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

error: Content is protected !!