Why do people hate you?

Mr. Rahm told me to ask you "Why do people hate you?"

Then, some body mess ed with The One’s tele prom pter, and this came out instead:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me; Accorn and my lies got a whole lot of votes,” Obama joked. “A lot of it is what’s called politics, where once somebody with no experience gets elected and begins trying to destroy this country, the Patriots in this country  feel like they’ve got to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes. So you shouldn’t take it too seriously.  It’s my sorry ass that better take it seriously!“He went on.

“But people are worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now.  Remember that “stimulus package” that we sold to you dupes America? Remember how we said it would keep unemployment under 8%? Suckas!  They’re losing their health care [IF I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!] or they lost their homes to foreclosure and they’re feeling frustrated, and when you’re president of the United States, you’ve got to deal with all of it. You get some  ALL of the credit when things are going good if you are a liberal, but when things are going bad, you get some none of the blame.”

“But that’s all right,” Obama said, adding, “I’m a pretty tough guy. I organized communities.  I had a guy ghost write a book for me. So I’m qualified, right? Are you a tough guy? You look pretty tough. So you’ve just got to keep going on going, even when folks are criticizing you, when you know you’re doing it for other people. Other people like George Soros and Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro!  VIVA LA REVOLUTION!“

Jack Huberman has New York Times malice in his heart

The leading case in America governing libel against public person held that recovery for damages due to a libelous statement could be had only upon proof that the author acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

The reason that most public persons do not sue for libel is because the burden is so high: They have to prove the libelous statement was untrue, rather than the person making the statement proving that it was true.  Then they have to prove that the person knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Assuming that Rush can prove that he never uttered the statement (a dubious assumption–how do you prove a negative? Although it seems incredible that with millions of listeners nobody noticed the quote until 2005), Mr. Huberman’s body of work provides ample fodder for proving his malice.  Just look at some of his books.  “The Bush hater’s handbook…”; “The GOP hater’s handbook”; “The quotable atheist” as well as “101 persons who are screwing America.”

A person who has no known bias or animous towards another can just exclaim innocence: “I didn’t know the Wikiquote was bogus!”  It becomes much less believable when that person has shown such hatred towards conservatives and Republicans in numerous books.  I would say that the “reckless disregard to whether it was true or not” standard should easily be met if Huberman relied on Wikiquotes.  Nobody in their right mind would rely on that.  Anybody can go in and insert quotes, without attribution, as happened in this case.  Absent some other purported source, and assuming Limbaugh can prove that he never said it, I’d say Huberman better hire a good lawyer.

Jack Huberman COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE the quote that he attributed to Rush Limbaugh

I see this picture and think "Gotta be a registered sex offender!"

Here is a disclaimer that HuffingtonPost put before a post by Jack Huberman:  “An earlier version of this post contained quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which Limbaugh has since denied making. As is our policy when a fact in a blog post is called into question, we gave its author 24 hours to substantiate the quote. Since he has not been able to do so, the quotes have been deleted from the post. ”

For those who are unaware, Jack Huberman wrote the book “101 persons who are screwing America” and in it he quoted Rush Limbaugh as making the quote “You know who deserves a posthumous medal of honor? James Earl Ray.”  In the book, he did not cite to where he allegedly heard/found the quote, the cite was unattributed.  Well, evidently HuffPo has more journalistic integrity than either Mr. Huberman or the publisher of his book. He tried to cite that same quote (I’m guessing,  HuffPo took the quotation down) without substantiating the quote.  When HuffPo called him on it, he was unable to substantiate it. 

Can’t you just hear him muttering?  “Damn! It was in Wikiquotes when I wrote the damn book! Why did Wikiquotes delete it? Where’ “zedlappy” [scroll almost 1/2 way down the cite to "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat racist and other truths"] and “Cobra” [scroll down to the bottom of comment 5]  when I need them?”

Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when we make up quotes on Wikiquote to deceive.

UPDATE: Just noticed that “TheJawaReport” noticed this same story yesterday!  Hey, I’ll take second place to them any day. So did AConservativeEdge, among a handful of others. Good Job!