Carbonite CEO tied to MoveOn.org: time for conservatives to fight blacklisting?
So. Did you hear about Carbonite and Rush Limbaugh?
No, you didn’t. Not the way you will in a minute. But first?
It’s time to turn the tables.
It’s time to stand up to the bullies.
It’s time to Rally for Rush.
Rush Limbaugh has discussed at length — at length — what Sandra Fluke and her statist cronies are up to. Yes, he used the words “slut” and “prostitute” — using the ludicrous to make his point. Ms. Fluke, in one of the most pathetic, shamelessly whining stories in recent memory, demands to be paid for her sex life because it costs $3,000 for three years of birth control while she’s at law school. She demands that a Catholic university violate its fundamental right to religious liberty so she can have others pay for her sex life. So Rush asked the farcical obvious about somebody who demands that someone else pay her for her apparent, self-admitted prolific sex life. He spent two solid days relating her greed for other people’s money and a lack of personal responsibility to the oldest of principles.
Right on cue, the blacklisting crowd came out of their Stalinist caves. Having driven Lou Dobbs from CNN, cut off Beck’s windpipe at Fox, severed Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, thus emboldened they have now set their sights on Rush.
And Rush, threatened with his livelihood, has issued this statement:
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.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, 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.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
This, but of course, was not enough to satisfy. Sandra Fluke herself raced to the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC to denounce Rush. Yes, the same Ed Schulz who not long ago called conservative radio and TV commentator Laura Ingraham a “slut.” And he wasn’t joking either. But suddenly, Ms. Fluke simply didn’t care. Why? Because this entire controversy over Rush’s words was never about the actual subject. It was really about yet another drive to blacklist yet another conservative in the media.
Big mistake. Really big mistake.
Did I mention Carbonite yet? Hold on.
IN THE DAYS AFTER the death of Andrew Breitbart, perhaps the question can be phrased this way: “What would Andrew do?” Well, first, he would suggest you go to one of his sites to learn the facts — and in this case a very interesting fact about Sandra Fluke’s view of free speech. Here’s the link at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government where you will find this opening in a story by Charles Johnson:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?