Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.

Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.

Here are the words of Obama, via the New Republic:

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.

In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?

The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?

Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.

Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.

Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.

The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.

When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).

Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).

There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.

By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.

Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.

The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?

The Communist Party USA.

By compromising with the Democrats on gun control, Boehner would be giving communists some of what they want, which is always a battle lost.

Fiscal Cliff: Time for John 'Renee' Boehner to walk away

As the fiscal cliff looms, talk of Republicans caving to Democrats is in abundance. It's not a question of whether they will cave but how much they will cave. Two days after the election, I wrote about holding Boehner's feet to the fire when he began talking of compromise. Since then, I've been coming to the conclusion that giving Obama everything he wants may be better in the long run than any concessions that may be negotiated. Obama doesn't want to own this economy because he knows it's doomed to fail. He wants to blame Republicans for it. Obama wants some form of compromise because it will give him something to pin on Republicans when this economy hits rock bottom.

Compromise with the Democrats will only benefit one side - the Democrats. When the stimulus package didn't work, liberals like Paul Krugman actually said the reason was that $800 Billion wasn't enough. Obama's budgets are voted down in the Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0 for one reason. He doesn't want to get everything he wants because he knows it will fail and he will have no one but himself to blame (that's why he voted 'present' for so long). He wants to be perceived as bi-partisan, someone who is willing to compromise with Republicans. When the same failures happen, the fault can then lie with what the Republicans demanded and Obama's fingerprints are off the destruction.

If there's one thing we know about liberals it's that in their minds, they're never responsible for anything bad. The way they perpetuate that perception is by blaming Republicans. They were blaming George W. Bush for the economy right up until Obama's reelection.

Before getting to Rush Limbaugh, I'd like to take a moment and throw this song out to John "Renee" Boehner.

Now, onto Limbaugh, who is 100% right here. The premise that says Obama doesn't want economic collapse because he doesn't want to destroy his legacy is a false one. The reason it's accepted is because the alternative is just too difficult for people to come to grips with. If you start with another premise, one that says a successful legacy in Obama's mind is one that includes the collapse of the United States on his watch, the fundamental transformation of this country, his actions make much more sense. He is a student of the Cloward-Piven strategy and he's executing that strategy perfectly. In essence, overwhelm the system with entitlements that the government will eventually not be able to pay and the economy collapses. It doesn't matter what Republicans get out of the fiscal cliff deal, when the Cloward-Piven strategy succeeds, Republicans will be blamed - and the same people who voted for Obama will believe it.

Liberalism always fails, which is why liberals always need scapegoats. Republicans have always been there for that. It's time for a new strategy and Limbaugh, as usual, perfectly enunciates it. Republicans should walk away from negotiations and give Obama whatever he claims he wants. When it fails - and it will - there will be an unmasked Obama for all to see and he will have no Republicans to blame. Only when this happens, will Americans - in much greater numbers - be able to see how destructive the president's ideas are.

Rush is advocating some tough, tough medicine here but let's face it. When Obama was re-elected, seeing him for what he truly is became the only viable option. He knows how to grant some concessions and then beat his opponents over the head with those concessions when he fails. Ironically, the line in the sand at this point is drawn with the intent of letting Obama cross it. We're headed for dark days and giving Obama what he wants is the only sensible way to go at this point because liberal lunacy will finally be left twisting in the wind and the thick-headed whack jobs who think it works will have no one to blame but themselves. At that point, there could be an awakening.

It's become our only hope for change.

Via the Right Scoop:



To Limbaugh's point about what Obama wants his legacy to be and what the latter would view as a successful one, let us not forget that if America survives Obama, he will have the worst legacy of any president in U.S. history. If, however, Obama destroys America, it will have been through fundamentally transforming it, which is exactly what he told us he would do.



Here's Krugman in 2011, saying that the $800 Billion stimulus package didn't work because it wasn't enough (the pointy-eared genius says so beginning at the 1:30 mark):

Smoking Guns: Why Rush Limbaugh was Right about Hillary and Huma

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack (Cross-posted at Shoebat)

Was Rush Limbaugh right when he discussed Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, criticizing the Secretary of State for her Deputy Chief of Staff's familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the close relationship between Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady? Think Progress refers to Limbaugh's claims as 'baseless'.

