So I headed down to the Royal York hotel this morning to catch the Law Is Cool kids’ press conference.

Faisal Joseph (dressed a little like Huggybear in his gold accoutrements, yet looking a lot like a 10th grade English teacher that offers the girls “extra credit”), counsel for the Canadian Islamic Congress, sat amid the all-but-silent Law Is Cool students, who are known to be Mohammed El Masry’s fresh-faced sock puppets.

The CIC (absent Dr. El Masry, who I’m sure was off legitimately plotting to kill Jews over the age of 18) and the Law is Coolers called this press conference to announce that they wanted to make a “deal” with Maclean’s magazine, and to advise that they would drop the HRC complaints if their “deal” was accepted.

Well, I don’t know how winning these students will be at law, but if their career aim is politics, they’re off to a great start: the new deal is exactly the same as the old deal. Publish their rebuttal to Steyn’s “The Future Belongs to Islam”, or they’ll carry on with their suit.

Frankly, this isn’t news. They could have stayed home, I could have slept in, and nothing could have been said, and everything would have proceeded apace. After all, that was exactly what they proposed last year, and Ken Whyte - publisher of Maclean’s - said he’d “rather go bankrupt” than be extorted and have his publication hijacked.

Anyway, that was the body of the press conference. Aren’t you glad you stayed home? For your delight and delectation, here’s some observations about the whole thing.

Faisal Joseph (Huggybear) went on and on about “support from party leaders”, then proceeded to hand out a press pack with one letter of government support - from Jack Layton(!). Not so surprisingly, there were also letters from labor unions. Where Taliban Jack goes, the unions follow.

The letters from OPSEU and the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians that were included in the press pack were marked “DRAFT” - I cannot at this time confirm that they are final documents that were meant for release.

Mr. Joseph mentioned that threats had been made against the Osgoode students for having filed the claim against Maclean’s (they didn’t file the claim, by the way - only the CIC is listed on the actual complaint, but why let a little thing like the truth get in the way?). When a reporter for the National Post asked if these threats were being taken seriously and investigated, Mr. Joseph quickly changed the subject without answering the question. In fact, he then went on to scold the young reporter for the Post for taking up too much time and asking too many questions (at a press conference - oh the nerve of him!). If Mr. Joseph was trying to win friends in the press, he was going about it the wrong way. And what of those death threats?

The basis of the entire complaint is supposedly about having an “equal voice”. As many have said, why not start your own damn magazine and leave ours alone? But nay, they want ours. It’s part of the growing phenomenon of Sharia Creep. The darlings have been published in the Toronto Star with a Saturday circulation nearing 450,000 and a weekday circulation of just under 400,000. Maclean’s, on the other hand, has a weekly circulation of about 350,000. So, who got the better deal? So much for the “equal voice” argument.

You can read Kathy’s meltdown here. She was with me, frothing at the mouth, and is now bruised on one side where I kept elbowing her to behave. Five Feet of Fury, indeed. I found it amusing, but then again, I still have both clitoris and humor intact - unlike some religions I could mention.

[Discuss This Topic with Right Girl]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Certainly not in Canada, where we have Human Rights Commissions and Richard Warman suing anyone who invokes him.

U.S. free-speech advocates on Tuesday gave their annual “muzzle” awards to violators including police who charged a woman for swearing at her overflowing toilet, and a motor vehicles department that deemed a “GETOSAMA” license plate offensive.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression said police in Scranton, Pennsylvania had no right to issue a disorderly conduct citation to Dawn Herb, who “let loose a tirade of foul language” directed at her toilet. A neighbor who was an off-duty police officer made a complaint.

The charge was dismissed by a judge who concluded that Herb’s words, though “offensive, vulgar and imprudent” to some, were nonetheless protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the Jefferson center said.

The center also gave an award to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles after it demanded the return of the plates reading “GETOSAMA” that had been issued to a retired police officer who wanted to express his desire to capture Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

The DMV argued they could be considered “lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic group, or patently offensive.” It later offered to let him keep them to settle a lawsuit claiming violation of his First Amendment rights.

God bless America, folks.

[Discuss this topic with Right Girl...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I was so busy yesterday that I missed the dust up over Network Solutions decision to cave in to the interests of disgruntled Muslims and block the domain that Geert Wilders was planning on using for a 15 minute mini-documentary protesting radical Islam.

Thankfully I am a “VIP” customer of Network Solutions and will rectify that tonight when I move my remaining domain name registrations to some place more American (i.e. not in the practice of censorship).

I also sent the following note to my support rep.

Hi,

Please consider this less of a question than a notification. I find Network Solutions decision to censor http://www.fitnathemovie.com/ an abhorrent move that borders on censorship.

