Matt Barber Lies His Ass Off

Matt Barber Lies His Ass Off March 13, 2012

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel joins the chorus of dishonesty and misogyny aimed at Sandra Fluke, performing virtual fellatio on Rush Limbaugh and offering the standard tu quoque that is always thrown out by those with nothing else to say. Let’s count the stupidity and the lies one by one. First, a meaningless talking point:

Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.

Ah, the obligatory Saul Alinsky reference. Hey, Saul Alinsky once wrote that it was a good idea to criticize your political opponents and point out why they’re wrong — ZOMG! That’s exactly what liberals do! Every liberal has therefore been brainwashed by this man that few of them had ever heard of before some wingnut found his book at a garage sale. Such a compelling argument.

Lie #1:

As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.

Nope. Under the Obama policy being supported, Georgetown doesn’t have to do anything at all. It isn’t going to cost them one dime. The insurance company will have to provide an entirely separate policy covering contraception that isn’t part of Georgetown’s group policy at all. But at least he’s not repeating the lie Rush and others have told, that this has something to do with taxpayer money.

Lie #2:

Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”

Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

Oh yes, Rush didn’t call Fluke a slut, he just indirectly suggested that she was a slut. Except, of course, he did explicitly call her a slut. And a prostitute. Now, I have no use at all for Ed Schultz, who is a simpleminded blowhard and a mindless partisan. But let’s spell out the differences between what he said about Laura Ingraham and what Limbaugh said about Fluke:

1. Rush made it all about poor word choice, but that is false. The problem isn’t that he used a naughty word. Even if he hadn’t called her a slut specifically, he spent four days speculating about her sex life, fantasizing about how she was sleeping with multiple guys every day. And when called out about it after the first day, he doubled down and said that she should make a video for him if she’s going to keep having sex with all these guys. Now remember, he doesn’t have the first fucking clue what her sex life is like. Not a clue. He was savaging her with no knowledge whatsoever, for hours and days on end. Evne if he hadn’t used the word “slut” it would still be absolutely disgusting.

By comparison, Ed Schultz used that term one time, and in the context of politics rather than sex (“right wing slut”). He didn’t accuse Laura Ingraham of sleeping with 5 guys every day. He didn’t spend four days having lurid fantasies about her sex life. He didn’t demand that she make videos for him. Clearly not the same thing.

2. Rather than taking responsibility for it, he made excuses for it. He said it was because he is on the air “three hours a day, five days a week.” And he said the real problem was that Fluke was “discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress” (that was a lie, by the way; she didn’t say anything about her sex life). And that it was wrong that “American citizens should pay for these social activities” (another lie — the policy under discussion has nothing at all to do with taxpayer funding at all). It was just his “choice of words” but he “did not mean a personal attack” on her. And then he said that it was only wrong because he had “stooped to the level of Democrats.”

Now let’s compare that with Ed Schultz’ unequivocal apology. He said:

“On my radio show yesterday I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness.

It doesn’t matter what the circumstances were. It doesn’t matter that it was on radio and I was ad-libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today.

I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company.”

No equivocation. No attempt to explain his behavior or justify it. No “I was right on the issue but I made poor word choices” rationalizations. Just a blunt and undeniable admission that he was wrong, that what he did was vile and reprehensible and that he had embarrassed himself and his family by doing it.

3. Rush spent four days doing this, even after getting criticized for it. In fact, he got worse as he went along, not better. He only issued an apology after losing multiple advertisers.

Schultz, on the other hand, apologized the next day. He didn’t repeat it, he didn’t double down in the face of criticism, he didn’t lash out at those who had criticized him. And then he went on Laura Ingraham’s show and apologized face to face and she accepted it because he had been so unequivocal and firm in his apology and hadn’t made any excuses or rationalizations for it.

4. Schultz was immediately suspended for a week without pay by MSNBC, even though he hadn’t said it on their network at all (he said it on his radio show, which they have no control over).

Clear Channel has done nothing to Rush at all. No accountability, no punishment. And no matter how many advertisers pull out, Clear Channel still owes him on a $400 million contract, so he’s at no risk at all.

So no, those two situations are not at all the same. One is clearly, by any standard, far worse than the other.

Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).

See, that’s the funny thing about such accusations of double standards — they work both ways. If liberals are showing a double standard by supporting Bill Maher and Ed Schultz but slamming Rush, aren’t conservatives also showing a double standard by supporting Rush but slamming Bill Maher and Ed Schultz? Ooh, meta-hypocrisy, how post-modern.

