Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Sign These Impeach Obama Petitions


 

Impeach President Obama

There are many petitions demanding impeachment, but those at Petition 2 Congress stand out above the rest because they can email themselves to the signer’s Representative & Senators. These are demands for action, not fund raisers or list building tools. One of these nine petitions has sent > 17,000 emails to Congress, together, they have sent nearly 30,000 emails demanding impeachment.

If you know your Zip Code, you can send these petitions to Congress by filling in a simple form for each of them.  You do not need to know the name or district number of your Representative.

No bill of impeachment will be introduced until members of the House of Representatives feel the heat and fear being removed from office in the next election cycle if they fail to perform their duty.  No trial will take place in the Senate until Senators feel the heat and  and fear being replaced with Conservatives in the next election cycle.

The imperious traitor will not be impeached, convicted and removed from office unless we disrespectfully and contumaciously demand it, with loud voices, in large numbers. No law is worth more than our will and ability to enforce it; the Constitution is no different.  We can not wait for the other guy to enforce it, we must step up to the plate and take a swing at the ball.

What kind of government will your grand children live under?  The WW2 generation decided to keep our representative republic.  Can we do any less for our progeny?  For their sake, sign these petitions.  Email them to Congress. Email their links to everyone you can hope to influence.  Embed a petition widget on your blog.  Post petition links in blog and web site comments with an exhortation to sign them.  Reblog or cross post this blog post.  Do everything you can to make these petitions go viral.

If not us, then who?  If not now, then when??

December 29, 2013 Posted by | Congress, Constitution, Obama, Personal Responsibility, petition for redress of grievance, Petitions, Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Obama Will Pack the Supreme Court!


Document Source:

THE SUPREME COURT RENEWAL ACT OF 2009

File Format: Microsoft Word – View as HTML
The proponents do not all agree on all of them, but are unanimous that Congress should soon reconsider the law applicable to the Supreme Court of the United
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/judiciary-act-of-2009.doc –


I first learned of the proposal to pack the court through this blog post: http://judgeright.vox.com/library/
http://judgeright.vox.com/library/post/no-dissent-allowed.html?_c=esv1.
My source apparently learned of it from this blog: http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/
http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/politics-and-opinions/effort-to-stack-supreme-court-taking-shape/


The Microsoft Word document is about 77kb and contains a set of four proposed “reforms” .  The “reform” of greatest concern is one to pack the court.

proposal i: regular appointments to

the supreme court

The following is quoted from the narrative accompanying the proposed code.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court’s many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years. A variation on this specific proposal was advanced and widely discussed in 2005. It won approval from many, including bar leaders and former judges. Most opposition rested on a constitutional argument that any term or age limits imposed by Congress would violate Article III and require a constitutional amendment. But no proposal for such an amendment has been advanced, and we see no serious constitutional problem in legislating regularized appointments with diminished but continuing roles for those Justices holding office for very long terms.

Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.

Two alternatives for avoiding any constitutional problem are available if thought to be necessary. One response would be to provide a large bonus to Justices who retire in good time. It would seem unjust to give such a bonus to Justices and not to circuit or district judges who now tend to surrender their power and accept senior status in good time. Another response to the constitutional question would be to revive the practice of required circuit riding. If each Justice were required to sit on a district court bench a few times a year, that requirement would again serve, as it long did, to keep the Justices in closer contact with the citizens they govern and the realities that citizens perceive. And it would reduce the likelihood that Justices will cling to an office they are no longer willing or able fully to perform. We do not favor either of these reforms but mention them as alternatives to be considered if the more modest proposal we advance is thought to raise a problem under Article III.


It appears that the legal scholars object to the presence of Conservatives on the Supreme Court bench.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court’s many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

Were these legal scholars raising this objection during the terms of Presidents Reagan or Bush? So why the push now? Could it be because they have a Socialist in the White House and hope to keep him there for the next 8 years if not longer?  Could it be that they desire to grease the skids for changes having irreversible negative  impacts upon our Constitutional rights?

Which justice has been on the bench too long? Is it Justice Thomas? Justice Sevens? Justice Scalia? Justice Souter? Justice Ginsburg? Why does the Constitution give them life terms during good behavior?  Could it be the value of Judicial Independence?  What happens to that vital concept if every new President obtains arbitrary power to name new Justices every two years?

Lets be clear about the context. The Socialists have working majorities in both houses of Congress. They intend to repeal the Presidential term limit, pack the court, gerrymander their districts so that no Conservative will ever be elected to replace any of them and squelch dissent with the  ‘fairness doctrine’  &  ‘local advisory boards’ packed with ACORN activists. They have power and they intend to solidify it; forever.
Examine the quote again; notice the red flag?  The intent of this proposal is to dilute the protection of liberty & property ownership by removing the provisions preventing mob rule.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years.

Does any doubt remain? Does anyone remember President Obama’s remarks to the Chicago NPR station in ’01?  He complained bitterly that the Supreme Court protected ‘negative rights’;  that the Constitution specified what the Government can’t do to us rather than what it must do ‘for’ us?

Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell, before this unconstitutional scheme is fully hatched and railroaded through Congress.  Go at once to http://www.congress.org/ and send an email to your Representative & senators. Tell them that their vote for this proposal to pack the court will seal your last vote for them, regardless of all other policies, positions and votes.

Don’t ignore this; don’t brush it off. Don’t assume that someone else will take care of it.

  • Email your federal legislators immediately. Make sure that you absolutely will not tolerate packing the Supreme Court.
  • Phone radio talk show hosts and  inform them about this issue.
  • Send letters to your local newspaper editors.
  • Raise this issue on forums and web sites. Copy and cross post this article.
  • Copy this article and paste it into an email to your family, friends and associates; urge them to forward it.

title 1: the organization of the supreme court

§1. Number of Justices Sitting to Decide Cases on the Merits; Quorum. The Supreme Court shall generally sit as a Court of nine Justices but if necessary six Justices shall constitute a quorum. The Court may by rule authorize a single Justice to make provisional rulings when necessary.

§2. REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. One Justice, and only one, shall be appointed during the first session of Congress after each federal election, unless during that Congress one or more appointments are required by Section 3. Each appointment shall become effective on August 1 of the year following the election. If an appointment under this section results in the availability of more than nine Justices, the nine who are junior in time of service shall sit to decide each appeal certified for its decision on the merits.

§3. vacancies. If a retirement, death or removal of a Justice results in there being fewer than nine Justices, including Senior Justices, a new Justice or Chief Justice shall be appointed and considered as the Justice required to be appointed during that Congress, if that appointment has not already been made. If more than one such vacancy arises, any additional appointment will be considered as the Justice required to be appointed during the next Congress for which no appointment has yet been made.

§4. the ofFICE OF senior justice. A Justice who is senior to nine or more Justices shall unless disabled continue to hold office as a Senior Justice. If there is a vacancy on the Court or if a Justice is recused a Senior Justice shall be called by the Chief Justice in reverse order of seniority to sit when needed to provide a nine-member Court to decide a case. A Senior Justice shall also participate in any other matter before the Court including decisions to grant or deny a petition for certiorari or to promulgate rules of court in compliance with the rules enabling provisions of Title 28.

§5. TEMPORARY DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. Justices sitting on the Court at  the time of this enactment shall sit regularly on the Court until their retirement, death, removal or voluntary acceptance of status as a  Senior Justice. No appointments shall be made under Section 2 of this Title before the Congress that begins after the last of the present  Justices so leaves the Court, but any Justice appointed after the date of enactment shall become a Senior Justice in accordance with the   provisions of Section 4 of this Title.

February 23, 2009 Posted by | Constitution, Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Dander Up?


Good For GWB!

 

Why the man doesn’t show more backbone EVERY DAY is a mystery!

ABC Breaking News:

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides in connection with the firings of federal prosecutors.

I find it “Rather” interesting how such a non-issue as this is still an issue with the friggin’ mutants of the Leftinistra. Haven’t they seen their dwindling approval ratings recently? Morons.

UPDATE…7/9…1050 hours. CBS is kinda late on the ball here but here it IS anyway:
Bush Fires First Shot At Congress

In the first of several contentious battles on tap between Congress and the White House, President Bush has invoked executive privilege to deny testimony from two former high-level aides regarding their role in the firings of U.S. attorneys. More…

And there yas have it. The Legislative Branch will do its best to rewrite the Constitution.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Mr. Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers’ demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

“You may be assured that the president’s assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented,” the letter said.

Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

“Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,” the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.

The exchange Monday was the latest step in a slow-motion legal waltz between the White House and lawmakers toward eventual contempt-of-Congress citations. If neither side yields, the matter could land in federal court.

July 9, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Constitution, GWB | Leave a comment

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2007


THE FOUNDATION


In celebration of 4 July 1776

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2007

Our Lives, our Fortunes, our sacred Honor

Our nation began with these stirring words in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Now, 231 years later, they still ring true.

 

We may envision the Founders as rash, rowdy rebels. Not so. Already accomplished in fields of endeavor, they were settled in character and reputation. They deemed their decision necessary, and their first thought was of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” They were men of purpose and principle, who well understood the peril of choosing to declare independence from Great Britain. Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote to John Adams, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe to what was believed by many at that time to be our death warrants?”

 

The Founders reasoned that the colonials were compelled to the separation, outlining a detailed list of particulars describing the King of Great Britain’s “long train of abuses and usurpations” that could end only in an intended “absolute despotism” and “establishment of absolute tyranny over these states.” They appealed that the free citizens they represented therefore had both a right and a duty “to alter their former systems of government” and “to provide new guards for their future security.”

 

They further explained, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” They had been patient, measured and restrained in responding to the incursions on their freedoms but could be so no longer.

 

The central passage of the Declaration’s opening is the document’s most famous, suggesting the form of government truly fit for a free people: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

 

The Founders sought liberty, not license—rather than a loosening of restraints, a freedom to pursue right. The objective was citizens’ safety and happiness, later called “the common defense,” “the general welfare,” and the “blessings of liberty.” The mottos of the American Revolution were “No King but King Jesus!” and “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

 

Given their experiences with a leader who had violated the laws supposed to control his own conduct as much as theirs, the Founders sought to avoid the instability of democracy or of oligarchy, in which one or a handful of people can overturn the foundations by a simple vote or decree. Fisher Ames warned, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” John Witherspoon referred to pure democracy as “very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” The Founders ultimately chose a constitutional democratic republic—based on the foundation of the reliable rule of law, responsive to the people’s “consent of the governed” through representation of the citizens, predicated on the virtue of the people.

 

The colonists came to these shores with a learned tradition of liberty, and this new land offered a manner of living that further taught freedom. Our performance in upholding this heritage is mixed. We are divided as a nation, no longer pressing toward unity and allegiance to shared principles. Facile commentary lauds comity as the antidote for what the Founders derided as faction, applauding the elitist establishment fetish for bipartisanship. But they are exactly wrong. Indeed, bipartisanship today is more akin to factionalism than are those adhering to the two major political parties out of principle.

 

There remains one crucial question: What are we willing to risk to salvage the heritage our Founders handed down to us? Our warriors in the field have demonstrated that they stand in the direct line from our Patriot Founders—prepared to sacrifice all in service. Many activist citizens gave time, effort and resources to turn aside the Senate’s recent attempts to foist a dangerous change in immigration laws on the nation. But the United States as a nation is not as secure as at its tenuous beginnings.

 

The signers of the Declaration concluded their treatise, “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Do we citizens, inheritors of the Republic bequeathed us, still stand ready to hazard even half so much?

 

Quote of the week

 

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” —Samuel Adams

July 4, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Founder's Quotes, Freedom, Independence Day | 12 Comments

John Kerry on the “Fairness Doctrine”


Poor liberals.  Cry us a river.

June 27, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 9 Comments

Where Are We Going?


And when will this all end? Can we hold onto our Federal Republic? Or will it take blood in the streets of America…again?

Let’s Cut to the Chase on Amnesty

Written by JB Williams

©2007 USA

 

Yesterday, despite a historic volume of dissenting voter phone calls, emails and snail mails, which caused most members of the U.S. Senate to shut down their systems in order to completely ignore their constituents and proceed to move forward on illegal amnesty, the senate voted 64-35 to proceed against the vast will of the American people.

This means that 64 senators chose to ignore their “legal” constituents entirely, in pursuit of potential “illegal” voters they hope to pick up at some point in the near future.

In case you are still trying to figure out who really supports the legalization of illegal immigration and amnesty for invaders, 40 of the 64 are Democrats and the other 24 are Republicrats.

Note that four Democrat traitors and three Republicrat traitors hope to be elected President in 2008…

Here is a list of those 64 senators, in all their glory!

YEA’s – 64

40 Democrats 24 Republicrats

Akaka (D-HI), Bennett (R-UT), Biden (D-DE), Bond (R-MO), Bingaman (D-NM), Brownback (R-KS), Boxer (D-CA), Burr (R-NC), Brown (D-OH), Coleman (R-MN), Cantwell (D-WA), Collins (R-ME), Cardin (D-MD), Craig (R-ID), Carper (D-DE), Domenici (R-NM), Casey (D-PA), Ensign (R-NV), Clinton (D-NY), Graham (R-SC), Conrad (D-ND), Gregg (R-NH), Dodd (D-CT), Hagel (R-NE), Durbin (D-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), Feingold (D-WI), Lott (R-MS), Feinstein (D-CA), Lugar (R-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Martinez (R-FL), Inouye (D-HI), McCain (R-AZ), Kennedy (D-MA), McConnell (R-KY), Kerry (D-MA), Murkowski (R-AK), Klobuchar (D-MN), Snowe (R-ME), Kohl (D-WI), Specter (R-PA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Stevens (R-AK), Leahy (D-VT), Voinovich (R-OH), Levin (D-MI), Warner (R-VA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY), Webb (D-VA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

If you are still thinking that you can stop amnesty before it leaves the senate, this is the list you will have to focus all of your attention upon.

The seven on this list who want to be president, should soon collide with an abrupt end to their fantasy bid to lead this country into an era of One World Order in some North American Union under international democratic socialism.

The rest will come up for re-election sooner or later, and they should find themselves on the unemployment line by then, if not sooner.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Our Declaration of Independence and claim to self-governance.

Most of us are familiar with these words, but have forgotten what they mean and why they were written. The founders were sure to remind us repeatedly…including in the phrase that immediately followed the above.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Our founders were so extreme in their words. Or were they?

You decide! Have we yet endured enough?

Is there anything left to discuss?

June 27, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Constitution, Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments

A Liberal “Unfairness Principle”


As has been previously posted here, the whiners of the Leftinistra just don’t get it. They have lost their stranglehold on America and are lashing out and grasping for the invisible straw.

CBS News has “borrowed’ from National Review On-Line, an article with the above title. I have “borrowed” it from CBS.

Remember Jim Hightower? We didn’t think so. He was the former Texas state official who was, for a few minutes, the Left’s great hope for a liberal talk-radio host to challenge the domination of Rush Limbaugh. It didn’t work out. Neither did former New York governor Mario Cuomo, another failed radio talker. And neither did, most recently, Air America, the attempt to build an entire network of liberal talk.

Poor Jim Hightower. He and Mario Cuomo doesn’t get it, either. One of these days, hopefully sooner than later, these wanna-bes will finally see that they do NOT have the pulse of America and never have. If they had the pulse of America, folks would be flocking to them and those Big Bad Conservatives that have very successful radio shows which, are broadcasting from LIBERAL owned stations, would vanish. The Big Bad Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the Levins are reflecting what the MAJORITY of Americans think and feel. It really is that simple. Why else would the LIBERAL owned and operated radio stations keep them on the air? Conservatives are good for the Big Bad and Evil Profit Monster that the LIBERAL owned and operated radio stations maintain. Hello?

Nothing has worked too successfully for liberal political talkers. Rush, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, among others, are as dominant as ever. The only thing that has changed is that liberals now seem less interested in challenging conservative talk radio in the marketplace than in strangling it with government regulation. And that presents a much greater threat than another misguided attempt to find the liberal Limbaugh.

Rush, Sean and Laura do indeed have the pulse of America. Why else would they be so successful on LIBERAL owned radio stations? And what are the LIBERAL owned radio stations doing with all that Big Bad and Evil Profit Mongering, anyway? I smell a Double Standard. And why do the Moonbats constantly attack them?

A new blueprint for a government takedown of conservative talk radio comes from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. In a report entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio ,” the Center outlines a plan that would, if implemented, do enormous damage not only to conservatives on talk radio, but to freedom of speech as well.

Surveying 257 stations owned by the top-five commercial station groups, the report’s authors found the unsurprising news that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative, and just nine percent “progressive.” Rather than attribute that imbalance to the generally conceded superiority of conservative programming – most radio professionals would tell you that Rush Limbaugh is simply better at what he does than any of the liberal opponents who have tried to compete with him – the report finds a deeper, more sinister case. “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio,” it concludes, “is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system. ” According to Podesta’s Center, those structural problems can only be solved by government action.

“Progressive”. The other name for “Liberal”, “Socialist”, “Leftinistra”. Not surprisingly, the Center for American Progress doesn’t get it, either. “The Gap” they refer to is “The Gap” between their ears. There are no “structural problems in the US regulatory system”. Big Brother helps nothing. More “government action” helps nothing. Unless, naturally, one wants Big Brother to dictate all there is to dictate for the stupid people that cannot help themselves and are 100% dependent on Big Brother for up to and including the proper use of toilet paper and the quantity of sheets per use.

The “problem” missed by yet another socialist “can’t” think tank is the American people are sick and tired of groups like this retarded Can’t Think Tank.

The report proposes new national and local limits on the number of radio stations one company can own. For another, it recommends a de facto quota system to ensure that more women and minorities own radio stations. And finally, it says the government should “require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”

More free give-away crap for folks that cannot make it on their own because NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO THEIR SOCIALIST CRAP!

The two-for-the-price-of-one attempt to have the government both stifle voices that don’t meet “enforceable public interest obligations” while raising money for government broadcasting is certainly a worthwhile strategy for the Left. Not for free speech and free markets, however.

Exactly so.

In addition, the report claims that the Fairness Doctrine – the government rule that, before it was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial public issues – might not really be dead, and thus might not have to be reestablished by Congress. Instead, a new administration might simply decide to enforce it again. That point is highly debatable, but it wouldn’t be surprising if President Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards were to give it a try.

Whatever it takes to silence the voices of opposition to socialism, eh?

The fact is, liberals simply haven’t attracted talk-radio audiences. It’s not their market. But since they still largely have Hollywood, academia, the New York Times, PBS, NPR, a network news division or two … they’ll survive. And we on the Right will, too, if we keep the Center for American Progress’s dangerously wrongheaded ideas off the table.

How about a trade-off. The socialists get the radios and the conservatives take over Hollywood? Any takers?

Related articles of note:

Air America sold: gee, I wonder why

Air America files chapter 11: gee, I wonder why

 

UPDATE!!

RUSH Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio pioneer, has been called many nasty things before, but never a “structural imbalance.” That’s the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success – and to dress up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation.

The report of the Center for American Progress on “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” marks the latest phase in liberaldom’s grappling with conservative talk radio. First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh – Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. – that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there’s only one option left – if you can’t beat them, and you won’t join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.

The report looks at a slice of 257 talk stations and concludes that more than 90 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. The supposed reason for this is, essentially, that media companies are conspiring to shove conservative radio down the throats of listeners in a way they couldn’t if, among other things, government required broadcasters “to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest.”

This is a pinched view of radio. There are upward of 2,000 U.S. talk stations that deal with news and issues, according to Michael Harrison of Talkers magazine, and they encompass all sorts of formats from National Public Radio to urban radio to shock jocks, none of which are dominated by right wingers. Conservative talk radio is a vibrant niche within that market, but there are many other places to go for news and opinion.

UPDATE 2:  Jack Kelly has a great comment in the last paragraph.

I see this every day at the very liberal newspaper where I work. Conservatives often write angry letters to the editor, criticizing the arguments made in an editorial, or what they perceive as the slant in a news story. Liberals unhappy with my columns often demand that I be fired. They object not just to my point of view, but to the fact that it was expressed. Scratch a liberal, and you’ll often find a fascist underneath.

June 25, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 6 Comments

The System at Work


WASHINGTON –– (typical WaPo moron apologist)

We have become political hypochondriacs. We seem eager to declare that “the system” has come down with some dread disease, to proclaim that an ideological “center” blessed by the heavens no longer exists, and woe unto us. An imperfect immigration bill is pulled from the Senate floor and you’d think the Capitol dome had caved in.

It sort-a-kind-a did there, skippy.

It’s all nonsense, but it is not harmless nonsense. The tendency to blame the system is a convenient way of leaving no one accountable. Those who offer this argument can sound sage without having to grapple with the specifics of any piece of legislation. There is the unspoken assumption that wisdom always lies in the political middle, no matter how unsavory the recipe served up by a given group of self-proclaimed centrists might be.

The wisdom lies with “We The People” which haven’t been represented in decades.

And when Republicans and Democrats are battling each other with particular ferocity, there is always a call for the appearance of an above-the-battle savior who will seize the presidency as an independent. This messiah, it is said, will transcend such “petty” concerns as philosophy or ideology.

It is said? By whom? Specifics, if you will?

Finally, those who attack the system don’t actually want to change it much. For example, there’s a very good case for abolishing the United States Senate. It often distorts the popular will since senators representing 18 percent of the population can cast a majority of the Senate’s votes. And as Sen. John McCain said over the weekend, “The Senate works in a way that relatively small numbers can block legislation.”

Especially when they are shoving something down the throats of the MAJORITY that don’t want said trash shoved down their throats…like the non-amnesty amnesty bill.

But many of the system-blamers in fact love Senate rules that, in principle, push senators “toward the middle” in seeking solutions. So they actually like the system more than they let on.

Says who? Your opinion? Where is your substantiation? Have milk?

As it happens, I wish the immigration bill’s supporters had gotten it through — not because I think this is great legislation but because some bill has to get out of the Senate so real discussions on a final proposal can begin.

Wrong. The bill needs to die a hideous death and those that support need to leave public office because they do NOT represent the public. They represent each other’s tenure in a life-time venture to suck the public dry.

Notice how tepid that paragraph is. The truth is that most supporters of this bill find a lot of things in it they don’t like. The guest-worker program, in particular, strikes me as terribly flawed. The bill’s opponents, on the other hand, absolutely hate it because they see it as an effective amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. And boy, did those opponents mobilize. In well-functioning democracies, mobilized minorities often defeat unenthusiastic majorities.

Minorities? Hardly so.

And some “centrist” compromises are more coherent and politically salable than others. Neither side on the immigration issue has the popular support to get exactly what it wants. So a bill aimed at creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is full of grudging concessions to the anti-immigration side. These have the effect of demobilizing the very groups that support the underlying principles of this bill. That’s not a system problem. It just happens that immigration is a hard issue that arouses real passion.

The fact is this…we have LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED so why should we have MORE laws on the books that WON’T BE ENFORCED?

Typically, advocates of the system breakdown theory move quickly from immigration to the failure of President Bush’s Social Security proposals. Why, they ask, can’t the system “fix” entitlements?

Because the socialists want entitlements and keep the populace lazy and dependent on government as to when to wipe their own asses.

The simple truth is that a majority of Americans (I’m one of them) came to oppose President Bush’s privatization ideas. That reflected both a principled stand and a practical judgment. From our point of view, a proposal to cut benefits and create private accounts was radical, not centrist.

Middle of the Roaders are cowards there skippy. Privatization is a proven SUCCESS. Then again, the socialists don’t like individuality or success…unless, naturally, one agrees with the socialists. Then, all is well.

An authentically “centrist” solution to this problem would involve some modest benefit cuts and some modest tax increases. It will happen some day. But for now, conservatives don’t want to support any tax increases. I think the conservatives are wrong, and they’d argue that they’re principled. What we have here is a political disagreement, not a system problem. We have these things called elections to settle political disagreements.

Tax increases squelch productivity and is bad for the nation. Currently our economy is doing very well thanks to the TAX CUTS. “Centrists” are horrible for ANY country and Centrists are non-committal weaklings.

Is Washington a mess? In many ways it is. The simplest explanation has to do with some bad choices made by President Bush. He started a misguided war that is now sapping his influence, he has treated Democrats as if they were infected with tuberculosis, and Republicans in Congress as if they were his valets. No wonder he’s having trouble pushing through a bill whose main opponents are his own ideological allies.

Bush started it? Where ya been? Head in the sand? The Jihad has been going on for decades and during the Clinton Administration, war was declared on the United States and “we” did what? Nothing. That’s what, moron. As for the mistreating the democrats, they deserve every bit of it. They are socialists. As for the “immigration” bill, Kennedy was all for it and so is GWB. How does that fit into your retarded article?

Maybe you would place blame elsewhere. But please identify some real people or real political forces and not just some faceless entity that you call the system. Please be specific, bearing in mind that when hypochondriacs misdiagnose vague ailments they don’t have, they often miss the real ones.

When CONgress and the Executive don’t do the bidding of We The People, there is definitely a problem and sugar-coating it as in your retarded article doesn’t cut the mustard.

postchat@aol.com

 

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Congress, Constitution | Leave a comment

THE ATTACK ON TALK RADIO…


If the Leftinistra had the “corner market” on Talk Radio, this would not even be contemplated. What would drive the leftinistra to try and muzzle Conservative Talk Radio? Is it because the MAJORITY of Americans are Conservative, Democrat and Republican alike?

Could it be that the likes of Reid DON’T have the pulse of America and it shows in the approval ratings? Does this explain the rantings of the losers and whiners? Could it be that the Hillarys and the Boxers are secretly trying to squelch Freedom of Speech and that if folks don’t agree with them, they must be silenced?

Why would the Leftinistra attack talk radio? And why do the Leftinistra fear it so much? Could it be no one wants to hear the trash from the lips of the Leftinistra?

This will be a big day for the left in its campaign to rid this country of their nemisis … those pesky right-wing talk show hosts. Today we’ll be hearing about a new study by the Center For American Progress, a Washington left-wing think tank. The man running this outfit is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. This report will condemn what it calls a “massive imbalance” between conservative and “progressive” My guess is that the report will blame the preponderance of liberal talk radio shows on anything but the absolute failure of these shows to sustain themselves with good ratings. We’ll also undoubtedly see the typical statements about the asinine concept of “the public’s airwaves.”

Poor whiners. Nothing to offer so they whine. When my kids do that I send them to their rooms. “They” even wrote a paper on the subject of how the imbalance is driving them mad.

Blogrunner has a really good compilation of must reads on this subject. Jake Tapper has a fairly decent piece at ABC.

The conversation overheard may have been three years ago (what was going on then?) but the sentiment is alive and well as Lott so whined about not too long ago.

When will the politicos “remember” that it is “We The People” that “run government” and NOT the politicos of DC?

Congressman and Democratic Presidential Candidate discusses why he will reintroduce discussion of the “Fairness Doctrine”

 

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech, Kucinich | 17 Comments

The United States Constitution


The Constitution grants American Citizens (not ILLEGAL aliens or otherwise) protections guaranteeing Freedom of Speech.  Curiously, I find no where within the Constitution where Freedom of Hearing is protected.  Where is it found?  Just curious.

In a story emerging from Wierdofornia, somebody “read” something and then they “heard” something and it made them feel “targeted” and “estranged”.  Awwwwwwwwwwww.

The weirdos will be routed out and collected here.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 3 Comments

%d bloggers like this: