Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant filed Friday [2009] charging him with fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Jail. He and his attorney Roy Black left about an hour later, after Limbaugh was photographed and fingerprinted and he posted $3,000 bail, Barbera said.
Prosecutors’ three-year investigation . . . accused Limbaugh of “doctor shopping,” or illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions, after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.
“His Palm Beach mansion.” Yep. He’s a GOPer: Greedy One Percent. He’s also a megalomaniac:
The a.m. radio host will be paid about $400 million [by Clear Channel Communications and its syndication subsidiary, Premiere Radio Networks] to continue serving up his daily dose of conservative patter through 2016. His $50 million a year paycheck represents a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract, which was paying him $285 million over eight years and was set to expire in 2009. . . .
“I’m not retiring until every American agrees with me,” Mr. Limbaugh, 57, said on his radio program Wednesday. . . .
Now, the “The Voice” has yet again shown what he and the GOP are all about—deriding and degrading others in the name of their twisted ideology:
Syndicated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh got so upset over the able articulation of an opposing view by Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before members of Congress in order to highlight concerns about limits on access to contraception, that he attacked her as a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
This was no slip of the conservative commentator’s tongue. This was an elite media personality with a national media platform seeking to silence a citizen.
When concerns were raised about his vile language, Limbaugh doubled down and restated his attacks on Fluke.
What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex?” Limbaugh asked. “What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. . . .
But that’s not all, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her March 3 New York TimesOpEd: “Limbaugh leeringly suggested that were taxpayers to be stuck with the bill, Fluke and other ‘feminazis’ should give them something back: sex videos. ‘We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,’ he said.” Apparently Limbaugh is also something of a voyeuristic pervert.
You can hear Limbaugh’s diatribe here. But “El Rushbo” wasn’t done yet. On his Friday, March 2 broadcast, he asked of Ms. Fluke, “Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex you’re having?” One has to wonder if El Rushbo ever thinks before he speaks.
Late Saturday, March 3, Limbaugh posted a 191 word “statement” on his website. “Apology” is hardly the appropriate term. He began, as usual, praising himself: “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Yes. For twenty years, Mr. Limbaugh and his “thoughts” have indeed been absurd, as is so well illustrated in “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.” How do you call someone a “slut” and “prostitute” and not intend a personal attack?
In the middle of the longest paragraph (117 words) of his three-paragraph “statement” the self-serving, arrogant bloviator restated his position on the issue and offered another bit of GOP hypocritical absurdity: “I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”
Really? How does that statement relate to his asking Ms. Fluke in his March 2 broadcast, “Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex you’re having?” How does that statement relate to the GOP’s—and the current Republican presidential wannabes—ongoing crusade against gay and lesbian Americans and what happens in their bedrooms?
Not surprisingly, the most anti-gay, anti-woman of the GOP presidential wannabes, Rick Santorum, had this to say about Limbaugh’s attack on Ms. Fluke:
“He’s being absurd, but that’s you know, an entertainer can be absurd,” Santorum told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “He’s in a very different business than I am.”
Santorum stopped short of actually denouncing Limbaugh . . . Instead, Santorum criticized the president for his birth control policy.
“I’m concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong” . . .
HAMILTON, Ohio—Newt Gingrich avoided criticizing Rush Limbaugh for publicly assailing Sandra Fluke over her testimony to Congress advocating for health insurance companies to cover birth control, but he was quick to attack President Obama, saying he acted “opportunistically” when he called the Georgetown Law student to express his disappointment in Limbaugh’s comments. . . .
Asked if thinks contraception will continue to be an issue in the presidential campaign, Gingrich said the problem is infringement on religious liberty, not contraception.
Religious liberty is intact, alive and well. Feel free to practice your personal religious beliefs in your personal life. But if someone’s personal religious beliefs prevent that person from carrying out his/her professionalresponsibilities without prejudice, then that person should not be in that profession. Personal “religious beliefs” have become the shield to hide behind for those wishing to shirk their professional responsibilities and/or justify civil and social discrimination.
It’s really quite simple. Either you can perform your professional responsibilities professionally or you can’t. And if you can’t, get out of that profession.
But Limbaugh’s vile ad hominem attack on Sandra Fluke had its roots in GOP pandering shenanigans:
(ABC NEWS)—The debate over social issues continues on Capitol Hill today when senators consider a proposal to throw out President Obama’s contraception mandate. Things have gotten personal as the debate heats up. Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak on the controversial all-male conception panel at a hearing last month a “slut” on his show Wednesday [February 29, 2012].
Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, was barred from testifying by Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the faith-based hearing on Capitol Hill, because he deemed her unqualified. Issa said the panel was supposed to focus on religious freedom and Fluke is not a member of any clergy.
She eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing spearheaded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Feb. 23, where she talked about the need for birth control coverage. Fluke spoke of one friend in particular who needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts.
A Capitol Hill hearing that was supposed to be about religious freedom and a mandate that health insurers cover contraception in the United States began as an argument about whether Democrats could add a woman to the all-male panel.
“Where are the women?” the minority Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked early in the hearing. . . .
Among the witnesses invited by Issa to attend the hearing was a representative of the Catholic bishops, who oppose the Obama administration “accommodation” on birth-control coverage. Joining them are many other men of other religions. Not invited, complained Democrats, were representatives from the Catholic Health Association, which is run by a woman and actually runs the Catholic hospitals, nor Catholic Charities, both of which said Friday they supported the president’s plan.
Ranking committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., wanted to invite third-year Georgetown Law Center student Sandra Fluke to testify, telling Issa it was important to have at least one woman at the witness table because the issue involved health repercussions for women. . . .
Apparently, Rep. Issa and the male clerics who did testify believe they and they alone should decide what best for women’s health. Can anything be more absurd? And speaking of the absurd exposing absurdities . . .
RSS
We should probably thank Rush Limbaugh
Posted on March 6, 2012 by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
Rush Limbaugh. The Voice of the GOP. The Voice of Conservatism. The Voice indicted in “a long-running prescription fraud case.”
“His Palm Beach mansion.” Yep. He’s a GOPer: Greedy One Percent. He’s also a megalomaniac:
Now, the “The Voice” has yet again shown what he and the GOP are all about—deriding and degrading others in the name of their twisted ideology:
And what were Limbaugh’s verbal attacks on Ms. Fluke during his February 29 broadcast?
But that’s not all, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her March 3 New York Times OpEd: “Limbaugh leeringly suggested that were taxpayers to be stuck with the bill, Fluke and other ‘feminazis’ should give them something back: sex videos. ‘We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,’ he said.” Apparently Limbaugh is also something of a voyeuristic pervert.
You can hear Limbaugh’s diatribe here. But “El Rushbo” wasn’t done yet. On his Friday, March 2 broadcast, he asked of Ms. Fluke, “Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex you’re having?” One has to wonder if El Rushbo ever thinks before he speaks.
Late Saturday, March 3, Limbaugh posted a 191 word “statement” on his website. “Apology” is hardly the appropriate term. He began, as usual, praising himself: “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Yes. For twenty years, Mr. Limbaugh and his “thoughts” have indeed been absurd, as is so well illustrated in “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.” How do you call someone a “slut” and “prostitute” and not intend a personal attack?
In the middle of the longest paragraph (117 words) of his three-paragraph “statement” the self-serving, arrogant bloviator restated his position on the issue and offered another bit of GOP hypocritical absurdity: “I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”
Really? How does that statement relate to his asking Ms. Fluke in his March 2 broadcast, “Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex you’re having?” How does that statement relate to the GOP’s—and the current Republican presidential wannabes—ongoing crusade against gay and lesbian Americans and what happens in their bedrooms?
Not surprisingly, the most anti-gay, anti-woman of the GOP presidential wannabes, Rick Santorum, had this to say about Limbaugh’s attack on Ms. Fluke:
Talk about absurd hypocrisy. Santorum wants to impose his personal religious values on every American, especially gays and women.
Newt Gingrich, another 12th century thinker, had a similar reaction:
Religious liberty is intact, alive and well. Feel free to practice your personal religious beliefs in your personal life. But if someone’s personal religious beliefs prevent that person from carrying out his/her professional responsibilities without prejudice, then that person should not be in that profession. Personal “religious beliefs” have become the shield to hide behind for those wishing to shirk their professional responsibilities and/or justify civil and social discrimination.
It’s really quite simple. Either you can perform your professional responsibilities professionally or you can’t. And if you can’t, get out of that profession.
But Limbaugh’s vile ad hominem attack on Sandra Fluke had its roots in GOP pandering shenanigans:
But before that . . .
Apparently, Rep. Issa and the male clerics who did testify believe they and they alone should decide what best for women’s health. Can anything be more absurd? And speaking of the absurd exposing absurdities . . .
We should all probably thank Rush Limbaugh. He has once again—“Rush Limbaugh On-Air Slur Leaves Italian-American Group Seeking Formal Apology,” “Asian-American Officials Seek Limbaugh Apology,” “Limbaugh resigns over McNabb comments,” “Limbaugh on torture of Iraqis: U.S. guards were ‘having a good time,’ ‘blow[ing] some steam off,’” “Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox,” “The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality”—given voice to what’s at the venomous heart of GOP conservatism: deriding and degrading others in the name of an anachronistic, twisted theopolitical ideology.