Get Limbaugh Off American Forces Network

I’d forgotten that The Rush Limbaugh Show is heard on the American Forces Network (he used to brag about it and I don’t know how I forgot that) and something should be done to stop it. There is a petition available to do just that.

Enough with the booshwa from Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, who said,

I think that is probably an issue that should be left to the folks that run that network.  In other words, I’d love to see them drop it but I don’t think I’d legislate it.

Oh, yeah? You mean it is okay that our men and women in uniform hear a blowhard know-nothing tell them that their Commander-in-Chief hates America and wants to destroy it?  What the hell are you doing running the Armed Service Committee, Senator Levin, if you aren’t willing to insist that the AFN drop this nasty and poisonous schmuck immediately?

It is outrageous.

The fact that the  American Forces Network broadcasts Limbaugh’s hatred for the Commander-in-Chief is something that needs to be corrected—by Congress if necessary.

Here are just a couple of examples (the length of these quotes are necessary to get the flavor of what Limbaugh does) of what our men and women in the military are treated to regularly regarding the motives of President Obama. Keep in mind as you read the bigoted babble below that 17.3% of our active-duty  personnel are African-Americans:

On July 2, 2010, Limbaugh said,

…we’re now governed by people who do not like the country, who do not have the same reverence for it that we do. Our greatest threat (and this is saying something) is internal.

We have plenty of external threats, enemies across oceans, but we have a threat inside as well. This is something that I’ve never felt. I never feel that we had a president actually governing against the country, against the will of the people. I know we’ve had liberals. Clinton and Hillary were, and are. They’re pedal-to-the-metal liberals. But they didn’t want to destroy things. This bunch does, and they make no bones about it — and when destruction does happen, they don’t lift a finger to fix it.

Limbaugh also played off J. Christian Adams, who had quit the Justice Department claiming that he was forbidden to prosecute a case involving the New Black Panthers and was claiming that someone in the Justice Department said, “This is payback.” Limbaugh launched:

“This is payback,” meaning, “All right, look. We don’t care if it’s the New Black Panthers or whoever it is. Black people in this country have never, ever had a fair shake. This is payback. O.J. Simpson was payback. How does it feel?” That word “payback” is not mine. It was J. Christian Adams quoting some people in the Department of Justice. It is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It’s payback time.

I think that he’s been raised, educated, and believes on his own that this country has been (as you know) immoral and unjust. It has stolen. It’s unfairly large; it’s an unjustifiable superpower. We have become as large as we are not because of any uniqueness or exceptionalism or greatness but because we’ve simply discriminated against the real people that made the country work, all the minorities. People around the world, we’ve stolen their resources, and now it’s payback time. That’s what we’re getting.

J. Christian Adams had somebody in Obama’s DOJ who said that regarding the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. So don’t doubt me. There’s no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily.

On  November of 2010:

LIMBAUGH: All right, little Barry is back in Indonesia, and they’re all happy over there. Little Barry Soetoro is back and they’re all happy over there in Indonesia. In fact, he was someplace in India, he was introduced by somebody from Kenya, and the woman says, “As a fellow Kenyan, Mr. President,” of course everybody looked the other way, “What do you mean fellow Kenyan, we don’t want to hear this,” and now little Barry is back…

“Little Barry” is then quoted as responding “to some of the challenges of globalization” and the “real competition” provided by “the incredible rise of India and Chin and Brazil and other countries.” And the quote ends with Mr. Obama saying:

This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in an open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities.

That’s not exactly controversial stuff—unless you have a twisted, Limbaughnic brain, which we are allowing to infect the brains of those who answer to “little Barry,” our Commander-in-Chief:

LIMBAUGH:Dare I translate this for you? Do I need to translate that for you, ladies and gentlemen? We’ve had it our way for far too long. The US has been unfairly at the top of the heap for far too long, and we’ve done it by stealing the world’s resources, by taking from the people of the world and making them poor. Our own selfishness and greed has propelled us to an artificial position of dominance, but those days are over now and I’m happy to see to it as I implicitly acknowledge the decline of American dominance…

Obama is joyfully overseas talking about the decline of the US economy, happily presiding over it, implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance. It’s what he’s all about. He’s happy he’s made it happen, and he gets to go around the world and signal to everybody that it’s happened…

What he does want is to preside over the decline of the US economy, or the United States of America, period. He’s doing it. He is implicitly acknowledging it. He’s happy that it’s happening. And I know it’s still tough for a lot of people to get their arms around this. How else would you describe it?


