Archive for the ‘George W. Bush’ Category

I Love Victor Davis Hanson–Bush Did It

March 20, 2009

With tongue placed firmly in cheek, VDH writes a column as if all the things said and done recently by Dear Leader and his regime were written under the continuing  BSD (Bush Derangement Syndrome) of the MSM and the LEFT’s watchdogs.

The point being…how are they covering HRO? Did they forget their jobs? Need I answer?

Bush Did It
What a difference an election makes.

By Victor Davis Hanson

President Bush was ridiculed today by critics of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility when he suggested that his administration no longer was incarcerating “unlawful combatants,” but was instead in the process of renaming them as mere “detainees.” The president also promised to close Guantanamo “within the year,” and added that he had assigned a “special task force” to look into the matter.

“Orwellian,” the New York Times fumed in an editorial entitled “Just Close It!”: “If the President’s Ministry of Truth thinks that his metamorphosing words change reality, then it is going to be a long four years. This latest Doublespeak comes on top of the President’s ignoring his past assertions that ‘signing statements are unacceptable’ and continuing the policy unchanged from the Clinton administration.” TheLos Angeles Times joined in, adding, “Remember that Bush promise about posting pending legislation on his administration’s website before signing it into law? Well, somehow several days’ notice has evaporated into 24 hours, and now zilch.”

Bush likewise ignored criticism that on the Patriot Act, FISA, and extraordinary rendition his current public positions were at odds with those that he ran on during the campaign. The Washington Post noted, “Here we go again with Karl Rove’s daily machinations — it is the same old flip-flopping we saw last summer before the election, when an opportunistic Bush reversed himself on NAFTA, public campaign financing, Iraq, the surge, Iran, offshore oil, nuclear power, coal plants, capital punishment, gun control, and abortion. One would think the dignity of the office might nudge Mr. Bush away from his perpetual campaign trimming. But then we have a President who seems glued to his Teleprompter and the scripted message feeding in from the right-wing attack machine.”

The Bush administration was further embarrassed when it boasted that the fundamentals of the economy were “sound” — although in its prior requests for bailout funds just a few weeks ago, it had ridiculed skeptics who countered that the economy’s fundamentals were, in fact, “strong.” Meanwhile, columnist Frank Rich complained that “In times of economic crisis here we go again with greedy and failed AIG execs — buddies of Bush’s clueless Wall Street–retread treasury secretary — using federal money to pay themselves bonuses for their rampant failure. But what do you expect from revolving-door administration officials in bed with the very corporations they used to work for? Get used to more $100-a-pound beef at the ‘let them eat cake’ White House parties, lorded over by this AIG surrogate who took more than $100,000 in their money for who knows what? Maybe Speaker Hastert can let those GM execs on federal welfare piggy-back on his private jet next time they come to Washington to beg for more of our money. These people have no shame.”

President Bush had warned the (more…)

Advertisements

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]

I Love VDH–Victor Davis Hanson

February 17, 2009

I Love Victor Davis Hanson–he can cut to the chase and lay it out so much better than most of the others that only try to explain what is going on and (to use my mom’s best sayings) “How the cow ate the cabbage.”

The Audacity of Irony
“Hope and change” meet reality. The ironies bring us back to the unlamented days of Jimmy Carter.
By Victor Davis Hanson

We have seen irony before, when the moralist Jimmy Carter chastised us with sermons about our paranoid, inordinate fear of Communism and our amoral unconcern with human rights, even as the dividends of his policies were the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran — and even greater global misery than before.

For the last 24 months a youthful Barack Obama has daily offered unspecified “hope and change” idealism — all set against the supposed cynical wrongdoing of the tired Bush administration. In the unhinged manner in which his supporters turned a center-right president like George Bush into some sort of sinister reactionary, so too they deified a rookie senator as the long-awaited liberal messiah.

How could irony not follow from all that?

For the past seven years the United States has seen no repeat of 9/11, although plots were uncovered and threats from radical Islam were leveled in serial fashion. The ability to intercept and hold terrorists overseas, to tap into cell-phone calls abroad, to detain terrorists caught on the field of battle, and to ensure that intelligence agencies freely swapped information was critical to our unexpected salvation.

Like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and other wartime presidents (though none of the above witnessed 3,000 Americans butchered on the soil of the United States by foreign agents), George Bush, with strong bipartisan support, enacted new wartime protocols in the effort to protect the security of the United States. Only a fool would suggest that these homeland-security efforts were unnecessary, or that, in unprecedented fashion, they shredded the Constitution.
(more…)

Thank you, President Bush; May God Bless You

January 16, 2009

With all having been said and printed, I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR, as one of the few Presidents that saved the United States from obliteration.

Many will say that he failed the country because of the Economy Crisis, but even in that, eventually and if the truth can or will be told, he tried years ago to warn of the impending doom because of Fannie & Freddie–it’s all there but no one wants to work through it as it’s to popular to tear this man down and discredit him (perhaps that will be another article soon).

The Wall Street Journal this morning has the best article regarding President Bush’s victory and success in keeping us safe since 9/11–or as Dennis Miller says as he keeps track–2,673 days or 7 years & 117 days. However you’d like to count it, none of us or those that attack the President, would have ever thought on Sept. 10th, 2001 that we wouldn’t again be attacked on U.S. soil in the intervening years.  We haven’t and it is the testament to Presidenty Bush’s courage and selfless love for this country, his country, our country, that made it so. So, even though these last days of his tenure are an economic nightmare, and many of us struggle–I am part of those as I was laid off on Dec. 29th because of the consumer/commercial electronics industry’s  fall off–at the very least , we still have a great Country to have this economic debacle. Never forget that George Bush gave his all to ensure that the United States survived and continued it’s Grand Experiment.

The 9/11 Presidency

Long after George W. Bush boards Marine One next Tuesday bound for Texas, the enduring image of his epochal eight years will be the September 20, 2001 evening a relatively new President stood before a nation traumatized and in mourning.

[Review & Outlook] AP

“We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network,” Mr. Bush told a Joint Session of Congress. “I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

In that moment, he set the standard for the Bush Presidency: To protect Americans from another 9/11 and hit Islamist terrorists and their sponsors abroad. Whatever history’s ultimate judgment, Mr. Bush never did yield. Nearly all the significant battles of the Bush years — the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Guantanamo and wiretapping, upheavals in the Middle East, America’s troubles with Europe — stemmed directly from his response to the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that defined his Presidency.

By his own standard, Mr. Bush achieved the one big thing he and all Americans demanded of his Administration. Not a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11. Al Qaeda was flushed from safe havens in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and its terrorist network put under siege around the world. All subsequent terror attacks hit soft targets and used primitive means. No one seriously predicted such an outcome at the time.

[See more at WSJ]

The world remains a very dangerous place. Yet thanks to Mr. Bush’s post-9/11 willingness to act decisively, and at the risk of his own popularity, Americans are safer today than on September 10, 2001.

 Thank you, President Bush; May God Bless You

Crossposted: The Patriot Resistance