Lie #3:

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Actually, Fluke didn’t say anything about her sex life. She didn’t “proudly and publicly boast” about anything, much less sex being “cheap and casual.” In fact, she spoke about a friend of hers who is married and had to stop using birth control because they couldn’t afford it and the insurance policy didn’t cover it. OMG! Married people use birth control? Yep. Almost all of them at one point or another. And she spoke of another student who has polycystic ovarian syndrome, which requires birth control pills to treat it, who was denied coverage despite the medical need because she couldn’t convince the insurance company that it wasn’t because she might have sex.

And she spoke of another women with endometriosis who had a similar problem getting the insurance company to cover birth control pills to help manage that condition. And she told the story of another woman who was raped, but the Georgetown insurance policy wouldn’t cover a morning after pill to prevent her from getting pregnant. Boy, that certainly sounds like Fluke was proudly boasting about all the sex she was having, doesn’t it? What a trolop!

So did none of these people bother to watch or read her testimony? Or are they just allergic to reality and prefer to destroy someone’s reputation in order to score political points? Take your pick.

Lie #4:

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility?

I guess I spoke too soon above. He IS going to repeat this lie that it has something to do with costing him money. In reality, of course, the opposite is true; preventing unintended pregnancies lowers health care costs for everyone.

Lie #5:

Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.

That’s all Rush was saying.

Of course it was! And the four days he spent luridly fantasizing about all the sex Fluke was allegedly having and demanding that she post videos of it online so he can masturbate to it? Those were just data points in favor of his entirely rational hypothesis. Funny, I seem to remember something in the Bible about bearing false witness. I also seem to remember stories about Jesus defending both a prostitute and a woman caught in adultery against men trying to bash them. But that’s the liberal hippie Jesus, not the manly, woman-hating Republican Jesus.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    You know, after all this time that this have been talked about, these clowns have to now know that Fluke wasn’t talking about her sex life at all. It has to be clear that they are deliberately lying.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.

    What a douche-nozzle. He attempts a smear by raising the issue of abortion. He fails to mention that availability and education of contraception would reduce the incidence of abortion.

  • keithb

    Good Post Ed!

    “woman caught in adultery against men trying to bash them”

    You did intend this pun, didn’t you?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Funny, I seem to remember something in the Bible about .. I also seem to remember stories about Jesus defending … a woman caught in adultery against men trying to bash them.

    Yes, you may remember the bit about “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 7:53-8:11), known as the Pericope adulterae

    The Pericope Adulterae or the Woman taken in Adultery is found in John 7:53-8:11 in most manuscripts of John’s Gospel but is almost certainly not original there. The pericope is missing from most early manuscripts of John and is in a non-Johannine style. Quite apart from the question of the original location of this passage there is the problem of its original form. The pericope is highly variable among NT manuscripts and is regarded by some form critics as a hybrid narrative…

  • Chiroptera

    Barber: Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility?

    Seeing how your insurance premiums are based on the costs the company has to lay out, and how your insurance plan almost certainly provides benefits for prenatal care and pregnancy and early child health care and whatever maternal complications may arise from the pregnancy, all of which are more expensive than providing simple contraception…

    …we are trying to keep a woman’s unintended pregnancy from becoming your financial responsibility.

  • Doug Little

    So Matt’s not getting any action anytime soon, these fuckwits keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

    that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior

    Why should I have to subsidize church property taxes with my own. I don’t agree with the tax free status of churches, I believe they are detrimental to society in general. Oh that’s right, because it’s the fucking law.

  • MikeMa

    The idea of bearing false witness as a ‘bad thing’ has completely fallen away. Every religious radio program I have ever listened to uses it as a feature. Almost all politicians do it. Some like Barber, Robertson and Donohue are professional liars for jesus. It is how they earn a living. I would have included Camping in the list but he may just be delusional for jesus. I am not sure as he seems to straddle the line.

  • dingojack

    Matt Barber Lies …”

    And? This is news?!?

    Dingo

  • Who Knows?

    And? This is news?!?

    No, but the enormity of the lie and the attempt to destroy an innocent woman’s life and character make it exceptional in this case.

  • Alverant

    Barber: Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility?

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Barber owns a car and he drives it around. So everyone in his state is paying taxes to maintain the roads he drives on along with the police and fire departments who are ready to help him if necessary. Why is his “right” to drive around the financial responsibility of everyone else?

    Same idea, but he’s the taker and not the “giver”.

