1. News & Issues
Tom Head

Not Kidding: Rush Limbaugh Supports Joseph Kony

By March 9, 2012

Follow me on:

You've probably been following the Rush Limbaugh misogyny scandal, and you've probably also seen at least a link to the viral video calling for the capture of Ugandan terrorist and child-killer Joseph Kony. But did you know these two stories are connected?

Limbaugh is Kony's most vocal supporter in the United States, describing Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) as "Christian, fighting Muslims in Sudan" and has accused Obama of complicity in anti-Christian genocide for attempting to use U.S. forces in an effort to assist with Kony's capture.

This is the guy from whom none of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates want to distance themselves--and that's a problem for U.S. human rights policy.

Related: History of the Tea Party Movement

Comments

March 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm
(1) Cate says:

This statement is 100 percent incorrect: “This is the guy from whom none of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates want to distance themselves.” I am not sure what each Republican candidate thinks of Limbaugh, but Ron Paul has made his opinions clear. For example, during the recent “controversy” regarding Limbaugh’s statements about Sandra Fluke, Paul clearly pointed out that Limbaugh apologized only because he was losing advertisers. I’d be perplexed about why so many journalists purposely mis-categorize, mis-quote, and otherwise misunderstand Ron Paul, but the reason is clear: Republicans know that Ron Paul would legitimately beat the other candidates, and Democrats know that he’d beat Obama. (Thankfully, for the Democrats, the Republicans are fudging the primaries.) What’s disappointing is that a blog like this, which fairly explores the concept of civil liberties, isn’t embracing Ron Paul, simply because he’s goals and motivations are misunderstood by the mainstream media.

March 9, 2012 at 4:52 pm
(2) Tom Head says:

The second paragraph of Limbaugh’s own apology essentially admits that he’s making it only because he’s frightened of losing advertisers, so Ron Paul isn’t breaking new ground by saying so. And Paul actually expressed agreement with Limbaugh’s argument against Sandra Fluke.

I really, really wish Ron Paul was a good civil liberties candidate, but he’s not. He does represent a different kind of Republican candidate on civil liberties issues, but that’s mostly because his policy agenda skips over Bush’s neoconservatism and Reagan’s neo-evangelicalism and goes all the way back to Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.

This means he might be better on social issues and he might not, but eliminating the federal civil rights protections he proposes to eliminate would create considerable difficulty on a state-by-state level. I live in Mississippi; we’re not in great shape even with federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Supreme Court precedents, et. al., and I’d hate to think of where we’d be without them. Ron Paul would give me an unwelcome opportunity to find out.

At any rate: if Rep. Paul does clearly distance himself from Rush Limbaugh at some point, I would like to see that. So far, he’d be the first serious GOP contender to do so.

March 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm
(3) Cate says:

I am disheartened that there must always be this clear dividing line between “Democrats” and “Republicans” in this country, so much so that we only see the bad in the side with which we don’t agree. I am a liberal and registered Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama – wholeheartedly and happily. I stood behind his healthcare plan and voiced my opinion in letter, phone calls, and via online media. And during this time, I came to realize that Barack Obama is a liar. He had every opportunity to push through a real universal healthcare plan, and he didn’t. He blamed the failure on the Republicans in Congress. He had every opportunity to pass a public option with the current healthcare plan. He didn’t. And, as it turned out (and it was my first realization of his deception), he never intended to pass a public option (and talked any Congressperson out of pushing for it) because he had made a deal with the hospital lobby not to do it. This is all on record.

If you had told me a couple of years ago that I’d be a Ron Paul supporter now, I would have laughed at you. But my realization that Barack Obama is not what he seems led me to see all of his deceptions. I read your linked article “6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul.” As well-researched as your article appears, it simplifies many of Ron Paul’s opinions (and proposals) as well as reiterates common mainstream views (such as his supposed racism).

The bottom line for me, if the race were between Obama and Paul, is that our personal freedoms are being taken away. It’s funny to me that you’re accusing Paul of wanting to remove our right to privacy. What right to privacy? And our right to protest? Do you really believe we currently have the right to protest? Surely you’re aware of what happened at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. (continued)

March 9, 2012 at 8:45 pm
(4) Cate says:

(continued from above)

The reasoning behind giving power back to the states is because, clearly, very clearly, the federal government has become corrupt. All those programs we favor as Democrats have become corrupt – ruled by lobbyists and frequently headed by former high level businessmen in the very industries they’re often supposed to be regulating. The reason I support Ron Paul is because I believe we need a drastic change in our government, or else, honestly, I believe we are in a great deal of trouble as a country.

