By Don Feder

March 21, 2012


            As you reflect on the Lynch Limbaugh Campaign, now in its third week, remember: 40 years ago, Rush gave aid and comfort to the enemy, during a conflict that claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans.


            Two decades later, his inflammatory rhetoric fueled a race riot that led to the murder of a rabbinical student and brought two days of terror on a religious community.


            No, wait a minute, that wasn’t America’s most popular talk-show host but two of his more vociferous critics. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.


            The latest Hush Rush crusade is even more insidious than it seems. It’s one engagement in a war aimed at silencing the right.


In the cross hairs are conservative talkers, commentators, politicians, celebrities and anyone else who dares to challenge leftist orthodoxy. The left wants to drag us back to the good old days (pre-talk radio, pre-Fox, pre-Internet) when three networks ruled the airwaves, and most people got homogenous views packaged as news from Uncle Walter and their daily newspaper.


The old media is salivating at the thought of taking down the new media. “After Apology, National Advertisers Are Still Shunning Limbaugh,” read a headline in a March 13 New York Times story.  “Rush Limbaugh: If ad boycott expands, can he survive (we certainly hope not),” chirped a story in The Christian Science Monitor.


The soft left (mainstream media), rushed into the breach opened by the hard left. Septuagenarian feminists Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan did an opinion piece for the CNN website that shrilled, “FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves.” How many feminists does it take to censor the opposition? That’s not funny!


After comparing Rush to Goebbels – apparently, both “dehumanize” their “targets” – the fem-bots flew into a rage over the law student (I-want-the-Catholic-Church-to-pay-for-my-contraceptives) Rush called bad names – for which he’s apologized twice.


Yes, poor third-year Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who can’t find the money to pay for birth-control pills which, even if she goes the expensive, physician- prescribed route, cost less than $20 a week (dinner for two at MacDonald’s). Your heart has to go out to the liberal casuist who, as a graduate of one of the top-ten law schools in the nation, will earn a six-figure salary her first year in private practice.


Rush called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Our culture has degenerated to the point where no one blinks an eye when, in pursuit of a political goal, a young, unmarried, woman touts her fornication before a Congressional hearing. Instead, we’re outraged when someone goes overboard in describing her sexual ethics – or lack thereof.


A boycott isn’t enough for Fonda and friends. “If Clear Channel (which syndicates Limbaugh) won’t clean up its airwaves, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “’in the public interest?’” The airwaves are “a scarce government resource” (for Marxists, everything is a “government resource”) which those granted licenses must use “in the public interest” to serve the hallowed “community.” With hundreds of cable stations and broadband radio, only collectivists could make this argument with a straight face.


Let’s see: Trees are a scarce resource. Newspapers and magazines are granted bulk mail permits. Is The New York Times, with its front-page editorials, acting in the public interest? -- is Newsweek, which regularly wails on conservatives and Christians, serving the community?


Is HBO, which airs Bill Maher’s bad imitation of Triumph, the Insult Dog, acting in the public interest? How about MSNBC, which provides a cable forum for foulmouthed Ed Schultz and gives the Rev. Al Sharpton a place to hang his armband?


A million-dollar donor to Obama’s Super PAC, Maher has referred to Sarah Palin as a “cu-t” and a “tw-t.” Shultz once called conservative commentator Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” While insisting that their objection to Limbaugh isn’t “political” (perish the thought!), the respect-women-or-else squad gives a pass to liberal misogyny. .


If giving a talk show to the Reverend Al doesn’t prove the hypocrisy of the liberal media, it’s hard to imagine what would – Dialogue on Community Relations with Louis Farrakhan and David Duke?


In 2010, Sharpton, in his inimitable fashion, told us that when a radio station’s broadcast license is up for renewal, stations whose programming “offends groups of Americans based on their race, their gender, their sexual status” should lose their license – unless those offended happen to be Christians, Jews, Caucasians, conservatives, males or heterosexuals, who are oppressors, after all.


Jane Fonda condemning speech that’s merely insulting, is like Typhoid Mary complaining about table manners.


On a 1972 trip to Hanoi, Fonda called U.S. pilots “war criminals,” urged GIs to desert, posed with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery, made propaganda broadcasts for the communists and called POWs who described torture at the hands of their captors “liars, hypocrites and pawns.”


In a post-war interview with The Wall Street Journal, North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin explained, “Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda…gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.” Can you say has-enough-blood-on-her-hands to put Lady Macbeth to shame?


At about the time of her treasonous excursion, Fonda was telling college kids, “If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communists” – which explains a lot, including Jane’s regard for First Amendment freedom.


