The Democrats’ Vicious Conspiracy to Destroy Rush Limbaugh

You may have heard about the so-called “grassroots movement” to force local advertisers to stop advertising on the Rush Limbaugh program, allegedly because of consumer opposition to Rush’s conservative views.

It turns out that this so-called Stop Rush campaign isn’t a grassroots campaign at all, but a carefully crafted conspiracy of a small group of radical leftwing activists to bully advertisers into dropping Rush’s program and muffle one of the most effective conservative voices in America in the lead-up to the 2014 midterms and silence him permanently before the 2016 presidential election.

There is now stunning proof that only a small group of radical Leftists connected with Media Matters are involved in the "Stop Rush" campaign - NOT masses of Americans. Radical leftwing advocacy group Media Matters' disgusting attempts to silence our viewpoints are nothing new - but now the dirty tactics of Media Matters have been revealed, and they are more deceptive than you can imagine.

We don’t use the term “conspiracy” lightly, and we here at CHQ generally lean toward skepticism when friends bring us tales of unseen forces manipulating major events. But in this case the evidence (links below) proves that only a few radicals at leftwing advocacy organization Media Matters are running and participating in this effort to intimidate both local radio stations that carry Rush, and local "Mom-and-Pop" businesses that advertise on his show.

They have used technology to create tweets from people who don't exist, to use abuse accounts on Facebook, and to intimidate small businesses who advertise on conservative shows. Media Matters is vicious, and dangerous to your freedom as few other domestic threats have been.

Imagine if you are a small business owner and you started receiving a steady flow of negative emails and saw tweets and Facebook postings about how horrible you are - and that you thought they were coming from customers. It would scare you to death! The fact is, this is happening to businesses across the country who advertise during Rush's show on their local stations. But the fact is also that these are phantom customers - they do not exist!

This is really a form of economic terrorism. And it is fraud and in some cases might very well be actionable in a court of law, (here's an example) so let us explain exactly how this was put in motion and how it works.

On September 23, 2014 the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s newest email spam, asking their recipients to sign a petition calling for sponsors to end their relationship with The Rush Limbaugh Show, is based on the two-year old Stop Rush political protest as its inspiration. After an investigation, The Rush Limbaugh Show has discovered a far darker story to Stop Rush, and is today releasing the hidden story of the people and motives behind the Stop Rush conspiracy.

The Stop Rush group claims to be made up of ordinary consumers unhappy with Rush Limbaugh’s comments. The group claims to be “grassroots,” just concerned consumers who won’t shop at businesses that advertise with Rush Limbaugh.

In truth, however, there are no potential customers here, just a small number of hardcore leftwing political activists founded by Angelo Carusone, EVP of Media Matters for America.

Only 10 Twitter users account for almost 70% of all StopRush tweets to advertisers, but their impact is amplified by illicit software.

In addition, almost every communication from a StopRush activist originates from outside the home state of the advertiser. Thus, these activists are not and never would have been customers; their only role is to harass small businesses in an attempt to interfere with their operations, as long as they are advertising with Rush.

How does this small group make themselves look so much bigger than they actually are?

Stop Rush has deployed custom automated tweeting software, in violation of Twitter’s rules, that lets their activists send tweets at a rate far faster than any unassisted person could do manually. They send barrages of thousands of messages through this software until advertisers are bullied and harassed into cancellation.

These activists have long operated in secret and anonymously. But now, The Rush Limbaugh Show has the results of an investigation that names the people tweeting, facebooking, and emailing small businesses with harassing and bullying messages over and over until they surrender. These names are surprising, and even include a professor at Kent State University using her official email account to badger advertisers.

Name: Matthew Mitchell Location: Altamonte Springs, FL ID: Captain Murdock/@CaptMurdock

Name: Nancy Padak Location: Kent State University ID: npadak@kent.edu, facebook.com/nancy.padak Fun Fact: Emails advertisers with harassment from her official Kent State email address. Gives businesses she has no relationship with 1 star ratings if they advertise on Rush. Friend of Cherie Richards

Name: Cherie Richards Location: Powell, Ohio ID: Kitty Fitzgerald/@KittyFitz50 kittyfitzgerald@gmail.com, facebook.com/cherier1 Fun Fact: Regularly changes online identity to hide anonymously, gives businesses she has no relationship with 1 star ratings if they advertise on Rush

Name: Lauren Reynolds Location: Los Angeles, CA ID: Lauren Reynolds/@chloesty, lonelydays46@gmail.com, facebook.com/lauren.reynolds.946179 Fun Fact: Gives businesses she has no relationship with 1 star ratings if they advertise on Rush

Name: Sarah Smyea Rivers Location: Whittier, CA ID: SueBryce/@eurekasue49 Fun Fact: Changes ID frequently with different numbers to remain anonymous

Name: Dennis William Rohner Location: Gainesville, FL ID: Shawtoo@Shawtoo has sent over 96,000 tweets

Name: Linda Kotsenburg Swanholm Location: Covina, CA ID: CMMorgan/@socallks, lswanholm@aol.com Fun Fact: Develops, administers, and distributes target lists indiscriminately, gives businesses she has no relationship with 1 star ratings if they advertise on Rush

Name: Carol Kernahan Wallin Location: Anaheim, CA ID: Uses @Flushfools and @hrhprincess, facebook.com/carol.kernahan.7, flushfools@gmail.com Fun Fact: Writes for DailyKos under both identities, long bullying/harassing pieces about political opponents.

