Top Ten Racist Limbaugh Quotes

The following is almost too funny to be true:

It has come to my attention that at least one person came to my blog via this Top Ten Racist Limbaugh Quotes article. I have decided to engage each quote individually.

Note that the author thinks he did his fact-checking very well. He gave his source for each quote:

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.

I am in no way defending this statement. He’s right to an infetismal degree. I mean, Hitler killing Jews had the “merit” of helping with overpopulation, but that doesn’t make it good in the least. This statement is stupid and racist (beyond the slavery thing – I’m talking about that last sentence).

But that’s besides the point. Click on the link. If you read the page it takes you to, it turns out Rush did not say this. A guy who allegedly listens to Rush said this, a man by the name of Michael Ledeen.

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Same as above. Michael Ledeen said this. Rush Limbaugh did not.

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

I don’t know much about Jesse Jackson, but I do know he’s black and he’s liberal. Did it occur to anyone that this might be something against Jesse Jackson as a person and not because of his race?! Don’t bring race into the picture unless the quote-ee does! If a quote doesn’t have “black”, “African American”, one of the derogatory “black” terms, “slavery”, or something similar, there’s a good chance it’s not about race.

Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

First of all, at the beginning of all this, the author claimed the websites used were “reputable.” I read a little from this blog, and the author of the source for this link thinks ALL Republicans inheritly hate and fear black people. I’m sorry, sir, but I’m a Republican with black friends who knows black Republicans who don’t hate or fear themselves and who voted for one.

That aside, the quote appears accurate. But let’s look at the context:

LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?

CALLER: Uh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: It’s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they’re in trouble.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.

LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

Limbaugh’s not supporting the white government. And he’s not even hating on the black governed. He’s pointing out that the Democrats rely on black support and that their motivation for doing these things is cementing black support – and that they’re willing to ally with communists to do it. This statement is not in the least for or against blacks. It’s against the Democrat Party, who he is saying use race to maintain their base.

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Again, this is hardly a “reputable” site. The guy obviously hates Rush. I’m beginning to think the author of this “Top Ten” article defines “reputable” as “leftist,” as opposed to “objective.”

Anyway, the quote is indeed accurate (or at least, Rush didn’t deny it). But, basically, what he said concerning the quote boils down to this: he was referring to the Bloods and Crips as gangs, not as violent black men. He said, and is right, that he probably could’ve/should’ve used a better illustration, but think about this for a second. Suppose you want to say the NFL looks like a fight between to rival gangs. The Bloods and Crips are the most famous of any American gangs. Of course he picked them. Even I, a lower-middle-class geek with no criminal record whatsoever, know who they are. In fact, I only know of one other gang; that Hispanic gang, M-something. And, of course, if he’d used that gang it would’ve been construed as racist also.

He was talking about the behavior of the players, not the color of their skin. Specifically, he was referring to when one Chargers player essentially rubbed a would-be defeat in a Patriot’s face and the Ref flagged him for it. Rush sided with the Ref, saying that stuff like that makes it look like “a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.” Indeed, sometimes it does. I don’t notice it in the NFL any more than I notice it in any other sport (and certainly less than in Hockey), but it does. And don’t forget that football is Rush’s sport, so it makes sense that it would be about football that he’d make this comment.

Just one final note: the site where I found a recording of Rush talking about that comment said that he cited no evidence. First of all, what evidence can you cite to prove what you meant by something? Second, he kind of did. He referred to a NFL player going on some news network and agreeing with Rush!

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

I could not find confirmation of this quote. So, I don’t know if Rush said it or not or, if he did, what he meant by it. But I know enough about Rush and the NAACP to make a highly educated guess that, as always, this a specifically targeted attack, targeting the NAACP, whom Rush has a big problem with, not African Americans, whom Rush does not have a problem with. Rush has quite a history of not liking the NAACP. I’m no more familiar with the organization than anyone else, so I can neither agree nor disagree with his views, but I’ll state the essence of them. He thinks the NAACP is another group that is, at the least, not helping black people and, at the worst, hurting them. It supports leftist blacks but not rightist blacks. It is highly politicized.

Again, these are Rush’s views, not mine. I do not know where this quote came from, or what the context is, but I do know enough about Rush to say that this comment is about – and is only about – the NAACP, and not black people in general.

They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the [heck] cares?