  1. As outrageous as Limbaugh’s blatant demagoguery is, Duane, I have given this some thought and I can’t agree that Pannetta should remove him from the AFN. It is a First Amendment issue, albeit with one caveat: I can’t seem to find the programming lineup for AFN, so this opinion is based on my assumption that AFN offers a wide sampling of all the talk that’s going on here in the States. (I hope that includes Rachel Maddow.) So long as it’s a smorgasbord of everything, even demagoguery should be offered. One man’s demagoguery is another’s free speech.

    I recall that in my youth there was a persistent meme in our culture that the President, Congressmen, and other government officials be accorded the respect due their offices. That meme is long gone of course and no amount of wishful thinking will bring it back. An outright war would, one that required a draft and equal sacrifice by all citizens against a common threat, but that is extremely unlikely as well. We are in uncharted territory, the digital age, but the principle of freedom of speech, no matter how vile, is too important to compromise, IMHO.

    Let’s hope that all Limbaugh’s sponsors leave him. I would like to see a list of those he still has.


    • Normally I would agree with you, Jim, as I think you make a most important point about free speech.

      But this case is not just a man with an opinion about policies or strategies, but he has an opinion that the man who is leading our troops, that he wants to destroy the country!

      But beyond that, imagine if AFN carried, say, a Ku Klux Klan-sponsored radio show, or something of the sort. Would that radio show deserve to be broadcast on AFN in the name of free speech? You said, “no matter how vile,” speech should be protected. And I agree. But not promoted by broadcasting it on AFN–owned by the public–is where I come down.

      It is unbelievable to me that tax dollars are promoting the undermining of our commander-in-chief.



      • OK, so help me out here Duane. What criteria do you suggest apply to the material chosen? Where do you draw the line between what’s acceptable and what’s not? And if you do establish such criteria, will the same apply under a different administration, or would they then come up with their own? Come to think of it, there must be some criteria existing now – they have to have some kind of reasoning. Maybe it’s audience size in the states? Hmm.

        BTW, it is a violation of good order and discipline under the UCMJ to undermine the authority or disobey the lawful orders of a superior, but I know of no such law for civilians.


        • Jim,

          Forgive me for the length of this response, but we have a disagreement that I hope can be overcome here.

          Let me give you an example of a radio talker that presents a conservatism every bit as stout (actually it is stouter because it is more rational) as Limbaugh’s, but without the vitriol and without accusing the Commander-in-Chief of, essentially, tacit treason. The man’s name is Michael Medved.  He was once a liberal Democrat and is now a conservative Republican.

          But you don’t hear him saying outrageous things about Mr. Obama’s desire to see the country collapse (and that is why he doesn’t make the headlines, by the way). He used to be heard here locally (and I kind of enjoyed listening to him) but he was taken off local playlists years ago.

          Now, Medved, it seems to me, would be a perfect choice to present the conservative viewpoint (there are others also), a viewpoint that ought to be represented, if the AFN is going to present politically-based programming (I don’t see why that should necessarily be the case, by the way, although I don’t object to it).

          The criteria are not so clearly articulated, I grant you, but there are cases that clearly cross the line, much like the old cliché about my not being able to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. These things can’t be measured with an engineer’s precision (which may give you—who thinks naturally in such terms—some difficulty), but we do know Limbaugh is way beyond what AFN should be promoting—and I do mean promoting—by passing along his poison to our troops.

          Even if civilians cannot be guilty de jure of violating good order and discipline, Limbaugh’s appearance (I assume daily) on AFN represents a de facto undermining of the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, don’t you think?

          Finally, I want to post something for your consideration (relative to the issue we have been discussing) and ask you if our soldiers—most of them Christians—should be fed this stuff.

          We have all, by now, heard of the atrocities committed by Joseph Kony, an African guerilla leader of something called the Lord’s Resistance Army, who reportedly uses children to do his killing (often of other children) in central Africa. Here is what Limbaugh said last October about the issue when Mr. Obama committed a small number of troops to help hunt down Kony:

          Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  It means God.  I was only kidding.  Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan.  And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them.  That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill.

          So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and — (interruption) no, I’m not kidding.  Jacob Tapper just reported it.  Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians?  Wouldn’t you say that we are?  I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn’t just Obama that supported that.  The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy.  Now they’ve done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place.  Now they’re criticizing it.

          Lord’s Resistance Army objectives.  I have them here.  “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.” Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out.  The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following:  “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.”  Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.