You can do that by calling Kent State University and demanding that the University sever its relationship with Nancy Padak for breach of the Kent State Code of Conduct, specifically its provisions requiring university faculty and staff to “Practice personal and professional integrity, and to discourage all forms of dishonesty, deceit…” The Kent State University Code of Conduct may be found here and Kent State University President, Dr. Beverly Warren’s office phone is 330-672-2210.

You can let Matthew Mitchell of Altamonte Springs, FL; Jason Rey down in Georgia, Lauren Reynolds of Los Angeles, CA; Cherie Richards of Powell, Ohio; Sarah Smyea Rivers of Whittier, CA; Dennis William Rohner of Gainesville, FL; Linda Kotsenburg Swanholm of Covina, CA and Carol Kernahan Wallin of Anaheim, CA that you are on to the game and want it to stop, their contact information is list above.

Finally, and most importantly, you can patronize Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers and tell them that you are there because you heard about them on the Rush Limbaugh program.

Maybe so, but I'd LOVE the "discovery phase" of a lawsuit.

It would be worth it to find out how these leftists have been using Twitter, Facebook, etc. to inflate their numbers.

I'd wager that this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "news" and polls.

I forget, is it Facebook or Twitter that is made up of 30% "fake accounts"?

If ten people can inflate their numbers to over 100,000, imagine what the liberals have been doing with Soros cash.

I'd say it's WELL worth the money to turn over that rock and see what slimy things the left has been up to.

“This account has been suspended or banned.”
Serves you right for that comment. - Rockitz

Do you believe in censorship? Do you believe in censorship on Free Republic?

I believe "al baby" has a right to his opinion and if you disagree, challenge his comment.

Always remember that your Freedom of . . . the press extends to your right to create your own website (and try to draw traffic to it) but not to the ability to post on Free Republic (or any other site that you don’t own).
Jim Robinson owns this site, and because of his selection of moderators, FR maintains its conservative stance and is not overwhelmed by porno images (I once had occasion to point out one such to moderators, disrupting a thread I had started). Those moderators are, effectively, the editors of this site. and they - under Jim’s authority and direction - keep the site family-friendly and conservative. They edit the site for its target audience.
Having said that, I would agree that it usually is preferable to refute, rather than edit out, disagreeable opinions. But you have to make allowances, and sometimes “lightning” strikes quicker than you might think. And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal. So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.
And “Them,” and Jimmy Durante used to put it, “is the conditions that prevail."

You and I and anyone who gives a rip knows how many FB or Twitter tweets are fake, right now, for free. To establish this in a court of law using nominal rules of evidence, is or would be astronomically expensive. The only difference, really, is the degree of certainty we might have, but what if we were, as John McLaughlin said “Metaphysically certain” that HALF of them or 75% or even 100% of them were false? What would it get us?

“I’d say it’s WELL worth the money to turn over that rock and see what slimy things the left has been up to.”

With all due respect, the day you’re spending your own money...you can say that. When you are in a lawsuit, the other side can challenge the very fact that you are sitting in the very chair you are actually sitting in. And it will cost you about $2500-$3500 (using $350/hour attorneys) to prove it. Trust me.

Right, but I'm not Rush Limbaugh. That guy has probably half a billion dollars in the bank.

For HIM, it might be worth a couple of million to start digging.

Plus it would give him untold pleasure at naming every slug he comes across.

And I wager there are quite a few "big players" out there who wouldn't like to be outed.

Being that al baby's comment was found offending by Rockitz; and being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment (italicized above)?

You made this up out of thin air and then pontificated about how the "mods" acted unilaterally (how would you know that?). Pure BS. And then, what's worse is that you post it on Free Republic as fact that you were privy to.

Care to explain the psychology behind that?

And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal.

So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.

being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment?

I infer from your “false zot” comment that you know of a nefarious way in which, you presume, Rockitz simulated a zot. I confess to utter naiveté in that respect, you could be right.

Obviously I don’t know that, and if you read carefully you will see that I did not explicitly state that. I said a mod saw it - which, if indeed there was a zot, had to be true. I did not state that the mod just happened onto the post, and in the nature of things perhaps that is unlikely, tho possible.
The reality is that al baby made a posting which could not be rebutted without hijacking the thread, and even then wouldn’t necessarily come to a clean conclusion if the instigator didn’t want it to.
But the main point, surely, is that mods exist for good reason, and they are not an imposition on anyone’s First Amendment rights. When it comes to posting privileges on FR, Jim Robinson giveth and Jim Robinson can decide to taketh away.
Whether or not you or I, or al baby, contribute substantively to FReepathons.

And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal.
So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.
being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment?
I infer from your “false zot” comment that you know of a nefarious way in which, you presume, Rockitz simulated a zot. I confess to utter naiveté in that respect, you could be right.
You made this up out of thin air and then pontificated about how the "mods" acted unilaterally (how would you know that?). Pure BS. And then, what's worse is that you post it on Free Republic as fact that you were privy to.
Obviously I don’t know that, and if you read carefully you will see that I did not explicitly state that. I said a mod saw it - which, if indeed there was a zot, had to be true. I did not state that the mod just happened onto the post, and in the nature of things perhaps that is unlikely, tho possible.
The reality is that al baby made a posting which could not be rebutted without hijacking the thread, and even then wouldn’t necessarily come to a clean conclusion if the instigator didn’t want it to.
But the main point, surely, is that mods exist for good reason, and they are not an imposition on anyone’s First Amendment rights. When it comes to posting privileges on FR, Jim Robinson giveth and Jim Robinson can decide to taketh away.

Whether or not you or I, or al baby, contribute substantively to FReepathons.

What an unadulterated load of claptrap!

Is "blowhard" one word or two? I can't seem to remember.

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.