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 ...
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.
Hannity is a GOPe bootlicker and has been for ages.
I never liked Hannity, I gave it all kinds of chances.
One can’t honestly swear your great grandfather’s required oath upon a Koran. I wonder when we dropped it.
YOU support them!!!
If you don’t understand r/K selection, and how it molded our ideologies, you don’t understand politics. We are group-competitive. That Conservatives want to compete as a group against outgroups.
The Socialist, r-selected, bunnyman position is the whole aversion to group-competition which is the We are the world argument.
Either you see America as an entity, and stand beside your fellow Americans in the group competition of global economics, or you side with our enemies and out-groups, in which case you should openly accept you have no in-group, and most assuredly are not part of ours. We want our group healthy and successful.
Back in the day, when you had to produce in this country, or starve, we could have open doors, because only the strong and productive would come here. With today’s cradle to grave welfare state, we will be a magnet for the leeches, and that can no longer be, or we will cease to be a great power.
Either you want America strong and powerful, for Americans, or you might as well be a traitor or enemy to every American in this nation. Today, that means booting the illegals and law breakers, and definitely not giving them the power to elect our leaders.
Unless you want Democrats in power.
Join the in-group.
There was no welfare state in the 1920s either. People came here to become Americans, to enter the land of opportunity, not to get a free lunch, free school, free health care, and free housing. Illegal immigration is no longer about becoming American, it's about freeloading off the already overburdened taxpayer-slaves in this country.
Right but up to the 1920’s immigration was basically free, other than basic security concerns which of course are valid. It seems to me that the whole welcoming spirit of America among so-called conservatives has changed.
You realize that you've got that completely backwards. The fact that we have to pay for them itself is the result of socialism. The fact that we don't want to pay for them is based on the principle of the same type of rugged individualism that created what was once the greatest nation on earth.
It's bad enough that the productive among us has to carry the deadwood that makes up the base of the DemocRAT party - we don't need to be importing more welfare-sucking deadbeats.
Muzzled? I thought this was an article about Rush wanting to discuss the immigration issue and Fox sidestepping it? Rush has been on top of this since day one and hyper critical of the GOP for supporting it.
I don't know where you're getting your information from but you're way off base when it comes to Rush.......Maybe you ought to start listening to him instead of shooting from the hip.
Well, until the 1920's, America freely welcomed basically everybody with security also being valid and important concerns. But America was made for the benefit of the individual and the individual was always the core value over the collection of individuals. Now it's the other way around - the collectivist state where the individual is there for the benefit of the U.S. This is not what America was founded on.