Archive for the ‘Rush Limbaugh’ Category

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…)

Advertisements

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…)

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]

The Emperor’s Socialist Mandate

February 1, 2009

Obama’s decisive wining of the Presidency (Obama/Biden 52.9% (365 EC)  69,456,897 PV;  McCain/Palin45.6% (173 EC) 59,934,814 PV) evidently and ultimately meant that the Left has carte blanche to act however, and say, do and pass whatever they have wished for since the 1960s. In fact, both Obama & Pelosi have stated that  “I/We Won!” The juvenile “nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah” & raspberries are implied,  just silent but evident in their attitude.

So, they’re “Shocked. I tell you! Shocked! That…”  the Republicans & Conservatives didn’t shut up and go home for the next four years; and also that Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity that he wants Obama to fail…(now, that’s where the Left quit listening and jumped both feet into the manure pile) he clarified that he wanted Obama’s liberal/socialist policies & agenda to fail. This is exactly what I was hammered with as well on Election Night and Inauguration Day, but from the other side–my side–for saying that I/We had to support Obama and ensure he doesn’t fail as it would take the country with him, BUT (and maybe I didn’t articulate this well enough), I did not mean I wanted the Right to rollover and let Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass anything or everything they wanted to turn the U.S. into a Euro/Socialist country. I’m exactly with Rush on this–I want the U.S. to succeed, but not at the hands of the Left categorically and fundamentally changing the United States–in that, I want Obama to fail.

SO, the Emperor’s Mandate is just as the clothes in the fable–it’s invisible. Yessir, he won decisively by 7.3% in the popular vote, but the Left looks at the Electoral College landslide incorrectly, and obviously, thinking that all those folks in the states that went Obama are now converts to the One–they aren’t, they’re pissed like me.

Obama’s mandate does NOT mean that the Left can finally FIX all those things that are wrong  in the Country (in their eyes) in one fell swoop by passing the Wish List of the last 40 years under the auspices and cover of the $819 Billion (or $1.2 Trillion with interest) Stimulus Bill.  100s of millions to STD Research & Education, the NEA (Nat’l Endowment for the Arts) and other social items, and billions(!) to pay off ACORN. Less than 25% is actual emergency stimulus to get the economy moving NOW, and more than half of that won’t even happen until 2010, 11, & 12, if not later. This isn’t even the WPA (a’la FDR) infrastructure work programs that we feared they would cram down our throats.

How can they be shocked that as we, the American people,  learn more of what items are in the bill that do nothing to put money and jobs into the economy; and with each passing day the polling indicates fewer and fewer Americans favor the bill as it stands or came out of Congress? 

Does the Left understand this is Obama’s first failure? Nope, not yet.  

Sure, there will be the RINO Senators that will work as “bi-partisan” agents with Obama & Reid. Hopefully, the Senate Republicans will dust off their cojones, as did the Congressional Republicans along with 11 Democrats, and either filibuster or cull out the earmarks, social engineering and graft/payoffs before this abomination gets put in place.

The Triumviri–President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid–must realize that 46% of the American people did not vote for their “mandate”, they voted to prevent it; and to tell these folks “not to listen to Rush Limbaugh” will only ensure that Rush picks up more listeners. And more listeners means more voters willing to hear what needs to be done and then doing it by contacting their representatives and letting them know that the American people are actually going to  listen to what the Senate is doing.