          Now, Jim, I ask you this: If you were a commander in the field, would you approve of this outrageous and false stuff going into the minds of your troops, again, most of them Christians?



      • @ Duane & his comment of 9:26a on 9/9,

        You and I agree completely that Limbaugh’s style is hateful demagoguery. When you ask whether I would approve of it for my crew, were I a commander in the field, I can only say that I would remain apolitical, but would leave no doubt about fully enforcing the UCMJ towards good order and discipline, should there be any infraction with political overtones for example. That is actually hard to imagine though because military training has zero tolerance regarding, say, disobedience of orders. I did hear of an Army officer who refused to deploy citing some birther issue, but I don’t know the disposition of that case. (However I can assure you his career is kaput.) If I were dealing with such a thing I would be careful not to overreact to any political implications – such stuff is very rare. Hopefully, in the modern tradition of the U.S. Navy the crew would be too busy with competition and operational challenges to care much about politics anyway. That’s how it was at sea for me throughout my career.

        Limbaugh’s instinctive attempt to leverage xenophobia and religious intolerance over the Lord’s Resistance thing was typical for him, and it was a classic blunder of huge proportions. I found it strange that it didn’t seem to damage his ratings. Like you, I abhor his tactics. But just consider what it would mean were he and his ilk, being widely heard throughout the country, banned from the airwaves by fiat of a ship’s commanding officer or by the Secretary of Defense in a Democrat administration. There would be an immediate outcry by GOP leaders of foul, of censorship, of suppression of political speech. And they would be right because there is no fair way to demarcate the line between truth and falsehood, between exaggeration and proper emphasis, between hyperbole and rational discourse. That line is and always has been negotiable and contentious. But contentious debate is at the heart of our political system, as you acknowledge. When you present Medved as a civil alternative to Limbaugh you are right on target to point out that his is the preferred method of discourse, civility as compared to provocation. But again, where do you draw the line?

        I recall a past blogging post where you, I and others discussed a related issue involving free speech – it had to do with Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church and its aggressive protests of military funerals. I thought about that at length and finally concluded that it was a matter not of freedom of speech but rather one of a certain legal exception to that, “Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress”, or IIED. This seems similar to me to the “fighting words” exception. But it was a close call and I frankly remain uncertain about it because when Phelp’s group protested they were careful to remain at some distance from the funerals. The Globe came down on Phelp’s side of that legal issue, as I recall, because of the First Amendment.

        Freedom of speech is to me the most basic, the most fundamental of all the freedoms we have, one which is difficult to fully appreciate, I submit, in a society in which it is usually taken for granted. To suppress demagogues’ speech would be to open the door to governmental suppression of all kinds of speech. I appreciate where you’re coming from Duane and I sympathize, but on this one I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. But as always, you are a pleasure to converse with my friend.


        • ansonburlingame

           /  March 9, 2012


          You descibed it correctly in my view. Anytime a “commander” tries to induce censorship into such matters he is treading on very thin ice, Constitutional ice.

          I also agree that hard working men and women overseas rarely if ever want to listen to “politics”. They (at least the men) would much prefer an R rated movie and a cold beer

          “Who the f… cares, when does the movie start”, would be the normal reaction on any ship in which I served.



        • Thanks, Jim, for the thoughtful comment. Just one or two loose ends:

          I don’t advocate for the Defense Secretary in this or any administration to make this decision. I argue that the Congress should do it. And speaking of that, I wonder what our old friend Eisenhower would say about all this? Reading about him lately has him on my mind and I would bet a buck or two that he would be the first to condemn the AFN’s inclusion of Limbaugh’s broadcast, but that is just my gut feeling.

          And I don’t in any way see this as a free speech issue. No one is saying that Limbaugh should be dragged from his microphone and locked away never to speak again. The issue here is should taxpayers be promoting hate speech through the AFN, when there are other conservative alternatives. What I hear you arguing is that Limbaugh is just too offensive to take off the AFN broadcast schedule (“To suppress demagogues’ speech would be to open the door to governmental suppression of all kinds of speech.”) I just want to say that this is not the suppression of anyone’s speech, unless it can be maintained that choosing between alternatives is somehow suppression of the ones not chosen. That claim seems quite problematic to me.

          I return, by the way, the pleasure of conversing with you, my friend.



  2. The last quote could have been a section that was broadcasted today, March 8, 2012, at approx. 1:20 P.M. C.T. on KTRH 740 am, in Houston. Apparently, if you keep repeating the same garbage, it will eventually turn into ………..In another era RL would have been in the front row, screaming: Lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch, lynch………… Didn’t the KKK declare that they would be back, but then with members in high places?


