Posted on 01/29/2012 1:58:53 PM PST by Danae
Dear Conservative Talk Radio (and TV) Hosts:
SHAME ON YOU!!
We, your loyal listeners and watchers have been carrying water for all'yall for years now. We have made you rich, powerful, and put you where you are at, namely multimillionaires.
YOU HAVE LET US DOWN.
So much so we now have a man in the office of president that you FEAR to tell the truth about.
Those of us who have dedicated our unpaid time, dozens if not hundreds of hours, our personal reputations and personal information, have been patiently waiting for you to notice us and what we have accomplished.
WE KNOW YOU ARE READING WHAT WE HAVE FOUND.
WE KNOW YOU KNOW.
Why are you NOT talking about it? It is only a controversy GREATER than Watergate for heaven's sake! It is constitutional crisis which left untreated WILL result in the complete destruction of the document which created this Nation - because YOU are staying silent!
Where is your courage? We used to trust you to take up the issues which concerned US, but you have let us down on this. Completely let us down.
The only thing we out here in reality land can think of, is that you have been threatened. Either directly, or through your broadcasting bosses.
We can't think of any other potential reason, because we have researched it all so thoroughly, and proven that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President. Proven it over and over, and thoroughly researched the laws which support our claims! We have done all your work FOR you, and still you remain silent.
Inexplicably, you are protecting an usurper!!!! A man who has killed hundreds across the world with the powers he usurped! The wrongness of this is hard to put into words profound enough to accurately portray the horror of this realization.
FOR SHAME!!!!
What do you fear? Losing your jobs? Because we have your backs you know. We won't let that happen. Is it a physical threat against your families? We got your backs there as well, if you go public for darned sure no such threat could be carried out, and those who threatened you will be exposed and punished. Is it that you do not understand the evidence? Minor V. Happersett 1874 is NOT that hard to understand, it isn't even that long as SCOTUS cases go... Go read it. Is it because some lawyer working for your bosses have told you that it is a nothing issue??? Maybe you should stop and think about those lawyers motivations, maybe they have been threatened too.
Is it because you fear race riots as Obama supporters have threatened, or being painted as begin responsible for them?
Well, I am here to say, this isn't about race. Bobby Jindal is Indian by heritage, Marco Rubio is Cuban.... neither man is eligible for the same reason Obama is. Yet, because of Obama, certain establishment powers that be trial balloon their names for POTUS or Veep on a weekly if not daily basis!
Obviously, it isn't about race, or about party politics.
It is about the CONSTITUTION you silly people. Obama has made the constitution irrelevant with his presence in the White House. How can a man take an oath of office to something which says he cannot take that oath? Short answer is he cannot. What does that mean in a larger and simpler level? Obama is NOT bound by the Constitution - hence Obama Care, Tzars, Unconstitutional EPA powers, and laws signed giving away Habius Corpus and rights guaranteed to us and to the states. Do you honestly think that the FCC is really off your backs considering all the other unconstitutional baloney going on? Really? Really?! Or is the FCC the source of the threats?
We aren't asking you to come out publicly on OUR side. We are asking that you FAIRLY report on what is the single most important issue to occur in the last 200 years short of the Civil War. Report both sides! PLEASE!!! Just start reporting on it darn it! If we are wrong, prove it. If we are right, then DEAL with it as honest brokers of information!
We must fight for the constitution, and if you are truly conservatives, truly Americans who value this Nation and what created it - the Constitution... if you value your OWN freedoms guaranteed you by that very document as members of the press, then you MUST report on what appears to be a violent attack on the Constitution. That attack is embodied by Barack Obama.
REPORT ON IT. Its time to get off the fence. We know you are on it, we know you are paying attention. We know you are deliberately keeping mum on the subject.
We demand you finally find the courage of your convictions, and pay back some of the support we have given you over the years which have made you rich beyond belief, and powerful enough to change the disastrous path we have all been forced down.
Put up or shut up Conservative Talk Radio and TV hosts. Your hour of reckoning is at hand. We are listening and waiting, and we won't be waiting or listening much longer.
Either you are our voice or you have betrayed us.
Which is it?
“The people that vote for them don’t realize the hell hole for which they are voting.”
Isn’t that the truth!? Well said.
