December 7, 2014 12:00 pm -

[su_right_ad]Rush Limbaugh thinks the left must be happy with police officers who took Eric Garner down and then choked him to death. To him, it’s always the left that is responsible for every terrible thing that happens.

Limbaugh appeared on Fox News Sunday to bemoan the “grievance industry” that is “literally ripping our fabric apart.”

Limbaugh said that the aftermath of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases called for inspirational leadership from President Barack Obama, who instead was amplifying historical racial divisions for his own political gain.

“There’s no acknowledgement of any the progress,” Limbaugh said. (Actually Obama explicitly acknowledged racial progress in an interview with George Stephanopoulos two weeks ago.) “If you listen to these people, the president, the mayor of New York, you’d think it was two hundred years ago. You’d think we hadn’t even started working on these problems, and that’s not true.”

Limbaugh said he no longer believed the Garner case involved a chokehold (“What are you talking about?” Wallace asked) and that the incident would not have occurred were the left not “so eager for tax collection.”

“How many cops descended on that situation for cigarettes?” he said. “How many people smoking marijuana did the cops ignore on the way to Eric Garner?…I think the real outrage here is an American died while the state is enforcing tax collection on cigarettes! It’s absurd. People talk about the left, they want a big state, they want a powerful state. Well, here it is.”


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

50 responses to Limbaugh On Garner: The Left Wanted A Powerful State, So There

  1. mea_mark December 7th, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    As usual, Rush is mouthing off BS to rally up the base and to try and keep some listeners tuning into him so he can fleece them.

    The last thing the progressives want is a big powerful government that is oppressive. We want a government that is run right and is benevolent to the people and the environment. The purpose of government is to help everybody get along and keep things moving in a positive direction.

    • Wayout December 7th, 2014 at 6:36 pm

      But that’s what you get, a government that is not run right and wastes enormous amounts of money. Consolidating power in a large bureaucracy located on the Potomac does not bring about good government and the further that the government gets away from the people the worse it is for everyone.

      The beauty of the Federalist system is the idea where the central power has defined responsibilities and everything else that needs to be done is left to the state, county, and city level. Unfortunately, you progressives of both political parties have largely destroyed what the Founders gave us, and we can see the terrible results.

      • arc99 December 7th, 2014 at 6:47 pm

        Women voting. 40 hour work weeks. The end of Jim Crow laws. Voting rights for blacks people. 14th amendment equal protection for gay people, yes terrible if you are a right winger, but not for sane, decent , moral people. .

        The Founders gave us a nation where only white, male Christian property owners enjoyed the full fruits of liberty. Liberals and leftists have been improving upon that flawed model ever since.

  2. Spicerpalooza December 7th, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Isn’t Obama being President of the United States obvious progress? Why does Obama need to talk about progress when he’s the embodiment of it? Limbaugh talks about ripping the fabric apart? Limbaugh has done more to do that than anybody else.

  3. Kim Serrahn December 7th, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    I’m a lefty and no one I know that leans that way would ever want that. We are all appalled at what is been happening with our police now days. He’s a blubbering piece of excrement that needs to be flushed.

    • William December 7th, 2014 at 3:21 pm

      ” He’s a blubbering piece of excrement that needs to be flushed.”
      Your comparison of us with Rush Limbaugh is unwarranted and a malicious attack on our character, reputation, and good name.
      National organization of blubbering pieces of excrement.

  4. arc99 December 7th, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Limbaugh’s stock in trade is lying about the beliefs of people he disagrees with. He has earned millions of dollars with his daily efforts to rip this country apart as Chairman of the Board and CEO of the right wing grievance industry.

    Then, hypocrite that he is, he makes false accusations condemning people for doing what he is more guilty of than any other being on the planet.

    I am trying to tone down my swearing, so Rush, duck you and replace the d with a capital F.

    • Spirit of America December 7th, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      I did what you told Rush to do and….
      awwwww, you swore!

  5. carol December 7th, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Limbaugh is an entertainer by his own admission. He gets his ratings with the crazy stuff he says.