    • Edwino,

      Here’s what I think is so culturally injurious about what Limbaugh does: he makes bigotry an acceptable form of political dialog. And he is able to do that partly because up until now, a lot of mainstream journalists actually reported on his pronouncements like they represented mainstream conservative thought. And he does that partly because Republican politicians believe he has a huge audience and thus are afraid to correct him, even when they most obviously believe he has gone too far.

      Thus, over the years this combination of press and GOP tolerance has led conservatism and the Republican Party into dire ideological straights (because Rush has so many imitators, including to a large extent, Fox “News,” who want to get a piece of the action), which has helped lead the country into a paralysis that is very damaging.



  3. ansonburlingame

     /  March 9, 2012

    I actually find this hard to believe. Duane is suggesting that the men and women of the Armed Forces NOT have access to information publicly broadcast all over the U.S. simply because he disgrees, even hates, some of the information so broadcast.

    I find that unbelievable and a denegration of the ability of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, to listen, think and decide for themselves how to take a political position, an INDIVIDUAL political positon.

    As members of the armed forces they CANNOT “campaign” or publicly support one side or the other. But they sure has heck have the absolute RIGHT to hear what any other American can hear!!! To suggest otherwise is abhorrent to me, absolutely abhorrent.

    If the KKK decides to start broadcasting and gets enought “listenership” and money to do so, then even that kind of broadcast should be hear for those that want to listen. Putting a particular program on AFN does in no way show support for any particular views. But to CENSOR any program, otherwise allowed on the American airways, is absolutely a reprehesible suggestion.

    I listened the the “Thriller in Manila” long ago while underwater and about 6000 miles from home on AFN. We went to periscope depth and “tuned in” while carrying 16 nuclear weapons targeted against …. during the Cold and Vietnam War. It was a LINK TO HOME, America from far away.

    And you want to now CENSOR such links to home for men and women in COMBAT, risking their lives each and every day?

    Duane, I really must restrain myself in this comment or otherwise I will sound like JanesReaction from the opposite direction.

    NO ONE is forced to listen to Limbaugh but many choose to do so. Now why I ask would you even come close to suggesting that men and women overseas should not be provided the same choice as other Americans living normal lives?

    Simly despicable in my view!!!



    • First, you are not required to restrain yourself, as I don’t give a damn whether you find it “despicable” or not. Let the insults fly as far as I’m concerned. I can defend my position, which is the position of a lot of folks who understand what it is that Limbaugh does on a daily basis. VoteVets, made up of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is even calling for the same thing. Are they despicable, too?

      Second, here is a link to, “The Voice of our White Generations.”  I suggest you go there and sample it a bit. Then come back and tell me that AFN should carry it, since it is available to all Americans over the Internet.  Better yet, check out The Political Cesspool, a white nationalist talk radio show that is broadcast on the Liberty News Radio Network .  Again, tell me that AFN should pick up this broadcast that is available in Memphis, Tennessee on Saturday evenings. Maybe the soldiers from Tennessee would like to hear the insightful racists rant on about their fellow black soldiers, huh?  And it is rather arbitrary of you to decide that there is some sort of audience threshold (“listenership” as you called it) that triggers AFN broadcast of certain viewpoints. What’s the number? Ten listeners? Twenty? A million?

      Third, it is not “CENSORSHIP” to be selective in what broadcasts AFN chooses for its lineup. Just like you are not censoring Rush Limbaugh by not listening to him, are you? I ask you, could Limbaugh accuse you of censorship for not choosing to listen to him? Huh? Is our local right-wing radio station, KZRG, censoring liberal talkers, simply because they choose not to broadcast them? Huh? No one is calling for censoring Limbaugh. He will remain free to broadcast his hate even if AFN pulls the plug on him on its network, which, by the way, is taxpayer supported. You have always had a problem differentiating censorship and discretion.

      Fourth, you say AFN is not showing “support for any particular views” by broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. Would you say the same thing if they broadcast Aryanradio or The Political Cesspool?  Wouldn’t broadcasting them demonstrate that racism was a legitimate point of view for our taxpayer-supported soldiers on taxpayer-supported radio to hear? Huh?



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  March 9, 2012

    You can no way defend yourselve in this instance than fly to the moon Duane, at least with me. You are calling for the federal government to CENSOR a radio program, pure and simple. TAKE IT OFF THE AIR for hundreds of thousands of overseas Americans.