First, here is Rush's commentary on the subject on June 26th (via Think Progress):



The first sign that Rush's claim is not baseless is that Think Progress says it is.

Now that we've got that out of the way, Saleha and her now-deceased husband, Syed Z. Abedin, co-founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), established in both Great Britain and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It is a group that once had close ties with a Saudi group known as the Muslim World League (MWL) through that group's General Secretary, Omar Abdullah Naseef. In Contemporary Discussions on Religious Minorities in Iran, Jorgen S. Nielsen, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen, writes of the relationship between the Abedins and Naseef on p. 366:

“Trained in social science and being of Indian origin, Professor Abedin (Syed Z.) was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, an institution that had the quiet but active support of the then General Secretary of the Muslim World League, Dr. Umar Abdallah Nasif.”

Interestingly, IMMA was founded at the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Incidentally, the Obama administration's envoy to the OIC is Rashad Hussain, a man who found himself at the center of controversy when it was learned he spoke at a Muslim Students Association (MSA) event in 2004 and expressed support for convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian. MSA is also a Muslim Brotherhood group. Hussain was caught in a lie about the incident and was not fired.

Obama himself heaped praise on Hussain, saying he “has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo.”

Perhaps more foreboding are the connections Saleha Abedin has with the U.S. State Department. In addition to being a Vice Dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia, Saleha was also one of the institution's founders, along with Yaseen Abdullah Kadi – a designated terrorist by the U.S. – and members of the bin Laden family.

In 2010, Huma arranged for the Secretary of State to visit Dar El-Hekma where Clinton spoke alongside both Saleha and another Sisterhood member named, Suheir Qureshi, who like so many of her colleagues, holds a Ph.D. The photo on the left is Hillary and Saleha at that Dar El-Hekma meeting; the photo on the right is of Huma and Hillary.


Though the IMMA Editorial Board currently lists both Huma's mother and her brother as editors, it does not list her. However, it once did. Thanks to a screenshot from the Anti-Mullah blog, we have proof that she was once a member.

IMMA website today:



IMMA website in 2008:



Speaking of covering internet tracks...

Although the MWL's (Muslim World League) financial arm in the United States – Rabita Trust – was shut down for its terror ties, it still exists under the name Rabita al-Alam al-Islami; Saleha Abedin was once listed as a member of this organization, which makes her part of the MWL.

The Anti Defamation League says the following about the MWL:

“While the MWL has on several occasions condemned terrorism in general terms, it has a long history of providing financial support to terrorist groups or having organizational links to them, including to Hamas, Abu Sayyaf group, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Jemaat al Islamiyya, and Al Qaeda.”

Rabita Trust was started by former General Secretary of the MWL and notorious al-Qaeda godfather, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef plays an integral role in both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This reality makes Saleha Abedin and Abdullah Omar Naseef colleagues. Both are intimately involved with the MWL and, by extension, connected to al-Qaeda.

That's not Saleha's only al-Qaeda connection...

Her name currently appears on the main Al-Azhar University website (last name on the list) as a member of the High Council for Islamic Matters. Remember, the founder of al-Qaeda – Abdullah Azzam – is a graduate of Al-Azhar. Abedin is also a close colleague of Camellia Helmy, another Sisterhood leader. Helmy is the wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Siraj Al-Din Allboudi. Allboudi was imprisoned for his role in establishing the modern day Sisterhood or International Women's Organization (IWO).

As a prestigious member of Al-Azhar University who participated in the 12th session of the Islamic Conference for the Islamic Uprising, Saleha has essentially endorsed the mission of the conference, which included representing the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC). The IICWS stood for the decriminalization of rape within marriage. This would mean that Saleha would support the rape of her daughter (Huma) by her son-in-law, Anthony Weiner, who also happens to be Jewish. How's that for a contradiction? While Saleha is, no doubt, a proponent of Muruna, which allows Muslims to absolve themselves of all prohibitions to further the cause of Islam (to include marrying a Jew), she also must necessarily support the marital rape of her daughter at the hands of Weiner.