I honestly don’t believe or agree that Paul is in favor of taking away any rights. I believe he wants certain decisions to be made by states – because the federal government is using its powers to make decisions in corrupt ways that, frankly, are eroding our personal freedoms in frightening ways.

March 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm
(5) Tom Head says:

The growing power of the executive branch is troubling. Rep. Paul promises to shrink it, just as Sen. Obama promised to shrink it four years ago; Sen. Obama’s promise to do so was, of course, hollow. But the fact that Rep. Paul might choose to shrink it by not enforcing civil rights protections does not make him a better civil liberties candidate.

It is also important not to be naive about the origins of Rep. Paul’s state’s-rights platform. It is no coincidence that his campaign hearkens back to Goldwater; Goldwater was the last mainstream Republican presidential candidate to oppose the federal legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, as Rep. Paul also does (and on the same grounds). Whether or not he personally holds racist beliefs, his newsletters do demonstrate, at the very least, that the people with whom he has surrounded himself over the past several decades do.

And in any case, he seems to be just as afraid of Rush Limbaugh as Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich are—and he has every reason to be, because all four of them depend on Limbaugh’s listeners for support. Rep. Paul found his base with the Libertarian Party in the 1980s. His kind of conservatism isn’t well-represented in the post-Reagan, post-1994, post-Bush Republican Party, which is, among other things, very much about expanding executive power rather than restricting it (which is not to say that the Democratic Party isn’t).

March 10, 2012 at 5:15 pm
(6) Cate says:

I appreciate your comments, and also understand your concerns regarding Paul. I honestly don’t believe I’m being naive, but again, I was naive about Barack Obama. And as insinuated in your comments, anyone can say anything to get elected. To me, however, the other Republican candidates and Barack Obama are pretty much identical. I could not vote for Obama again just to avoid voting for them. I think he has made many dangerous (and calculated) decisions as president.

I also am far more concerned about the people surrounding Barack Obama than I am about some of the people who have worked for Paul in the past. Barack Obama has chosen former bankers and many other unscrupulous characters to work right beside him. Deliberately. As naive as it may have been on Paul’s part, I don’t think he was aware of the motives of those writing these newsletters in the past. And comparing the body of his work/decisions with Obama’s, I am more reassured that Paul is honest in what he is doing.

And back to the original topic, I don’t know if Paul is afraid of Limbaugh. Frankly, I think Limbaugh is a non-issue for Paul. I just don’t think he’s interested in playing these media games. This whole storm over Limbaugh is a waste of time and space. It has distracted people into thinking they have a real opinion about something important that is happening. Really, why should Paul waste his time having an opinion about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh only exists because the media allows him to exist.

March 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm
(7) elfred says:

Rush would never say that.

March 11, 2012 at 8:44 am
(8) Ian says:

Here is the article from Huffington Post to back it up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/limbaugh-defended-joseph-kony_n_1332477.html

People should start Googling and research instead of posting comments that would get checked by facts since posting misinformation and BS is not Freedom of Speech.

March 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm
(9) Rg9 says:

Why do liberals support “humanitarian” military action in places like Sudan, but oppose it when we have legitimate national interest like in Iraq (another humanitarian nightmare)? I think that was Limbaugh’s point – we’re on questionable ground to use our military for humanitarian-only combat.

March 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm
(10) Jason says:

I’ve heard that Invisible Children are funded by right-wing anti-gay christian groups, and Invisible Children inexplicably say “Kony MUST be stopped in 2012″ which makes no sense at all.

In the videos they say nobody is doing anything, when clearly the Obama Administration is actually doing something (which we know at the very least, because Rush Limbaugh complained about it).

Some say Kony 2012 is a right-wing attempt to make people believe Obama is letting African children suffer. There are a lot of distortions, lies and half-truths in their video.

April 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm
(11) bigbeach social network says:

You really make it seem really easy with your presentation however I to find this matter to be actually one thing which I feel I might by no means understand. It seems too complex and extremely extensive for me. I’m looking ahead for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
  1. About.com
  2. News & Issues
  3. Civil Liberties

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.