Skip to comments.RUSH: 'QUITE TELLING' FOX DIDN'T WANT ME TO CRITICIZE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Posted on 07/03/2013 5:02:09 PM PDT by markomalley
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that it was "quite telling" that Fox News did not want him to talk at length about his opposition to comprehensive immigration reform during his appearance on Fox and Friends.
"Now I told the people at Fox that I wanted to talk about this today three or four times and they wouldn't do it," Limbaugh said on his show after his appearance. "They were not interested in bringing this subject up. I wanted to talk about this in relationship to the current state of the Republican party and they wouldn't do it."
Limbaugh said he "had to bring it up myself to whatever extent I did, and that by the way, is quite telling to me."
Limbaugh did indeed manage to get in some comments about immigration on the show, saying, "Republicans are sitting around twiddling their thumbs worried about immigration and whether the Hispanics like them or not and being skunked on issue after issue after issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The NAABP (National Association for the Advancement of Billionaire People) aka the nation’s plutocrats, are the driving force behind the push for amnesty. If GOP pols are this craven and corrupt, they deserve to be turfed en masse in 2014. Let Lincoln’s party cease to exist as practical political entity.
Right after the 2012 election Sean Hannity on FNC announced he had “evolved” on the issue and now supported comprehensive immigration reform. Haven’t watched or listened to him since.
FOX has several no go zones. During one of Glenn Beck’s last shows Frank Gaffney slapped FOX over their muslim influence and a couple of GOP bigwig muslims.
I don’t know if they’ve allowed him back since.
I don’t think it really matters. I’m sure King Zero and the DNC are already working on plans to steal the 2014 election anyway. I don’t think there’s anything the Repubs (or Americans) can do about it. The “news” media will cover for them (again).
Obozo “evolved”, so he says, on supporting sodomites. Sean “evolves” on supporting asylum for illegal aliens. He’s not in very good company.
What does the GOPe know that makes them so willing, even eager, to spit on the conservative base?
That’s the way ALL three, Rush Limbo, Hannity and FAUX news have been handling the Article II. Section 1. Clause V., totally muzzled cowardly by other pressures!!!
“I dont think it really matters. Im sure King Zero and the DNC are already working on plans to steal the 2014 election anyway. I dont think theres anything the Repubs (or Americans) can do about it. The news media will cover for them (again).”
With defeatist logic like this we would never have fought King George III, the Civil War or WWI and WWII.
All husbands would be henpecked.
Women would lie down and ‘take it’ when being raped.
Stand up and fight like a man.
And you lump Rush with Hanity. You are are a $#!t head just like when Savage ridicules Rush.
And you lump Rush with Hanity. You are are a $#!t head just like when Savage ridicules Rush.
Well, if you believe the electoral process is no longer valid, the only sensible thing is to prepare for war or flight.
Murdoch favors amnesty and increasing legal immigration. It is the reason Fox covers the subject the way it does. Hannity and O’Reilly are just flacks for Murdoch.
"Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I believe that's what our county is all about - a place of refuge for any and all.
I don’t like the way they are covering the Zimmermann trial. On Fox News tonight they showed snippets of testimony from a few people who took the stand but didn’t show how they were shot down by the defense.
So be a democrat and get it over with.
You are an idiot. You act like we let no one in this country. Go away so I don’t have to see your stupid posts.
Oh, I suppose it was a Socialist that wrote those words on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. You deny the American heritage which you claim to be defending. Instead, you’re against these immigrants because then you have to pay for them (a Socialist argument). Sounds like you’re the one that needs to join the Democratic Nation Socialist Party.
I guess there were exceptions as you point out. But generally immigration was free. Our efforts need to be focused on destroying the Socialist state.
You are pathetic garbage.
a place of refuge for any and all.
The world population is about 7 billion. Most of them from countries poorer than Mexico. So should we let them all in?
America's golden period, when the middle class grew; when prosperity was enjoyed by most; when it was respected throughout the world; when we built the interstate highway system and put a man on the moon, all happened in the post World War II immigration lull.
After the post 1965 immigration surge our shuttles blow up, our bridges collapse, the middle class shrank, and we are hated throughout the world.
Immigration worked in the 1920 to 1965 period because it was low, controlled, and focused on White Europeans. If we must have high immigration, and I do not believe we do, then at least make it as much like the indigenous population as possible (many Europeans, British, and beleaguered Afrikaners would love to come here).
However a country of over 300 million does not need immigration. How many congested highways must we slow-crawl along, how many over crowded schools must our children suffer, how many localities must suffer water shortages before we say enough!
True, we do need to stand up against the Dem election theft which is becoming too much of a foregone conclusion for them.
Voter ID is one way, but the way recounts are conducted is another. Doesn't anyone consider it strange that recount after recount is conducted until the Dem has more votes, then they stop recounting? If they counted all the votes the first time, how do they keep coming up with more votes (for both candidates, but almost always more for the Dem)? How do some precincts have more votes than registered voters, and how do they always go Democrat?
The "news" media won't cover any of this as they see their job is to protect and help Dems, not report the news and keep people informed. "Low info voter"? That's what Dems and the media want. We need to work to counteract that.
‘Port of Detroit’? What, did he fly in? :)
He spent 4 years in Saint Catherines Ontario before his intent to immigrate was accepted. He came from Europe on the SS Mount Temple which is now at the bottom of the Atlantic after the Germans sank her during WWI.
My sicilian side just say ‘we came over on the boat’, but they never actually describe the boat. I decided it must not have been a very nice boat so never pressed for details.
The Mount Temple had a very eventful run including running aground off Nova Scotia, responding to the Titanic SOS calls, and war service.
