POST SCRIPTS

Dear L.A., oh no, you just told a lie. L.A. I had such faith and trust in you too, that you were so honest and accurate! I'm crushed.

You just repeated the "liberal lie" that started back in 1993.

Oh, it's definately repeated on the internet many times too, I'll give you that, but always absent any real proof. This is the lie about Rush Limbaugh who "allegedly" told this joke on TV, "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" Rush Limbaugh holds up a a picture of then 13 year old First Daughter Chelsea Clinton and it is splashed on the screen with braces glimmering. And he and his TV audience laughed and laughed!"

There are varying versions, some even shown with a phoney transcript, but they are all faked.

It is just another lie made up to discredit another enemy of the liberal political machine.

There is no REAL evidence ever offered by these twits because it N-E-V-E-R happened in any shape, manner or form. Never! There is no video, there is no audio. It's just one clueless liberal telling another and THAT'S ALL and now L.A. you've done the same thing again in public.

L.A. you are probably fuming mad at me right now for calling you on this, but if you stepped back for a moment and realized you repeated a lie because you didn't check you sources. You had your mind made up this was the absolute truth and you didn't doubt it for a second did you? Well,m there are plenty like you out here...

From FineLine RE: Limbaugh/Dog/Chelsea

"Everytime someone like you brings up this chelsea/dog/limbaugh story and someone like me comes along and corrects the story, the response is usually: "I saw it with my own eyes." I WISH I had a nickel everytime a Limbaugh critic gives that lying response. I'd be a very wealthy man today. Now, I can believe that liberals watched Rush's show from time to time. Caught an episode here and there. But it's amazing how all of you coincidentally saw that one same episode, when at the time many liberals swore off watching the show. Heck, I watched Rush's show. Never missed an episode, and no such thing ever happened. But hey, if I'm wrong, show us the transcript, or better yet, the video clip (upload it to your blog and/or youtube):

You could have done the honest thing, admitted that you saw the story somewhere on the internet, and wrongfully assumed it was true. But no, you had to be dishonest and claim you saw it with your own eyes. In reality, you saw nothing." end

So L.A., does this shake your confidence in liberals who tell you things that are not true> Does it make you feel like a victim of your liberal ideology that preaches truth and justice? Note: I said preach, not practice.

As you continue to grow-up you will learn to verify what others tell you and not just take it because the source shares your own point of view or it sounds right.

You many come away from this experience a little miffed, but that's the price of learning (sometimes), it's why people may start out as liberals, but most end up as conservatives because of what life teaches them.

Thanks Jack, I tried to find some information that would clarify this so called "event" last evening but all I found was the repeated liberal lie...360 pages was as far as I got.

The thing that bothers me most about this is not just the story but the dishonesty. All people are capable of crossing the line. We get frustrated or angry and hit back...or we get caught up in a moment of giddy fun and go a little too far...and SO WHAT? If Rush had done this it would merely be an example of misstep, a thing for which none of us can be held guiltless.

It took YEARS for the more cautious, and well-mannered, among us to even begin to fight back after being subjected to liberal insults and smears for decades.

The left has been incredibly nasty toward conservatives, Christians, certain white men, and frankly southern hill people...and others "types" for a very long time. From comedians like Woopie Goldberg and her nasty remarks about First Lady Nancy Reagan, to Congressional Witch Trials featuring Clarence Thomas, to a website showing a picture of Rush Limbaugh that gets more bruised and bloodied looking as he is contuinually punched in the face...the left has a long, long record of utterly contemptable behavior and speech.

As for Chelsea Clinton, she has been almost completely left alone when you think about it. The republicans were among the first to say she should be off limits. Had Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else, chosen to treat her with anything but respect there would be a whole lot more for the left to scream about. The fact that there isn't speaks volumes.

If Rush were truly the person they portray him to be he'd be gone now because nobody would have listened to him. People don't enjoy shows that are simply jab fests...hello AIR AMERICA! Rush's show is popular because he uses humor and is entertaining but that isn't the real draw. The real success comes from the learning opportunity. I have learned things about government, the Constitution, American history, & world events and issues that cannot be taught in classes. His show has also inspired me to read books I never would have thought would interest me and tune into other smart folks who were not available because regular news oulets and TV talk fests never featured them.

Meanwhile the babies...and they really are like babies...who continue to badmouth and lie about Rush choose to remain stuck in their own smelly little diapers...and I do mean STUCK. Apparently discovering life without diapers is not an option...maybe because they'd have to give up the "Nanny State" mentality.