That decision is fine with me as you have every right as a private company. But you also have a responsibility as a public company. As a result I will be moving my final remaining domains from Network Solutions ASAP.

Just as I believe private companies have the right to pick and choose private American’s have that same right. I choose to speak with my dollars by spending them somewhere else. It is up to the American people to let corporate censors know that we will not tolerate their heavy handed attempts to dictate the tenor and tone of free speech.

You can contact Network Solutions here:

Network Solutions
Roy Dunbar, CEO
10 Azalea Drive
Drums, PA 18222
800-333-7680
www.networksolutions.com

See Also: Michelle Malkin, The Jawa Report, Hyscience, American Thinker

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Warning: This article contains graphic language, reader discretion is advised.

Yesterday I read that Israel has once again found the need to put the military and her citizens on high alert. But let’s be honest here; can Israel ever really afford to go off of high alert? Anyhow, there is an official declaration of high alert after the death of Jihadist commander Imad Mughniyeh. Hezbollah has accused Israel of killing Mughniyeh and says that it will retaliate “against Israeli targets anywhere in the world”.

Israel ordered its military, embassies and Jewish institutions overseas to go on alert earlier in the day, fearing revenge attacks for the car bomb that killed Mughniyeh Tuesday night in Damascus. The former Hezbollah security chief was one of world’s most wanted fugitives, accused of masterminding attacks that killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Maybe Israel did it, maybe Israel didn’t, who knows? The point is how many more decades need to go by before Israel is allowed to really retaliate against those that not only intend on wiping her off the map? It can be done slowly or quickly but one can not deny that Israel is constantly in the cross hairs of those who mean to do it’s people harm. Yes, I think that Israel should strike hard and I think that all free nations around the world should support such actions until those who continually assault Israel are wiped out or stop the attacks. I know that innocent people will die but how many decades must the world sit by while innocents are killed repeatedly by terrorists? Don’t those innocents count?

It is time to stop screwing around. I can tell you that Radical Islam isn’t screwing around; they are training men and women everyday to end freedom and create tyranny.

Yesterday I heard that Muslim woman are making bomb apparatuses using a prosthetic pregnant belly to get past security. Woman Honor Thyself had the story:

That’s not a pregnant belly - that’s a bomb.

The NYPD is warning business owners to be on the lookout for female jiha–dists who can hide explosives by faking pregnancy or sweet-talk their way past security officers.

“The threat posed by women is real, and it can’t be overlooked,”.. an NYPD intelligence specialist, said at a security conference yesterday.

I am seriously at the point where 1) I honestly don’t care if it was the Israel took out one of the world’s most wanted terrorits. Clearly, Radical Muslims are nuts; c’mon already….and 2) When are we going to get rid of our bonehead politicians that are dicking around, exacerbating radicalism by using political correctness as the only tool in their arsenal.

I’m just waiting for political correctness to bite us on this fake Muslim pregnancy thing too. I predict that various security tactics will be attacked with the fake outrage of racial profiling. It will be turned into a politically correct attack on pregnant Muslim woman instead of being framed as the commonsensical “Don’t like it? Tough shit. We are profiling pregnant Muslim woman because it has come to our attention that Muslim women are using fake pregnancies as a means to kill innocent people”. As a result you can bet that the dumb ass policy makers will be cowed into searching non-Muslim pregnant woman; after all we can’t do a “profile” to catch the bad guys, or in this case girls, so let’s inconvenience everyone else who don’t actually fit the “profile”.

Between the apologists in America and England with its pro-Sharia F’in Archbishop Rowan Williams - What the hell?

Canadian blogger Right Girl said it best:

Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of bloggers and cartoonists to save the world from the new Caliphate, but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

No truer words have ever been spoken. It is up to the bloggers and cartoonists because most of those who are in the position of power seemingly don’t give a shit and are comfortable with being pacifists.

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Tony Snow recently received a Freedom of Speech Award from the Media Institute. In a graceful, humorous, and non-aggressive speech, he traced the First Amendment risks that arise from a monolithic liberal media. He begins by pointing out that it is a fact that the mainstream American media is overwhelmingly liberal and ascribes it to a historical process that began with the long run Democrats had in Congress:

The Roper Organization conducted a poll after the 1992 election and discovered that 93 percent of Washington political reporters voted for Bill Clinton. Only 2 percent identified themselves as “conservative.”

Subsequent surveys have indicated a similar spread in party affiliation, which makes the Washington Press Corps the most reliable Democratic voting bloc in the nation.