    Go ahead and list every irrational show, left of right, on the air in America. Most of them are small fringe groups and no more represent the views of a broad swath of Americans than does the KKK or any other “kooky” organization.

    But Limbaugh is a very popular show and listened to by millions all over America. I don’t choose to listen to his show but that is a CHOI
    CE for me, individually and NOT imposed on me by the federal government.

    EVERY member of the armed forces (unless they lied to get into such) can VOTE in America. Yet you call for the federal government to CENSOR views with which you disagree so they do not have the same opportunity of any other voting American to decide their politics for themselves as individual Americans.

    To me it reflects your misunderstanding and perhaps in some cases suspicions or even disdain for our men and women overseas. You may feel they are simply young and impressionable young men and women unable to evalutate the likes of Limbaugh.

    Well they are old enough to vote and DIE for all of us. And yet you feel you must “protect” them from the likes of Limbaugh.

    Why else would you call for such censorship other than to believe men and women in uniform could not make rational decisions on their own?

    Are you really worried that Limbaugh will cause a revolution in our armed forces or cause our men and women under arms to violate their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which includes free speech, because they are subjected to Limbaugh?

    Just how stupid or immature do you think those people are? Why do you feel they as thinking and serving Americans cannot decide their politics for themselves and still serve with absolute loyalty to ANY Commander in Chief as they, again, are sworn to do?

    God almight, “oh ye of little faith”.



    • I’m afraid I don’t have the patience any longer to disabuse you of your ignorance about censorship and what it means to choose what programs appear on a playlist for broadcast.

      But I do take offense at this, which you wrote:

      To me it reflects your misunderstanding and perhaps in some cases suspicions or even disdain for our men and women overseas.

      I have tolerated over the years your pride about what you think is your superior knowledge of the military and foreign policy, but you can take the above sentiment and stick it in your ass.



      • ansonburlingame

         /  March 9, 2012

        Then ANSWER this question posed above, you simple minded man.

        “Why do you feel they as thinking and serving Americans cannot decide their politics for themselves and still serve with absolute loyalty to ANY Commander in Chief as they, again, are sworn to do?”



        • I will not answer any of your goddamn questions, Anson. Your attempt to claim that I possess some kind of “disdain for our men and women overseas” just because I think the AFN should drop Limbaugh from its programming is itself Limbaugh-esque and I won’t entertain any more of your nonsense.



      • Having never served to protect that which you so freely want to censor how in the hell can you have a delusion so grand that you have “tolerated” over the years? And that since Anson’s getting the better of you in the arena of ideas you decide just not to “answer” any more of his “G**damn” questions?
        Man, I knew you were a tool, but this is beyond the previously unimaginable.
        Lanny Davis and other respectable liberals call your antics what they are: McCarthyism and about as un-American as you can get.
        But the ultimate irony is that for all your “holier than though” attitude you actually are dumb enough to call for censorship of free speech on a web site that owes its very existence to a newspaper!
        Yes Dwain, outside your own little world, you are seen for the small little mind that your are.
        And I “won’t entertain any more for your nonsense” on it.


    • Anson,

      It appears that Limbaugh is practicing his own version of censorship. Perhaps he forgot about the First Amendment and unfettered freedom, etc.

      Regarding the anonymous commenter, A Noisome Moose, I keep waiting for you to ask him this question:

      1) Do you huff industrial strength or over-the-counter cleaning solvents before commenting?


      • ansonburlingame

         /  March 10, 2012


        In reply to your first link, it only shows that the “slut” comment has been “taken down” from LImbaugh’s site. He can do so anytime he likes as it is HIS site. He made a huge mistake in those comments, appologized for them and on his own removed them from the “record”. That is not censorship when such actions are self imposed, in my view.

        Limbaugh should be ashamed of the manner in which he treated the law student and deserves public ridicule for doing so.

        As for comments on my own blog, you might check back and see what I said, later on.



  5. ansonburlingame

     /  March 9, 2012


    You and your readers really dislike, some may even hate, Fox News. You disparage those broadcasts all the time for sure while praising MSNBC because you agree with them, politically.

    Well when you and yours bann Limbaugh on AFN, will Fox News be your next target. Or then we changed administrations and someone in authority decides to ban MSNBC.

    I do not intend this as a strawman argument. And for sure you have not called for banning Fox News anywhere that I have found.

