Limbaugh Urges Riots in Denver
…and you should be urging Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (a Republican) to investigate. How is it that a GOP attack dog frontman can call for riots in the streets of Denver during the Democratic National Convention, and not be currently residing in a jail cell someplace? Because, apparently, IOKIYAR. Still, Inciting to Riot is a felony - and the Colorado AG should be all over this…
Here’s a situation that should be looked into by the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General of Colorado. On Wednesday, radical right wing pitchman Rush Limbaugh called for riots at the Democratic National Convention later this year in Denver:
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don’t elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday’s radio broadcast. He then went on to say that’s the best thing that could happen to the country…
…Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called “Operation Chaos,” the people on the far left would look bad.
“We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We’re the only one in charge of our affairs. We don’t farm out our defense if we elect Democrats … and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don’t elect Democrats. And that’s the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think,” Limbaugh said…
Inciting to riot is a felony in most states, and I’m sure that there are federal statutes that are also applicable. And let’s posit for a moment that, say, Air America host Rachel Maddow called for riots in Minneapolis at the Republican National Convention. Do you think Maddow would be in a lockup someplace this morning? Or at least would have received a very annoyed phone call from the Minnesota AG’s office?
Someone needs to tell me the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Moqtada al-Sadr (above and beyond the fact that al-Sadr is an ordained cleric, and Limbaugh is just an ordinary asswipe). And I want to know how Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. can continue getting away with inspiring their listeners to violence, yet are never called on it by either the Republican Party leadership or law enforcement authorities.
If you feel so moved, you can contact the Colorado Attorney General’s office and express your concerns. At a minimum, inciting to riot is a serious offense. When the call goes out from someone of Limbaugh’s stature, who has legions of loyal dittoheads hanging on his every word, it’s very, very likely that his “call to arms” could motivate some right wing crackpots to action.
Update: The more I think about this, the more incensed I’m becoming. I really do think this calls for a blogswarm to, at a minimum, hold Limbaugh’s feet to the fire, and get some high profile Republicans (such as Colorado AG Suthers) on record as denouncing his call to arms. What Limbaugh and his ilk are doing is well beyond the boundaries of protected free speech. It’s way past time for this stuff to stop.
Others commenting at this hour: Shake’s Sis, Booman, C&L, Suburban Guerrilla, Brilliant at Breakfast
Update 2: From Booman, StevenD, and Brendan - Limbaugh’s rhetoric certainly does rise to the level of inciting to riot, by both Colorado and Federal statutes.
Inciting riots and possession of narcotics are not crimes for Repubs.
Crossposted at Booman,
inciting a riot is a federal offense:
And yes, I made the call.
nothing’s going to happen to rush limbaugh, people. concentrate your energies somewhere, please. don’t be so naive.
The point is, Mr. / Ms. Tired, that something needs to happen. As Jill said (to paraphrase), “this is where IOKIYAR needs to end”.
It’s not “naive” to expect that at a minimum, the Co. Attorney General should be investigating.
sorry guys. we still have free speech in this country.
The right to “free speech” does not confer the right to incite violence. You can look it up.
Sorry, but this is not incitement, there is no clear immediate potential violence. Try Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/315/case.html) as an example. That you don’t like Limbaugh (neither do I) and goals (neither do I) are irrelevant: free speech is critical important when we don’t like the speaker/speech.
How is this incitement? He’s actually saying that riots will make the democrats look bad, which is the best thing that can happen to the country. In effect, he’s warning the rioters that they are going to make their party look bad (which he thinks is good).
You need to simmer down.
Matt S., Tired and Kris B:
from the blockquote above:
Once he gets into “his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens” you’re getting out of free speech as per the law, which I cited above:
By telling his listeners they “have a responsibility to make sure it happens” Mr. Limbaugh is encouraging a riot, aka inciting a riot.
I am so livid I can barely type. I posted a link last night to 7 different blogs, the ones I know and read, and of those 7, only 3 have shown any outrage over this latest vile attempt of Rush Limbaugh to subvert the election processes. ONLY 3!!! Thanks to a commenter on Americablog I found your site and applaud your efforts to have this stopped or at the very least investigated.
I believe in Free Speech but using the word “dreaming” to call for civil disobedience is outrageous. And singing your words to the to the tune of WHITE Christmas is over the top.
Just wanted to stop in and say thanks.
I forgot to add this link to an article in the Denver Post this morning. Read the Limbaugh quotes, there is nothing misleading about what he said. He IS encouraging/inciting a riot. Personally, I don’t see why he is not regarded as an internal terrorist.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9050920
I forgot to add this link to the Denver Post. There is nothing misleading about Rush LImbaugh’s quotes, he is inciting or outright calling for riots to subvert a national election process.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9050920
If this posts twice, sorry. I think it ate the other post I sent.
Here’s the quote: “and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don’t elect Democrats. And that’s the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think,…” When he said “…that’s the best damn thing that can happen to this country…” he could just has easily have been referring to “…see to it we don’t elect Democrats…” as “…riots in Denver…” Furthermore, even assuming he meant riots he was discussing this within the context of far-left wing people rioting in Denver.
A first year law student could get this trown out of court in 10 seconds. Let it rest.
Come on now. He’s not calling for riots. He’s saying he thinks this protracted Democratic nomination will lead to riots and disruption and make it less likely the Democrats are elected. Obviously he would relish the thought. So would I. And I also relish the thought of similar events at the Republican convention. They’re all scumbags. They should all crash and burn.
Although Limbaugh knows this full well, everyone else seems to have forgotten a vital fact. A civic commission that investigated the Chicago riots determined that it was the police, not the protestors who were responsible for the violence. Time magazine published a 1968 article about this event titled “CHICAGO EXAMINED: ANATOMY OF A “POLICE RIOT.”