This is not a smear or a criticism. It is a fact, and it’s worth examining. My theory is that liberal – Democratic – sympathies flourish among reporters for very practical reasons. Democrats ran every major institution in Washington for 62 years – between 1932 and 1994. That’s the longest string of effective one-party rule in the history of democracy. Reporters knew that to get news, they needed to cultivate the people who made the news – who shaped legislation, who passed the laws, who peopled government departments and agencies – in other words, the people who really pull the levers in Washington. They needed to know elected officials, staffers, bureaucratic gnomes – the vast bulk of whom were Democrats.

Year in, year out, reporters and sources worked together. Over time, many became friendly, if not friends. They attended the same parties. Their kids went to the same schools. They shared stories of their ambitions and fears. They developed empathy for one another.

Reporters knew liberal arguments inside and out, because they heard them all the time from their sources. Meanwhile, they remained strangers to conservative viewpoints, even (or especially) during the heyday of the Reagan Revolution.

I will never forget receiving several calls the day after the surprising Republican landslide in 1994. Political reporters called me, a known conservative in the journalism fraternity, seeking introductions to the exotic breed known as Republicans.

The scribes harbored no personal animosity toward conservatives. They just weren’t used to dealing with them. They felt the need to approach them cautiously, with the blend of suspicion and fear you might feel if someone asked you to stroke a Gila monster.

Having established that there is such a monolithic liberal viewpoint — and having done so without attributing bad motives to anyone (typical for the genial, graceful Snow), Snow goes on to explain just why it is so dangerous that the media has a single viewpoint and, even more damagingly, a viewpoint blinkered by the orthodoxies of political correctness:

The ideological sameness of major news organizations is bad journalism, bad business and bad for the First Amendment, which was designed to foment ferocious debate – not orthodoxy.

***

A free press is supposed to relish and weigh ideas, not discard some simply on the basis of polite fashion. It’s a good thing to walk in someone else’s shoes, to try to see the world as they do. The quest permits one to look at issues and events from different angles and perspectives, to encounter new ways of thinking, and to add to one’s mental toolkit. It makes an already interesting job even more stimulating, and can make smart reporters even sharper when it comes to understanding national stories and trends.

But smugness isn’t the only threat to the First Amendment. Political correctness also stands in the way. It routinely imposes the kind of censorship journalists ought to hate most –prior restraint. It forbids the mere contemplation or acknowledgment of views that ruffle the feathers of self-appointed arbiters of the acceptable. These grandees usually find some kindly explanation for their banning of forbidden topics and thoughts – the communications in question hurt people’s feelings, invoke stereotypes, that sort of thing. But let’s be clear: the First Amendment didn’t create allowances for censors.

The Constitution’s authors would have grasped the utter frivolity of political correctness. It isn’t necessary. American society has a wonderful record of rejecting demagogues and verbal exhibitionists, without prodding or intervention from self-appointed scolds. The votaries of hatred and division occasionally have their day, but never for long. Americans have little patience for tub-thumping maniacs, and they reject demagogues with regular and ruthless efficiency.

In fact, the average Joe is far less susceptible to shabby fads than the PC police, who have become so ubiquitous and whose ministrations have become so absurd that even my elementary-school children are making fun of them – and not because Daddy has prompted them to do so.

Unfortunately, some in the press have adopted PC etiquette and practice without coercion from a Grand Inquisitor. There are questions some media organizations simply don’t ask. For instance, is racism as bad as it was two decades ago? The answer is no. If you doubt it, check out your kids. They’re refreshingly devoid of the bigotry and self-consciousness that characterized our youth. This is an immensely positive development, but nobody dares acknowledge it. It’s forbidden. And so race-baiters generate headlines, while healers and innovators toil unnoticed.

Snow doesn’t stop with those points, but goes on to discuss the blindness behind conventional wisdom, the dangers of elevating gossip journalism to front page status, the hostility to religion that the traditional media displays, and a few other points of weakness. It’s vintage Snow: intelligent, accurate, humorous, and without meanness. I urge you to read it all, which you can do here.

UPDATE: See also Noel Sheppard’s coverage.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm at Bookworm Room]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The vermin trash on the American Left can claim another victory in the assault on all things religious by shutting down the historic ritual of flag-folding recitations at Veteran’s burials by employees of the Veterans administration. This is what you get when you elect Godless Democrats to office:

RIVERSIDE,California - Complaints about religious content have led to a ban on flag-folding recitations by Veterans Administration employees and volunteers at all 125 national cemeteries. It all started because of one complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery in California.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors. For example, the 12th fold glorifies “God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost.”

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The National Cemetery Administration decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint weren’t disclosed.

Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system. He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

I personally don’t know how I missed this 3 day old story but it is important. Michelle Malkin lists the meaning of each fold:

These meanings, not part of the U.S. Flag Code, have been ascribed to the 13 folds of American flags at veterans burial services:

1. Symbol of life.

2. Symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

3. In honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

4. Represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

5. A tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, “Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.”

6. Represents where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

7. A tribute to our armed forces.

8. A tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother’s Day.

9. A tribute to womanhood.

10. A tribute to father.

11. In the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

12. In the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.

13. When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, “In God We Trust.”

Anyone that doesn’t realize what is at stake in 2008 is simply clueless. Liberalism has been the worst thing to happen to this country, ever. Rather than create tolerance it has grown more intolerant, bigoted and closed minded. Today’s crop of leftists is even more entrenched within the Democratic party thanks to the Clinton’s, Hollywood and a mainstream media brought up in the fog of bongs, acid and cocaine. Some people just never grow up, others are just plain stupid. These people have ushered in a Congress whose job approval ratings are matching historic lows on the following October polls, CNN 75% disapproval, FOX 54% disapproval, LA Times 69% disapproval, CBS 59% disapproval, Reuters 87% fair/poor, Harris 77% fair/poor, NPR 69% disapproval, Gallup 71% disapproval, AP-IPSOS 74% disapproval. Most approval ratins are even more dismal in the range of 11-22%. At best only 2 out of every 10 people approve of the job that the Democrat led congress is doing. The attack on religion, especially Judaism and Christianity is a major reason. Moral values, family values and faith mean something to a majority of Americans.

Stop Democrats NOW and save America’s future for our children.

| Trackback URL | Comments (3 Comments)

Courtesy of the Anchoress, I’ve learned that Ann Coulter has done it again, this time coming out with remarks that are going to sound anti-Semitic. Here’s what Ann said during an interview with Donny Deutsch:

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you’re not.

***

DEUTSCH: That isn’t what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly — you’re too educated, you can’t — you’re like my friend in –

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean –

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don’t I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can’t believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, “Let’s wipe Israel” –

COULTER: I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: “Let’s wipe Israel off the earth.” I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. .

I’m Jewish, but I have to admit to being entirely unoffended by what Ann said — but that’s only because I understand what she said. All Christians believe that Jews have stopped short of attaining salvation, in that they’ve got a firm grasp of the “Judeo” things regarding morality and God, but they forgot to put in the Christian part. That is, as a Jew who does not recognize Christ as my savior, I’m denying myself salvation. Indeed, that’s what Christ himself said. Indeed, that’s the entire point of Christianity, especially when seen against the foil of Judaism against which it arose. And that’s what Ann is saying in the language I highlighted: “We have the fast-track program.”
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

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)

There’s what I consider an intentionally funny story today about a radio station afraid of reading Howl on the air because it’s afraid it might run afoul of FCC rules governing broadcasting:

Fifty years ago today, a San Francisco Municipal Court judge ruled that Allen Ginsberg’s Beat-era poem “Howl” was not obscene. Yet today, a New York public broadcasting station decided not to air the poem, fearing that the Federal Communications Commission will find it indecent and crush the network with crippling fines.

Free-speech advocates see tremendous irony in how Ginsberg’s epic poem - which lambastes the consumerism and conformism of the 1950s and heralds a budding American counterculture - is, half a century later, chilled by a federal government crackdown on the broadcasting of provocative language.

In the new media landscape, the “Howl” controversy illustrates how indecency standards differ on the Internet and on the public airwaves. Instead of broadcasting the poem on the air today, New York listener-supported radio station WBAI will include a reading of the poem in a special online-only program called “Howl Against Censorship.” It will be posted on www.pacifica.org, the Internet home of the Berkeley-based Pacifica Foundation, because online sites do not fall under the FCC’s purview.

As you can see, the story makes a big point out of the fact that, 50 years ago, the Supreme Court held that it isn’t absence. That’s as may be. The problem, of course, isn’t that the overall work is obscene, it’s that it uses obscenities that are banned from the airwaves, because we are making a last ditch stand to have someplace where our kids won’t have to hear those words. Even the news report notes that standards differ on the internet, where parents can theoretically place blocking software, and public airwaves, where there’s nothing between a kid and whatever garbage may come spewing out of the radio dial.

Anyway, reading this silly story about a tempest in a teapot had me going back to look at Howl. How dirty is it, I wanted to know. I can confidently say, after struggling through the first two verses that it’s dirt is irrelevant. It’s just awful. Its only virtue 50 years ago was it’s shock value. Nowadays, where nothing is too shocking, it has nothing going for it. It simply stands out as a boring, somewhat illiterate screed by a very angry man.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No 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)