    But when censorship comes into play you open the door for all sorts of other forms of censorship, driven by opinions and ideas.held by various Americans, Limbaugh included.

    And you know as well as I do that is EXACTLY why we have protected Free speech by EVERYONE, with blood, treasure and passionate debate for well over two centuries.

    And you want to SQUELCH such speech for Limbaugh using the force of government.

    Again, I simply find it unbelievable. You went off the deep end here, Duane. And I don’t care how many links supporting your views you might come up with. I would write the same to everyone of such pundits, etc.



    • Anson,

      I have gratitude and respect for your military service. My father served aboard the USS Silverstein during Korea. His two older brothers fought in WWII. However, I don’t see where you have
      superior insight concerning issues involving international diplomacy. Referring to Duane as a “postal worker” and Jim as a naval “bureaucrat” in order to bolster what you consider your superior foreign affairs expertise is unnecessary. You are pulling rank where the situation is not applicable. Surely you understand that it is demeaning to both when making light of their respective careers. This makes you appear contemptuous, an impression which I doubt is your intent.

      And I hope you would disavow Caldwell’s reply to your comment: “Dwain is a coward in the first degree. Wheeler close behind. If were not for the internet and the Globe giving them exposure both would be pimples on a gnats ass that they truly are…When push comes to shove they resort to their roots: One a paper pushing Navy bureaucrat the other a letter pushing government bureaucrat. Both owe their existence from what they could suck from others, not from their own accomplishments.”

      That’s sick stuff, Anson.


      • How is it “sick” John? What one word is not true?


        • Geoff,

          I’m not a mental health professional. But here’s a link that has trained personnel that might be able to help:


          • No one’s perfect John, you of all people know that. But for DB to have the arrogance about the armed forces while never serving and the ignorance on free speech all under the banner of a newspaper is an embarrassment to the paper in part and to Joplin as a whole.


          • The “no one’s perfect” was in reply to your other lil link. As for replying to this one I see you have the left wing tactic down perfectly. Ignore the actual issue and question, just attack the messenger to re-direct. As much as I hate to disappoint I’m quite fine and the Corner is doing quite well thanks in part to Dear Leader and minions like DB here to keep the content ever growing.


      • John,

        I actually wasn’t aware of the latest names that Duane and I have been called until I read your comment because I normally ignore people whose comments consist mainly of ad hominem attack language. I find it curious how Caldwell, whose own military bona fides remain unclear, comes so easily to the dismissive conclusion that I am a “naval bureaucrat”? Has he had help in his speculations from someone who does have military experience? Hmm. I must note that his treatment of me, and of the EC for that matter, is similar to Limbaugh’s treatment of Miss Fluke, so he is in appropriate company.

        I want to thank you for defending me and Duane here, although I imagine that thoughtful people will not need help in the matter.


        • Jim,

          You’ve probably forgotten Caldwell’s military history, which was celebrated as Pattonesque by Anson as he urged him on “towards Berlin.” I couldn’t find a picture of him in the tank Anson described, so I’ll just have to re-post this one of him on his trusty stick pony, with guns a blazin’:


  6. ansonburlingame

     /  March 9, 2012

    To other readers, A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE

    Duane choose to close this debate by directing me to “shove it….”

    I offer a resolution to other readers instead. Some political speech should in fact be banned simply because there are laws against such speech, such as libel and incitement to riot.

    Duane is concerned about LImbaugh speech to our armed forces overseas (but not those residing in the U.S,, at least “yet”) because he is afraid “…which we are allowing to infect the brains of those who answer to…..”

    My interpretation of that statement by Duane is if he thinks Limbaugh will “infect the brains” of our men and women under arms overseas and thus cause them to do things contrary to their sworn oaths or not in the best interests of America, then take it to court. I say those are generally very good and healthy brains in those men and women that will not tolerate such “infection” and thus should decide for themselves what they listen to on the radio and how they legally act after hearing it..

    But we can resolve that argument. Take it to a court of law to determine if in fact LImbaugh has or potentially MIGHT “infect the brains” of our soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas. YEA or NAY, in accordance with the laws of the land which those men and women are sworn to defend.

    Is LImbaugh yelling “FIRE” in a crowd, where no fire exists? That is illegal and should be banned, even prosecuted. But it is a tough challenge to prove such in court, as it should be. Freedom of speech must be allowed absent strong and convincing evidence to the contrary, in accordance with Law..

    Find cases within the overseas armed forces where Limbaugh incitment to anything has caused a degradation in ‘good order and discipline” as a direct result of LImbaugh’s program. Then take it to court to prove your case.