So, what is Limbaugh really suggesting? That the police use violence to put down protesters exercising their right to speak their opinions? Have we come this close to living in Zimbabwe?
Doug Wilder, Obama suporter & mayor Richmond, VA, has suggested, in TV comments, there would be “trouble” at the Denver Convention, making 1968 look tame, if superdelegates overturned the will of elected delegates.
Feiner wasn’t arrested for the content of his speech, just the outcome of his words. Further, the case says that protection of unpopular speech is important and the police can’t be used to quiet dissent, but they can take action when the speech moves a crowd to riot. The case found no first amendment violation, and that the arrest was appropriate.
I do think freedom fo speech is important, but it’s not without its limits. I don’t think this has (yet) risen to an actionable offense. I hope it doesn’t.
I would like to know who Limbaughs sponsors are, though, so I can use my economic vote to voice my displeasure at their support of his thuggery.
Its a shame really, that most of you can’t get past your own hatred of rush to actually read what is clearly written.
Rush has not “incited a riot”.
He said that Al Franken has predicted them.
He said that they would be beneficial to both the Republicans and the Country.
He said that keeping a Democrat from being elected was the responsibility of his listeners.
Nothing there to say that he is calling for riots. On the other hand, on several points he is exactly right. If the superdelagetes overturn the popular vote…there should be riots. You should be pissed and you should do something about it.
I forgot to add this link to an article in the Denver Post this morning. Read the Limbaugh quotes, there is nothing misleading about what he said. He IS encouraging/inciting a riot. Personally, I don’t see why he is not regarded as an internal terrorist.
What a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance…
There’s no hope for you…
None.
Bubba, you’re a real, right wing peach, aren’t you?
I couldn’t get past your second sentence, after reading your first. Al FRANKEN???? That’s some great, southern reading / literacy comprehension you’re displaying there, bubba.
Of COURSE Limpballs is calling for riots - dreaming, hoping, praying, just like you - and you’re hoping that it’s a whole lot of black people causing the problems - because destroying the Democratic brand is the only thing that matters to you. You’re worse than Limpballs, At least he’s up front about it.
From the Colorado Revised Statutes:
18-9-102. Inciting riot.
(1) A person commits inciting riot if he:
(a) Incites or urges a group of five or more persons to engage in a current or impending riot; or
(b) Gives commands, instructions, or signals to a group of five or more persons in furtherance of a riot.
(2) A person may be convicted under section 18-2-101, 18-2-201, or 18-2-301 of attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to incite a riot only if he engages in the prohibited conduct with respect to a current or impending riot.
(3) Inciting riot is a class 1 misdemeanor, but, if injury to a person or damage to property results therefrom, it is a class 5 felony.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2bbc9/2f498/2f4d5/2f4e7?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0
You’re absolutely right. If Rush Limbaugh was inciting a riot in an American city, he should be prosecuted. If, on the other hand, the Attorney General and other expert prosecutors determine that Rush has committed no crime other than to taunt and outrage those who already hate him, then there should be no prosecution.
Any bets on what the real legal experts will do?
Kyle, Limbaugh said it was the responsibilities of his listeners to make sure the riot happens. Are you saying his listeners hate him?
Limbaugh KNOWS that he has “faithful” listeners that are of the radical, skinhead variety that would LOVE to knock some heads and kick some “liberal ass”, and he’s counting on them to “make his dreams come true”
He also knows there are enough of his “listeners” that will defend him on his lie that he’s not advocating anything… inf act, several of them showed up here.
Actually, Rush’s remarks should quell possible riots. His listeners know exactly what he meant, and are not the demographic that would riot in the first place. (Limbaugh’s point was that Liberals — Democrats — riot, not Conservatives.) There is little danger of overturned cars and firebombs from Rush Limbaugh’s Conservative audience.
Liberals (”Democrats”) are the ones most likely to riot, given past history. Would they fulfill the dream of Rush Limbaugh to show their displeasure if Obama does not get the nomination? Or would they deny their urges? Quite a dilemma for them.
Again, I’m willing to bet which way the legal experts who have to make the determination go on this question of prosecution.
Yes, because we can all trust the Bush appointed legal system to be fair with one of their own.
Anyone who believes that limbaugh’s audience would lift themselves out of their easy chairs and risk injury or arrest is deluded. His statements are clearly over-the-top rhetoric to amuse the intellectually lazy.
But, on this issue, i am with him. There need to be riots in denver to protest the democrats’ continuing support for our military occupations and the selling out the public in favor of corporate interests. The lack of riots tells of the level of delusion and the effectiveness of the massive propaganda campaign that saturates our culture. Progressives need to wake up and stop dreaming that these corporate sponsored figureheads represent anything other than their sponsors’ financial interest.
Limbaugh’s audience is reationary, Limbaugh is on record to ask his audience to support and cross over to the Democratic party. There are person’s who are filled with sincere core believes that Limbaugh know what he is doing. They don’t realize or accept that Limbaugh is a political fanatic, but are willing to impose what ever limgaugh says.
Limbaugh is operating in wide open sedition. That is against the Law. Of course so was the invasion of Iraq open violations of International and Constitutional laws. But, look who is runing the country Mr. Sedition himself, George Bush and his sedition Corporation in mass Media with embedded social chaos.
I love to see libs get up in arms over this! Operation Chaos is working! Understand this, it will not be Rush fans rioting in Denver; it will be moron far left extremist. Rest assured us conservatives will be far, far away from Denver watching the Democrat party implode on TV.