The Hush Rush Syndrome
The new liberal censoriousness and its growing list of targets.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it." Believers in free speech and civil
liberties, many of them liberals, have repeated this Voltaire quote
so many times it has become a cliche.
Some even applied this principle to excess, treating topless
dancing the same as political speech and defending neo-Nazis who
wanted to march through a community of Holocaust survivors. There
is no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But the principle
itself is essential to a free society.
Voltaire has since been replaced by Ring Lardner: "Shut up he
explained."
Pat Buchanan was hounded off the air in February, ostensibly for
things written in his latest book that in fact differed little from
views he had expressed for years. MSNBC president Phil Griffin
proclaimed the book unfit for the "national dialogue" despite the
fact it was a New York Times bestseller.
If ideas with enough reach to land on the bestseller lists are
too dangerous, we should not be surprised some liberals believe the
radio talk show host with the largest audience should not be heard
either. Rush Limbaugh may admire Ronald Reagan, but it is his
critics who want sponsors to say, "I paid for this microphone."
"No apology is good enough," read feminist Gloria Feldt's
indictment. "Rush must go. Period." What of his 20 million
listeners, many of them women, who do not want Rush to go? The
right side of the sisterhood must get with the program. "Time for
women to make Rush Limbaugh history."
Limbaugh isn't the only one Feldt, a former Planned Parenthood
CEO, would like to make history: "It's time for these men, like Pat
Buchanan, Foster Friess, and Rick Santorum to climb back under the
prehistoric rock from whence they came."
More ominously, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee,
suggested Limbaugh should be dropped from Armed Forces Radio.
Levin at least paid lip service to the First Amendment. "I would
hope the people that run it see just how offensive this is and drop
it on their own volition," he maganimously told CNN.
Feminist golden oldies Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria
Steinem took the next step in
calling for the FCC to "clear Limbaugh from the airwaves." The
trio writes, "If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then
surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question:
Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their
licenses 'in the public interest?'"
"This isn't political," the political activists maintain. "While
we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the
fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech."
Fonda, Morgan, and Steinem accuse Limbaugh of having "hidden behind
the First Amendment."
Calling spectrum a "scare government resource," the three argue
there is nothing wrong with yanking the broadcast licenses of
stations carrying Limbaugh's show. "It's time for the public to
take back our broadcast resources," they conclude. (This also
serves as useful reminder of how secure civil liberties are when
resources are collectively owned.)
No longer is it good enough to disagree with conservatives. They
must be fired from their jobs, separated from their advertisers,
booted from the airwaves, buried under a prehistoric rock. The
tactics attributed to Joe McCarthy tied to the polemical rigor
associated with Jenny McCarthy.
But who are these gatekeepers? The Color of Change, the group
which organized against Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and the
late Andrew Breitbart, was co-founded by Van Jones, who had to
resign from the Obama administration for signing a petition
endorsing 9/11 truther conspiracies. Are Jones' views certifiably
mainstream and unimpeachably fit for the national dialogue?
One need not agree with anything the criticized conservative
commentators have written or said. Concerning the remarks that
ignited the firestorm currently embroiling Limbaugh, this writer
believes the columnist Jeff Jacoby is
right on the money. And in a polarized political climate, this
kind of censoriousness is not a strictly liberal offense.
There are also honorable exceptions to the liberal purges. "As
we all know, Limbaugh's First Amendment rights aren't involved here
-- freedom of speech means freedom from interference by the
government,"
writes the veteran columnist Michael Kinsley, referring only to
the boycotts. "But the spirit of the First Amendment, which is that
suppressing speech is bad, still applies."
Networks can hire who they want. Advertisers can spend their
money as they choose. But there is something unsavory about these
organized boycotts and politically motivated pressure tactics.
There is something much worse about the government deciding which
speech is in the public interest.
If you don't like Limbaugh, Dobbs, Beck, or Buchanan, don't
listen to them. If you think they are purveying ideas that are
wrong-headed or mistaken, debate and refute them. But among some of
the left's self-styled defenders of free speech, personal autonomy,
and choice, this old-fashioned liberalism is no longer in
vogue.