Your point? I could cut and paste the entire show from Tuesday last, which was a three hour Newt informercial (minus the Scott Walker interview top of the second hour).
But I have a life................
Inside cred mentioned on my FR page - but cred is not same as influence - not since March 2011 anyway.
This is not an issue that will get traction in this arena except maybe through this Georgia case. That could be interesting.
I support this. The document Obama released back in April was forged.
My point was in that post and the transcript from Rush’s “Bloody Thursday” show, where he gutted Newt, in a hail Mary, to save Romney in the debate and in Florida.
It seems that the transcript from "Bloody Thursday" in post 78 is accepted as just what it was, a gutting of Newt before the debate.
Which part of what Rush says has you so incensed? Is it the part where NEWT says he was a Rockefeller supporter??
Rush did NOT enforse Romney in the primary. If you keep saying that, you obviously don't know Rush.
Rush endorsed Mitt in 2008, and supports him this time.
This absurd attack on Newt as anti-Reagan has been discredited, Rush knew that when he was doing it, anyone who remembered the 1980s and 1990s knew it.
I am assuming that you are a Newt Gingrich supporter, correct?
Not really... Over Mitt, for sure... But, at this point, I have not completely decided between Newt and Santorum.
I don't vote until late May. So, I have time.
There are few things that come up on this board that I feel as qualified to talk about more than Rush Limbaugh. I've been listening to him, almost daily, since 1989. You can say what you want, believe what you want... but, Rush has NOT endorsed Romney... this year, or ever. MAYBE... over McCain. But, even that, I HIGHLY doubt. He purposely avoids endorsements during primaries.
I've heard Rush say good and bad about ALL candidates this year... Rush REPEATS what's 'out there'... and talks about it. He repeated the attacks on Newt.. and, repeated the rebuttal to the attacks on Newt. That's what he does. Doesn't mean he's "for" one or another.
I have been listening to Rush since his third day nationally in 1988.
You don’t even know that he endorsed Romney in 2008 as the true conservative, the three legs of the stool, conservative.
I looked at your posts, you were really pushing that phony Abrams story and were enthusiastic about the dumping on Newt that day of Bloody Thursday.
‘’I think the one candidate of the three still out there on our side that matter... in saying who more closely embodies all three legs of this conservative stool, you’d have to say that it’s Mitt Romney. There’s actually no choice in the matter.’’
(Monday, Feb 4, 2008)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020408/content/01125109.guest.html.guest.html
“...national radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who endorsed Romney on Tuesday
[February 5, 2008]”
Newsmax - Feb 6, 2008
I guess, when people keep saying "Rush endorsed Mitt in 2008", they're talking about the above clip. I urge you to LISTEN to the link, not just read the words.
Rush is RELUCTANTLY saying Romney is the closest thing to being able to satisfy the three legs of the Republican Party.. among "the candidates that are left that matter"...
On that basis, I agree with him.. and, did then. But, Rush was NEVER a big Romney fan. Even in this clip, he's differentiating between the "Republicans" and "Conservatives".... because, it's clear... they aren't really the same. It was a crappy choice we had. And, this year... it ain't THAT much better.
Well... maybe, it is. For all the things about Newt that worry me, he is 1000X better than McCain. I could/would proudly vote for Newt if/when I make that decision. Voting for McCain was the least satisfying vote in my life.
I was.. really bothered by the Abrams story. I've since read the Lord story, and after that, the entire Newt special order speech.
While, it's not as bad as what the Abrams story tried to make it, I still don't like it. It reminds me of what I didn't always like about Newt: He is often just as aggressive attacking his own side as the other.
He's been a man-made global warming believer... he's been pushing goverment health care. He often THINKS he's just way-smarter than everyone else.. which, he probably is. But, sometimes.. his ideas are not.
I still like him, a lot. When he stays positive, he is capable of lifting people. When he goes negative (as he was this morning)... he drags EVERYONE down.
So... no, I'm not sold just yet. But, I need to see much more from Santorum before I'd vote for him.
I am a longer listener to Rush than you, I was listening the day Rush endorsed Romney.
I did not agree with Rush, he and you were wrong to choose Romney in 2008, and today, in a race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of you are wrong to be against Newt.