One has to wonder what Saleha thinks about the treatment received by the likes of Lara Logan at Tahrir Square last year.

Here is a screen shot from a website that once listed Saleha as a member of Rabita Trust and touted her work with the IICWC. A screen shot is the best we could do because this information is no longer posted. Relevant Arabic has been translated:



According to Al-Midina, the history of the Abedin name has a very real connection to Hitler, with only two degrees of separation through Haj Amin al-Husseini - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII - and and Hassan al-Banna - the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The former was a colleague of Muhammad Sabri Abedin and the latter's secretary was Abdul Hakim Abedin. Both are confirmed relatives of Sisterhood member, Saleha.

It doesn't end there as Saleha's son, Hassan Abedin, also serves as a fellow (his name was removed after our work last year) on the board of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with Naseef, who is the chairman of the Board of Trustees there. Also serving as a trustee there was the aforementioned, Hitler-loving Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Let us consider Saleha's relationship with IMMA Vice Chairman, Abu Bakr Bakader. (Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs). Our government needs to look into the two who are colleagues because Bakader is seen with Saleh Al-Ghamdia relative of three 9/11 hijackers, to include Saleh Al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, and Hamza Saleh Al-Ghamdi.

At this point it's safe to say that our State Department has been infiltrated by enemies of this nation and those responsible for letting them in – either actively or passively – may be guilty of treason.

Rush Limbaugh, as usual, is right and Think Progress, as usual, is left (and wrong).

Now, if Think Progress would like to challenge us further about the new first lady of Egypt being a close associate of Huma Abedin's mother, we recommend that they stop trying to catch our missiles with butterfly nets.

Walid Shoebat is the author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

Think Progress goes after Limbaugh over his comments on Hillary and Huma Abedin

On June 26th, Rush Limbaugh spent a couple of minutes reporting on the story we broke on June 24th, that further exposes the familial ties of Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - to the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, the point of interest for Rush is the news that Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady are close colleagues as leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood. The Soros-backed Think Progress attempted to debunk Limbaugh's claims and linked to an article we wrote last year, labeling it one of those conservative "conspiracy theories".

Keep checking Shoebat.com because we have an explosive follow-up piece to this story coming that you will not want to miss.

Here is the relevant audio clip of Limbaugh from June 26th, via Think Progress:

Video: TIME's Joe Klein compares Rush Limbaugh to Jim Jones

This would be laughable if it wasn't such a blatant act of projection. While on a panel filled with leftists like Chris Matthews, TIME Magazine's Joe Klein compares conservative voters to the followers of Jim Jones. In fact, Klein makes a direct comparison between Jones and Rush Limbaugh, saying that the talk radio giant is believed by his minions to be God.

First, some history. Jim Jones was an avowed Marxist who had the Democratic Party in his back pocket. To varying degrees, he had the support of then (and current) California Governor Jerry Brown, Willie Brown, and Ralph Nader. He was also the quintessential Community Organizer

Before you watch Klein, check out this history lesson on Jim Jones. Caution: Jones frequently used the "N" word. Additional language warning as well.

Via Anti-Communist:



Now that you have some perspective, check out Joe Klein.

Via Daily Caller:

Audio: Rush Limbaugh Introduces Michelle Obama with Sir-Mix-a-Lot

As a response to how Michele Bachmann was treated by the house band as she was introduced by Jimmy Fallon, Rush Limbaugh returned fire by introducing Michelle Obama as a guest on his program to the music of Sir Mix-a-Lot's 'I Like Big Butts.'