The GOP “have really made Rush Limbaugh such a great part of the conservative movement,” Sharpton bloviates. “You can’t have him as a major spokesman in your movement and then he says something as offensive and misogynist as this (the Fluke comments) and you act like he’s just an entertainer.”


What of the Rev. Al? MSNBC has given a cable forum to a man who once said, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires” and “We taught philosophy and astrology (sic.) and mathematics before Socrates and the Greek homos got around to it,” among other Afro-centrist, “ice-people” fantasies. At least some of us Caucasian cave-dwellers know the difference between astrology and astronomy, as well as when to use “was” and “were” in a sentence.


In 1987, Sharpton was pushing the Tawana Brawley fraud – that a black teen was abducted and raped by a gang of white men. An assistant prosecutor in Duchess County, New York won a $345,000 judgment against Al for defamation in the affair. Any libel judgments against Rush?


In 1991, Sharpton set a match to a powder keg in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. At a funeral for a 7-year-old black child killed in an auto accident, he inveighed against “diamond merchants” (his code-words for Hassidic Jews) who were somehow responsible for South African apartheid as well as the child’s death.


The upshot was two days of rioting and the murder of rabbinical student Yankel Rosenbaum, knifed to death by a mob shouting “Kill the Jew!’ Four years later, Sharpton reprised his Kristallnacht performance at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned store in Harlem. In the ensuing mayhem, a crazed protestor set fire to the store, killing seven.


This is the scum who has the chutzpah to lecture Republicans on responsibility and group sensitivity.


The left is relentless. In 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein said the party which claims a connection to Jefferson was looking into bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which would make talk radio impossible.


The same year, Sen. James Inhofe says he overheard a conversation between Sen. Barbara Boxer and then-Senator Hillary Clinton concerning talk radio. Inhofe reports: “They said we’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists. We’re got to have balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix for this.” “Balance” and “legislative fix” are lib-speak for, “Get the guillotine ready!”


In 1995, Hillary’s insignificant-other accused talk radio of setting the stage for the Oklahoma City bombing. In 2011, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blamed the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin and “the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc.” for creating the atmosphere which led to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords by the resident of a planet in the Nebula Galaxy.


When actor Kirk Cameron told an interviewer that homosexuality is “ultimately destructive to the foundations of civilization,” comedienne Roseanne Barr – who really should be doing a political show on MSNBC – called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” 


And GLADD (the happy people advocates and whatever) is monitoring Cameron’s media bookings – to be sure he doesn’t get any. GLADD’s Accountability Project seeks to prevent the media from giving “a platform to the extreme rhetoric” (i.e., providing an alternate point of view) of three dozen individuals who represent almost the entire leadership of the pro-family movement.


The left is right (no pun) to fear talk radio. Rush Limbaugh’s show has a weekly audience of more than 15 million. Of the top 11 radio talk shows, ranked by Talkers Magazine, 7 are hosted by conservatives or libertarians. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Levin, Boortz and Ingraham have a combined weekly audience of 67 million-plus.


The New York Times has a daily circulation of less than a million. Over at  MSNBC, Shultz has an average audience of 180,000, Rachel Maddow 260,000 – while FOX’s “The O’Reilly Factor” draws 831,000 and Sean Hannity  478,000.


It’s not about “dehumanization,” or “hate speech” or not serving the public interest (the public speaks every time the ratings come out) or any of the other lame-o excuses the left regularly trots out.  It is a maniacal drive to gag opposing voices – to create an Orwellian society where bad ideas are punished.


For a preview of the America the left wants to create, take the college campus, where liberalism reigns supreme. At most colleges and universities, at least on the humanities faculties, tenure is based on a willingness to spew leftist orthodoxy on cue. Liberal books are practically the only assigned reading. Liberals have a monopoly on commencement speakers.


Increasingly, conservatives aren’t even allowed to speak on campus. The student mob (egged on by professors, tolerated by administrators) has an effective veto on campus speakers. Supporters of Israel, opponents of affirmative action, critics of open-borders, marriage proponents and those dubious of the joys of Islam are regularly shouted-down, harassed and assaulted (physically as well as verbally) by collegiate storm troopers – a reality I experienced first-hand when I tried to speak at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst two year ago.


Other than Alan Dershowitz, I have never heard anyone on the left object to these totalitarian tactics. That’s because it’s part of the liberal weltanschaunng – to see conservatives crushed by the bureaucracy, silenced through legal harassment, boycotted, shunned and shouted down. If Fonda, Steinem et al. have their way, soon we’ll be allowed to sit quietly in our homes and think conservative thoughts – for the time being.


This commentary originally appeared on on March 19, 2012