  • MyPetSlug

    Can we more layers of hypocrisy on top of this too?

    1) Laura Ingraham is a public figure. That doesn’t make what Schultz said right, but Ingraham chooses a profession where she is in the public eye and takes harsh criticism on a daily basis, I’m sure. Fluke OTOH, is a private citizen.

    2) Republicans (of which Rush is the chief propagandist for) are always claiming they are the party of personal responsibility. They bash Obama for blaming Bush for the economy. During the mortgage crisis, they argued the government should do nothing because it was the poor and minorities’ fault for buying houses they couldn’t afford. They argue we shouldn’t have universal health coverage because if someone is uninsured and gets sick, that’s their own fault.

    But, when Rush makes dozens of disgusting comments over several days, he makes enormous efforts to avoid any responsibility. He apologizes only for inappropriate word choice. He doesn’t call her personally. He bashes Obama for personally calling her. He claims he wrong because he was acting like a Democrat. And then basically, every right wing hack, including “family” organizations, comes out of the woodwork to say he was right and the media has a double standard cause Ed Shultz once used the same word.

  • Having been raised Cath-O-Lick I do know that fucking anyone but your own wife (and that must be done with procreative intent, by both parties), whacking off, getting a blowjob or engaging in ANY sort of carnal pleasure that is NOT covered by the exremely narrow permissions of Rome is a mortal sin. I choose to think that such nonsense is just that, nonsense. I am not clear, however on how many other branches of the christian faith even believe in mortal sin. Feel free to weigh in.

  • D. C. Sessions

    the attempt to destroy an innocent woman’s life and character make it exceptional in this case.

    Nonsense. Trying to destroy an innocent woman’s life and character is so mundane that people rarely notice.

  • Another angle to this phony controversary: how come the wingnuts haven’t complained about male contraception? I’m referring to vasectomy’s–a de facto form of male contraception, since men can now have sex all they want w/o risk of impregnating their partners. Insurance companies do pay for some or all of the cost of these procedures, as my insurance company did for mine. Where’s the outrage?

    Strange that, don’t ya think, women who want to have control over their reproduction are considered sluts, but men who want the same? please move along…

    Pure defense of patriarchy and misogyny is all it is…

  • correction: I meant “controversy” of course

  • dingojack

    EricJ – or condoms. And who funded making them? The Vatican of course.

    Nope no conflict of interest there. Move along.

    Dingo

  • Timid Atheist

    What bothers me most about the constant lying in regard to Ms. Fluke’s testimony is that because people rely upon these reporters to get their information, every day people are now under the impression that Ms. Fluke was simply talking about her sex life, how much sex she has and how she needs taxpayers to pay for her to have sex. None of it’s true, but it’s so much easier for the average person to pass along this info then to actually bother to question what they’re being told by these lying reports.

    I was offended that Limbaugh decided to degenerate Ms. Fluke. But I was even more offended that he lied about everything she said and made up completely false statements about what she said. It’s mind boggling that so many who listen to Limbaugh don’t know what an absolute liar he is. And like him, if you try to show them that he’s lying, they double down and call it liberal bias.

    It’s enough to make anyone tear their hair out.

  • revolving pie-hole

    Wut? Does Barber imagine Schultz to be constructed like a Canadian character on South Park?

  • Under the Obama policy being supported, Georgetown doesn’t have to do anything at all. It isn’t going to cost them one dime.

    More importantly, even if it did it would not matter. A university is not a church. Persons of [insert faith here] are free to put their rules on themselves, not others. That this push to have “The right of employers and administrators, based on their own moral beliefs, to run the lives of their employees and students, effectively erasing those same rights of the employees and students”, with the aid of the State no less, be called “religious liberty” is irritatingly Orwellian.

    Clear Channel has done nothing to Rush at all. No accountability, no punishment. And no matter how many advertisers pull out, Clear Channel still owes him on a $400 million contract, so he’s at no risk at all.

    A contract that expensive must have some sort of clause for cause for release. If so, this means the CC has done the math, and found that the short-term damage to the bottom line is outweighed by the long-term profitability of decade after decade of afternoons filled with race-baiting and women bashing.

    So did none of these people bother to watch or read her testimony? Or are they just allergic to reality and prefer to destroy someone’s reputation in order to score political points? Take your pick.

    They don’t have to read The Satanic Verses to know that it’s bad…

    Timid Atheist “I was offended that Limbaugh decided to degenerate Ms. Fluke. But I was even more offended that he lied about everything she said and made up completely false statements about what she said. It’s mind boggling that so many who listen to Limbaugh don’t know what an absolute liar he is. And like him, if you try to show them that he’s lying, they double down and call it liberal bias.”