    I would also submit, obviously, that Duane has never been there, done that, listening to America speak, in remote areas of the world or how any of that speech affects the lives and jobs performed by such men and women.



  7. RDG,

    Limbaugh will probably survive his three day — three day — orgy of vocalized debauchery aimed at a thirty year old female law student, but I believe he has finally been confronted with his “Have you no decency, Sir?” moment. There is no cover for his unconscionable
    behavior. None. I don’t know how anyone can watch the video montage of Limbaugh’s seventy one — seventy one — sleazy slurs against Ms. Fluke without feeling the urge to shower. At least Howard Stern, another sex-obsessed shock jock, has willing participants when playing “Butt Bongo.”

    I agree that public funds used to air “The Doctor of Democracy” via AFN are tax dollars ill-spent.

    As for Anson, he certainly keeps interesting company for a “moderate.”


    • Thanks for the link John. Now perhaps would you care to comment on the respected Lanny Davis and his pro free speech column vs the dwainbwain dwibble here calling for censorship? Or are you really going to try to say Dwain’s right and Lanny’s wrong?


    • First, like Jim, I appreciate the spirited defense of my beer-stained honor.

      Second, apparently Limbaugh can’t be distasteful enough for Anson and Geoff. I imagine if he sat there behind the Golden Calf microphone and called Obama a ni–er then they would still scream censorship if AFN pulled the plug on his sorry ass. Although Limbaugh would not use the N word that way, he uses its rhetorical equivalent, as far as I’m concerned.

      And although I refuse to follow your link to the Land of Stick Ponies and Noisome Mooses, I have had the past displeasure of reading some of Anson’s exchanges with Caldwell (about me) on Anson’s blog, aptly titled, “I’m Not You, Are You Sure?”

      Look, I’ve been informed that an increasingly angry Caldwell called me a “coward” and a “greedy, selfish little bastard” on Anson’s blog, without rebuttal from Mr. I’m Not Sure.

      All I can say to that is that Joplin is a small town and at some point I am sure that Captain Courageous will have an opportunity to say that to my face.



  8. @ All,

    The central conundrum in this topic continues to be the unknown programming-selection criteria used by the AFS. My searches have come up dry so far. If we can find the answer I only hope it contains the answer to the obvious corollary question of what person or persons pass judgement on the selections.

    As a matter of interest I did find a cogent and thoughtful post on the matter, one that clearly shares the EC’s well-founded concerns:


    • Jim,

      That was a thoughtful post and one that is not subject to attacks by commenters with military backgrounds who think people who were never in the military should basically bow to their obvious expertise.



  9. ansonburlingame

     /  March 10, 2012


    First thanks for your own civility. We will disgree on the central element of this issue, censorship in my view, but it can be debated, civily, in my view. My only uncivil remark above, in my view was the “simple man” retort after I was told to “shove it up….” That is a simple, school boy retort and Duane is usually better than that.

    Now for comments on my own blog from others. They may write what they wish and I never “push” or ask for views, from anyone. Subject to modest forms of restraint, laid out in terms of libel, vulgarity and one other (which I forget) I censor no one. Some I ignore but never censor. Duane choose to do otherwise and it started a furious and private debate a few months ago. Jim was involved as well. MOST, but all of it was behind “closed doors” in private emails.

    Same thing, in private is going on right now and again some but not all is “spilling over” into the blogs and comments thereto. In my view, subject to “new standards” (which Duane and others have mildly violated now, but that is OK with me) I say “Let’r Rip”. Duane seems to now choose to ignore which if fine as well. Others continue to “weigh in” which is fine with me also. I let them speak for themselves as you are doing as well.

    Now for my own background or experience as compared to others. Leave to be said that mine is different, very diffierent from anyone else in these blogs. Note I did NOT say mine was better, or superior, or more demanding, or intellectually better, I just say different. Such backgrounds lead to different ideas and modes of expressing those ideas. I do so differently sometimes than others, again not better or worse just different. Readers must decide, individually for themselves the merit of such positions.

    That is about all I care or need to say on that subject unless you have more questions.



  10. Limbaugh’s an insufferable bigot, but I’m dubious he should be removed from Armed Forces Radio. Would you favor removing any left wing talkers who attack the commander in chief Duane, including Former Chier Bush?

    If so, I suppose you’re being consistent.

    Again I don’t mind less Limbaugh.


    • Bruce,

      You say you are “dubious” about whether Limbaugh should be removed from AFN. Okay, a lot of people seem to feel the same way. But let me ask you something: Given what Limbaugh has said not just recently about the college girl, but also what he has said (as just one example) about President Obama–he desires the destruction of the country as “payback” for the mistreatment of blacks–I am curious as to what he could possibly say to get him removed?

      I ask all out there who don’t agree that Limbaugh should be removed from AFN, is there anything he could say to change your mind? What if he called President Obama a ni–er? Would that do it? And if so, then how is that different from what he has done to date?



      • If he ever does call the President the “N” word that shall be dealt with at that time. And it would be dealt with as it should be, through the market with sponsors, stations and the general public turning against, not some wannabe Putin calling for censorship.

        Putting up the hypothetical that in all probability will never happen is a routine tool of the left to bolster a losing argument but in this case more and more even on the left are calling this desire for censorship absurd, wrong and in the ultimate anti-American style of Joe McCarthy.

        In the mean time there is the first amendment and free speech in this country and as the true liberals have noted, censorship is wrong no matter what side is trying to impose it.
        And as for crying a river of Fluke. Please get some info besides MSNBC and the Daily Kos.

        She is anything but an innocent college student. Her history is that of an left wing activist, her “testimony” wasn’t even to a legitimate Congressional hearing but instead before her Democrat puppet masters and her dollar amount cost figures aren’t even correct.

        Pelosi and crew had to do something as their Dear Leader had stepped in it up to his eyeballs when he arbitrarily decided to trash another clause in the first amendment.

        Here’s a question from the other side of the aisle for all you supporting such actions herein:
        Which action is more Goebbel’s like: Promoting the false propaganda about Fluke or demanding censorship and silencing of opposing voices?
        And regarding the tank pic, you already have one D don’t you remember? (I saved it for historical record if you need it re-sent.)


  11. Again, I find El Rushbo difficult to listen to.

    That said, I’d be inclined to say AFR should subject him mostly to the market test. As long as a lot of their audience wants to listen to his Rants, AFR should make it possible for them to do so. Ultimately, I think if his behavior goes enough beyond the pale, people will stop listening. When that happens AFR doesn’t need to guarnatee hime a seat.

    I don’t think we’re there, YET, given his erratic behavior, that could change.

    Bottom line: he belongs on AFR for now. The fact that I find him objectionable is no reason to remove access to him by those who feel differently.


  12. I used to enjoy listening to Rush, but I’ve always thought of myself as kind of moderate to moderately conservative.

    I think he really started to lose me one day when he lauched into an attack on moderation.

    His thesis: if your moderate your a weak minded follower.

    I always thought not towing an ideological line to the nth degree suggested just the opposite. You consider individual issues and reach your own position.

    I think this is when I started lose respect for him.


  13. ansonburlingame

     /  March 12, 2012

    What would Limbaugh have to say? Easy.

    something legally proven to be libel or a legally proven incitement to riot.

    “Obama is a ….. and “I” have had enough. I call on all good Americans to meet me at …. armed with hand guns and rifles. If any federal or state officers try to stop you I call on you to shoot them.

    Once we gather we will then raid ever federal office we can find with the intent to kill and burn with no restraint”.

    I frankly am not even sure if the last one is legally incitment to riot. But it was the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment.



  14. Mark Isaacs

     /  December 8, 2012

    The content played on AFN is chosen by the size of the audience throughout the US. It is not for you to choose what I am allowed to watch on TV. It is bad enough that instead of commercials I have to listen to public service announcements that talk to me like I am an idiot and a child. If we can survive the rantings of Rachael Maddow and the left on MSNBC which is also broadcast on AFN news, then it is only fair to balance that with opinion that you consider too far right. The fact is no service members inside the US watch AFN and most of our time overseas is occupied by work and other pursuits. Finally I will note that although Rush is posted to the schedule here in Korea I have yet to find out exactly how to listen to his program.


  15. Mark Isaacs

     /  December 8, 2012

    This is the programing policy straight from the AFN TV website.

    AFRTS acquires 90 percent of U.S. prime-time series based off TV ratings and periodic surveys. AFN Korea presents a representative sample of TV programs presented on stateside commercial, Public Broadcasting, and cable networks.

    It is not a policy decision it is my right to watch a sample of what you can watch at home. I volunteered to defend our country and you would limit my rights to hear free speech that is available to you.


  1. Tokyo Rush*? | Whatever Works
%d bloggers like this: