Posted on 10/01/2007 8:14:51 PM PDT by radar101
Limbaugh’s already won this faux fight, folks.
Glenn Beck is helping with clean-up operation today
Same for Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, etc etc etc.
All thats happened is Media Matters has been outted the primary Clinton smear machine.
Thats a good thing, given its so early before the 08 election cycle.
I found it interesting Scarborough mentioned he reads Media Matters ‘daily’ this morning.
bttt!
My understanding is that the congressmen cannot be tried for slander for things that they say in the halls of Congress.
I do not believe that they are exempt from charges of TREASON however.
Also, if they were to appear on Rush’s program, as he has invited them to spew their venom in his face, they would NOT be safe from prosecution.
They are Stalinist cowards. Some animals are more equal than others.
He probably misses “Uncle Joe”.
Media Maddens gives him the day’s talking points. He wouldn’t want to have to vamp like the Iranian Nutjob did. Once they are off-script, they don’t know what to say.
“If free speech is valued at Clear Channel, you will not cave in.”
As a business, CC doesn’t give a darn about free speech. If Rush keeps bringing in the cash, he’ll stay. If not, he’ll go.
This is sorta true... Imus was actually bringing in some cash for his stations when he was canned and the various shock jocks that were canned were also bringing in revenue, but the respective station owners caved to special interests. I always worry when special interest groups get involved because everybody seems to cave. If they wait it out, the controversy created will pass.
You're right. You're right. You're right.
I don't know why some are compelled to try and muddy the water with "the right to debate things on the floor". It's not what Dingy Harry said, it's the letter to Clear Channel. Even if he doesn't send it now, he has already publish it and it is clearly an attempt to intimidate by elements of the Federal Government.
He should have left this up to Media Matters and MoveOn because they could have attacked Rush without being a First Amendment violation. This is a violation
bump
I agree that Rush will not be taken off. He has very powerful lawyers that will cut through these phonies and expose them for what they are. Plus these senators know that their being responsible for taking Rush off would create a whirlwind of hatred towards them that will not be to their benefit.
‘Media Maddens gives him the day’s talking points.’
Whats amazing is Scarborough basically admitted to this.
Worth a try. Worst thing that can happen is that it will bounce back.
Here is what I am sending to this weasel>ALL feel free to copy, edit and send it to your critters!!!
Mr. Senator: You and your colleagues in Congress is a laughing stock in the eyes of normal thinking people, do you really think that we are buying your propaganda from the Senate floor? Have you ever heard of an “Army Ranger” with the name of Jesse MacBeth, Senator? He and HE alone is what is called the “Phony Soldier, maybe it would be more fitting if you would be called a “Phony Senator”?
Here is the transcript from what YOUR enemy Rush Limbaugh said on his program, and it also clearly shows that you Mr. Senator is constantly smearing our brave men in uniform by your comment on the Senate floor together with other of your colleagues’ “treasonous” remark: “This war is lost”!
……………to illustrate something for you today, folks. I've done it before. I want to do it again. I call this the anatomy of a smear, and what this is is a great illustration of the liberals and the Democrat Party playbook for '08, which is underway now. The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There's no retraction; there's no apology; there's no, "Uh-oh, sorry." After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you'll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply "yeah, the phony soldiers."
VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY 1971: They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned off the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Jen-jiss Khan. Not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with a full awareness at all levels of command.
Lies! Senator Kerry was insulting and smearing members of the armed forces back in 1971, people he didn't even serve with and things that he didn't even see. Does the name Jesse MacBeth rise up again here in this discussion of phony soldiers? Here is John Kerry from December 4th, 2005.
KERRY 2005: [T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- uh, historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.
DURBIN: If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that's not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of our -- their -- own prisoners.
And of course it was Senator Durbin who issued, then, a lame apology after the firestorm that his comments caused. Let's go back shortly, not long ago, September the 10th, when General Petraeus appeared before the House committee. Before he had said a word, before he uttered one word -- and this is the day, of course, the MoveOn.org ad came out, calling him "General Betray Us." Here's Congressman Tom Lantos lecturing a four-star general in dress uniform sitting before him. LANTOS: The fact remains, gentlemen, that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say, "I don't buy it."
You guys know why this bothers me? I’m a mom with a kid in Iraq. Three weeks ago that kid was doctoring Marines hit by sniper fire, two with severed arteries. Does my kid support this war? No but he’s there doing his duty. Do I think Rush lambasted or called my kid phoney? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! This bulls*%&t is nothing more than politicians once again using the United States Military to score political field goals.