Vintage Rush:



Here is what prompted what you just heard:



h/t Hapblog

Audio: Boehner's Interview with Rush Limbaugh

Don't be fooled by Rush's very gracious welcome of House Speaker John Boehner to his show. In fact, Rush was so masterful at getting Boehner to expose himself that the Speaker realized what he said and so anticipated Rush's obvious next question that he answered it as if it were actually asked. Listen to the whole exchange but the nugget starts at the 3:40 mark. Limbaugh asks Boehner about the $1 Trillion increase in the debt ceiling compared with the $1.1 Trillion in spending cuts. The former will be spent in six months while the latter is spread out over ten years. Boehner realized he was busted and threw out a pretty lame excuse to justify the gross disparity.

Boehner's excuse? 'We waited to long to deal with the problem' and then he goes into some bizarre explanation about baby boomers.

h/t Hapblog:

Honolulu Passes Resolution Urging Limbaugh to Apologize

Just when you thought this was old news, the Honolulu City Council brings it back into the proverbial fold. Rush Limbaugh mocked Chinese president Hu Jintao during the Chinese president's visit to the United States last month. The story had legs for about ten days then died - or so we thought. Thanks to these hypersensitive, politically correct, and anti-American whack jobs, Limbaugh's hilarious interpretation of Hu Jintao is making news again.

Via the AP:

HONOLULU (AP) -- The Honolulu City Council has approved a resolution urging radio show host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for comments on China's president.

The Star Advertiser reports that the City Council voted 8-1 Wednesday asking the talk show host to apologize for what it termed "offensive and derogatory remarks" made about Chinese President Hu Jintao on his Jan. 19 radio program.

Limbaugh claimed there was no translation of the Chinese president's speech during a visit to the White House, then launched into an imitation of the Chinese leader's dialect.

Conspicuously absent from the Honolulu City Council is a resolution demanding an apology from either Obama or Hu Jintao for allowing an anti-American song to be played in the White House during the state dinner for the Chinese leader.

Here's Limbaugh's translation set to music..



h/t Weasel Zippers

Democrat: Limbaugh Bad, Anti-American Song Good

A state Senator in California is outraged that Rush Limbaugh would mock the speech of Chinese president Hu Jintao during his recent trip for a state dinner at the White House. Conspicuously absent from Sen. Leland Yee has been any denouncement of a the pro-Chinese / anti-American song played at that state dinner by a Chinese pianist named Lang Lang. This selective outrage should immediately call into question, Yee's loyalty to the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

Via the AP:

Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.

California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.

In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.

Yet, where is Yee's outrage about Lang Lang performing a song at the White House less than ten days earlier in which American troops were referred to as "jackals?"

While the White House wasn't silent on Lang Lang's performance, it DID defend it by saying it was not insulting. No word yet on what the official Obama administration response to Limbaugh will be.

With that as a backdrop, sit back and enjoy a little Rush...

VIDEO: LOUGHNER'S FRIEND SAID HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO TALK RADIO

So much for Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's theory that Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the Arizona shootings perpetrated by Jared Loughner. During an interview with ABC's Ashleigh Banfield, Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said that Loughner didn't watch television or listen to political radio. He was neither right wing or left wing. The entire segment is worth watching but if pressed for time, fast forward to the 2:32 mark. Anyone wondering why Dupnik didn't talk to Osler before popping off about Loughner being driven to madness by Rush Limbaugh?

Via TV Newser:

VIDEO: ARIZONA SHERIFF DOUBLES DOWN, BLAMES RUSH LIMBAUGH

On the day of the Safeway massacre, Arizona Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed talk radio for the actions of Jared Loughner, an apparent citizen of Dupnik's county who had previous run-ins with the law, including with Dupnik's Department; threats of bodily harm were apparently among them. On Mondays program, Limbaugh said that Dupnik was 'making a fool out of himself.' Later that day, ABC's Diane Sawyer interviewed Dupnik, at which point he doubled down and named Limbaugh specifically.

