Posted on 01/03/2010 6:54:35 PM PST by Man50D
On Jan 4th, 2010 at 9am I have thousands of patriots that are demanding Beck answer why this matter is being banned from his show and Fox news entirely.
This is called Operation “FLOOD IT”
We will all call (888) 727-2325 and demand to know:
Why there are pending lawsuits in the courts and Fox news is not talking about them?
Why have the lawyers and plaintiffs never appeared ONCE on Fox News?
Why is Fox News protecting Obama with this issue?
Why did Fox News hide this story PRIOR to the 2008 election?
Why are the Fox viewers not being kept up to date on the pending lawsuits and questions regarding Obama’s ineligibility?
Why is the name Barry Soetoro never mentioned on Beck’s show?
Is it Murdoch or the Saudi Prince that banned this topic from Fox news?
Did they threaten all Fox news personalities that this issue is not to be mentioned on Fox news and OFF as well? This explains why the blackout has reached Hannity and Becks radio show.
What is everyone in a panic for? They all claim Obama is eligible, then this really is an open and shut case…right? or is it?
This is the issue that can throw Obama aka Barry Soetoro into jail. This is the issue that could implode the Democrat party, because many powerful people are possibly also involved in this massive cover up. Many Americans that voted for Obama, would feel betrayed and they will walk away from the Democrat party FOREVER.
This is the issue that could bring down the 1st African-American president and the left are protecting him with everything they got. Obama has betrayed the African American people, because he has allowed this black cloud to ruin a historic moment.
This is the issue that is most important and dangerous, that is the real reason why it is banned from the American MSM.
So, I am asking all of you to join us on Jan 4th, 2010 at 9am EST to call Glenn Beck and demand answers. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is a U.S. Constitution issue. The number is (888) 727-2325…
Completely agree with you. Furthermore, he didn't even mention the fact that Barry was born with foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father.
Way to go "Beck-to-Heck-With-Constitutional-Requirements"
You’re right. He should have been. But he wasn’t and no one in a position of power has the guts to nullify his presidency now. It’s a sorry state of affairs, but no one in DC or the state capitals seems to care what We The People think anymore.
The "smoking gun" has been there in plain site.
Even IF we take the assumption that Barry was born in HI, he was born with foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father. Why doesn't Beck question that?
Or, does he really believe that the intent of the framers was to allow someone born with foreign citizenship to be NBC and thus POTUS and CinC eligible?
Your post is a great example of why some of us may think some of the posters here are, shall we say, on the edge.
Glenn Beck spent a half hour of his radio program mocking the “birthers” this morning. He completely misrepresented every facet of the issue.
Probably because it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
If you're going to question Obama's citizenship, at least have a good reason.
"Glenn Beck, Beck insults Americans, Glenn Beck radio show, Citizen Wells demands apology, Americans deserve apology, Open thread, January 4, 2009
This is an open thread for January 4, 2009. I am sitting here writing this listening to Glenn Beck on Fox preparing for a scathing article about Glenn Beck insulting concerned Americans, the same Americans who have faithfully listened to his shows and built up his audience.
... Why has Obama employed a legion of private and Govt. attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?"
“I do agree with most who think if they had the goods, they’d say it on the air and expose BO as fast at a .44 bullet. They don’t have it and they could get burned. Trust the horse on which we’re riding. Do your effort behind the scenes. Those three are counting on us to dig up the facts; even their crack staffs are likely still digging, too, but haven’t found the smoking gun.”
The “smoking gun” has been there in plain site.
Even IF we take the assumption that Barry was born in HI, he was born with foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father. Why doesn’t Beck question that?
Or, does he really believe that the intent of the framers was to allow someone born with foreign citizenship to be NBC and thus POTUS and CinC eligible?
GLENN HAD BETTER ADDRESS THIS ISSUE TOMORROW AND APOLOGIZE FOR BREAKING ONE OF HIS PRIMARY SLOGANS OR HE IS GOING TO LOSE HIS VIEWERS AND RATINGS BIG TIME.
Are you alleging that this isn't a big deal when talking about the President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
I stopped watching Glenn Becks shows, I think he is too wound up trying to elevate himself without offending the occupation forces.
He needs to listen to the people instead of the voices in his head.
You know, it's possible that they can be wrong on an issue.
Ignoring someone who was born under the jurisdiction and laws of a foreign country, who winds up in "charge" of the armed forces IS a big deal.
See my post #229.
This site was fantastic back in ‘97 when I arrived, I couldn’t get a thought in before someone beat me to it. “dittoes” and Me Too aren’t stuff I bother posting, but I sure spent a lot of time lurking.
Same atcha, preach!!! Thanks for the kind response. Let’s do the friendly disagree/agree/debate further in the future. You are why I am here.
Exactly. Question with boldness. Just who the hell is this marxist, muslim America-hating scumbag in the White House, Beck? We know he surrounds himself with commies, marxists and terrorists. It’s time to put this list on your blackboard and have your crew fill in the blanks. I’m not holding my breath.
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham’s divorce decree.
Where are they placing their bets? Litigation that may not amount to anything due to liberal judges and tied up in courts with no certain outcome (even if your points are dead on, which they are) OR OR OR place our chips on the table and win 2010 followed by 2012...could we do both? Perhaps, but it sucks a lot of energy to do both.
Reagan said trust but verify...I have verified as far as I can and if I don’t have faith in some institutions in addition to God, then I might as well have no hope. I have hope, and I will ride these horses a bit longer and have a bit more hope in them.
bump post 213
“The ghosters and birther **are** doing all of the above. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time”
I am not sure who you mean by ‘ghosters’ - I am not familiar with the term as used.
With the ‘Birthers’ - their lack of results thus far and the deeply flawed approaches and lack of sufficient research regarding obvious issues of venue, and standing, etc...shows that they are not yet able to walk and chew gum at the same time!
Perhaps it will eventually be possible - if they are able to argue rationally and channel their emotions into effective pursuits.
The lawyers in question seem to like grandstanding, posturing, and whining about their motions being dismissed. I have been in courtrooms many times, heard many judges and lawyers, expert witnesses and lay witnesses - their conduct does not entirely strike me as professional, lawyerly, or mature.
I believe some of them may do better, and in order to succeed, they will have to.
“Personally I am completely TICKED that Fox News has utterly ignored Obama’s natural born status”
Well consider that FOX is a major news network and so far nothing in the way of the arguments of the “birthers” as they have presented them - have been suitable for other than TMZ, or some such marginal programming.
FOX has enough problems already with the full on resentment of the alphabet networks’ blatant envy over having their ratings primacy usurped by Murdoch’s upstart organization, and the zer0bama-ites chastening them and saying that they are not real news and are part of the “right-wing noise machine”...
FOX would certainly (under the rule of what is a truly corrupt and power-crazed administration) be looking squarely into the teeth of Federally-requested and Federally-issued restraining orders of some form, enjoining them from mentioning the controversy, even referentially.
I also do not doubt for even a minute that zer0bama and his powerful cronies would try to extend and expand the reach of such an umbrella to such a degree that FOX would have a difficult time even mentioning zer0 or any in his administration by name.
To have tackled the whole thing in the manner you seem to suggest or expect, would have been to give “the enemy within” us something legally actionable, something they could have demanded and probably gotten a gag order tied around...and that would have been the height of foolishness.
Personally, you are in a distinct minority - even among American Conservatives.
The birther issue does not poll well across any demographic
“Ann Coulter called us CRANKS! “
Well, boo-hoo-hoo...so far, Ann Coulter has been correct, IMHO!
“This is a legitimate question!”
No - not yet it isn’t. It is a serious question posed about an issue of Constitutional and practical importance.
Asking it is legitimate.
Debating it is legitimate.
Charging into court without yet having enough evidence (when the burden is on the party making the charge) is not legitimate.
“Is Obama even eligible to be in the White House?”
Maybe yes, maybe no (I personally believe he is neither qualified, nor eligible) but unfortunately, the burden of providing proof is upon those who wish to challenge the issue via litigation.
I believe it would be far easier to take Congress (both House and Senate) back over at the ballot box this coming November, and work on these issues through that venue - where there is definitely the Constitutional authority AND the standing to pursue these matters to their end
“Then there is Rush. He **LIED LIED LIED** when he said he did not know who Phillip Berg and Larry Sinclair were.”
A baseless and ill-considered accusation against a fine gentleman who has done more positive things for Conservatism in America than you (or me).
You lend yourself no credence by attacking people who have proven themselves to be consistent, honest, well-focused, and unflinching in their advocacy of Conservative values.
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are both degree-carrying attorneys in good standing with their state bar associations, as well as card-carrying right-wing-nut Conservatives with solid credentials as researchers demonstrated in the books each has authored.
DO you seriously think neither one of them (as a lawyer) knows the difference between a good legal argument that can gain traction, and one that is half-cocked and standing on an ice-covered hill?
When one attacks credible, accomplished, admired people - people who are upstanding citizens (especially those who would otherwise be allies) for refusing to bow to such - it is not their positions nor their reputations which suffer, it is the attacker’s
“Think of it like a business. If a business cheats...”
No - let’s not go there - you are choosing an incomplete or nonfunctional analogy.
The coin those personalities deal in is upholding and advocating for shared principles of conservatism, and it is patently upon those which their bond of trust with the audience is built - built in fulfilling audience expectations of that “service”, and the service of providing well-vetted information.
Personally, FWIW, I do not consider O’Reilly as belonging in the company of the others. On good days he is sort of moderately conservative - bad days, just hit the mute button on everything he says. He has never met my standards for a big ‘C’ Conservative.
The ‘birther’ brouhaha is not (yet) well-vetted, and it shows in the lack of results.
Why should ANY of the mentioned personalities expend their hard-won coin on it - yet!? By calling them all liars, you are biting off more than you can chew, and the only brand being destroyed is *ahem* once again - not theirs.
“The **TRUTH** is that an honest man would be HONORED to promptly prove in every way that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to be president. OBAMA IS NOT DOING THAT! HE IS DOING THE OPPOSITE.”
The above is the one statement in your rant with which I fully agree.
“A lot of people are. I feel certain that was the plan of Alinsk[Y]ites to have exactly that effect. Their plan all along was to destroy the listener and customers’ trust in the conservative media as well as preserve a likely ineligible usurper in the White House. Gee! Two birds with one stone.”
Ludicrous, absurd, and bordering on paranoia. Too much emotional energy wasted on such thought patterns would be better productively spent elsewhere.
Zer0bama is in the process of destroying every bit of voter goodwill and political capital in his possession - remember what Napoleon once said: “When your enemy is destroying himself, do not interfere...”
I believe “bambi” is doing just that.
FReegards
A.A.C.
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.