Again, hardly a “reputable” site. I’ve found nothing that I’m certain is false here, but why isn’t the author citing places like The Rush Limbaugh Show transcripts or YouTube videos of Rush’s show? Why is he citing these anti-Rush articles? He’s writing an anti-Rush article, who the heck cares what his sources are beyond accuracy? Whoever the author is, anti-Rush sources only make your article appear biased and, when coupled with your first two quotes, made-up. Cite some more concrete places next time, so I don’t have to find them for you.

What I can say is that, in response to this “quote,” the author said “even George Bush wouldn’t admit to that.”

“wouldn’t admit to that”? Really? So you think George Bush is a racist?! What are you, afraid of all white conservatives? We’re talking the same George Bush who appointed Condoleza (someone correct my spelling) Rice. The guy who Colin Powell worked for. I went through Bush’s cabinet and found that four of his cabinet members were black. At one time or another, thirty-two men and women were in his cabinet. That means 12.5% of Bush’s cabinet appointees were black. That seems perfectly fair in a country with a roughly 12% black population. He also had other minorities.

I was unable to find a concrete source for this one either. For quotes 3-5, I was able to find transcripts or video/audio files. Since quote 5, the only thing I’ve been able to find is sites saying Rush said these things. Until I know he said them, and until I know the context, I can’t really say anything but that this author, and the hundreds of others out there, really ought to give more concrete evidence if they want to be taken seriously. Notice things like my “Obama gaffes” page. I don’t just say Obama said stuff – I find videos of what he said. You all should provide my favorite radio host the same respect and honest treatment I afford your liberal champion.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

This quote is some thirty years old. Rush was working under the pseudonym Jeff Christie at the time. I’m pretty sure this quote is accurate but, again, I was unable to find any context (other than the repeated fact that the caller was black). Please, someone send me a link or recording or transcript or something.

I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.  I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

Ah, the infamous McNabb quote. I happen to know this quote is accurate, and I also happen to know the context. Just as with the NAACP quote, Rush is criticizing the media here. He’s not really even criticizing McNabb. Let’s say some extreme Rush fan called him the Christ. I’d be on that guy before you could say “weblog.” I’d attack the falsehood of that statement. But I would in no way be criticizing Rush. I’d be criticizing the fan. In this quote, Rush never wishes ill on the blacks. He is confronting his lifelong enemy, the mainstream media.

Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.

Most Limbaugh attacks on Obama are purely based in politics. Let’s get that straight.

I don’t see how the “halfrican American” thing would, if true, be racist. In fact, if a racist said that, wouldn’t it be a compliment? Would any anti-black racist bring up the fact that Obama’s half-white? This seems to me greater evidence that Rush is not racist than it is that he is.

I’ll bet that comment about him being Arab is either false or taken out of context. Even if it isn’t, the author is again jumping the racism gun. He’s not playing against racial fears “Arabs and Muslims.” For one thing, Muslims aren’t a race. That’s a religion, genius. Second, if Rush called him an Arab, he was probably trying to make the Muslim connection. Again, not racist. Maybe it’s wrong. Certainly, Obama’s no Arab. And maybe Rush is erroneous in making this statement, but it’s not racist to make some flimsy connection between Obama and Islam. After all, his father was a Muslim.

I don’t get how Obama being magna cum laude and an “affirmative action candidate” are mutually exclusive. I was unaware that intelligence was a factor in affirmative action. I thought it had only to do with race and financial means. Maybe the author should elaborate. For the record, I don’t think Obama would be an “affirmative action candidate.” Also, I would like some kind of source for that “quote.”

And the song “Barack the Magic Negro” is not racist, either. As a matter of fact, the song isn’t even anti-Obama per se. It’s actually targeted more at white people who allegedly voted for Obama out of “guilt.” And for the record, I don’t even like the song.

In summary, Mr. Author, check your facts. Give context. Use actual sources besides other folks like you. And look into the background (i.e. listen to the “Barack…Negro” song; don’t just see the name and yell “RACISM!”) before making accusations.

P.S. If anyone wants to know the sources I used for this stuff (my own, not those he gave), just shoot me an email or leave a comment below. I just feel to tired at the moment to deal with all the copying and pasting and googling.

Those darned pro-war, anti-environment, anti-equality Republicans!

So I found the following on Super Flair and followed the “paper trail” back to a cafepress.com product.