Democrats should reject Bill Maher's money
updated 11:15 AM EDT, Mon March 12, 2012
(CNN) -- As women, feminists, mothers to daughters and activists, we read the recent opinion piece on
conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem
and Robin Morgan with great anticipation. Once we had finished reading,
we were left with feelings of amusement, amazement and, yes, agreement.
As women, we agree with
them that hate speech and sexism against women is wrong in all forms, on
all playing fields. Women who enter the public arena and stand up for
their beliefs should be celebrated, whether we agree with them or not.
Arguing with their beliefs is one matter; using derogatory terms or hate
speech is another. Men who practice this regularly should apologize and
change their ways and face the consequences.
As feminists, we read the
piece with amazement. Recently, an entertainer, political activist and
major donor has referred to women in the political arena with vile
obscenities as well as words such as "bimbos," "boobs" and "MILFs."
Bill Maher has advocated,
in one case, that someone should "choke this b***h" and argued that
voters would prefer to see a female candidate "splayed out on the hood
of a car" rather than making decisions in the Oval Office. A recent video
produced by ShePAC highlights some of Maher's "greatest hits" against
women and special needs children. In 48 hours, more than 250,000 viewed
it.
After reading and further
researching, we were amazed that Fonda, Steinem and Morgan failed to
condemn Maher for his hate speech against conservative and liberal women
alike. In their piece, they write that their call to action "isn't
political." Giving them the benefit of doubt, we thought, they were
perhaps unaware of Maher's history of misogyny. But we were wrong.
Not only have these women
not condemned Maher's vile and violent language, they've legitimized
it. Both Fonda and Steinem have been guests on Maher's show, both
failing to call him to task for his actions. Sadly, they are not alone.
Neither have two former
guests on Maher's Hollywood set: Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and DNC
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They haven't had the courage or
conviction to condemn his words against conservative women but have both
found time to join Fonda and Steinem in the media the past week to do
so against Limbaugh.
But mostly, as
conservatives, we read their opinion piece in amusement. To us, it's
silly to think female voters are going to be swayed by the tired
politics these women preach. They don't speak for us, and their politics
of the past is being rejected.
Traditional "women's
issues" from Fonda and Steinem's era are gone. Women flocked to
conservative candidates in 2010 after they saw their children's share of
the debt skyrocket. They joined with conservatives as unemployment rose
and their hope for the future sank. Women have seen our freedom
(including speech) under attack, and we have taken to the ballot box and
the campaign trail to put a stop to it.
While we respect all
women who stand up for their beliefs, we reject the hypocrisy that these
"feminist icons" try to slip past us. When will they put principle over
politics and have the courage to condemn Maher's misogyny? We applaud
Wasserman Schultz for rejecting this sort of language as not "funny." We
agree with President Obama that remarks such as these have "no place in
the public discourse." We ask others including Sen. Chuck Schumer and
Obama super PAC co-founder Bill Burton to reject Maher's donation of $1
million to support the president's re-election.
By accepting this massive donation, they allow Maher's views into the public discourse and legitimize him as more than just the comedian
they pass him off as. Maher is a contributor to the Huffington Post and
a frequent political commentator on cable news, and his comedy tour's
appearance in Alabama is the main event for an upcoming Democratic party
fundraiser. It's clear that he's more than just a comedian. We aren't
laughing at any of this -- and somehow, we suspect, neither are Schumer
and Burton's wives and daughters.
Maher has made his
millions in part with violent verbal attacks against women, hiding
behind the guise of "comedy," and now he has given some of that money to
the super PAC supporting Obama.
Sunday, we learned that Obama's campaign is spending a substantial amount of money targeting 1 million female voters.
We invite you, Jane,
Gloria, Robin, Debbie, Nancy and others to join with us and call on
Obama to ask his super PAC to reject Maher's misogynist million.
We're sure you, as
decent people, agree with President Obama this tainted money and speech
"has no place in our public discourse." Together, we can cross political
lines and jointly call on Obama in the name of civility to do the right
thing by requesting that the super PAC turn over this money to those
hurt by this sort of speech -- a charity serving abused women. We look
forward to your response.
Fonda, Steinem, Feminists Beclown and Expose Themselves While Putting Out For Obama
Gloria Steinem has once again resurfaced from whatever cuckoo pants mammary tower she’s been hiding in to help pen an absurd opinion piece at CNN calling for the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the airways.
