"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States", did he not?
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office in an attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Monday, January 26, 2009
17 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I think Obama shot himself in the foot by attacking Rush.
ReplyDeleteIt will/has energize/d the right!
Not much of an attack, really, but Conservatives have been attacked often enough that any hint of a suggestion of censorship will cause us to over-react.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it could just be that Obama is testing the waters, so to speak, to see what he can get away with saying before going for the jugular. The eventual revoking of the first amendment.
Remember, Obama is a disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of politics.
ReplyDeleteFrom Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, the one dedicated to Lucifer?
Rule #13
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Don't think that just because Obama's first shot across the bow of the first amendment was weak that any further shots will likewise be weak. Remember Shumer's remarks? In effect, "We regulate porn. We should regulate talk radio too." The Liberals in government WILL try to shut down talk radio. They may even succeed.
"They may even succeed."
ReplyDeleteEspecially since the Republicans seem intent on meekly kissing Democrat Ass...er Donkey.
The Republicans have forgotten how to be Republican. AND THAT is a sad state of affairs indeed.
Well Eric, The Democrats have a majority in Congress now. I haven't heard yet if it's a filibuster-proof majority, but if it is, it won't matter if the Republicans behave as Republicans or not.
ReplyDeleteSure it matters! All it takes is a passionate Republican party speaking out, and 2 or more conservative democrats with genuine working consciences.
ReplyDeleteReading (a) the post, then (b) the comments has been my daily adventure through The Looking Glass.
ReplyDeleteThanks ever so much.
"...my daily adventure through The Looking Glass."
ReplyDeleteWhat remains is to determine if you understand what you see. I'm not placing any wagers.
Geoffrey, Obama hasn't taken over the blogosphere yet, so no body's forcing you to read any blog you don't want to read.
ReplyDeleteSo, you don't like what you read? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Run along now. Let the adults converse.
Eric, I've noticed you (or someone) has placed labels on my previous posts. The only reason I haven't labeled them is because i still don't know how. Feel free to label my posts for me as you like.
ReplyDeleteAdults? You guys are a bunch of whiny children!
ReplyDeleteAnd I enjoy coming over here because I don't get a hangover and it isn't illegal, but otherwise, it's like looking at the world through an altered state.
My word! Look a the fuss and feathers.
ReplyDeleteDo you know the provenance of this remark?
While Pres. Obama was having lunch with Dem and Republican house leaders about the stimulus bill, Rep. John Boehner, asked him why he wasn't putting more GOP ideas into the bill. Mr. Obama replied with, "I won." asserting that the American people had chosen his ideas over those of Republicans in the recent election. There followed more repartee about the two parties differing views on economic recovery. This is where supposedly in the midst of a discussion about economics and stimulus and house legislation that Mr. Obama suddenly decided to switch topics and launch a smashing broadside against talk-radio.
One sentence.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
And he didn't feel the need to make his statement any stronger or elaborate sure that everyone knew he was launching a life-or-death struggle with talk radio to rein them in.
You make me laugh. There is not one congressional leader supporting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Pres. Obama stated in his camapign that he opposed the fairness doctrine. Nancy Pelosi has said it would get no support from her. What more do you people need?
What do they want, Ben? Why, they want to feel victimized by the evil-horrible-socilialist-communist-islamofascist President the majority of the American electorate chose in November and the vast majority of American people give favorable or highly favorable ratings to. They want to spin their fantasies, bereft of facts or reason for the sole purpose of feeling themselves to be the faithful if tattered remnant of true Christian America.
ReplyDeleteI find them amusing, really.
Ben has spoken in ignorance. Willfully. Congressional leaders HAVE spoken of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Ben just doesn't want to see it.
ReplyDeleteI've presented the evidence before. I'm not inclined to waste my time doing it again.
---
Sorry, Mark... wasn't me. As to the 'how to' there's a text field at the bottom of the post in "create new post" mode called "labels." Before you click "Post" add a label or two. You can also add them after you post. Just open it up in "edit" mode and add labels.
Have fun with it.
The Dems keep talking about bipartisanship. Obama, if he wanted to be genuinely bipartisan, he divide policy along voting lines. He won 54% of the vote, let his administrations policies reflect a 54% democrat and 46% republican split. That would be fair.
ReplyDeleteWell boys, you've demonstrated what suckers you are by voting for Obama. Pelosi, when asked by Human Events political editor John Gizzi, "Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine?" responded, "Yes." Lying then, or lying now? Change of heart, or just shining us on?
ReplyDeleteIn 2007, Republican Mike Pence of Indiana, offered an amendment to deny funding to the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine in fiscal 08. It passed 309-115.
A few weeks later, Rep. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota offered a similar amendment. Senate Dem Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois objected.
Coleman argued the the free market, not the government, was the best mechanism for providing balance in broadcasting. Durbin rejected the notion that free market applies to radio.
"What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? Whit if it doesn't provide the opportunity to hear both points of view?" asked Durbin. "Since the people who are seeking teh licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?"
Chuck Schumer (you know, Bent, "Schmucky"), suggests that talk radio needs regulation as porn does.
But Obama, while insisting he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, does support caps on the number of radio stations any one organization can own. This is due to a Center for American Progress study that suggests that big organizations are more likely to have conservative hosts or shows, while local, minority or women owners are less likely. If a cap can be applied, it would then limit conservative talk through another door. The FCC has five commissioners who chooses from amongst themselves who is president. No more than three can be from one party and it lacks one member whose term expired. Obama can name a Dem to fill the seat. The rest is easy to figure.
So there ya go. Three members of Congress and one Democrat president with designs on stifling conservative talk. No doubt there's more.
I have to apologize. I was expecting a response for my last and I have noticed a grave error on my part. Bent said, as has Geoffrey on other occasions, "There is not one congressional leader supporting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine." They're absolutely right. There IS not one. There's more. My bad.
ReplyDelete