  6. Dcbos December 7th, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Projecting; all the republicans have done for 6years is protest the election of a Black man.

  7. Carla Akins December 7th, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Limbaugh’s an idiot and Garner’s death a tragedy. It’s not that Panteolo (whatever his name) is so much an evil racist intent on harm – it’s the fallout of broken window policing. Several publications have written pieces on it and it’s a pretty clear, straight line from the systemic abusive policies we’ve seen grow out of control in the last few years.

    The theory that vigorously enforcing the small laws in some way dissuades or prevents people from breaking the big ones. Which is why they were so intent on arresting Garner. He was not committing a crime at the time they encountered him and they knew it. It’s a constant barrage of harassment in the effort to get the “criminal” to stop, move away, or overreact forcing a crime and arrest. And just as Garner’s family described, he was constantly harassed for every infraction, not even crimes.

    When city officials and police administration push this theory it makes the community itself the enemy. No community policing is done, no effort to work together – only the threat of authority where community members have no recourse. This philosophy, along with poor screening and training methods has left us with law enforcement high on their own power and being rewarded and encouraged to intimidate the very community they hired to serve. It can be no wonder that this continues to happen.

    • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 2:41 pm

      A good friend of mine is a state police officer. He has said on multiple occasions that it is nearly impossible to get rid of bad cops due to union contracts and legal defense of bad cops by unions.

      BTW – what a contrast – when you think about how NYPD and police in general were portrayed in the media immediately after 9/11/2001.

      • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 3:10 pm

        Oh, right, it’s the union’s fault.

        • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 3:26 pm

          Are you denying that police unions might be a contributing factor?

          • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 3:37 pm

            Simply pointing out that unions don’t hire cops.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 3:53 pm

            No, but they hire attorneys. People have alleged that prosecutors have a cozy relationship with their local police departments which might result in grand juries returning “no indictment”. Well, police unions also have a vested interest in “protecting their own”.

          • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 4:15 pm

            Any union is responsible for insuring an accusation against one of its members is warranted. Legal representation is part of what union dues pay for and there is nothing, in and of, itself, wrong with that.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 8:23 pm

            It seems to me that unions are like a political parties. Both are ways for people to organize for a purpose. I am not any more anti-union than I am anti-political party. The question that I care about is “What are they trying to accomplish?”. If I were to lodge a complaint against a police officer, I would not automatically assume that the officer’s police union was interested in hearing my side of the story. Quite the contrary.

          • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 8:59 pm

            “What are they trying to accomplish?” Indeed, that is the question. But, the point is that the union’s purpose is to protect the union worker’s rights along with working conditions, etc., etc..

            So, in your example, you would have no contact with the union. Your complaint is lodged with the police department. Presumably, the department investigates, they bring an action to terminate, demote, whatever, against the officer. That officer requests union representation and the process is played out.

            Blaming the union for bad, corrupt, criminal police officers is the wrong place to lay the blame. That belongs to the management for their poor selections, training, conditions, bias, etc., and for tolerating such behavior.

            Due process for any worker, even those suspected of criminal behavior, is the difference between our country and too many others. I want that for the officers in the articles that brought us here.

            We are not getting that when the DA’s serve up no bills because they think that’s the right thing to ensure police cooperation, or are acting on their own bias contrary to their sworn duty to the public.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 10:19 pm

            “Presumably, the department investigates, they bring an action to terminate,
            demote, whatever, against the officer. That officer requests union
            representation and the process is played out.”

            That all sounds good, in theory. But in practice I suspect that the police administrators are often outmatched by the time and resources that the union can bring to bear. After making a few attempts to demote or terminate an officer who performs poorly or acts inappropriately, new police administrators may come to the conclusion that fighting the union is a fool’s errand. It’s not as if there is nothing else needing urgent attention.

            I’ll admit that this is more of a hunch on my part, and not based upon first-hand knowledge. But I have seen this dynamic at work in the school system.