So I sent a message to the person who posted it on Super Flair. By “we” I really mean conservatives more than Republicans. But since this is purely an issue-based statement, she’s attacking conservatives more than Republicans anyway.

We are not “pro-war.” We are “anti-terrorists.”

We are not “anti-environment.” We are “anti-people-lying-about-a-crisis-that-doesn’t-exist.”

We are NOT “anti-equality.” Republicans freed the slaves and passed the Civil Rights Legislation act of 1964. MLK was a Republican.

We ARE “pro-life” because we oppose the murder of fifteen million humans, which is more than the sum of the Iraq casualties, deaths from pollution, deaths from the Civil War, and deaths from such acts as lynching COMBINED.

And, yes, I realize the typo. It should be Civil Rights Act or Civil Rights legislation, not Civil Rights Legislation act.

Obama Page Update/Selma March Re-Post

Okay, the Selma March “gaffe” is up on the Obama gaffe page now. Now, I feel so strongly about this “gaffe” that I’m posting it again, if for no other reason than to have a URL specifically for this Obamination of a speech.  I also posted this (minus the vid and formatting) in an IMAO comment.

---

Selma March Lie

The Setting: Selma, Alabama, USA.  March 5th, 2007.

The Gaffe: He claimed to have been born as a result of the Selma March of Selma, Alabama in 1965.  The problem is, he was born in 1961.  He blatantly lied here and the fact that the media ignores this is an indicator of how liberal our media is and how far down America has come.  “Remember the height from which you have fallen,” America.

My Take: If you take no other “My Take” seriously, take this one seriously.  And remember it.  And pass on the link to your friends, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian, Hippy, whoever!

I’ve got a few things to say here.  First off, 2007?!  Really?!  Early 2007?!!  What the heck?!  Does the guy have nothing that he does that isn’t in some way campaigning?  Think about it.  He’s the first president to come on shows while in office.  And he’s done it several times now, and his 100 days are barely over!  The guy’s campaigning even after he’s won; and re-election (God forbid) isn’t even close!  Toddlers from that time haven’t even been born yet!

Secondly, this is the one that really got me started against Obama.  I already knew the general stances of Obama & Hillary (although the gaffe is 2007, I didn’t find it until 2008) & McCain, and so had already picked my vote, but I didn’t know many specifics.  I found this, and an intense dislike for Obama started within me.  I consider several of his gaffes to be lies.  But they can all, with proper planning, be explained away; so, I do not make too much of a deal out of them.  But this… this infuriates me!  He lies blatantly!  He does not bother to even try to make it a decent lie!  He is trying to steal creditibilty from a movement that HE HAD NO PART IN, NOR DID THE BLACK SIDE OF HIS ANCESTRY, and, also notably, NEITHER DID THE PARTY FOR WHICH HE STANDS! Who drove the Civil Rights legislation?  Republicans!  Who opposed it?  Democrats.  Who were the biggest C.R. supporters?  Blacks.  Who were the biggest C.R. opponents?  Whites.  Which Obama ancestors were in the U.S. at the time?  The white ones!  He dishonors the sit-ins, the brave souls who endured hosing, dogs, bricks through windows.  He dishonors King and all the other activists of that era, by trying to USE THEM as a tool to gain votes in a BLATANTLY dishonest manner!

Registered Republican Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior is spinning in his grave; weeping at how his message and efforts are being manipulated, at how a man is using race to gain favour, at how racism is still very much alive in America, when it is “racism” to vote against a black man for reasons totally unrelated to the color of his skin, for reasons related to the Content of His Character.

Slavery & The Civil War

You know how we’re taught in school that the evil Confederacy seceded from the Union and the Christ-like Lincoln swooped in with the northern army and saved the day, freeing the slaves in the process?  Well, let’s take a look at that.

In school, they make sure to teach you that the Civil War was not about slavery.  I don’t know why they don’t try to use that the way they use everything else, but that’s how it is.  They’re right.  It was not about slavery.  Emancipation was a by-product; a tool used by the North to help win the war.  The war was about the federal government exercising powers it had no business exercising (and some that it did have business exercising) and the South saying “Enough of this!  We’re out!”  Now here’s something they won’t teach you in school.  It was legal.  The South seceding from the Union (at least those states that were original ratifiers of the Constitution) was completely legal.  These states agreed to ratify the Constitution on a number of conditions.  One of them was that, if they didn’t like the country this created, they could leave.  Which is exactly what they did in the late 1800s.  But Lincoln was all “No, we can’t have this.” and started the Civil War.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to demonize Lincoln.  He was one of the best Presidents we’ve ever had.  I think freeing the slaves was great and I like most of the other things he did; and I understand the reasoning behind trying to keep the South in the Union, but I think he was wrong to enter into the Civil War.