Rush was lying on Thursday when he dumped that false Abrams story on Newt just before the debate, the story that you were touting on freerepublic.
BTW>> that was Newsmax SAYING Rush "endorsed" Romney.. Rush didn't say that. And, in fact.. specifically said he was 'NOT endorsing' anyone...
Yes that is Newsmax reporting the Rush endorsement, I can see why you know so little about Rush, you don’t know how to listen to him, and hear what he is saying.
Unless you used to live in Sacramento, that is simply not possible.
I did not agree with Rush, he and you were wrong to choose Romney in 2008/
So... you supported McCain over Romney? Is that what you're telling me?
that false Abrams story
The Abram's story is not "false"... it IS mis-leading. Especially, with two of the quotes that are Newt quoting other people... but, they were people that Newt AGREED with... so, it's not really such a stretch.
If the race this year comes down to Newt and Mitt, I will have NO TROUBLE picking my candidate.. and, it won't be Mitt. But, we're not there.. just yet.
That is what I said, you don’t like Newt, especially since Romney became your favorite in 2008 as the race got down to three.
What a ridiculous analysis. The Monday debate, an awful display, had already turned the tide. And no, I do not buy “bloody Thursday” as you described it. And not sure what it had to do with Thursday’s debate anyway.
The Georgia case is the one I am referring to. Or more accurately Van Irion and Hatfield’s cases. They both cite Minor.
Out of curiosity, what happened in March?
Still, a nudge to the right person at the right time has been known to change an entire trajectory....
You led us to believe you have been listening to Rush since 1989.
Being in California and an independent, I didn’t vote in the primary, but I would never have voted for Romney, and I never will, meaning that anyone is better than Romney, not just Fred Thompson, but after him, McCain and Huckabee in 2008.
If you were trying to defend Romney in 2008, then you got an earful here at FR.
Abrams story was a hit piece delivered by Rush on bloody Thursday to bump off Newt. Rush knew he was lying on Thursday with that phony hit piece, and he mocked us while doing it.
RUSH: You know, every time I mention a blogger, it doesn’t matter what blog site I cite, other bloggers send me e-mails saying they’re phonies, they’re creeps. The hatred in the blogger community is funny. Sometimes I’m hesitant to mention bloggers ‘cause I don’t like getting e-mails, “That blogger, he’s a phony, he’s a thief, that was mine first, everybody steals.” But I’ve got a blog here, guy named Dan Riehl. He claims that the video of Newt bashing Reagan is bogus, this 1988 audio that we played of Newt saying that Reagan’s wrong.
Here’s the little blog post. “There’s a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run” his campaign, should not run as more Reagan, but do something new. Riehl writes, “As I suspected, it’s edited to give a false impression. What you don’t see is immediately after when Gingrich praises Reaganism and the Reagan platform. If you can’t watch it all, it begins at about 2:30 in to confirm it’s the same segment. It’s the minute or two afterward you also need to hear to understand that Newt wasn’t bashing Reagan at all. He was merely saying, Bush isn’t Reagan and the GOP needs something new to sell.”
So I knew something like this was gonna happen. It’s not really that it’s been doctored, but that it has been selectively chosen from. So I sent it up to Cookie ‘cause I can’t listen to it, I didn’t have the time to listen it. Cookie said, “Look, this thing is an hour long. I’m sure he praises Reagan at some point or another, but I wouldn’t say it’s doctored.” So my expert says it’s not doctored. The blogger says it’s been selectively edited or chosen. So I just wanted to get it out there. I think Cookie is protesting having to listen to an hour of Newt, basically, in order to find — (laughing) — what I asked her to find. He-he-he-he-he-he.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Cookie is defiant. She’s giving me a minute and a half after of the Newt bite and she’s insistent that nobody’s doctored this and nobody’s changed — and I’ve read the transcript, that’s true. Newt still says look, the eighties were great but we gotta look forward, people — people care about the future, da-da-da-da-da. He praises Reagan in the bite, which the first — the — the excerpted bite doesn’t include any of but it doesn’t change the fact that while praising Reaganism, he still says to George Bush, you — you’re wasting your time if you campaign on Reaganism. Nobody wants more of the past. We want to look forward, nothing changes about that. So the — the Cookster was right.
END TRANSCRIPT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.