            In our local elementary school, we had a third grade teacher who assigned fixed seating and referred to his students by number, never bothering to learn their names. One day he lost his temper and literally threw a desk at a student. The following year, he sat in the elementary library every day and corrected test papers for other teachers. Then he went back to teaching and retired with full pension. I heard these things from other teachers who believed that this guy needed to find another career. But the union backed him up and the administration was unable to terminate him.

            I am not saying that the union should have refused to represent him. But I think it is unrealistic to expect busy school administrators (or busy police administrators) to devote the kind of time and money that it would take to match the union representation.

            So in the end, I suspect that many poorly qualified employees get to keep their jobs. If we expect administrators to re-educate, demote, or terminate poorly-performing employees (or sexist/racist/homophobic employees), then we should be prepared to provide these administrators with financial and legal resources equivalent to that fielded by the unions.

          • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 10:37 pm

            OK, so it’s entirely OK to indict unions by innuendo and rumor? Talk about a lack of due process!

            BTW, if you are concerned that a union can out spend the school district (another myth, I suspect), I suggest that you start voting for Dems, they haven’t been slashing taxes without regard to the effects on a community’s ability to function.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 11:00 pm

            “OK, so it’s entirely OK to indict unions by innuendo and rumor?”
            We all form opinions based upon limited information. I recognize and admit that my knowledge is limited in this area, as it is in most areas. Do you have special knowledge and experience in police work or public education? What makes your opinions any more valid than mine?

            I genuinely want police departments and public schools to re-educate or eliminate underperforming employees. They currently seem to have a hard time doing that. Maybe we should ask police administrators and public school administrators to weigh in on the issue.

            An elementary principal who works at a different school district once told me that it is virtually impossible to fire a teacher, and he went into specifics about the contractual issues that presented roadblocks. I have listened to frustrated teachers who believed that some of their colleagues were underperforming and/or behaving inappropriately in the classroom.

            This is the kind of input that has led me to believe that unions are a factor.

          • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 11:22 pm

            “We all form opinions based upon limited information.” Yes, and we should not hold fast to them with that limited information.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 11:32 pm

            Agreed. Why else would a conservative like me frequent a liberal blog like this? I am always looking for people to challenge my beliefs and make me think. And for that, I thank you. I may be stubborn, but over time, I have moderated some of my views. Dialogue is good.

          • tiredoftea December 8th, 2014 at 12:09 am

            Yes, it is.

          • whatthe46 December 8th, 2014 at 12:07 am

            but, the attorneys for the “officer” does not present evidence to the GJ. they are sometimes not even allowed in the courtroom during the process as the prosecutor does not have to lay out all of its cards to the defense. so, its entirely up to the D.A. what the GJ hears and base their judgments on as to indict or not.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 8th, 2014 at 12:18 am

            I didn’t state my point very clearly. What I meant to say was that if it were easier for administrators to terminate unprofessional employees, then we would have fewer of these cases in the first place. I have heard anecdotal evidence that unions and union contracts sometimes tie the hands of administrators and protect bad employees. If we want bad cops to be taken off the force, then it might be worth investigating the role that unions play in preventing that.

      • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 3:15 pm

        Because after 9/11, they weren’t killing unarmed black men and boys.

        • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 3:25 pm

          Are you sure? Maybe it just wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen until Ferguson happened.

          • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 3:46 pm

            You said “immediately after 9/11/2001.” That’s the period I was referring to. Pretty sure if there had been a series of the type of killings there have been recently, it would have been in the news. As a group, the public opinion of police has gone down, because the frequency of incidents like that has increased.

          • Robert M. Snyder December 7th, 2014 at 3:47 pm

            How do you know that the frequency has increased? Where can I find the statistical data? Thanks.

          • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 4:01 pm

            The stats aren’t available. Even the FBI doesn’t keep accurate stats on that. I should have said “it seems the frequency has increased.”

