Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Jackie’s Got it Right, How Obama is Changing the U.S.

April 26, 2009

Sorry, folks, for the lack of postings the last few days, and today is just a drive by as I am dealing with decisions on where to live, underpass or car, that sort of thing.

You know how I feel about Obama (no cutsie wutsie names today). One of the proofs is the aforementioned decision that I’m making, since his Stimulus Plan had no incentives for my typical employer: small business, single owner or electronic/technology-driven manufacturer–nope, nothing.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman has a great article that will take you through a number of points about how Obama is fundamentally changing our country, just as he promised and no one seemed to believe (when I wrote about it last year).

Obama’s New Foundation: Change In What We Believe
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Sunday, April 26, 2009

President Barack Obama will celebrate his first 100 days in office on April 29.  He has tackled big issues head-on and continued his campaign of well-delivered speeches and late night TV appearances. Delivering on his promise of getting a first dog for the first children, he has captivated the hearts of dog lovers, while evoking the hope and optimism that marked Camelot. 

What’s not to love?  Beautiful, smart wife with incredible arms seen tilling a White House garden in sweater and boots, photogenic children who want to go to their private school when it snows – (who could have – had they been in public school), a president, tall, handsome, cool and collected.

Obama, referred to as “a storybook”by then-Senator Joseph Biden, must realize that Americans like happy endings to their storybooks, especially in times of trouble.  Regardless of what some radio talk-show hosts might say, the culture of America wants individuals to succeed, especially if those individuals are personally appealing, as is Obama.  As one conservative friend told me over dinner, “but they just look so good.” 

The question is – what would be the price if the president were to succeed in getting what he wants?

In his op-ed “Yanks in Crisis,” (New York Times, April 23, 2009), David Brooks (more…)

Advertisements

Dealing with Crapweasels and other Worthless Beings

March 29, 2009

I found The Other McCain via RightWingNews.com and found that someone has finally gone to dirt with these supposed conservatives that made our last election about Democrats & Demon-crat-Lite, by hoisting, with the help of Indies (can somoen pleeeease tell me why Republicans allow “Independents” to vote in our frakking Primaries), John L McCain, the Left and MSM’s favorite RINO.

Robert Stacy McCain’s post details both the definition of a “Crapweasel”, crapweasel1

the “Ransom-Note Method”  and the Twelfth Commandment of Conservatism.

It’s a long piece, but worth the read, enjoy.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Thoughts on the ‘Ransom-Note Method’ and the Twelfth Commandment

Ed Driscoll says he doesn’t know whether it was me or Kathy Shaidle who coined the term “Ransom-Note Method” to describe the way the Left uses selective quotation to smear its targets.

It was me, but with a caveat: The Ransom-Note Method was actually first labeled such by another one of its victims, a friend of mine who hasn’t claimed credit for the coinage and whose name I therefore can’t reveal.

The term derives from the way the smear merchants typically assemble their smears by quoting a phrase here, two words there, and two sentences from something else, and then gluing it together with their own perjorative interpolations and a bit of guilt-by-association, much like a kidnapper cutting out words from a magazine to paste together a ransom note.

This was how Rush Limbaugh’s “I want him to fail” remark became such a scandalous thing. As Jeff Goldstein has pointed out, if you read Limbaugh’s remarks in context — I actually heard the whole monologue as Rush did it live on the radio — it is very clear the point he was making:

Obama is trying to implement a liberal agenda. I am not a liberal, and I think liberalism is bad for the country. Therefore, I hope Obama fails in his attempt to implement it.

The only thing really “controversial” in Rush’s monologue is the belief that liberalism is a bad thing, which is something (more…)

I Love Jonah Goldberg–Labor’s ‘card check’ tricks

March 24, 2009

Jonah Goldberg has it right and the most concise (if there can be any) explanation for the EFCA (Employees Free Choice Act) or Card (“Youse gonna sign that for da’ union, aintcha?”) Check in his article below. As I’ve warned, this is part of the complete steamrolling of Dear Leader’s plan to kill American business and industry. You add higher profit taxes, the cap & trade/carbon tax, the requirement that all jobs generated under the spendulus bill must be paid at union wage scale and then card check to ensure we pump up the unions membership (and thereby their coffers, automatically) where can a business in the US make a profit? This doesn’t even include Queen Nancy’s 12-15 new democrat voters/union workers when she passes the Immigration Amnesty Bill. So, you think unemployment is bad now, just wait until businesses close for one or more of the reasons above, then you’ll see the real destruction of the United States.