    Defending a superior member of the tribe demonstrates loyalty to the tribe. It doesn’t matter whether he’s right or wrong. What matters is that he is one of their own (alternately, since they seem to have built part of their worldview around a bizarre variant of the Genetic Fallacy; since liberals are by definition wrong and they disagree with Limbaugh, Limbaugh must be right, or something)

  • Michael Heath

    MikeMa writes:

    The idea of bearing false witness as a ‘bad thing’ has completely fallen away.

    Oh it’s far worse than that. To pander to conservative Christians you must prove your loyalty by repeatedly lying about their enemies. They’re not merely neutral about lying, to be a conservative Christian is to repeatedly lie which is now demanded of their leaders. Otherwise you’re not a true conservative or a real Christian. Where I see very few exceptions, in fact I can’t think of even one honest conservative Christian though there must be some out there.

    Lying about the black president is a way to earn bonus points, which is why I think the decreasingly evident Sarah Palin did her dishonest racist screed the other day on Fox News about the President wanting to take the U.S. back to its pre-Civil War days.

  • John Hinkle

    …“reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke.

    Love the scare quotes – you can just see him rolling his eyes as he says it. It’s like, who does this uppity woman think she is?

    And I’m sorry, but what exactly about Sandra Fluke makes her radical? Oh yeah, it’s because she dared speak of women’s needs. How unabashedly forward!

    What a tool. And I mean that in the most loving, Jesusy way.

  • Matt Barber Lies is a headline? Based on how often I’d seen the words together I thought Matt Barber Lies was his name.

  • Aquaria

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Barber owns a car and he drives it around. So everyone in his state is paying taxes to maintain the roads he drives on along with the police and fire departments who are ready to help him if necessary. Why is his “right” to drive around the financial responsibility of everyone else?

    More aptly, everyone is required to have auto insurance that covers his sorry ass, and his vehicle choices, and his maintenance choices.

    So I have to pay for people who drive sports cars, and people who speed, and people who get in accidents because they’re morons, or get in accidents because their cars aren’t maintained properly, whether or not I like it.

    We all do. That’s how insurance works.

  • Aquaria

    I’m referring to vasectomy’s–a de facto form of male contraception, since men can now have sex all they want w/o risk of impregnating their partners. Insurance companies do pay for some or all of the cost of these procedures, as my insurance company did for mine. Where’s the outrage?

    Ask us women about trying to get even a tubal ligation before you’re 30-40 years old. What I had to go through was an insulting, degrading process that still pisses me off. Let’s put it this way: Women can’t decide things like that without their husband’s input, even if she’s separated from the asshole.

    I finally had to tell my GYN that if he didn’t shut the fuck up about talking me out of it, I would sue the ever living shit out of him for being a sexist dickwad.

  • Aquaria

    when Rush makes dozens of disgusting comments over several days, he makes enormous efforts to avoid any responsibility.

    But didn’t you know? Being a conservative means never being wrong, so you’re never responsible when something goes wrong.

  • harold

    If so, this means the CC has done the math

    Yes, Clear Channel, which is owned, somewhat hilariously, by Bain Capital, has done the math.

    However, I’m not sure which math.

    It could be that they just plain make money by putting Rush Limbaugh on the air.

    Alternately, they could want him on the air for propaganda reasons. Overall, Rush Limbaugh is intensely unpopular. It isn’t all that clear how large his audience actually is. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/rush-limbaugh-ratings_b_1320144.html Nor how much advertisers were paying when he had some. Most local stations that play the show receive it for free.

    However, those of us who don’t like him just don’t listen. Meanwhile, he riles up a dependable group of people who can be tapped for donations, will show up for low turnout mid-term elections, can be cheated quite easily, etc.

    And there’s always the possibility that the powers at Clear Channel/Bain Capital just want the show on the air because they love it so much themselves.

    The math could be that somebody is willing to pay to have Limbaugh on the air, even if the show technically doesn’t make money.

  • John Hinkle

    Aquaria, I’m sure a woman has to deal with more nonsense going through a tubal ligation than a man going through a vasectomy, but when I had a vasectomy back in the late ’90s, I had to put up with the third degree from the doctor. I was like, “how is this any of your fucking business? Of course I’ve thought this through, dumbshit, I’ve been thinking this through for years, so get on with it!”