Special Report

A Nation of Breitbarts Rallies for Rush

Lifelock sticks with Rush. Fluke demands insurance for "gender reassignments."

By 3.6.12

Send to Kindle

Now that the Rally for Rush is in full swing -- and winning the day -- let's focus on four things.

Lifelock.

Transgendered persons.

The Washington Post.

You.

Huh? Say what?

Stick with me.

Let's start with Lifelock.

Rush fans know it well. Lifelock -- the company's "About Us" section found here is all about protecting their customers from identity theft. A decidedly big deal in the day and age of cyber pick pocketing of entire lives.

In a way one suspects the Lifelock people could never have possibly conceived a mere week ago, their symbolic image of the little robot with a keyhole in its chest -- symbolizing a life securely locked from theft -- is being transformed. Transformed into something infinitely larger than the Lifelock creative team could ever have dreamt.

And what is that?

In -- thus far -- refusing to buckle to leftist pressure to abandon Rush Limbaugh and free speech, Lifelock is in the process of identifying itself as an albeit unlikely protector of the First Amendment.

Yesterday, we informed in this space of what was going on behind the scenes with the CEO of Carbonite. CEO David Friend's real actions as recorded in the books of the Federal Election Commission completely rebuked his alleged reasons for dropping Carbonite's sponsorship. His thoroughly documented connection to Ed "The Slut" Schultz, MoveOn.org and other fanatically left-wing smear groups belied his indignant words.

This is not the case with Lifelock CEO Todd Davis. What does a peep at Mr. Davis's FEC records show? Why – horrors -- the man has given money to Arizona conservative Republican Congressman Jeff Flake's U.S. Senate bid. And to the famously crime-busting Rudy Giuliani's campaign for president. The latter surely a fit for a crime fighting company.

It's important to say something here.

If one were to run around checking the FEC every time one had a business relationship, one would quickly be out of business. Hey! This is America! Do business (legally!) with whomever you chose.

Mr. Friend's mistake was his sanctimonious phoniness. Ohhhhhhhhhhh he had to stop sponsoring Rush because of an insult to his daughters. Oh woe is the lack of civil discourse.

It was BS. All of it. From start to finish. As demonstrated.

By sticking with Rush Limbaugh so far -- and surely the leftward pressure continues -- Mr. Davis seems to be in perfect sync with his political beliefs. And the issue is not that he supports Republicans Flake and Giuliani. The issue is that he -- and Lifelock -- seem to be demonstrating principle in action. And thus far, that ability to stick to principle has fortuitously landed his product in the spotlight as a Lifelock on your First Amendment rights.

In fairness, just as we yesterday published the contact information for those who led the assault on free speech, here is the information for a chief executive and a company who seem not to have hesitated in standing up for your right to free speech. To put a Lifelock on your free speech.

Lifelock phone: 1-800-543-3562
Lifelock fax: 1-888-244-9823

Mr. Davis, one assumes, can be reached at

Lifelock Corporate Headquarters:
60 East Rio Salado Parkway
Suite 400
Tempe, AZ 85281

If any of this changes, we'll let you know.

Before we leave Lifelock, let's focus on a one interesting aspect of Rush's apology to Sandra Fluke yesterday.

Rush admitted something that is critical to understanding both Rush -- and conservatism in general. To wit: he said his mistake came in becoming just like the Left. For one brief moment he got into the gutter with these people. And to those who listen to Rush three hours a day and five days a week -- and have now for over two decades -- it was as if Rush had hit an off-key note in his daily verbal concert of conservatism. Rush Limbaugh doesn't talk that way -- as his fans well know. Indeed, just as his fans know their own families and close friends, the intimacy of radio has made of Rush what one of you described to me in an e-mail as a "national treasure."

Rush is often compared in this space to the late William F. Buckley, Jr. in the sense that he has emerged as America's premiere conservative spokesman. But if you move away from politics per se and look back in American history, as the years go on Rush Limbaugh seems to bear increasing resemblance to two men seen in their day as national treasures -- Mark Twain and Will Rogers. The man whose wisdom is hard earned, whose principles are rock solid -- and whose sense of humor can always be relied on to make your day.

The American Left of today not only doesn't have someone like this -- they are, as is seen daily, completely incapable of producing such a figure. As Bill Maher demonstrates, calling Sarah Palin a "c...t" doesn't quite make one a "national treasure." Rush Limbaugh -- and not to put too fine a point on it, conservatives in general -- are so far above and beyond this kind of thing that when Rush makes a mistake as he did the other day it jars the ears. It was Rush as MoveOn.org or an Occupy Wall Streeter, a Media Matters obsessive or just another left-wing blogger in pajamas. Rush, to his vast credit (and in truth, I thought he was a tad to hard on himself yesterday. Ed Schultz he is not -- thank God!) got the deal, rose from his stumble to the left-wing gutter, has now brushed himself off, apologized -- and most importantly -- gone on. Up, out, and back on the main conservative highway.

