Rush Limbaugh on Obama eligibility By Dr. Conspiracy on April 9, 2011 in Birthers, Media, Videos Limbaugh says “there is no evidence that he was not born in Hawaii” and describes birthers as children living in a fantasy. Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, YouTube
rush must have had a stroke! I cannot believe that HE of all people do believe he was born in Hawaii. I know that rush is not turning a “new leaf” when it come to the President. I guess he probably bought him a “hideaway” when he was there-& think the people there will be indebted to him-NOT!
My guess is that Limbaugh, despite having made birther jokes in the past, realizes just how dangerous birthers are to the Republican party. Of course, now that the de-facto leader of modern-day conservativism has spoken on the issue maybe we’ll see the Republican party at all levels follow suit, and put the birther movement in it’s place once and for all.
If anything is a “tell” that conservatives of power are getting really worried that they’ve lost control of their masses, this is.
Up until now, Rush has been playing “dog whistle” and “wink and nod” lip service to the birthers. Doing anything he can do to encourage scaring and angering his listeners into thinking Obama is “the other”, while being careful not to make actual “birther” claims himself.
He knows the birthers are all nuts and that all the birther stories are lies. If there was ANYTHING that Rush could get his hands on as a real weakness or problem with Obama to exploit, he would have put all his efforts into doing so and exploiting it.
All Rush can do is try to tar Obama with false suggestive slurs… trying to maintain that line of suggesting something without actually getting his “hands dirty” or being found culpable for his claims.
For him to come out now and try to openly “tamp down” birtherism shows that folks like him are starting to get real scared and realize that they’ve fed their followers so much BS for so long, that now they can’t control them anymore when they buy into this stuff.
He has realized that birtherism is more poison to the GOP than to Obama.
But how do you deprogram those you’ve worked years and years to brainwash into paranoid and gullible rubes? I have a feeling it is too late for Rush or any of the other Conservative Powers to control the monsters they’ve made. They’ve trained people to innoculate themselves from truth for so long, that I don’t think they can undo what they’ve wrought in time.
So to Rush and his ilk, I say: Bed made. Lay.
Another reason to be annoyed with birthers. Now I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh.
Or you could do what I do and tell yourself that Limbaugh is finally agreeing with you on something, since you’ve been an anti-birther longer than he’s been.
That is the mainstream view of most republicans. Most conservative talk show hosts don’t even discuss the issue.
It is time for rush to follow beck!
“That is the mainstream view of most republicans. Most conservative talk show hosts don’t even discuss the issue.”
Yea Bob – why is that? Why don’t those conservative talk show hosts just “He was born in the US, quit talking about it.”
WHY CAN’T OBAMA SIMPLY PRODUCE A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITHOUT HALF OF THE SPACES BLANKED OUT? THE STATE OF HAWAII ISSUED ONE WITH MANY SPACES BLANKED OUT, MAKING IT WORTHLESS. NEVER MIND THE ARGUING, LET’S SEE THE REAL CERTIFICATE. I THINK OBAMA CAN AFFORD THE FILING FEE.
Ah yes…when someone pops up spewing crazy talk IN ALL CAPS… surest sign that someone is off their meds…
It’s one of Trump’s investigators. Only the best and brightest.
and Karl Rove.
The real birth certificate was on public display at the Obama campaign HQ prior to the election. If you couldn’t be bothered to go down and see it yourself, than that’s your problem.
this could be the main point here.
the tea party/birther movement could be the sand in the machine for a republican win in 2012. the more moderate conservatives are just not interested in the birther movement and are more interested in a viable candidate that could take the white house.
as an outsider, i believe (and hope) there will be more conservative candidates distancing themselves form the windowlickers.
just out of curiosity, why isn´t the GOP pushing ron paul? been watching him a while now, and i reckon they could take the next election easily with him as a candidate backed strongly by the party.
You’re kidding, surely? Ron Paul likes to portray himself as some kind of steely-eyed Constitutional defender, but he’s really a hypocritical crank with some very dubious ideas and associations. He’d be crushed in a general election.
damn! you mean he´s really a politician?
Afraid so… Except I think he’s worse than the rest; he pretends to some kind of special higher calling that makes him better than the rest. About the only good thing I can say about him is that he’s generally very supportive of co-ops.
see your point.
as far as my POV is concerned with him being a viable candidate, he seems to have the conservative standpoint that the grass rots GOP voters would find appealing and doesn´t follow the birther crap, which would attract the more moderate republicans.
i wouldn´t be voting for him (not my country 🙂 ), but observing from outside i could see him gaining a foothold.
Because Ron Paul would be a sure-fire loser if he got the nomination (and that’s a big if).
First of all, he’s too old. He’s 75 and if he were got the nomination in ’12, he’d be the oldest candidate for the Presidency in history. People who had concerns about McCain in the last election because of his age will have those same concerns about Paul.
Second, he’s run for the Presidency twice and come up short every time. He didn’t come close to winning back in ’88, and he didn’t win one primary in ’08. It’s unlikely that he’d be able to win any primaries now.
Third, Republicans don’t care for his anti-war stance and Democrats don’t care for…well, any of his other policies. He’d have no one to vote for him.
The problem any GOP candidate has today is twofold (a) getting through the Primary and (b) then winning the election. Because what appeals to the GOP fanbase is abhorrent to the rest of the USA. So to get on the ballot at all you have to seem like you agree with the lunatic base while leaving yourself some wiggle room to seem reasonable in the Main election, with the knowledge that the person that appeals the most to the lunatics is on the ballot.
What a contradiction eh?
Well, I can see the charge of “crank”, as many of his Libertarian ideas sound nice but are completely unrealistic in our modern and global world. Extreme non-intervention – won’t happen. Return to the gold standard – sounds nice – but that ship has sailed. Etc, etc. etc.
However, I disagree with the characterization of Ron Paul as a hypocrite. I may not agree with many of his positions, but I have to say he’s been one of the most CONSISTENT politicians I’ve ever seen in his message and beliefs over the years.
He’s an idealist and I truly believe he’s sincere in his beliefs. I just don’t think they are practical nor realistic in most cases. His followers are mostly crazy and all over the map, but he’s about as consistent as can be.
Likewise, I frequently disagree with the positions that Dennis Kucinich takes (for similar reasons – although he comes from a much different end of the political spectrum), but I truly believe he is extremely consistent and sincere in his idealistic views as well.
The gold standard is nonsense, but that’s another issue.
Ron Paul supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, co-sponsored a school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. He’s also claimed that the writers of the Constitution wanted the US to be a Christian country; for a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution, this seems like hypocritical pandering. He’s a big earmark hound, he’s claimed to defend smaller government while promoting government intrusion in matters of personal morality like abortion and sexual orientation, he’s promoted a flag-burning amendment… and this is just the tip of the iceberg. His views are incoherent and frequently self-serving; if they get RP some conservative creds while preserving his standing amongst Libertarian Party members, he’s more than willing to sign on.
One does not simply request a long form birth certificate into mordor!
One simply does not succeed into Birferstan…….
Is the proper term for a group of birthers a ‘failure’?
Any of the following are classed as appropriate group nomenclature for Birfoons
A Lame (Cherry)
One of my favourite jokes ever:
Q: How do you get to Mordor?
A: By bus.
A: Because one does not simply walk into Mordor…
I distrust any politician who rails about earmarks – they (sometimes) serve useful purposes and they are a tiny fraction of the budget. One does not simply earmark their way into Mordor…
> Is the proper term for a group of birthers a failure’?
What do you call one birther? A fool.
What do you call three birthers? A Usurpathon.
What do you call fifty birthers? All of them.
How many birthers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: 50 (= all of them)
1 to declare the old light bulb ineligible (it is obviously black and not natural-built).
13 (12 jury plus 1 judge) to render a Citizen Grand Jury verdict against it.
2 to frog-march the old light bulb out of its socket.
3 to shout “where’s the light certificate?” during the Bulbathon.
1 to pull the undead ferret off the new light bulb.
30 (the rest of the birthers) to vote for the new light bulb and complain why it doesn’t jump into its socket by itself.
And none of them will ever understand that it’s a push-in/pull-out bulb instead of screw-type.
What about a birther demand to shut down the entire energy grid so they can change it, instead of merely unplugging their lamp?