Is that mean? Or is it just an accurate, albeit sad, description of the character and attitudes that accompany most negative comments about Rush and conservatives in general?

Wow, I am making the BIG TIME, headlining on the Postscripts Blog! What, is it a slow news day? Jack and Tina running out of material? (One big beautiful smile.)

I am not lying about Rush Limbaugh referring to Chelsea Clinton as a dog. The late, great Molly Irvins even wrote about it in her column in 1995:

"On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor."

Here is the link to that article:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html

And, I never said that I did not like Republicans, in fact there are plenty of Republicans that I love very much, I just said that the Republicans are "sweating it" in the presidential race with their lackluster candidates.

Back to Rush, remember recently when he exhibited another low grade example of his drug addled humor, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's Disease symptoms? That, my friends was on video! Oh, I know, he apologized, but it still shows what kind of person he is.

Ball is in your court...

You still have not witnessed any of the things you are so bent out of shape about...nor have you bothered to find out anything more to define Rush. As you said, You would not get near him with a ten foot pole. You must be an incredibly judgemental person, willing to condemn someone without actually giving them a fair opportunity to show you their character and personality. Rush has been on the radio for more than twenty years and yet you would be hard pressed to tell me anything about how he fills most of the three hours he spends on radio five days a week. Instead you tell us you KNOW who he is based on two questionable examples.

But just for fun let’s give you the whole thing. Let’s say it all happened just as you described and Rush’s explanation was:

that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea

We’d have to be Rush or the technician to know this for sure. So now what?

The point Rush was making about Michael J. Fox was that dishonestly using ones illness to sway the voting public is a little unseemly...particularly when the democrats have lied about the research and funding policy of the president. (see my new post later today) When Rush discovered he had been wrong on the point about Mr. Fox not taking his medication he issued a correction and an apology.

I’ll be posting on the late Molly Ivans later today. It will be a contrast piece

And by the way...there are literally thousands of "drug addled" Americans...they suffer a great deal of pain that doesn't let up day after day. The same kind of pain that sent Rush in search of relief. The kind of pain that say Molly ivans might have understood late in her fight with Cancer. If you have never had chronic pain you wouldn't know what he and others go through every day so you can be forgiven for your ignorance...your stupid refusal to consider facts such as these, however, demonstrates that "baby" quality I referred to in the comments on the other Rush post.

L.A. I have acknowledged that many people have been duped into writing about this comment, so giving me the name of a writer who also repeated the lie doesn't get us passed square one.

Where is the evidence? The Limbaugh program offered up the original transcript. That's proof. On your side there is no evidence because he didn't say it.

Rush has denied this hoax, it's been debunked time after time as a hoax and yet even today some people continue to pass this hoax along as the truth. I grant you that it seems credible, it's sure heard a lot, but that falls woefully short of the truth, right?

L.A. I put your piece up because it served to make a good point, i.e., please don't just shoot from the hip about things you heard, back it up with fact.

By the way, you write very well and your thoughts are always interesting, so please continue to contribute!

Maybe as we continue to discuss things here we will both profit from the experience?

Rush gave an opinion on Michael J. Fox. That's what he is entitled to do. Michael J. Fox was Politicking for a candidate who supported more radical stem cell research. In the add he did, his tremors were very pronounced. He may have been having a bad day, but he had appeared on other things in proximity to the add, and his symptoms were not as pronounced. Rush expressed and opinion.

The add was for a candidate who supported embryonic stem cell research.

Rush voiced the opinion that Fox either hadn't taken his medication or that he was acting. He is after all, an actor.

And I'm told if I am against embryonic stem cell research, it just means that I don't want people like Michael J. Fox to get better. I didn't want Christopher Reeves to walk again.

The inference is ridiculous but I have gotten used to it. You guys only get upset if Rush or another conservative voices an opinion. You can do it with impunity! And I am supposed to just take it. Are Michael J. Fox's feelings more important than the rest of ours?

And after all it is their opinion and they are free to spout it, just as I am, Or Rush is. And again, you can disagree with an opinion, but do you really want the ability to falsely accuse someone, or worse, censor them just because you don't agree with their opinion?

Al Franken wrote a book calling Rush "Big and Fat" in the title, but I don't cry about him being a big meanie, nor did Rush. Which is another reason I like Rush and why he will always do better than a person like Franken. He takes it as well as dishes it out. And I censored Franken, with my handy dandy channel switching button.

Oh and Rush never did apologize for what he said about Michael J. Fox. He stood by it. He said it was what he believed. I think, had he truly said what you allege, about Chelsea Clinton, he would have owned it, since I have never seen him not take responsibilty for things he has said just because the left gets screwey about it.