No way will Rush be pulled unless the Democrats get some kind of traction for the Fariness Doctrine out of this smear.
I called Dick Lugar’s office and pretty much stated what I’ve done here with demands that somebody in the party put a stop to the stench on the Senate Floor. I told the staffer not to bother with a form letter reply. I also said it was about time somebody got hold of primary source material and called a lie, a lie devised to ruin a private citizen’s life and career.
Doubt my voice was even heard.....
This got Hillary’s fingerprints all over it. Gotta shut him up as he interferes with her plans for the presidency. Remember they tried to “flush Rush” before when Bubba was in office. Billy boy fooled enough people to get re-elected but Hillary has a real problem because she is so unlikeable and her negatives keep climbing, ergo, time to try to “flush Rush” again.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009
I haven't heard the full broadcast (not a 24/7 member). Haven't yet found this discussed on Rush's website (maybe it's there now and I just overlooked it). Does anyone have any thoughts they'd like to share on this?
They (Media Matters) added back the omitted part of the transcript because they think it demonstrates Rush is covering up and that it proves Rush meant something bad with the "phony soldier" comment.
Personally, it appeared to me a continuation of the conversation and he returned back to the point. How dare he wait 90 seconds!
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Telling them to denounce Harry Reid & Dick Durbin lies and the Soros funded Media Matters!
And I only feel a little better, I'm still fuming from yesterday.
Can't wait to hear Rush today!
moveOn.org Political Action is a federal PAC. Note the different name. These two groups bleed over on each other. Just look at the moveone.org site and you will see that the site promotes both entities.
Many of these so-called "non-profits" feed off of each other in ways that's technically akin to money laundering. All you have to do is go to guidestar.org and look at some of the 990's these outfits file with the IRS. People give tax deductible charitable donations to a 501(c)(3) which in turn sends money to a 501(c)(4).
For example, the Tides Foundation, a tax deductible 501(c)(3)in year 2005 gave the moveon.org 501(c)(4) $65,102 for something called "To Support the MoveON-2005 Hurricane Katrina Fund". The Electronic Frontier Foundation, another 501(c)(c) gave the moveone.org non-profit $10,000 for the "Good Mail Project".
When I first started posting here on Free Rrepublic years ago about these so-called "charities" (that's the way the IRS looks at them) there were about 500,000 of them. Today, there are more than 1,500,000 of them and growing fast. There are nonprofits that are in business only to serve nonprofits!
The Anti-Defamation League is a non-profit, but it pays it's handler, Abe Foxman $400,000+ a year. How about Judicial Watch? they have raised $75+ million dollars over the years and paid their handlers handsomely. But a charity?
Or, I'm sure you have heard of Consumers Union who publishes Consumer Reports. They are a tax deductible 501(c)(3) CHARITY. They had $206 million in revenue in 2005 and had $258 million in total assets for that year. James Guest is shown on the IRS form 990 as President and CEO and that he spends 35 hours a week in that job. In 2005 he was paid $408,212 in direct compensation and $97,179 in benefits.
The original intent in this country to allow "charities" to be formed is so they could help people. Feed someone, clothe someone, give someone a hand up. And in return for that we would give these poor entities helping poor people a pass on paying taxes. We, the taxpayers, would help pay to keep them in "business". Well, the way things have turned out has gotten so far out-of-hand it's amazing! As I have posted over and over here on FR "many of these groups are in business to do nothing but push their own political agendas and/or enrich their handlers".
We need to reform the nonprofit laws in this country and we need to do it now!
Sorry for the rant but this subject has been my pet peeve for years. And I get really really mad when one of these groups that pay no taxes try to destroy a REAL tax paying business like the one Rush Limbaugh has while at the same time PRODUCING NOTHING of value.
You are right, in this case it is purely political and I'm outraged that these FAKE businesses can even exist in this country! If they want to COMPETE with Rush Limbaugh let them start a COMPETING business!
I called my GA Senator Saxby Chambliss yesterday demanding that Chambliss state the facts and support Rush. Chambliss was out of DC until today. I have read a few other posts commenting that their Seantors were also out of DC. When do these guys work???
I don’t bother calling Senator Isakson because he does whatever Chambliss tells him to do.
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.