Liberals Rush to Lynch Limbaugh

by Hugh Askew | October 17, 2009 at 01:16 pm

330 views | 37 Recommendations | 16 comments

The recent successful ploy by liberals, and media detractors, to derail Rush Limbaugh's attempt at a minority stake in The St. Louis Rams franchise, has apparently met with success.

That is, if character assassination, perhaps a little slander, and a touch of libel, are included in your definition of success.

Seems that most of the alledgedly racist remarks made by the self-aclaimed "Maha Rushie", were in fabrications.

Mainstream media giants ABC, CNN, MSNBC, to name a few, have hung this quote on El Rushbo:

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Well the racist pig! True enough, except the man never said it.

Okay, then how about this from the Master of all Media:

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

Now that is downright twisted, but did Limbaugh actually utter something like that?

Well, CNN’s Rick Sanchez claims that he did.

What does Rick Sanchez know? Like any good reporter, Rick knows that you simply need to go the right source.

Seems that this "human vat of viterol", as someone's favorite Liberal lap dog calls him, is widely quoted in media ranging from books to a little website called wikipedia, and at a similar site, wikiquotes. Wikipedia and Wikiquotes have a range of Limbaugh's quotes, or, um, supposed Limbaugh quotes. So does a book popular with America's liberals, '101 People Who Are Really Screwing America'.

All good, until it was found that the quotes in question are fabrications, without attribution.

A quote in Bryan Burwell's column Oct. 7 attributed to Rush Limbaugh about the merits of slavery in the United States cannot be verified, and its use did not meet the Post-Dispatch's standards for sourcing.

Limbaugh said he did not make the statement.

Burwell's column did not identify the source of the quote, which was Jack Huberman's 2006 book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America." The book provided no details about the origin of the quote. When contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Huberman said that he had a source for the quote but declined to reveal it on advice of counsel. The book's publisher, Nation Books, did not return calls to the Post-Dispatch.

The Post-Dispatch found references attributing the quote to Limbaugh in other publications and on Internet blogs as far back as 1993, but none of those cited a source.

Website http://newsbusters.org/ did a little legwork (isn't that what the mainstream media used to do?) and found that the source of many of these made-up quotes shown on Wikipedia and Wikiquotes reportedly had their source in a New York Law firm.

Finding someone with a rabid dislike for America's Doctor of Democracy is hardly a stretch. Given that both website are open to editing, the result is hardly surprising.

Newsbusters found the connection though an IP address used as a gateway, by the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, of Manhattan. A contributor to the Democratic Party, the firm has dealt with women's rights, the gay agenda, and minority issues.

So far, the mainstream media has tip-toed around the Rush lynching, or ignored it altogether, hoping perhaps, that it will disappear before they have to apologize.

Rushbo? The "helium-filled poster boy of the conservative right"?

"All right, fine. Only professional journalists have the ability to wander through the sewer and figure out what's valid and what isn't. So a bunch of professional journalists are believing everything in the sewer, they're not checking it at all, they're not fact-checking, they are embarrassing themselves.........."

sources: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY5NzliM2M0ZGJiZjdhNjUxMTcyNzcyNzA2ZWE1NDI=
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/10/15/special-report-lefts-character-assassination-campaign-against-rush-limbaug
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013647/the-rush-limbaugh-media-lynch-mob/#postComment

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 15:30 on October 17th, 2009

Good post Hugh. I think you will see a few lawsuits in the not to distant future. We don.t get Rush on talk radio up here, so I have only seen him in newsclips. He is controversial, no doubt, but so is Ariana Huffington.

a211423

at 16:18 on October 17th, 2009

If, as you say, the source of the quotes are from a single source who might have had self serving reasons or motivations to be less than truthful, Mr. Limbaugh deserves an apology--gulp. This is difficult for me to write, but in the interest of fairness it needs to be done lest the credibility of the Democratic Party suffer.

Should he sue? Is this going to change the sports deal for him or would it be an example case to warn news agencies about what they say and print and determining authenticity and verifying sources.

Remember this story?

On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS News’s Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bush’s former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian. As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he “apologized” on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could “no longer vouch for their authenticity.”

The over arching question is if something is reported as fact and the intention was altruitistic, but turns out to be wrong, is it anyones at fault? Are there grounds to sue someone for something they believed to be the truth at the time.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 16:29 on October 17th, 2009

At least two people were fired over this report. Is it also fair to say that experts could have been consulted for the authenticity of these documents?

