happened
- The Duke Rape case
- The aforementioned Lancet Study
- $5.00/gallon gas prices

This list could go on for a while. But, the point is that the media makes a habit of headlining stories which turn out to be completely unreliable. The difference is that these particular stories fit their agenda. More research wasn’t necessary. Skepticism wasn't necessary. The validity of these stories was unquestionably trust-worthy.

But, when war casualties drop, and success is on the horizon in a war that they adamantly oppose, any reports of progress are met with harsh skepticism and doubt. These stories don’t fit the narrative they are trying to create.

Bias? What bias?

Socialist Quote Quiz

I can’t take credit for this. Neal Boortz posted it on his website this morning. But, I just had to share it. It’s a little “Who said it?” quiz. You might be surprised by the answers.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above


(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Interesting, wouldn’t you agree?


A Phony Controversy - Part 2

In my last post I mentioned that this “phony soldiers” controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh has even made it to the floor of the Senate. Yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin leveled a very personal attack against Rush:

HARKIN: I’ll just close, Mr. President, by noting that in August, seven soldiers published an op-ed in the New York Times criticizing the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, two of those soldiers were subsequently killed in action, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

I can only assume by Mr. Limbaugh’s definition that they too were “phony soldiers.” Now what’s most despicable is that Mr. Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers, this makes more news, more people tune in, he makes more money.

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse.

Despite the ridiculously childish nature of the OxyContin jab, the irony of the situation is unbelievable.

You see, Tom Harkin is, himself, a “phony soldier” of sorts. During a 1992 campaign for the Presidency, Tom Harkin claimed that he served as a pilot in Vietnam on combat air patrols. It was later revealed that Harkin never flew on combat missions, and, in fact, had NEVER served in the Vietnam War. He lied about his military credentials, only to be exposed as a fraud.

This is the guy condemning Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” comment?

Oh, irony. Sweet irony.

A Phony Controversy

Normally, I don’t rush to the defense of talk radio hosts when they are attacked by media personalities. And, in this case, I’m not really “rushing” to the defense, because this controversy has been brewing for a few days. But, this particular attack by left-wing media personalities and politicians is so bluntly dishonest and unfounded that something has to be said.

While I’m a big fan of talk radio (Neal Boortz especially), I’m not a die hard fan of Rush Limbaugh. I don’t know what it is. I’ll catch his show when I have time. But, I’m not a regular listener.

However, the latest attack campaign against him is an absolute sham. If you haven’t heard about it, allow me to give you a little background.

Media Matters, the left-wing doppelganger of NewsBusters, posted on their website last week a harsh critique of something Limbaugh said. Here is what Media Matters had to say:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers."…

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

There you have it. Media Matters even went so far to post an actual transcript of Rush’s show. So, the accusation MUST be true! You see it right there. Rush believes that any soldier who supports immediate US withdrawal is nothing more than a “phony soldier.”

The mainstream media saw this emerging controversy as fresh meat. MSNBC promoted this story on several of its programs, as did CNN. This controversy has even made its way to the floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I guess there must really be something to this story.

Well…not exactly. The media and Congressional Democrats have presented the story exactly the way Media Matters did. Unfortunately for them, their fictional narrative has no basis in reality.

Media Matters did indeed provide a transcript of the exchange…a partial transcript. They conveniently ceased cutting and pasting immediately before the CONTEXT of the conversation was revealed. Here is how the actual transcript went:

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER 2: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

This is the FULL CONTEXT of the “phony soldiers” remark. It was in regards to individuals like Jesse Macbeth, Micah Wright, and Amorita Randall. These individuals claimed to be American military veterans and told gruesome tales of war crimes and atrocities committed by U.S. troops. Their stories and their personal biographies turned out to be complete fabrications. They were, in fact, anti-war zealots looking for the spotlight and their 15 minutes of fame.

That is why Limbaugh referred to them as “phony soldiers.” In the context of his discussion he mentioned Jesse Macbeth by name simply because this was the most recent story.
He mentioned Jesse Macbeth BY NAME in the context of this discussion. But, did you see that portion in the Media Matters “transcript?” Of course not.

Interestingly enough, Media Matters helped to prove Rush’s ultimate point of the whole “phony soldiers” discussion. Look at Rush’s last quote in the transcript:

“In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.”

I’d say that just about sums up this controversy.