Just remember, HRO promised to “fundamentally change the country”. Well, he is and a majority of the American people voted him in and themselves out of their jobs to get “CHANGE”.

Proposed legislation could ‘shanghai’ workers into joining unions.
Jonah Goldberg
March 24, 2009
At the end of the 19th century, unsuspecting workers were “shanghaied” — a practice originated in that Chinese city — to work on British ships, which desperately needed the labor. All manner of tricks were used to hoodwink the poor souls into service at sea. According to one legend, press gangs, or “crimps,” would put a coin — “the king’s shilling” — in a man’s drink. If the mark drank the ale only to see the coin at the bottom of an empty glass, it was too late and he was a member of the Royal Navy.

The proposed Employee Free Choice Act, colloquially known as “card check,” might be better named “The Democrats’ Shilling Act.” It would radically revise the National Labor Relations Act, primarily by diluting the practice of requiring workers to vote for unionization via an election with a secret ballot, and by changing the rules by which a government official can force labor rules on employers — making the choice to unionize less free. Basically, under card check, labor can unionize a company’s employeesif 50% of the workers sign a card saying they want to unionize. The cards can be signed in the presence of others, including union organizers. [emphasis mine]

Indeed, the press gangs much prefer it that way.

There is a bloody spin war over whether card check abolishes the secret ballot or not. Pro-card-check forces insist that it doesn’t. Unfortunately, these voices include many mainstream reporters who consistently use the language preferred by Big Labor. They note that if 30% of the workers sign a card asking for an election, they can have one.

But this ignores the unions’ crimp tactics. For starters, the cards are written in ways that make “predatory lending” mortgages seem like paragons of full disclosure.

At the National Right to Work website, you can find an example of one of these cards. In big, bold letters on top, it says “Request for Employees Representation Election.” But after you fill out all the relevant info, then there’s the small print, authorizing the Teamsters to “represent me in all negotiations of wages, hours and working conditions.”

In other words, in many cases, workers (more…)

Obama Despair Syndrome, ODS2

March 5, 2009

Comrades, er…. No! I’m not ready to go there yet.  Umm, listen folks, I’ve had a hard time the last few days trying to isolate the idea I wanted to post about–I finally decided that I’d try to squash all the latest bull hockey together, so I’ll try.

During the Bush years the LEFT, especially the FarLEFT, suffered from BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome. The mere mention of his name, glimpse of his face or of him walking or the whisper of his voice, most specifically his wordings of speech, brought about foaming mouths, apoplectic jerking of limbs and complete spinning of heads until they popped off whereupon it would continue to spin like a top on the floor  it’s eyes bugged out with spittle and snot spraying outward infecting others nearby.

As we came to understand that HRO (His Royal Obamaness), The ONE, The Messiah, Dear Leader was not only going to win the Demon-crat nomination for President, but then the election itself, ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome,  [see fellow WP blogger’s take, altho I have already written about it in another world, linked below: Coming Soon… Obama Derangement Syndrome] set in and rabid Conservatives  began their own version of what had afflicted TheLEFT for eight years with similar disastrous results. They claim he’s not a TRUE born American, that he’s Muslim, that this & that, and waste so much time and effort trying to stop him from taking office or, even now, trying to have him impeached, etc. instead of working to make our representatives stand up to all the Path to Socialism bills, policies and executive orders.

I came to realize since I posted last that I am beginning to suffer from OSD2, Obama DESPAIR Syndrome. Everyday when opens his mouth to say things like, “there are no earmarks!” “The Markets downturn has nothing to do with what we’re doing!” etc. my stomach shrinks and turns over, my head starts to hurt and my will to live loses just another notch on my POM, Pragmatic Optimism Meter.

You cannot turn on anything, TV, Radio or Internet without being (more…)

Review: John Zielger’s Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected…

February 23, 2009

 For those that don’t know of John Ziegler’s work exposing the LEFT and Media’s absolute powering of His Royal Obamaness’ election, this review will explain all. I have been signed up with John’s updates since his first apperance on FOXNews just days after the election with interviews of O-voters, showing how uninformed or propagandized they were at the polls.

This documentary is a scathing report on how The ONE was foisted upon us by the MSM (Main Stream Media), and as Bernie Goldberg coins it, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” and Sean Hannity calls, “The death of Journalism in 2008”.

Big Hollywood is Andrew Breitbart’s Conservative voice for the minority in Hollywood, the Liberal Bastion of all that’s wrong with America. 

Please give the Review a Read and get pissed off once again.

Review: Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted  by John Nolte

Big Hollywood was given an exclusive first look at John Ziegler’s latest documentary covering the media coverage of the 2008 presidential election.

In journalistic terms it’s called a “tick-tock.” This is when the media crafts a news story that takes you behind the scenes of an event and breaks down, piece by linear piece, the individual acts which led up to that event. With “[1] Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted,” director [2] John Ziegler (”[3] Blocking the Path to 9/11“) turns the art of the tick-tock around and aims it, with damning effect, squarely at the news media.  The result is not a documentary, at least not for anyone who believes in truth, fairness or journalistic integrity – the result is a horror film.

If you expect Ziegler to build his case using easy targets like Keith Olbermann [5] aping David Strathairn playing Edward R. Murrow, think again. Olbermann’s a bit player in this cinematic indictment, a clown. The real conspirators run the gamut of every network (cable and otherwise), and most of the major print and online publications. Maybe it’s not a horror story, after all. Maybe it’s something closer to an Agatha Christie mystery where everyone’s the murderer.

The victim, of course, is American journalism. (more…)

“I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak”

February 21, 2009

Kathy Shaidle has taken a stand and I stand with her. We cannot continue to be “cowards”, as our fabulous new and first Black U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has accused, labeled and is correct in or on any terms any longer . We must stand for our rights of Free Speech and beliefs. Here’s her argument from RWN:

I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak

My enemies are belligerent Muslims — from now on I’m calling them “brown supremicists” — and the radical left. Both are unfortunately being enabled by our liberal elite Establishment.

It should go without saying, therefore, that I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak.

Because if they control the way I speak, they will win. And I plan to win. Competitiveness and success being foreign concepts to many liberals, I don’t expect them to comprehend that.

A note, therefore, to my enemies…

You believe in the existence of a strange creature called “group rights.” I do not accept the existence of said animal.

It follows that you also accept the notion of “group libel.” Obviously, I reject that notion also.

I refuse to accept the faddish notion that only certain groups are allowed to use certain “offensive” words when describing themselves.

I refuse to adopt the fad of writing “not all Muslims” whenever I speak about Islam.

During WW2, we spoke of “the Germans” and “the Japanese”.

No “not all” to be seen.

It was understood by normal, sane, patriotic and intelligent ordinary people that not every single solitary German was a Nazi. Even before we learned the story of Oskar Schindler and other “righteous gentiles,” U.S. citizens spoke of “good Germans” whose existence they were certain of. There were indeed angry Americans who beat up their German neighbors.

Interestingly, there was no similar backlash against Muslims after 9/11.

We knew there were “good Japanese” too — at least on our shores. Despite real (as opposed to imaginary persecution), Japanese Americans volunteered to serve their adopted country and became the most decorated unit, not just during WW2, but in the entire history of the US armed forces.

(Alas, a similar parallel does not exist in our current conflict for some reason.)

It was common knowledge that, yes, the Germans had invented all kinds of wonderful things and created lovely music and so forth, in a (real) glorious past (as opposed to the sometimes imaginary glorious past frequently cited by Muslim apologists.)

Likewise the Japanese.

However, at that particular moment in time, the Japanese were mutilating American G.I.s and running slave brothels, while the Germans were embarked on a mission to wipe out Europes Jews and other “undesirables.”

In response, Dr. Suess and Chuck Jones made some nasty cartoons, as every college kid knows.

(Oh, and we actually killed our enemies back in those days, instead of interrogating them in Laz-E-Boy chairs and feeding them 3000 calorie a day halal meals.)

But as far as your average leftist/Muslim apologist/Canadian MP is concerned, those cartoons of Dr. Suess are worse than the Rape of Nanking. (Something few university students learn about, because, hey, those cartoons are so much cooler to bash.)

I reject the twisted notion, now taken for granted by the Establishment, that, say, publishing mean cartoons is a worse crime than using rude words to described those who murdered priests, nuns and their fellow Muslims in the name of those cartoons.

I reject the twisted notion that calling looters “looters” is “racist.”

That wondering aloud why millions of people no longer seem willing or able to fend for or better themselves is “racist.”

That making factual observations about the world around me, based on the evidence of my senses and my lived experience, is “racist.”

I believe it is my right to reject these twisted notions.

Sadly, many of those people running my country disagree.

If rejecting the language of appeasement during this conflict makes me a “racist, white supremacist whatever-the-word-is-this-week”, I will wear those appellations and others with pride.

“Racist” is the new “commie.”

I will continue to express my views, not only about belligerent, disloyal Muslims, but about everything that constitutes a threat to national security, be it the welfare state, radical ecology, the division of society into various arbitrary “victim” “communities, or official multiculturalism, “tolerance” and “diversity”.

(I also support the right to any other person, left or right, to post annoying, rude, ill-informed, provocative writing on their blog. That they don’t often extend me the same courtesy is unfortunate but I’m powerless to do much about that.)

This stance has, and will, cost me dearly. However, to do anything less would violate my conscience.

Those who dislike what they read at this blog are free to make their first visit here their last.

Let’s see how long I am free to keep writing it.

(Crossposted from FiveFeetOfFury, where Kathy Shaidle has been blogging for nine years. Her new book is The Tyranny of Nice: how Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights — and why it matters to Americans.

Somewhere along the line, what HRO and the LEFT have to understand is that we may have lost the last battle, but we have not lost the war and we refuse to give up.  We still have our voice and we must use it. Being PC will not achieve anything, in fact, it is why we’re where we’re at today–we didn’t stop the pussyfooting around and allowed the LEFT to make “cowards” of us–they stopped our voice, but things are such that it is the time to shout back, NO, we won’t let you put words in our mouths and we are not done fighting for ourselves and our country as our Fore Fathers’ saw this country in their hearts.

The LEFT’s Side of the Coin on Patriotism

February 21, 2009

There is always another side to the coin and that includes the LEFT–here’s one of there takes on how our “right-winged writers” are being “outrageous, scandalous and unpatriotic” regarding HRO and Congress’ valiant and brave effort to right what’s wrong with the United States. Marks Steyn rightly takes humbrage of the challenge to his patriotism at NRO Corner. 

Published in the Reporter

It is outrageous, scandalous and unpatriotic, what is being written about President Obama and a Congress that is attempting to clean up the mess left in Washington by yet another mediocre Republican, who destroyed America at home and her good name and reputation in the world.
The cases in point are two letters to the editor (“Stop the stimulus package” and “Pork and ideology: Don’t count on stimulus,” both published Feb. 13) attacking directly and indirectly the Obama administration’s strategies and Congress’ will. They do so by quoting two writers and political commentators, Amity Shales [sic–he can’t even check spelling of someone he attacks] and Mark Steyn, whose patriotic loyalty and political opinion is questionable.

 Shales still claims that the New Deal was a scheme and that President Roosevelt and the New Deal did nothing to end the Great Depression. She is probably still longing for the return of Republican Herbert Hoover, who declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions to the Great Depression — too little too late. On Hurricane Katrina, Shales wrote, “The fact that the country and President Bush personally were already mobilized for disaster has saved lives”; she was fired from the Financial Times for her outrageous and questionable remarks.

 As for Mark Steyn, Salon.com published an article calling Steyn a “faux warrior” who is “one of the most extremist warmongers in our country,” adding that Steyn has been “as fundamentally wrong as one can be about virtually every issue he has touched.”He appears on radio shows, such as those of right-wingers Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt. Limbaugh has publicly stated that he wants President Obama to fail. You can’t get more unpatriotic and right wing than that.

 It is apparent that the two letter writers anchor their knowledge on right-wing writings and thoughts that are fundamentally wrong; therefore, their assumptions and ideology are by inference wrong as well.

 Ed Eusebio

 Fairfield

[all emphasis is Mine]

Things That Have Gotten Better (and Worse) Since Obama Became President

February 21, 2009

Gina Cobb (she herself blogging at GINA COBB) and posting at RWN (RightWingNews) has summed the first month of RHO’s accomplishments very tidily.

Things That Have Gotten WORSE Since Obama Became President

A lot has changed in the month since Obama became president. Let’s review, shall we?

1. The U.S. stock market has plumetted to a six-year low. But, hey, it’s only your retirement money, right?

2. Nationalization of banks has become a serious possibility. America, the new banana republic.

3. Obama has backed three MASSIVE new spending initiatives (the $787 billion stimulus bill, the trillion-dollar financial stability initiative and the $275 billion mortgage assistance program). A trillion here, a trillion there — but who’s counting?

4. Hundreds of thousands of classic children’s books (children’s books printed before the early 1980s) are being destroyed all across the country because they may contain miniscule traces of lead in their print

5. Obama has lost a key air base providing the only supply line into Afghanistan, jeopardizing any future military action the U.S. may need to take in the region

6. Russia has become emboldened and increasingly aggressive

7. Iran has also become more emboldened and aggressive, has launched its first home-built earth satellite, and now has enough material to make a nuclear weapon

8. Pakistan has freed the notorious A.Q. Khan, who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran, and has capitulated to the brutal Taliban in the Swat region

9. Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo within a year — even though his administration has no clear answer to the question of what to do with the most dangerous GITMO terrorists, including 9/11 matermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

10. Obama has dropped charges against the U.S.S. Cole bombing suspect allegedly responsible for the deaths of American sailors. It’s been a good month for terrorists.

Now, here is a list of the things that have gotten better since Obama became president:

Things That Have Gotten BETTER Since Obama Became President

1. America has had its first African American president. (Technically, this doesn’t count, though, since it didn’t happen after Obama became president).

2. . . . . 

Surely there’s something.

2.. . . . . . 

Help me out here.

Anyone?

2. . . . .

I guess that’s it, then.

I can’t wait to see Obama’s second month in office.

_______________

Gina Cobb blogs at her eponymous website, GINA COBB., where this is cross-posted.

Who Needs Fairness, We Have a “Doctrine”

February 20, 2009

It’s coming…we all know that the Dems and the Left hate the fact that Conservative Talk Radio is successful, that Progressive Talk Radio “generally” fails (Air America and Pacifica Radio in bankruptcy), more than likely because all they do is rant and rave and have no content past their hate of George W. Bush. Oh, but wait, President Bush is NO longer President, so what is there to talk about now? How about George W. Bush, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, all day every day, non-stop–STILL!

So, certain Democrats like Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow kicked up debate in recent weeks by calling for a return to those standards, after Sen. Chuck Schumer and David Axelrod have made dire demands and threats about it’s return. New York Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, even Bubba Clinton has weighed in that we either need the Censorship Doctrine or something that adds balance. Then there is Bill Press whining that he doesn’t make enough money because he’s BORING and loses stations, therefor it’s the Evil Conservative Talk Machine keeping he and his message of goodness of the One down, silenced because of corporate greed–in other words, be successful and bring in ad money!

The ONE has advised his followers as well us infidels (Republicans and Conservatives) to NOT listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, they’ll only propagandize us into unbelieving in Change and Change for Change Sake, to obstruct the true and good teachings of His Royal Obamaness (HRO), the One who knows what’s better for Americans, even tho 47% of voters did not vote for him and the policies we knew he would bring.

Well, Rush is not particularly interested in going quietly into the long goodnight of Censorship Doctrine Hell, he is willing to point out the OTHER back-door avenues that HRO has to get around the “Fairness” Doctrine, since he continues to say he will not support or further the cause of the outspoken Demon-crats.

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band? [my emphasis]

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not “funding” or “big money,” as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You’ve said you’re against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you’ve not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a “scarce” resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as “fairness” and “balance”? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Comrades, we are well on our way to a Socialist State, any censorship of Free Speech anywhere will be the last nail in the collective coffin.

 UPDATE: Here’s the Link to The Heritage Foundation’s Roy Cooper’s Article– Fairness Doctrine Confusion  & Jim Meyers’  DeMint to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine on Newsmax

UPDATE II: McQ @ RWN (RightWingNews.com) has a post,  Dissent and Hate Speech, that seques into this discussion. The part of distinct interest starts about halfway down…

Eugene Volokh has a very interesting post up about a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study titled Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio.

It’s a fascinating post which demonstrates how hard certain groups are working another angle aimed at talk-radio (and read the comments, where commenters take the study’s assertions aparat). Hate-speech is a lever that various groups on the left have been trying to enable for years. From the study, here’s their definition of hate speech:

Types of Hate Speech 

We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including “simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading”], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1).    Then the examples: [go to link on title above]

UPDATE III: Annnd, the Prowler from the American Spectator covers the current go-behind-the public mechanations:  In All Fairness 

DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such. 

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”   [Read the rest at Title Link above]

Want ‘Hope and Change’? Buy a Goat

February 19, 2009

One of my “New” Favorites on the Web is Pajama’s Media (actually, I’ve been reading them through other blogs for a while now). They have an article from a Ukranian immigrant who’s seen it all before and came to the US to get away from it! My problem is, where can we go to get away from it if we can’t fight it? 

Thanks to Susan for passing along to me–

Want ‘Hope and Change’? Buy a Goat

As an old joke suggests, inviting socialism into our homes might help us better appreciate the blessings of freedom.

February 18, 2009 – by Oleg Atbashian

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Although the mainstream media won’t report it as such, Obama’s approval numbers are shrinking. Which means that elsewhere, certain numbers are growing — the unreported-by-the-MSM growing numbers of Americans who are kicking themselves for not having bothered to read the small print underneath the word “change.”

The small print was kind of blurry, while “change” was spelled in huge, pleasing letters on the signs they held at the rallies. The fierce urgency of now was in the air. Everybody was in such a hurry to bring about change; there was no time to ask “why” or “what kind of change.” As objectivity faded into the sunset, their individual brains melted into a euphoric collective mush, swirling around the only remaining absolute — change. In the absence of other standards, the truth became a mere matter of taste, subject to change without notice. If it didn’t change, it wasn’t the truth.

So they won the election; now what? Three months later and almost a month into Obama’s presidency, as the nation is beginning to rub its sore, swollen eyelids and finally trying to focus on reality, it looks in the mirror and, with a shock, notices a gigantic hammer and sickle tattooed on its forehead, which clearly wasn’t there before. The bubbling euphoric pulp has solidified into a depressing pile of unpaid bills and warrants. The computer has turned into a shovel and the big-screen TV into a 1930s-style radio, with the disciplined voice of Dear Leader calling for unity and sacrifice in the face of mounting economic hardships. The only thing left unchanged is the Obama t-shirt with the magic word “change” on the chest.

Being an immigrant from the former USSR — the land of equally redistributed misery — I used to cringe when Americans complained to me about the perceived misery and lack of opportunity under capitalism. I laughed at American homegrown agitators who were carping on behalf of “communities” about the lack of “economic justice.” They sounded like ignorant, spoiled brats who hated their rich parents for giving them the car of the wrong color. The whiners either didn’t realize how good they had it or they were being deliberately misleading. Either way their message was a fraud.

I had witnessed the stagnation and the collapse of a centralized command economy that, in the absence of the markets, was fueled by the carrot and stick of coercion and stale motivational slogans. I had lived through the hyperinflation, when I had to pay a million rubles to a guy who fixed the rusty refrigerator in my kitchen. I had seen the old country plunge into the chaos of mass unemployment and crime, while it was being robbed to the bone by crooked unelected officials who profited from the corrupt scheme to merge socialism and capitalism — a half-baked brainchild of Clinton’s economists who are now advising Obama.

In other words, I had been at the end of this road and I didn’t want to take it again.

(more…)