Astonishingly, when Sawyer asked him how he could link the shootings to Rush Limbaugh, a Sheriff of these United States simply said that such a view was his opinion. How far have we fallen when a County Sheriff links murder to someone else through opinion? It very well may have to do with a desire on the part of Dupnik to deflect attention away from his Department's handling of Loughner in the past.



h/t Hapblog:

Now, take a look at James Taranto's appearance on Hannity in which he calls out Dupnik specifically and outwardly expresses a concern that the Sheriff may be attempting to distract from the potentially very flawed history of his Department and how it may have dealt / not dealt with Loughner in the past.



h/t Gateway Pundit

VIDEOS: AL SHARPTON HAS A LITTLE PROBLEM IN HIS CRUSADE AGAINST RUSH LIMBAUGH

Al Sharpton has been on a new crusade recently and it involves dreams of sugar plum fairies and Rush Limbaugh being dragged in front of the FCC to explain hisself. This first clip is Al cozying up to far left whack job Ed Schultz who is more than a little sympathetic to the cause; he's got a radio show he'd love to see forced on an unwilling public via stations Limbaugh currently has. Here, Schultz is playing the role of drooling dog under the dinner table.

Note that Sharpton wants the FCC to enforce existing standards and considers it 'arrogant' for people to 'say what they want.'



Now that Al has let us know where he stands, take a look at him years ago on the Morton Downey, Jr. Show calling someone a 'punk faggot' from the stage at about the time Rush Limbaugh's radio career was just getting started.



h/t Weasel Zippers

VIDEO: AL SHARPTON SAYS FCC SHOULD PROTECT PUBLIC FROM BEING OFFENDED BY RUSH LIMBAUGH

While appearing on MSNBC's Ed Schultz show, Al Sharpton provides the quintessential example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking - allow the free market to determine winners and losers. Liberals can't win in that arena because they're liars so their strategy is to silence the other side. That is exactly what Sharpton is calling for the FCC to do with Rush Limbaugh.

Sharpton's argument - if you can call it that - is to get the FCC to protect the pubic from the offensive speech of Limbaugh. The irony here is that it was just yesterday that we learned one FCC Commissioner (Mignon Clyburn), indignantly referred to little girls as "nappy headed."

I also enjoyed Sharpton's line of distinction between first amendment protected speech and unprotected speech. The difference between the two is that unprotected speech is "over the top." Uh, Al, can you show us that part of the First Amendment? Assuming our founding fathers had that phrase in their lexicon, they probably would have included it with all CAPS, bold font, and underlined as precisely the kind of speech they wanted to protect.

Notice too that Schultz leads the segment by calling Limbaugh's speech racist and hateful. Compared to the things Schultz has said in the past, Rush's speech is the equivalent of elevator music. Schultz is obviously supportive of the position. I find that ironic in light of his response to Jay Rockefeller's contention not too long ago that Fox News and MSNBC - Schultz's own network - should be shut down.

What Schultz obviously doesn't get is that if conservative talk radio and Fox News were ever shut down, those behind it will have no further use for the likes of Ed Schultz.

Hey Ed, see if you can finish this sentence: "First they came for the......"

Via The Blaze:

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

AUDIO: RUSH GETS TOUGH WITH DARRELL ISSA ON PHONE

This all started during Rush Limbaugh's October 19th program. He read a quote attributed to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) that disturbed him to the point that he asked his producers on-air to get Issa on the phone in the next segment. Sure enough, Issa was on the phone per Rush's request. The exchange started out cordially enough with Issa thanking Rush for giving him the opportunity to explain how the Wall Street Journal took one small quote of his to make it appear he said something he didn't.

Here is the quote in question via WSJ:

"It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). "They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree."

Now for the audio..

This is awesomely awesome. Issa is actually one of the good guys. If the Republicans take back the House, he will be the chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform and he is poised to do some serious investigating of this administration after getting subpoena power.

That's not what this was about and Limbaugh clearly got Issa's attention in this exchange.

Via HapBlog

LIMBAUGH CALLS OBAMA A 'JACKASS' AND 'IMAM CHILD'

I heard Rush say this live and thought it noteworthy at the time. It also reminded me of when Obama called Kanye West a 'Jackass' for momentarily taking an award away from Taylor Swift to proclaim Beyonce deserved it. Limbaugh actually makes an impressive case to backup the charge. He was making it in relation to Obama's handling of the economy. Oh, he also called the 'Jackass' an 'economic illiterate' and an 'ignoramus'.



Here is the infamous Kanye is 'a jackass' moment.

VIDEO: GERALDO, COULTER, AXELROD, AND LIMBAUGH

You can watch the entire Rush interview on Fox news Sunday at the bottom of this post but before doing so, I thought this exchange between Geraldo and Ann Coulter does a good job of providing insight into what's at the heart of the controversy that is almost certain to be front and center for a few days.

Geraldo takes issue with two specific statements from the extremely compelling Rush Limbaugh interview with Chris Wallace. First, he unbelievably implies that Limbaugh's statement that Barack Obama is a "man-child" was racist. Secondly, he feigns indignation over Limbaugh's take that Obama's trip to Dover Airforce base to salute a fallen soldier was nothing more than a photo op.

However, Coulter totally blindsides him with something I'm sure he wasn't expecting. His response was so very indicative of the left's mentality. Coulter actually responds by saying that the White House told New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny - you know, the guy who asked Obama at a press conference what he found most "enchanting" about being president - that it was an attempt by the administration to "buy time".

The OCTOBER 29TH ARTICLE by Zeleny didn't have the phrase Coulter pointed to but it did have a few interesting excerpts that seem to point in that direction:

The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.

A symbolic trip? How about a trip without symbolism (or photographers)?

The overnight trip was not announced in advance. The president, wearing a dark suit and a long overcoat, left the White House just before midnight. A small contingent of reporters and photographers was quietly called to follow him to Dover, where he met for two hours with members of 14 families. He returned to the White House at 4:45 a.m.

It would seem that Zeleny's article points to exactly what Limbaugh forcefully said; specifically, that Obama's trip to Dover was a "photo-op".

One more thing about Geraldo before you watch the video. Note that after Coulter points to the Zeleny article, Geraldo says, "that's gross". In light of the direction Coulter took the debate, the focus was on Zeleny's article. Was Geraldo calling the article gross or the White House's take on the trip? Decide for yourself.



Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer then lets David Axelrod respond to Rush's assertion that the Obama trip to Dover was a photo-op. Axelrod's refutation of it was beyond pathetic. However, look out for a couple of other things.

1.) Axelrod goes down the road of the Republican party being extremists yet fails to mention that it's the White House that has surrounded itself with radical communists and people who revere the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Tse Tung. Not only that but Axelrod himself was mentored by SDS member Don Rose (SDS gave birth to Bill Ayers' Weather Underground) and is a longtime friend of another SDS member Marilyn Katz who, like Ayers, REGRETS NOTHING.

2.) Axelrod contradicts himself in this interview starting at about the 3:15 mark when Schieffer asks him about the White House "war" on Fox. Axelrod says, "We're not at war with anyone. We're at war only with people who represent mis-truths as truths." Uh, so now they're singling out individuals at Fox? The bigger problem here is that Axelrod actually said the White House is at war with people who disagree with them. Troubling indeed.



MUST SEE: LIMBAUGH'S INTERVIEW ON FNS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

Here's part 1 of the Limbaugh interview on FNS



Part 2 of Limbaugh interview



Part 3



h/t to H4A and GP

VIDEO: JUAN WILLIAMS AN UNCLE TOM?

You know it's gotten bad when conservatives who normally roll their eyes at the points made by Juan Williams suddenly find themselves in the position of having to defend him against racists like Warren Ballantine who love to play the game of, "Heads I win, tails you lose".

Translation? If you agree with him, he's right. If you disagree with him, you're wrong.

Utterly pathetic that it's fallen to this level. So many thanks must go to our post-racial president.

In the first exchange (Thursday), O'Reilly does some excellent work by stepping back and letting Ballantine and Williams debate the point. Sure enough, Ballantine hangs himself with his last comment which comes out of the mouth of the defeated. Williams cornered Ballantine who instinctively went for the uncle Tom reference by telling Williams to "go back to the porch".

CLICK HERE to watch what led to Juan's irritation.

So on Friday, Juan Williams fills in for O'Reilly and it's obvious rather quickly that Ballantine's comments have stewed in Juan's pot a bit. Williams is visibly agitated. One of his guests is Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL player and friend of Rush Limbaugh, who lets Williams know that he's "been there, done that". Sensing Williams' anger, Hutcherson takes that ball and runs with it.

As Bruce Willis said in Die Hard, "Welcome to the party, Pal", Hutherson does the same thing with Williams.

The good news?

Ballantine may have hacked off the Juan Williams Hornets' nest.



h/t to HOTAIR PUNDIT

CNN ANCHOR RICK SANCHEZ BUM RUSHED BY LIMBAUGH

I can add the perspective of someone who was living in south Florida at the time of the incident Rush spoke of on 10/14 in response to CNN anchor Rick Sanchez continuing to report, as factual, comments attributed to Limbaugh that still have not been substantiated. Oddly enough, the incident is tied to an NFL game. It was a very memorable game actually, played between the Miami Dolphins and the Philadelphia Eagles. It was Dan Marino v. Randall Cunningham.

Rush went nuclear on Sanchez, relaying the facts of an incident Sanchez was involved in on December 10th, 1990. After the Miami Dolphins defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in Overtime by a score of 23-20, Rick Sanchez who was then a news anchor for WSVN, channel 7 in Miami left the game in his Volvo. Sanchez had been drinking and was later found to be above the legal limit.

While driving, he struck a pedestrian who went into a coma for two months and woke up partially paralyzed. Not only that but Sanchez left the scene of the accident and returned after two hours. The MIAMI NEWS TIMES published an article about Jeffrey Smuzinick on August 7th, 1991.

Minutes after midnight on the morning of December 10, 1990, an intoxicated Smuzinick darted out in front of a Volvo on a residential street near Joe Robbie Stadium. The driver of the car, WSVN-TV Channel 7 anchorman Rick Sanchez, became the subject of a subsequent January 16 New Times story that described the odd circumstances of the accident. Sanchez, whom a Metro-Dade police officer said "smelled strongly of alcohol," first stopped his car but then later left the scene. A blood test to determine Sanchez's sobriety was not administered until an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision. Though Sanchez says he tried to aid Smuzinick at the scene of the accident and flag down motorists, eyewitnesses claim the anchorman ignored the injured man and loudly told police and bystanders that blood tests were pointless, and would hurt his public image.

Smuzinick would die in 1995. Sounds like Smuzinick's injuries largely contributed to his death. Rick Sanchez is a wealthy man who wasn't doing too bad back then either. I wonder to what extent he helped Smuzinick financially.

Again, interesting that the incident Rush chooses to bring up to fire back at Sanchez involved an NFL game. As a Dolphin fan, it was one of those that has stuck in my memory. Sunday night game on ESPN with Dan Marino leading the Dolphins back from a 10 point 4th quarter deficit to tie the game in regulation. The Dolphins went on to win the game in OVERTIME.

Also worth noting that Limbaugh likely would never have attacked Sanchez over this matter had he not felt that Sanchez slandered him with unsubstantiated quotes attributed to Rush.

VIDEO: STEPHEN A. SMITH IN LIMBAUGH'S CORNER

Stephen A. Smith railed against any NFL players for saying they would not play for the Rams if Rush Limbaugh had anything to do with owning the team. Quite refreshing to see a black ESPN analyst call out football players like this. I've also heard Smith on Mark Levin's show and he "gets it".

Aside from Smith's argument - that any player who says he wouldn't play for the Rams if Limbaugh owned them is lying through their teeth - lost in all of this is the biggest slam on Limbaugh by the players. Of course, the straw man for these righteously indignant players is what Rush said about the media elevating Donovan McNabb because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed.

Limbaugh was vindicated by what the media did and continues to do for Barack Obama.

CLICK HERE to watch the exchange.

Here's another Stephen A. Smith clip in which he called in to Mark Levin's show:



h/t to HOT AIR