I censor radio personalities I don't agree with, with my "tune" button. If I don't like what you are saying, I tune it to something else. If your radio isn't equipped with one, I suggest you get one that is. If you are mad that your local stations won't carry someone you can agree with, find someone who doesn't get censored by the tune button!

I think you guys are sweating, cause Rush is in no danger of being taken off the air and you guys can't even buy your way on to a station!

It’s a profit thing. If you get someone who gets sponsors and has an audience who supports those sponsors, a radio station will put you on!

But if you can't do it, it doesn't mean you should legislate it or make tax money pay for it.

L.A., Michael J. Fox actually corroborated Rush Limbaugh's suspicions in a subsequent Diane Sawyer interview (May 17, 2000) when he admitted not taking his medication. In his own words, "I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing, but it seemed right for me to -- to be uncomfortable in that situation.

In remarks following the Diane Sawyer interview, Rush Limbaugh said this: "Okay, "seemed right to be uncomfortable in that situation." He was trying to make a point. He was trying to be persuasive. He was trying to encourage people to understand his plight, what have you. Now, again, I totally understand doing this before a Senate committee to raise consciousness on the issue that you're concerned about. I have no problem with it. I'm just saying since he's admitted that he goes off his meds for the purpose, that's the reason for my speculating about it."

Of course, again the attack is on conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. And this by the likes of such patriots as House speaker Harry Reid. Can you imagine that? How dare they waste taxpayer time and money attacking a citizen of this country especially when there are so many other issues that are important to all Americans. In the end they actually took what Rush said completely out of the context of the larger broadcast. How despicable!

I think it's clear that there is a move to silence the voices of those who do not tow the liberal, secularist line.

Henry Waxman sicks his, wait a minute, we pay these guys, our aides on all that is conservative talk radio! These aides were supposed to be investigating illegalities within the government. The left has misused the term so many times, I won't even call this what it is.

Hillary Clinton has Sandy Berger as a "non paid" adviser.

I believe that Berger removed documents prior to the 9-11 committee could review them, because they would show a pattern of practices which were so ill advised, they left us open to terrorist attacks. Practices at the direction of the Clinton administration. This is my opinion based on what I know of the incident and the people involved. I make no claim to have a smoking gun; it just makes sense to me. I mean I don't think he removed documents which were favorable to the Clintons, do you? (Disclaimer)

I feel that these documents would have laid a larger onus on Bill Clinton for the lack luster intelligence gathered, the exchange of info by the CIA and FBI and other attitudes which were rampant in politics at the time. Which left us open for the attack on 9-11, not to mention the Cole. How we handled the "Black Hawk Down" incident etc.

The wall between the two agencies responsible for Foreign and domestic Intel was just ludicrous.

But not surprising considering Mrs. Clinton made statements that our intelligence agents shouldn't be gathering Intel from unsavory types.

The problem and maybe this has escaped the attention of those of you on the left, is that bad guys hang out with and discuss their bad guy plans with other bad guys. A lot of information is obtained from within the bad guy community. In other words they don't go over to Ward and June Cleaver's house, or the Huxtible Residence and run their bad guy plans by regular, non-bad guy types.

Now, obviously, this information has to be corroborated, because after all, they're bad guys, but to say you aren't going to talk to bad guys, at all, is just naive. more naive than even Obama.

But I digress, with the two items I mentioned at the beginning of my post just breaking, I was wondering if LA or Libby or Jim could explain to me how Waxman's intentions aren't an abuse of government resources for what is tantamount to a witch hunt against his intellectual adversaries.

And how the country shouldn't be concerned, considering all of the other shady deals of Bill and Hillary, that someone like Sandy Berger is being looked to as a consultant.

Are you really worried about the government abusing the Patriot Act? When you stand by and let Waxman and the left do something like this. You are more concerned about the rights of people who would kill you and your family, than you are for the rights of a fellow citizen, whose opinion you don't agree with?

And I would like them to honestly say, that they believe the main stream media would have handled these two stories in the same way if they had involved Conservatives

I do have to admit that listening to Waxman and Clinton's people as they explain there respective issues, does have me laughing at the 'Sons a Bitches.' but it has me worried too.

Are we, as a country, really going to sit back and accept this from the people who work for us?

I think it's clear that there is a move to silence the voices of those who do not tow the liberal, secularist line.

They are coiled and ready to pounce!! Well done R. Hoeppner...thanks for chiming in!