The biggest argument for invading the South was that the Union had to be united; otherwise, foreigners might attack us or democracy might fail.  In making this argument, people often give the impression that, had the South seceded successfully, the United States would’ve fallen apart and died.  Near as I can tell, that’s not true.  We simply would’ve been two countries (not sure how Texas fits into all this).  Now, there would’ve been border disputes and such, but ultimately, we’d just be a little more like other continents and you’d need a passport to cross the Potomac.  Actually, if Maryland had been allowed to secede, like it wanted to, you wouldn’t.

Basically, what I’m saying is that what Lincoln did when he invaded the South was illegal.  The Confederacy was legitimate and should’ve been allowed to remain autonomous.

Now, I don’t know if I’ve yet said it on this blog, but abortion is the number-one issue for me.  I agree with the conservative stance on pretty much every issue anyway, but if conservatives (all else being equal) were suddenly pro-choice and liberals were pro-life, I’d be voting for liberal candidates.  I’d do so reluctantly, knowing that their economic policy was horrible and that Global Warming is a hoax and all, but I’d do it because millions of babies’ lives are more important to me than how expensive my gas is or whether I’ll be able to afford a house when I’m older.

But back in the Civil War era, abortion wasn’t an issue.  I’m sure some ladies had some weird methods of becoming “un-pregnant” but, by and large, it was nonexistent.  So, my number one issue back then would have been slavery.  Now, unlike abortion, slavery doesn’t kill millions of people (at least not directly), so I might not have been quite so infuriated at its existence, but that would have been my vote-deciding issue.  Until the Civil War.  Knowing what was coming, I’d probably have voted with the South because, as bad as slavery was, the death and destruction of the Civil War was even worse.  And let’s face it, slavery would eventually have dissappeared anyway.  Why do you think it was nearly gone in the North?  It’s not because Northerners were (for the most part) morally superior or great humanitarians.  It’s because slavery wasn’t necessary, because technology made it so.  Eventually, technology would’ve replaced slavery in the South.

Something like 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War.  To put that in perspective, there were about 32 million Americans (slaves and free) in the country back then.  There’s about ten times that now.  So, if the Civil War had occurred today, the death equivalent would have been 6.2 million Americans.  Also, roughly 645,000 slaves were brough to the US from Africa before slavery was outlawed.  Let’s say there was some sort of race-specific plague that wiped them out.  The death toll of every African American slave ever brought to the US would have been barely more than the death toll of the Civil War.  That’s why invasion of the South would’ve been my vote-deciding issue.

So the basic idea is this:  Prior to the Civil War, I would have voted for anyone trying to abolish (legally) slavery.  Just before the Civil War and during the Civil War, I would have voted for anyone trying to end the Civil War or prevent it’s start.  After the Civil War, it would be split between addressing racism and getting back rights (voting and such) for the seccessionists.  Nowadays, abortion is the deciding factor for me.

And let me describe exactly how I would’ve been anti-slavery.  I would have had nothing to do with the Underground Railroad, because that would be breaking the law.  As a Christian, I do what my Bible tells me.  It tells me to obey the law unless that causes me to sin.  And while slavery is looked down upon; it is not necessarily sinful.  Now, that’s debatable because US slavery and early A.D. slavery in Israel are different.  Back then, slaves were either prisoners of war (and I doubt there were many of those, since Israel wasn’t exactly kicking butt at the time) or they sold themselves into slavery.  So, I am unsure what the right course of action back then would be.  What my “code” would probably be is I would not help the Underground Railroad law-breaking types, but I certainly wouldn’t be turning them in if I found them, either.  I would not help a slave escape to the North, but I wouldn’t help the law send him back, either (even if that meant going to prison due to that stupid deputy-making law thingy).  I would concentrate my efforts on getting slavery outlawed (which, itself, would have been perfectly legal, as the Constitution explicitly allows this 20 or so years after ratification).  And I certainly would have been eye-to-eye with the Lincoln-like anti-expansion of slavery folks.