Because, meany pants. I think it was supposed to be serious. I can’t
really be sure because, oh boy, did the hilarity ensue. Her ‘writing’
partners, because it apparently takes three feminists to write one op-ed
(collective thinking, baby!) were Jane Fonda (I know! My sides ache,
too) and radical feminist author Robin Morgan, also an editor at the ever-inane Ms. magazine.
This op-ed, as well as the actions of some other feminist/Lefty
groups, are of great value in one way: They totally expose the Left as
subjugators, users and abusers of women. But let’s get the
side-splitting article itself out of the way first. The trio of
attention-seeking irrelevancy open with quotes they didn’t bother to source.
Research is hard. Then they go on to include environmentalists in a
list of The Most Vulnerable whom Rush Limbaugh has allegedly ‘attacked’.
By attacked they mean people with whom he disagrees. Environmentalists!
Who among us hasn’t lamented the plight of the poor environmentalists,
aimlessly roaming about the country only to see signs like
‘Environmentalists need not apply”? What happened to all those ‘green
jobs’ Obama promised? He is oppressing the environmentalists! Who will
think of the environmentalists? WHO?
The three then exhibit a staggering lack of self-awareness by
claiming that Rush Limbaugh seeks to “dehumanize” people. Um. Did Gloria
Steinem forget that she called housewives “dependent creatures who are still children” and “parasites”? That is the Left’s standard operating procedure. That is what they do, always, and especially with regard to women. This has been proven over and over again
and only the willfully ignorant can’t see it. This is followed by the
pièce de résistance of the op-ed — they equate Rush with Josef Goebbels.
No, for reals. While fascistically demanding that The State’s FCC shut
down Rush Limbaugh. While seeking to silence those with whom they
disagree – using hysterical lies and propagandist rhetoric – they Godwin
themselves with Goebbels. Irony is lost on these geniuses.
They ended with the most hilarious line of all when they claimed
‘this is not political’. Of course it is. Everything they do is
political. Perhaps Robin Morgan forgot that she said “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act,
that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that
is oppressing them.” She also said ‘Kill your fathers, not your mothers’
– yeah, no ‘issues’ there. And Feminism itself is not about women at
all; it’s about serving a political ideology and agenda always. What
they fail to realize, being too busy beclowning themselves constantly,
is that they are subjugators of women. They are being used – willingly,
no less – to help oppress and infantilize women, making them
subservient to The State and Big Daddy Government.
They are quite literally saying that women need a Daddy State to come
rushing in to soothe ouchy feelings and be their white knight
protecting them from icky mean boys. Which is the same thing Fluke said;
the woman for whom they are prostrating themselves to Big Daddy to
defend. She said that silly little women can’t control anything, let
alone their ‘reproductive justice’ (whatever in the heck that is)
without someone else rescuing them and, you know, picking up the tab.
It’s also the same way they infantilize women by screeching about
ultrasound laws. Helpless women are too stupid to see an ultrasound
before killing their child because they might be so stupid as to change
their mind! Feminist heroine Simone de Beauvoir said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. “
The horror! Women making choices of their very own? Does not suit. In fact, Gloria Steinem also said that one cannot be a feminist and be conservative and pro-life.
We aren’t real women, you see. Real women let others who ‘know best’,
like The State, make their choices for them. Or, as another bunch of
feminists proved this week, they empower themselves by demanding neither
respect, honor nor care. A group called Liberal Ladies Who Lunch has launched a campaign to withhold sex (unladylike
language at link) because ‘if our reproductive choices are denied, so
are yours.” Idiocy, of course. But there is a larger point that they
inadvertently exposed. The founder of the group said the following:
“American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”
Huh. Can you feel the empowerment, ladies? Once again, those on the Left reduce women not only to the sum of their girly bits,
but to 25 cent carnival rides requiring no respect just ‘easy and free
access’. They throw themselves at pro-abortion men and laud them with tshirts saying ‘I heart pro-choice boys”
because, hey, if he knocks you up, he’ll totally drive you to the
abortion mill. Who cares if he’s too cheap to pick up the tab for a pack
of condoms? We don’t need any respect or care, only Big Daddy
Government! No responsibility for you, men. We are just here for your
amusement, subservient and willing. As long as you are all
pro-abortion-y and treat the children we may create without respect and
as disposable, the same way you do us. That’s your legacy, Gloria
Steinem. Kudos!
Conservative women can’t be Feminists, says Steinem. Thank Goodness.
We’d rather be around men who respect us and honor us. And who aren’t,
you know, too cheap to pick up contraceptives if we so choose. We aren’t
25 cent carnival rides. We won’t prostrate ourselves to Big Daddy
Government, in fact we want him to get the hell out of our way. We won’t
prostitute ourselves for Leftist politicans like Obama, to whom women
are an expendable means to a political end. We’d rather think for
ourselves and rely on ourselves, with the support of loving family and
friends. We aren’t idiots who must think with one collective mind. We
not only honor ourselves, but we honor and respect freedom and liberty.
The Left has wrongly held the For The Women card for too long and President Obama is now clearly using it as campaign strategy. It’s far past time their card was revoked. They aren’t For The Women. They are For Using The Women. They absurdly claim the GOP wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Well, they want us in hooker shoes, fearful of motherhood and in a cell servicing our Big Daddy Government masters.
Congratulations! You Just Made Rush Limbaugh Sympathetic!
Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh
stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally
seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his
callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do the one thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.
Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com
Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the
process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the
thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment
and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.
Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of
government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who
seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own
petard anyway.
“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and
serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this
obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that
Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting
in the public interest or serving their respective communities of
license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”
Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer
indication of what these respective communities already want? And
shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact
tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether
we like it or not?
Either Limbaugh serves a large demographic or he doesn’t, it’s pretty
simple. As long as he doesn’t violate any laws I don’t see what
argument there is to be made to remove him based on serving some
imaginary definition of the public interest. It seems to me the public
has spoken quite clearly about what it likes. A large portion of it
still likes Rush, although fewer than before this flap began.
Then they argued that while Limbaugh is “is indeed constitutionally
entitled to his opinions … he is not constitutionally entitled to the
people’s airways.”
I just don’t understand this line of reasoning. Just at the very
moment when the public has come alive to the fact that Limbaugh has long
since crossed over the line of decency, when the system, in fact, is
working, along come these three to say that “the people” need to remove
Limbaugh via the FCC. Even as “the people” seem to be doing a pretty
good job of it already.
No. That is the wrong way to do it. The “people” need to get rid of
Limbaugh the old fashioned way, by not listening to his show. By
offering strong counter-arguments to his diminished pulpit. By telling
his sponsors they’ve had enough. By proving that the First Amendment
still protects all speech, even Limbaugh’s, but that it cuts both ways.
As long as liberals argue that government should protect us from
upsetting opinions they are never going to win, and shouldn’t. Begging
the FCC to do what listeners have yet to do—get rid of Limbaugh—both
looks and is weak.
I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh’s show. So I don’t listen to it. He
hasn’t gotten one Nielsen rating from me, and his sponsors have missed
me too. And in the past few weeks many more people who used to be on the
fence about Limbaugh have come around to my point of view, it seems. If
enough people argue back against his ill-informed spew, using facts, a real, meaningful change will have taken place in this country.
Liberals and Democrats either need to make their case better than
Limbaugh does, or, just as effectively, sit back and watch as his hate
machine continues to eat its own tail. Eventually, though, you run out
of tail. And that’s when the fun really starts. In fact, you could say
the past two weeks have offered a pretty great argument as to why
Limbaugh and his kind don’t deserve your vote, by any definition of that word. So let them talk.
If only..... Just joking....
From Sophie:
"Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do the one thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him."
And, then you do the one thing that will prove that you really are a batshit crazy FemiNazi:
You demand the State's Attorney in Palm Beach to prosecute Rush Limbaugh pursuant to a Victorian-era statute, which is clearly unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, exposing the intolerance and totalitarian nature of the Left for the world to see.
And, then you do the one thing that will prove that you really are a batshit crazy FemiNazi:
You demand the State's Attorney in Palm Beach to prosecute Rush Limbaugh pursuant to a Victorian-era statute, which is clearly unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, exposing the intolerance and totalitarian nature of the Left for the world to see.
"It's only Fascism when they do it!"
- Gloria Allred
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment