Tavis Smiley Publicist Promotes Justice Clarence Thomas Book Discussion with Character Bashing E-Mail

I received an e-mail this week from Brian Steffen who is the online publicist for Tavis Smiley. The e-mail was a promotion for a PBS airing of a panel discussion on “My Grandfather’s Son,” the new book by Justice Clarence Thomas. The e-mail consisted of an advance set of excerpts that were designed to entice me to watch the program. The only problem was that every excerpt in the e-mail took a pot shot at Justice Thomas by attacking his character, without substance of course, very much in line with most of the criticisms that Thomas has had to endure mainly because he is a black conservative.

But there is more going on here than the criticism of Justice Thomas as it appears in an unsolicited e-mail. The context of the comments reveal the true biases of liberal educators, certain representatives of black activist organizations and that of the media darlings that put these people on a pedestal. You will soon see that their bias feeds into the notion that the Supreme Court should be used as a tool to create policy and subvert the role of the other two branches of government that most readily represents the people. The bias also allows the panel guests to extend the cry for equal time under fairness doctrine like standards; a cry that is increasingly being used as a weapon to try and silence the free speech rights of conservatives in talk radio, on TV and the internet.

The one sided group of panelists on Tavis Smiley’s Monday night show consisted of Marc Morial, President and CEO of The National Urban League, Princeton professor Cornel West, and Columbia University President, Farah Jasmine Griffin.

After rambling on endlessly in attack after attack on the integrity of Justice Thomas the panelists called for equal time from “60 minutes” to present someone to counter last Sunday’s Thomas interview.

“60 Minutes” owes the public a second piece, to give equal airtime to those of us who want to offer a completely different analysis and a different point of view. - Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League

Ironic isn’t it? Probably less so than enlightening for many. The fact of the matter is that liberals can’t stand to have their ideas challenged. The lynch mob that was assembled on Smiley’s program devoted a whole show to the character assassination of Justice Thomas before winding down the segment demanding equal time on another show to do the very same thing. That is what liberal elitists consider as “equal” time. Of the two outlets, CBS and PBS, which one would you imagine as having a larger public duty toward fulfilling an equal time requirement?
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (6 Comments)

San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval says that condemnation of immigrants “leads to the beating of Muslim-Americans and many other Americans.”

Democrat leftists that are no better than soviet era communists are using every tool in the shed to try and shutdown conservative talk radio. Everybody has been paying attention to the efforts of Democrats in Congress in the smear against Rush Limbaugh. But that is only one front on the war against free speech. Today the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to condemn nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage for using hate speech.

What did Savage do? A group of students announced that they were going to fast until they starve to death in support of opening up our borders during the height of the immigration debate over the summer. Savage responded on his show with his typical melodramatic and very entertaining response, “I would say, let them fast until they starve to death then that solves the problem.”

However liberals are using these comments as a stepping stone to shut Savage down. The response by San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval and 8 of the 9 members on the city’s board of supervisors was a Linda Chavezian style attack calling Savage’s comments racist and hateful; condemning the conservative talk show host for “defamatory language against immigrants.”

This is the same sleight of hand that Democrats in congress and their liberal backers in the media used against Rush Limbaugh. I would call them jealous but the motives are much more underhanded and dangerous than that. These people can’t handle having their views challenged. Conservative talk radio is the one mainstream media outlet that liberals haven’t been able to stack in their favor. Hence they whip out the smear machine to fan the flames of bigoted emotion while Democrats quietly work to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine using back door methods.

It will come as no surprise that Dick Durban is leading the effort to shut down those who rightfully note that his policies are more in line with the Taliban than they are with the American soldier.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said broadcasters should be required to give listeners both sides of political issues so voters can make informed decisions. - The Hill

I’ll say the following again to any clear minded person reading this article that many swing to the left. It may be conservative talk show hosts today but this will turn against you tomorrow. Voters can easily make informed decisions without a government official monitoring speech to make sure it isn’t slanted one way or another.

Republicans in Congress are responding to the Democrat attack by sponsoring legislation that would protect broadcasters from government intervention.

Pence, a former professional talk radio host, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on Monday sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) demanding a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

In their letters, Pence and Walden cited broad support for their bill as well as a vote on an appropriations amendment earlier this year showing that many Democrats are wary of angering politically influential radio personalities such as Limbaugh. The Republican lawmakers gave Democratic leaders a deadline of the end of next week.

“Over 200 of our colleagues have joined us as co-sponsors of this important measure,” Pence and Walden wrote.

“Considering the significance associated with protecting free speech, we respectfully request that you schedule floor action on H.R. 2905 by Friday, October 12, 2007. While we may not always agree with those who are on the airwaves, as members of Congress and freedom-loving Americans, we should never back down from an opportunity to defend their rights or speak their piece.”

Under House rules, members of the minority party can force House leaders to schedule a vote on controversial legislation by obtaining 218 signatures on a discharge petition.

Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, such as Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.), where conservative radio personalities enjoy higher visibility among voters, may face pressure at home to sign such a petition. Doing so would anger Democratic leaders because it would allow Republicans to seize control of the House agenda. At least 17 Democrats must sign a discharge petition to force a vote on the legislation.

“I don’t think freedom is a partisan issue,” said Pence, who emphasized his efforts to build bipartisan support for the legislation.

The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from setting rules and policies reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Give Pence credit, he said this issue would be back in our faces a few months ago and he was right.

On the heels of the Savage condemnation we note that 41 Democrats in Congress condemned Rush using a lie as the springboard. This isn’t much different than something Stalin would do right before your family disappeared in the middle of the night. The smear, the lies and personal attacks is where it starts. Stalin often incited political upheaval through class warfare and worker revolution; no different than Democrats today. Like Democrats, Stalin blamed other people for his problems, never one to lay the blame at his feet or the system that kept him in power. Democrats and liberals hate conservativism, Stalin hated capitalism. One of the dirtiest sleight of hand tactics that Stalin used was to rewrite history to besmirch, denigrate and tarnish the image of those leaders who had come before him and political enemies that he faced. Stalin used slander as a tool to help eliminate his opponents.

This is a mirror image reflection of what is going on in America today under the iron fisted tactics of Democrats in Congress.

But there is hope; people are fighting back and waking up to what is happening. Civil rights attorney Daniel A. Horowitz, no conservative, has offered to represent Michael Savage.

“You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco,” he advised. “You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired.”

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

“You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict,” wrote Horowitz. “This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights.”

Horowitz wrote: “The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward’s hood of the Klan.”

The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants’ green cards and citizenship. - World Net Daily

This is just one more attack on your right to challenge politicians and is just one more reason why voting in 2008 is so important.

See also: Michelle Malkin

| Trackback URL | Comments (10 Comments)

It’s time to make the liars in the mainstream media eat their words. Personally I think Rush Limbaugh should sue lying idiots like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and Media Matters for personal damages, but that is Rush’s cross to bear.

A better approach would be along the lines of getting everybody out voting in 2008 to make sure that the Democrat liars behind the liars in the mainstream media are solidly pushed back into the political graveyard. 2008 is the biggest vote of our lifetime and the Democrat scum that has crawled its way into Congress should be sent a clear message, we aren’t going to take it anymore.

The first thing you should do is contact Armed Forces Radio and let them know in no uncertain terms that silencing Rush Limbaugh under false pretenses is an affront to the troops. (H/t Radio Equalizer) Rush Limbaugh never called the troops phony, he was talking about those lying anti-war ass wipes on the left that are posing as soldiers for the express purpose of smearing the military. They are the phonies, as are the mainstream media morons that think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. Let’s consider just how well that strategy has worked out for the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Nonetheless, the left is not about to stop trying to fool the American people; i.e. they think you are stupid.

The phony Rush Limbaugh story is an effort to do four things as I see it:

1. First and foremost it is an effort to demoralize the troops. Imagine how you’d feel if your biggest supporters suddenly started turning on you. This is no coincidence when it finally looks like a strategy is working. Democrats have been strategizing for quite some time on this front as they have been fully vested in defeat.
2. Second, democrats are trying to appear as if they support the troops even though it was the Democratic Party that tried to repeatedly pull the rug out from under the troops since day 1. Just like the Democrat’s new found faith in religion they have to pander to the military by faking it.
3. Third, Hillary Clinton has deep ties to Media Matters, the liberal smear machine that promoted this false story on Rush. Does anyone else think it is odd that this “faux” scandal would pop up right as Hillary Clinton finds herself immersed in the middle of one of the biggest fund raising scandals of recent memory. Norman Hsu is a serial fugitive on the run with ties to China. He has been a critical component of Democrat fundraising efforts for some time.

   Perhaps they don’t want you to know that they are trying to make an end run around justice by using a loophole in California law to get Hsu off the hook on some charges and delay the trial until after the 2008 elections.

   Hsu’s defense team hopes to undo his California plea and force prosecutors back to square one in the California case – a new trial or dismissal of the charges. Brosnahan has said he intends to exploit state law that requires the same judge who takes a defendant’s plea to mete out the sentence. The judge who took Hsu’s plea in California has since retired.

   Friday’s hearing was focused on Hsu’s effort to recover $2 million in bail money and withdraw the no-contest plea. Attorneys on both sides, along with a judge, agreed to hold another hearing on the matter Nov. 2.
   
   Hsu spoke only one word in court, replying “yes” when asked by Superior Court Judge Stephen M. Hall whether he remained willing to waive his right to a speedy trial.

   Ronald Smetana, a California deputy attorney general, said after the hearing he was eager to see the case resolved but had little alternative but agree to the delay.

   Mark my words. This Hsu trial is going to end up sidelined as sure as the day is long.

4. Fourth, democrats want to take the focus off of the MoveOn.org BetrayUs debacle and put it on conservatives. This is an effort to even the score but it won’t work if you don’t let it.

Again we find ourselves up against a bunch of lying media types and their backers. It’s time to put their spin machine down with force. Don’t stay silent on this one. Our future depends on it!

Previous: Democrats Use Fake Phony Soldier Outrage, George Soros and Washington Insiders to Shut Down Free Speech

See Also: Newsbusters, Michelle Malkin, ScrappleFace, Hot Air
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (2 Comments)

Pay attention. This is a message for all you advocates of free speech, everyone concerned about corruption in government and the transparency behind media spin machines that target the speech of people that disagree with leading voices in Congress. It may be an attack on Republican voices now but it could also be anyone that has the audacity to challenge elitists in Congress on their positions.

Democrats in Congress are readying to offer a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for his statements about phony soldiers that have been feeding left wing blogs and mainstream media outlets with false information concerning conduct in the military. Coincidentally, ABC news reported on the same fake soldier story 2 days before Rush had even mentioned it as noted by Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer.

Hot Air sums it up nicely.

No, I don’t think that there’s a connection between the ABC story and Rush’s comment, other than the obvious: There is a phony soldier phenomenon going on out there, and several phony soldiers have been touted by several leftwing anti-war groups over the past few years. That’s what ABC News was reporting on, and that’s what Rush was talking about.

Now, a word about all of this. Some liberals out there want Rush removed from Armed Forces Network broadcasts. They’re all drafting letters to send to Congress demanding Rush’s removal. That’s because they hate Rush, they always have, and they’re opportunistically seizing on this issue to get him removed from broadcasts meant mainly to entertain US troops serving overseas who don’t have access to Rush’s show otherwise. It’s not really about this particular comment; it’s about Rush’s long record of effectively countering leftwing politics.

The result of comments by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly was an out of context attack on the conservative talk show hosts initiated by Media Matters, an organization that is linked intricately to Bill and Hillary Clinton along with the big time dollars of George Soros who is essentially a foreign born leftist trying to usurp American politics with his ultra-left radical agenda.

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters has been reporting on the story. He links up this FrontPage Mag column here, titled “Media Matters: Hillary’s Lap Dogs,” and explains how a seemingly benign 501(c)(3) could be linked to a Senator and Presidential candidate.

In doing so we visit the Democrat attack on Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly that is supposed to take the pressure off Democrats who have been tarnished by the scurrilous and fake MoveOn.org attack on American Hero General Petraeus.

I can’t even come close to the job that Noel Sheppard has done on carrying this developing story and how corrupt politicians are creating walls between their positions and those who criticize them.

Is the picture becoming clearer? Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.

In fact, after Imus was fired by NBC and CBS, Media Matters published a 6,000-word article entitled “It’s Not Just Imus,” listing other political enemies of the Clintons such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.

As Perazzo stated, “By eliminating such conservative voices from the airwaves, Media Matters could effectively insulate much of the American public from ever hearing about the negative traits and hidden agendas of Hillary Clinton, and thereby, in essence, ensure her ascendancy to the Oval Office.”

Well, last week, Media Matters went after Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and, sadly, many in the press bought their smears hook, line, and sinker without fully investigating what both hosts really said, and what the context of their statements were.

Maybe even more disgraceful, as press members parrot the cherry-picked reports from Media Matters, they are mute concerning the organization’s ties to a former president and current Democrat front-runner to win the White House in 2008.

Democrats are increasingly acting as if they are the leaders in the old Soviet Union, shutting down opposition through smears and lies.

Be sure to visit Rush Limbaugh’s front page for links to this story. Follow up with the Newsbuster Links, The Influence Peddler, Michelle Malkin and Hot Air.

| Trackback URL | Comments (10 Comments)

We heard the first rumblings from Senator Feinstein as she discussed bringing back the inappropriately named Fairness Doctrine and now Democrats are stepping up one after the other to jump on the bandwagon. The latest are John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) and Dick Durbin who both believe we need the Fairness Doctrine to bring back balance to talk radio.

To Democrats, it is just unimaginable that Conservatives fill the airwaves with their talk shows while those shows featuring Liberals flounder and fade away. The Democrats believe that their message is not getting out because Conservative radio is distorting the truth. What Democrats are really saying is that they do not want you to have a choice in what you listen to and they will force people in the private sector to give opposing views the chance to air.

The Democrats believe this is fair but what it really is is an extension of their Socialist ways. They are, in essence, redistributing the opinions expressed on radio. They are not really any different than Hugo Chavez who seized control of radio stations in his Socialist “paradise.” Democrats love to redistribute things, especially things they do not own or do not like. They take our money from us in the form of taxes and they spread it around to the “have nots” in society. B. Hussein Obama has nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks requested and this is just from ONE person. He wants to take 400 million of your hard earned dollars and use them on things you will probably never see or use. The Democrats also want to take away air time from Conservatives and spread it among the Liberals so they can go on the air and whine for a while about the injustice of it all.

This week the Senate voted to move the immigration amnesty bill along and the Democrats used a few maneuvers to limit Republican debate on the bill. The Democrats are also requiring votes on amendments to the bill without them being read thus denying Republicans the chance to oppose amendments. The Democrats are not being very fair about giving Republicans equal time with regard to this legislation. Perhaps we need a fairness doctrine for Congress that says they have to allow the other side the opportunity to express an opposing view. That won’t happen because Democrats do not care about fairness. All they care about is remaining in power and redistributing our wealth.

What Democrats want is unfair and it is not American. They want to stymie free speech in violation of the First Amendment. They want to force people to listen to things that they do not want to listen to. They are using the airwaves to force their propaganda on us and they expect us to love it because, after all, who does not like “fairness.”

If Democrats really gave a damn about fairness they would also require this of television and the print media. They do not require it for these media because those entities are favorable to Democrats. Therein lies the rub; the idea of fairness only applies when the Democrats want a better break. When the odds are in their favor, all is peachy keen.

With this BS to look forward to and the possibility of Congress giving away our country, we might need another revolution. We fought for freedom from a tyrannical government and that government was great compared to the one we have now. The next revolution though, will come at the ballot box.

The Democrats hope to silence Conservative talk radio. What most of America wants is for the politicians to be quiet for a change…

[Discuss this article with the Big Dog...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

There is always a very good possibility that, whichever Republican wins in the primaries, you won’t like that person. You may even be tempted to throw away a vote by abstaining or making a “protest vote” for a third party candidate. I’ve urged against that conduct on the ground that, no matter how bad the Republican candidate is from your point of view, the Democratic candidate will only be worse. My particular sticking point on this issue is the Supreme Court, but you can substitute just about any policy or practice in its place. Just today, Richard Baehr reminded me that free speech will also be on the chopping block if too many conservative voters, dissatisfied with the primary process, decide to “make a statement” in November 2008.

UPDATE: No surprise that Michelle Malkin has extensive blog coverage of the increasing momentum behind the attack on conservative talk radio.

UPDATE II: Incidentally, liberals are right that talk radio is dangerous — for liberal ideas. From 1987 through 2002, I spent all of my drive time listening to the liberal gold standard, aka NPR. That, as well as the SF Chron, the NY Times, the New Yorker, and the New Republic, completely informed my universe of ideas.

I got disenchanted first with NPR. I’d find myself in the car hollering at the radio “that’s wrong,” or “that’s illogical,” or “that’s stupid,” or “that’s anti-Semitic.” Eventually, I couldn’t make myself listen to those shows any more. The question became, then, where to go? I like talk in the car, not music, so I decided to amuse myself by listening to . . . gasp . . . Rush Limbaugh.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Rush wasn’t the brutal idiot so beloved of liberal stereotypes. Instead, the show had a format that allowed Rush to develop ideas and, because of the interview and call-in format, to defend those ideas. Most he defended well; some he defended badly. I was impressed despite myself — and despite the irritation of the constant commercials, something I’d gotten used to doing without during my public radio years.

From Rush it was a hop, skip and a jump to my favorite radio personality, Dennis Prager, the man I consider the most logical, humane, liberal, rational spokesman around. Again, Prager is able to be precisely this because the long, open format of talk radio allows him both to expand upon and, even more importantly, to defend his ideas. It didn’t take me long to discover Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. By then I realized that the blinkered world that is NPR can be very informative, but that it is not a marketplace of ideas. Every story is carefully constructed so as to advance a conclusion, but that advocacy is hidden from the credulous liberal audience. Nothing is challenged; no fresh air is allowed; and most importantly, no alternate views are given free voice. Instead, opposing views are limited to 10 or 15 second bites that are immediately rebutted in the static format of a 6 minute radio story.

I eventually concluded that while talk radio definitely has its faults — the primary one being that it doesn’t provide a well-rounded news report, because it’s primarily an opinion format — the virtues far outweighed the faults. There is no hidden agenda, because each show’s host is remarkably open about his beliefs. There is lots of time to develop ideas, especially because of the interview format. And unlike NPR, which is careful to give 98% of its interview shows to people with whom the hosts agree, talk radio hosts such as Hewitt, Medved and Prager seem to relish the opportunity to have on people with whom they do not agree. These ensuing conversations, therefore, provide a rare marketplace of ideas — rare, at least, in today’s one-sided major media.

Which gets me back to my original point — the liberals are right to fear talk radio because, one ideas are removed from the rigidly orchestrated framework that is the MSM and NPR, and get full airing and debate, liberal ideas don’t smell so good any more.

Others on this subject:
Sister Toldjah, JammieWearingFool, Iowa Voice, Hot Air, Conservative Blogger, La Shawn Barber

Fairness Doctrine

| Trackback URL | Comments (1 Comment)