Oh, and let me clarify that “slavery is not necessarily sinful” comment a bit more.  While slavery is not necessarily sinful, the slave trade is; that is, the buying and selling of humans.  And I might have been willing to break the law to fight against that.

Oh, and one last simple comment about the Civil War.  Northerners, face the facts, the South kicked the North’s butt.  Big time.  Larger population and greater resources (and possibly the E.P.) were the only reasons the North won the war.  Southerners were better fighters, were the home team, were practically all volunteers (though the North certainly had their share of those), were fighting for their own freedom (just look at what happened to them after the Civil War), had the Constitution on their side, and ultimately lost roughly 100,000 fewer people than the North.  The moral of the story is: Don’t mess with rednecks!

FDR Was One of the Worst Presidents in History

I know what you’re thinking.

• FDR ended the Great Depression.
• FDR advanced the cause of blacks.
• FDR was immensely popular.

For the most part, simply NOT true.

FDR did not end the Great Depression.  Have you ever looked at the simple facts?  The Great Depression started in about 1930 and lasted until about 1940 (not exact, give me specifics if you want).  People blame Hoover for this depression and credit FDR with getting us out, but Hoover was only president for two of these years and FDR was president for eight of them (1932 > ).  Now why do you think that the depression lasted until we entered WWII (which, by the way, is what really saved us, what with the selling war materials and such)?  Because of the New Deal.  Think about it.  The government pays people for “beutification projects” and such stuff.  What does the US get out of this?  Nothing much.  All that’s happening is money being moved around a little.  No revenue is being generated, because those workers aren’t producing anything.  Now, some of the projects did produce some things, like roads and such.  So, the New Deal wasn’t 100% horrible, but neither was it the saving grace that the liberal educators of our country make it out to be.  Pouring money into worthless things like beutification projects and bailing out banks (not the same as what we’re doing now, but similar) prolonged the depression until WWII.

On Wikipedia, you can read about how FDR opposed anti-lynching legislation! Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d think that any friend of the blacks would want to pass legislation preventing their murder.  His reasoning was essentially that he required the support of the lynchers (southern Democrats).  That may very well be true, but anyone with an ounce of decency would be willing to commit political suicide to stop mass murder (*cough* Bush *cough*), provided, of course, that such measures would last.  Now, I’m not saying that FDR was anti-black.  After all, he did pass some equal employment legislation or other, but he was not the champion of blacks that we’re taught he was in history class.  He even opposed integration in the military.

FDR was immensely popular?  True, but see previous post.

African Americans & The Democrat Party

In post headings, I will try to avoid scaring off paranoid blacks by saying African American instead of black.  But in the text, I’ll always refer to them as blacks because I believe there is a difference between the two.  For the first several years of my life, my white family lived with a black couple and their four boys.  They were from the Maryland area.  Now, I have two African American friends, Sofo, from Ethiopia, and Brian, from Kenya.  See the difference?  Blacks are descended from African Americans.  They themselves, they’re just Americans who are black.  It’s no big deal to me.  I mean, if you use “black” and “African American” interchangably, you’ll probably never hear a peep out of me.  But when you start insisting that I always refer to people with more melanin as “African American,” I’ll ignore the instructions and repeat this stuff.  And if you are black/African American and me referring to you as black is offensive, get some thicker skin, people!  I’m not at all offended if you call me a “white” person.  It’s simply a statement of fact.  No racism is intended.  And I’ll certainly never use the n-word.  Now, to the topic at hand.

Perhaps the most perplexing of all American political phenomenon is the blind devotion of the majority of blacks to the Democrats.  Black Republicans, like Zo, are called “traitors to their race” and “slaves of white men” and similar nonsensities.  Let’s take a quick look at the history of both parties, shall we?

1800s:  Democrats promoted slavery; Republicans: meh

Civil War:  Democrats tried to keep slavery; Republican Abe Lincoln abolished slavery.

Great Depression/WWII:  FDR shot down civil rights legislation proposed by Republicans.

1960s: Republicans passed civil rights legislation.  MLK, Junior was a registered Republican.

So tell me, how is leaving the party of your ancestors’ masters and joining the party that brought you freedom and the ability to vote betraying your own race?

Gotta go to work like the capitalist I am now. Adios.