In any case this issue is still in the courts as Dan Rather has sued CBS. He lost the first round. We can only assume what Dan Rather's intentions were, but was it worth ruining a reputation over it?

Hugh Askew

at 18:46 on October 17th, 2009

oooh, I had totally, like, forgotten that! Good recall there, a211423!

In this case, a case against the reporters would be difficult......being kind, it looks like maybe they just figured that they had the dirt on him. Limbaugh is any easy target. That isn't necessarily intent to do wrong.

The case on the person at the legal firm would be easier to prove. But finding the culprit could prove difficult. There is also the possibility that the IP addressed was spoofed, and even if it weren't, proving that could be tough.

a211423

at 16:40 on October 17th, 2009

cowpoke

No, I never thought that it was worth ruining his reputation. In fact, I was surprised it was not handled in a more dignified manner by stating the sources were supposedly trustworthy and if it was a professional forgery, anyone could be fooled by it. It happens all the time in the case of antiquities.

Rory Cripps

at 17:21 on October 17th, 2009

Hugh: Good report! As the progressives are so fond of saying: "Words have consequences."

One of the problems facing America is that there's a bunch of ideologues out there that jump up and down and pee in there pants whenever one of their brethren throws out red meat in the form of "sick the right-wing radio host and rip his throat out. because he's stifling our ideology".

If the situation were reversed, and a bunch of right-wingers went after a progressive talk-show host, my sentiments would be the same. Progressives don't seem to get the fact that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only reason why they can make the absurd and ridiculous statements that they invariably make. Ideologues, no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on, only fuck things up for the rest of us that simply want to live and let live and not get all freaked out about what some radio guy says. If y'all are that concerned about what Rush Limbaugh says, then start up your own radio station and convince America that your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are the way to go. Until you do that--and there's no legitimate reason, or excuse, why you can't--then y'all need to stop whining . . . .

Hugh Askew

at 17:39 on October 17th, 2009

"...................then start up your own radio station and convince America that your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are the way to go."

umm, that has already been attempted, hasn't it?

158

at 18:08 on October 17th, 2009

I do not like Limbaugh, almost never listen to him.

Yet he has the right to own a team, to have a radio show, and free speech.

Not all liberals but the far left extremists want to silence him, ytet they praise people like Olbermann and Michael Moore.

Rory Cripps

at 18:23 on October 17th, 2009

Hugh: OK! You caught that one didn't you? HA! It was simply a rhetorical . . . . Yes . . .for some reason, progressives or liberals-- or whatever they call themselves nowadays-- can't seem to gain an audience in the world of talk radio. When I was living in New York back in the eighties, Mario Cuomo (former liberal NY governor) tried his voice at talk radio and turned out to be an utter failure at the art. But then again, Ed Koch (former NYC Democrat mayor) turned out to be rather successful at the art of talk radio. Probably one of the reasons why Mayor Ed Koch was successful is that throughout his radio show he often announced the disclaimer that he was " a liberal with sanity". HA!

Hugh Askew

at 18:51 on October 17th, 2009

.....some claim liberals lack a sense of humor. Maybe they just can't do radio.

me? i'm a Marxist.

Rory Cripps

at 19:02 on October 17th, 2009

Hugh: Yeah! I can tell that you're a Marks Brothers fan! Drum roll please!

nanute

at 08:58 on October 18th, 2009

Poor Rush. He's been victimized by mean, mean people.

Rory Cripps

at 09:06 on October 18th, 2009

nanute: Yes! Rush is a victim of an evil racist conspiracy! No doubt about it! The powers that be over at the NFL simply hate him because of the color of his skin. If Rush were a black progressive, he'd have no problem buying into an NFL team no matter how many racist remarks he made.

nanute

at 09:25 on October 18th, 2009

Right! A bunch of wealthy white guys have conspired against another wealthy white guy.I've heard that shtick about the black progressive racist already. You mean a black progressive that hates white people? A red herring or a straw man of one's imagination, in my opinion. But then again, what the hell do I know. I'm just a self hating white guy. And maybe a rube.

Hugh Askew

at 13:46 on October 18th, 2009

Judging from the content of the character of those that lied about Limbaugh, i see no need to bring race into the matter at all............unlike those that attempted the lynching.

besides, Frank Zippo fans can hardly be classified as rubes.........brain dead perhaps ;)