“Murdoch favors amnesty and increasing legal immigration. It is the reason Fox covers the subject the way it does.”
Murdoch is old. As soon as he assumes room temperature his children and professional management will make a hard left turn with his entire media empire. It is already drifting that way at an increasing speed even with the old man still around.
Big corporations support big government. Big corporations and big government support amnesty. We will have amnesty.
Excuse me, but freeing the slaved did exactly the same thing economically as does amnesty. Moreover, Lincoln made his name in Illinois doing eminent domain deals for barge companies and railroads. He was a definite corporate progressive, as was the Republican Party as a whole until the time of Coolidge. Conservatism as we see it is in fact an aberration in the history of the Republican Party.
Well, the GOP flunkie recently said he was not pushed to change his mind, contrary to the report that said he and Cavuto and someone else were pushed to... I didn’t believe him, and it really is beside the point- he is pushing the lie about border security first. There won’t be any, the Democrats won’t agree to it, so it is just a lie peddled by “conservatives.”
Thank you for confronting the defeatist attitude. I understand it; been there myself many times, especially during the BillClinton-TrentLott-OrinHatch era. But the paid posers are using it as a very effective psyops method to demoralize, and it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish between FRiend and foe. I REALLY, REALLY wish everyone would fully understand this and stop giving the trolls ammunition.
And we give citizenship to plenty of people every year who went about it the legal way.
We should never surrender to foreign criminal invaders
I meant to include you on the last reply. Sorry.
Btw, never forget your Texas roots. ;-)
The nation has had immigration and naturalization laws from the beginning.
Art I, Sect 8. US Constitution
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
The British were keeping pretty extensive immigration records when we were still a colony as well.
I already knew how "moderate" he was continuously catering to Rudy, Christie, McCain, even found time to have Al Sharpton, so I needed nothing more to tell me he wasn't anyone I needed to pay any attention to.
Fox is somewhere between CNN and MSNBC these days.
The good Lord does't give us spirits of defeat, He gives us all the skills we'll ever need but we are supposed to use those gifts and stand up for truth!
For whatever reason, the news segments on FOX seem anxious to push the Trayvon as victim, Zimmerman is a police wannabe who was just anxious to put away some minority because he could!
I, too, favor immigration reform; but only if it is done properly.
The Simpson-Mazzoli disaster of 1986 should be quite instructive: If immigration reform does not contain border enforcement as a key component--in fact, if that does not precede legalization--we will end up with little more than amnesty, unaccompanied by anything that might prevent a future invasion of the southwest (mostly, by low-skilled workers).
Charles Krauthammer, I believe, has this about right: We should measure outputs, rather than mere inputs, when determining if border enforcement is working. More border agents, more miles of fence, and other guarantees are all well and good; but the only serious metric is how well these new measures are working: Has the flow of illegals slowed to a mere trickle, or does it remain a river?
Until that is answered--and answered correctly--there should be no legalization...
It would probably be instructive to review the history of the Statue of Liberty. It was the brainchild of a Frenchman and reflected his idea of the obligation of the United States to the poor of the world. It never reflected the policy of the United States but unfortunately has helped foster the misguided idea that immigration policy should be primarily for the benefit of the people who want to come here rather than the benefit of the nation.
Real immigration reform to me is cutting off the benefits of violating our laws.
That is what we need.
No immigrant ever got, housing, medical, food stamps or food, in state tuition or government sponsored loan. Their family stayed back in the "old country" until they could provide for them themselves, not their neighbors through welfare.
When unemployment grew, no immigrants were allowed in.
I know these things as I am an amateur genealogist and study lots about Immigration, Ellis Island and naturalization.
I'm not prejudiced against legal immigration, when we need it but never when we don't. I also am totally against illegal immigration of any kind for any reason, the reason being I know far too many folks from Canada and other Western European countries who'd love to come here legally but are not permitted to by our Department of State, in favor of non-English speaking peoples from Third World countries with no skills!
Lastly, we need to assimilate those already here and put a hold on all immigration as we are not lacking for workers, regardless what corporations are telling us as they do have enough engineers, etc. they'd rather have someone from the Far East who will work for one-fifth of American wages.
I’ve always considered Bill O’Reilly the official Fox News Channel Ailes Murdoch etc. etc. spokesman with tough conservative rhetoric that transitions into the advocacy of Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon type RINO policies.
If we have amnesty, this country is finished. And along with it the GOP.
Same here for the very same reason. He kneejerked me to change the channel.
I say the reason Fox news is promoting Megyn Kelly to primetime is that either or both are happening. Either Greta wants out or Fox News is worried sick about One America News, Ben Swann, PJTV, and The Blaze and possibly Al Jazeera or RTV getting traction. Specifically, I say they are worried about One America News and The Blaze. The Rise of new outlets will take away viewers. So they are promoting Megyn to help beat the competition in primetime.
But the fact it is announced the week One America News debuts, a week after Ben Swann announces the creation of a news website and after The Blaze gets Laurie Dhue and is being added on outlets is reason for pause.
Even worse it came the day Rush made a odd appearance on Fox News; only to criticize the channel for not allowing him to talk about topics he wanted and thus it is another sign that they are scrambling to not lose viewers.
Because they know competition is coming and it is coming on strong ready to take out Fox News on the right. The Blaze, Jag Tv, One America News, Benn Swann’s Full Disclosure, PJTV and so on. Pajamas Media has some of the best shows online that are conservative. If they keep growing they could take away Fox News’ viewers.
Many of us have began following conservative websites, media and radio shows across the country and on the net. So now there is more resources than Fox News ever imagined when it began. And they are growing.