Now -- the transgendered issue. Curious, yes?

No, this is not about arguably America's most famous transgendered celebrity -- Chaz Bono. Sonny and Cher's little girl Chastity who grew up to become today's transgender man Chaz Bono, a dancer with the stars.

But it's OK to think about Chaz Bono as you learn this.

Chaz Bono didn't become a transgendered man overnight. He required transgender surgery, and indeed, befitting his celebrity status the story of his gender transformation was made into a documentary film, Becoming Chaz. 

What does this have to do with the Rally to Rush?

Suffice to say, there are Americans who, for religious reasons, might not be inclined to be forced to pay for Chaz's surgery. (And it's important to note, there's no indication any religious institution was forced to do so.) The problem comes, of course, if a religious institution -- say, the Catholic Church -- were forced to do just this against its will.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

Credit for what you're about to learn goes to The American Spectator's Robert Stacy McCain. Stacy has a blog of his own called The Other McCain (since he is not related to a former presidential candidate named… right… McCain!). What did Stacy discover?

Yes indeed. He learned from something called the College Politico that Sandra Fluke -- presented by the Left as just a poor but lovely Georgetown Law Student -- is in fact quite the left-wing activist. Stacy reports that the College Politico reports the following:

[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article… is "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons" and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review.

With me now?

In short, it seems that in this article Ms. Fluke was headed down the same road with "gender reassignment" surgery as she was with birth control.

Translation? If Chaz Bono were still Chastity Bono -- and a student at Georgetown Law -- and made the same decision to switch gender, Sandra Fluke would be demanding that the Catholic Georgetown provide insurance to pay for Chastity to become Chaz.

Now, I'm not a Catholic. But I'm taking a wild guess here that this is not what the Pope thinks of when he recalls the Book of Genesis and the tale of Adam and Eve. Maybe I'm wrong.

But what is clearly at work here with Sandra Fluke is that it was a complete misrepresentation by the liberal media to cast her as just a thoughtful student who had an opinion on birth control and insurance. Rush explained to today more fully the reason why Sandra Fluke was initially rejected by Congressman Darrell Issa's House committee as a witness for a panel discussing religious liberty. She was correctly seen as not qualified.

But I would say that in fact Ms. Fluke was qualified -- extremely qualified -- to discuss the religion that is secular liberalism. She is no babe in the woods -- no pun intended. Sandra Fluke, writing an article on her belief that it is "discrimination" and… wait for it… "heterosexist" to deny insurance for "gender reassignment" is a thorough-going, well-versed young leftist. Ready, willing and eager to force you to do her bidding, presuming you are either a Catholic university with religious beliefs to the contrary -- or, eventually -- just you.

In fact, some version of her beliefs are already part and parcel of actual Obama administration policy -- with immigration. The Daily Caller's Caroline May reports that "Hormone treatments for transgendered detainees… are now part of… the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) recently released Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS)."

Meaning, your government believes providing "Hormone treatments for transgendered detainees" is standard procedure for dealing with illegal immigrants.

Well, aside from the substance here, the point is that the Issa committee had a perfectly legit reason not to accept Fluke as an expert witness on religious liberty. In fact, they had accepted the United Church of Christ's Reverend Barry Lynn as the Democrats' choice -- but Lynn, per Issa, in spite of being thoroughly qualified to discuss the issue from a liberal standpoint, pulled out. With Fluke put forth as the substitute.

Again, in retrospect, Fluke is more than qualified to discuss her real faith -- secular liberalism. Some sort of innocent she ain't.

As if to prove the point, ensconced on the set of the View yesterday morning to bask in what surely will only be her first fifteen minutes of fame Fluke refused to accept Rush's apology -- and no one who understands the Left should be surprised. From the French Revolution to the October Revolution to the 1960's leftists marching in the street's shouting "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" -- class and grace are not articles of The Faith.

Which brings us -- briefly -- to item three. The Washington Post. In the old days before the new media -- Rush, his talk radio colleagues, Fox and the Internet smashed the left-wing media monopoly, you would read a story like this one by Greg Sargent of the Post. The headline?

Rush Limbaugh's 'apology' does nothing to quiet firestorm

In which Sargent yada yada's about Rush is losing this, Rush is losing that, Rush is bad bad bad.

But this isn't "the old day" anymore.

To quote a newly popular saying: "Breitbart is here." (Of which more in a moment.)

Meaning, in this case, the Daily Caller, in its series on Media Matters, outed the Washington Post's Greg Sargent thusly:

"Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff."

"If you can't get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent's always game," agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

See how the dance once worked?

Once upon a time Americans lived in a universe where they would pick up the Washington Post or have it spoon fed to them through on of the liberal television networks and say: "Gee, I guess ole Rush is toast."

Now?

Mr. Sargent's story is toast. Everybody -- and I do mean everybody -- knows the game. And Rush, to the contrary of Mr. Sargent, is decidedly not losing.

Which brings us to point four. All you Rush Ralliers out there.

You are doing it. As Ronald Reagan might have said, you didn't spend this day just marking time.

The American Spectator website was briefly crashed by the huge pro-Rush response. I personally am flooded with e-mails from you. I'm going to lop off last names and share a few.

Doug asks: "What would Breitbart Do? WWBD?"

JD to Carbonite:

I only want to do business with people of honor who do not allow themselves become political tools. The ONLY reason I trusted your company is because of Rush Limbaugh's promotion of your product. Apparently Rush's trust was misplaced and so was mine. I thought you were a BUSINESS! I want to cancel my subscription to Carbonite effective immediately. I believe I am paid ahead by a couple of years and am requesting a refund of the remaining balance on my account. However, if you are as dishonorable as I now suspect, keep your money. I will find another online back up service.

My sincere hope is that you finally realize that the silent majority is a majority nonetheless.

Michael to Legal Zoom:

I immediately shot (oops ... is that allowed?) off an email to "Legal-Zoom" about my decision to NOT order the subject of this email after the gutless wonders of that company showed revealed themselves for the phonies they are.

BD to Quicken Loans:

Being in the communications and PR business, I know doublespeak when I read it. And, yes, you have taken sides -- pure and simple. You caved. You can dress a gorilla in a party frock and call it Shirley but it is still a gorilla. No, you did not do the right thing. You think by taking sides in this fabricated matter you will get more business… Thank you for letting me know you do not welcome or want my business. Understood. And as I wrote I will never use your services professionally or personally. Nor will countless others.…

Lila to me re: Carbonite:

Guess what? I have a 3-year subscription ($139.00) with Carbonite, which began last September. I just got off the phone with a rep who told me that the subscription is NON-REFUNDABLE.

I demanded that the call be escalated to a supervisor, but, as you can imagine, one was not available to take the call. I would have to be called back later.

The rep said that the non-refundable policy was in the fine print I agreed to. Since when is a subscription NON-Refundable? I asked for the unused portion of my subscription to be refunded and I was told it would not be.

I then told the rep that if my money was not refunded, I would go to the media, both local and national.

(Note from me to Lila on Lila's last line: You did -- here it is.)

Name Withheld by Request to Pro-Flowers:

I am a long-time customer, but just unsubscribed from your promotional emails. 

I am not a Rush Limbaugh listener, but I am a believer in freedom of speech.

Because you dropped your ads from Rush Limbaugh's show -- apparently at the behest of an organized cadre of the radical left -- I plan the following:

I will never order from you again.

I will discontinue my formerly frequent referrals of you to friends.

I will go out of my way to "unrefer" you in favor of less politically correct competitors.

Are we getting the flavor here? My mailbox is stuffed with these from great people all over the country…it will take days to answer them all. I will do my best.

So one last thing to the Rush Ralliers.

I kept hearing a line today I had not heard. Then I was told the line is actually from a new T-shirt. Here's the image of the shirt -- and the story from The Washington Times.

It seems that an outfit named Anthem Studios has produced a black T-shirt with a black-and-white picture of the late Andrew Breitbart. Beneath his picture it bears the legend: "Breitbart is here."

 Says Anthem of the $20 shirt designed by "Big Fur Hat of I Own the World":

All proceeds will go to benefit the family of Andrew Breitbart. Keep Andrew's spirit alive and help support his family by purchasing a "Breitbart is here" t shirt!

Andrew Breitbart left behind a wife and four young children. You have the link above. Do your thing as you see fit.

But if there is one thing America has learned in this effort to get Rush Limbaugh -- there are now thousands of Andrew Breitbarts out there.

Surely Mr. Breitbart would smile at the notion that in death he is becoming the long sought conservative answer to all those lefties wearing another bearded image -- that of Fidel Castro's Communist revolutionary lieutenant Che Guevara.

Andrew Breitbart as the conservative answer to Che. Ya gotta love it.

The Rally for Rush proceeds.

Breitbart is here.

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.