    • Wayout December 7th, 2014 at 6:14 pm

      And what do you want to do, go back to what was happening under David Dinkins where over 2000 people were getting killed in NYC every year? Yes, arresting fare jumpers and other miscreants often led to stopping bigger crimes. Like when that fare jumper was carrying a gun so he was stopped from committing a murder? Or the squeegee man had several warrants out on him? The proof is in the stats, and Mayor Guliani made the city safer hands down.
      And Limbaugh is right. You libs wanted big government that does everything for everybody and now that people are getting killed as that same big government sends out it’s police department in the name of stopping tax avoidance you now cry the blues. This is the same thing with all that military hardware that your precious big government has been handing out to cities. Ferguson happened and you are all up in arms about the military firepower. You got what you wanted now shut up!

      • arc99 December 7th, 2014 at 6:39 pm

        Limbaugh is not right. He is a lying, hypocritical ideologue. It does not surprise me that low information right wingers believe very dishonest word out of his foul mouth.

        No we liberals have not gotten what we wanted. You are not a liberal and consequently you are the last person to rant about what we want. So you shut your lying mouth.

        • Wayout December 7th, 2014 at 8:04 pm

          You deny that you want the government to provide everyone with just about everything? But really, in this case the fact is that high taxes imposed on cigarettes by liberal elected officials of the City of New York contributed to the death of Mr. Garner who illegally sold “loosies”.. Now deal with it.

          • OldLefty December 7th, 2014 at 8:38 pm

            That’s the conservative straw man.

            Compressing the Mr.Gardener’s airway was the cause of his death.

            Selling loosies is no different than playing the numbers.

          • arc99 December 7th, 2014 at 11:58 pm

            Yes I do deny that I want the government to provide everyone with just about everything and have never said any such thing.

            I am starting understand better what the President deals with every day, lies, lies and more lies from the right wing.

            When will you right wingers learn to debate people honestly based on what they say and not what some talk radio entertainer told you to think?

          • Dene Bonner December 8th, 2014 at 5:32 pm

            Amen, it is so sad that lies are all they want to beleive

      • Carla Akins December 7th, 2014 at 7:42 pm

        Law enforcement that violates its citizens rights at a whim, makes arrests for no crimes and rules through fear and intimidation is not part of the country I live in. There are better methods, no one says you have to use a method tried previously that failed – hell that sounds downright stupid. And just a thought, don’t ever tell me to shut up. It’s rude and offensive.

      • Obewon December 7th, 2014 at 7:54 pm

        Get your facts straight!
        Giuliani’s 1994 NY State Population 18,169,000
        NY State Violent Crime 175,433
        NY State Property Crime 745,845
        NY State Murders 2,016.
        NYC and NY State crime only dropped when Bill Clinton’s federal government paid for an extra 100,000 NYPD in NYC and in other cities too.

  8. rg9rts December 7th, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Who listens to him

    • tiredoftea December 7th, 2014 at 3:07 pm

      Too many uninformed and gullible people.

      • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 3:15 pm

        Still far too many, even though it’s fewer than it used to be.

      • rg9rts December 7th, 2014 at 3:52 pm

        Those are the idiots that voted too!

  9. William December 7th, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    It’s just a matter of time before he goes the way of the bipolar drunk.

    • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      Maybe he can borrow some money from one of his exes.

  10. Arturo Jacobo Saiz December 7th, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    The best thing the Cretin said was the Republicans have demonstrated they know how to lose the White House, and if they keep listening to him they’ll lose again in 2016, that depends on if he still has enough sponsors left to stay on the air…..

  11. Obewon December 7th, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Limbaugh’s Lipstick is smeared all over his face like a hillbilly heroin addict. Rusty the racist is so delusional he melts down. Limbaugh said he no longer believed the Garner case involved an illegal chokehold (“WTF! Are you talking about?” Wallace asked)

  12. fancypants December 8th, 2014 at 2:24 am

    rush needs to see glen beck’s mental specialists asap

    his messages are getting harder to decode

  13. alpacadaddy December 8th, 2014 at 11:53 am

    “Jabba the Rush” is right about one thing… the “grievance industry that is literally ripping our fabric apart” does in fact exist… and HE is it’s leader and fact-averse proponent!