"Fairness Doctrine" (a wolf in sheep's clothing)

When Human Events editor John Gizzi asked if she would support a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" on June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) answered with a solid, "yes". This should be disturbing to any American who believes in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and well...freedom in general. The name "Fairness Doctrine" is another way of controlling what broadcasters can broadcast in the good name of being "fair". It has been common knowledge that conservative talk radio shows have been an incredible success, particularly since Bill Clinton came into office with Rush Limbaugh. At a time when the mainstream news was drooling over the Clintons, Limbaugh became a voice for Conservatism, giving a platform for conversation, and even put a spotlight on issues that the media overlooked. Today, there are a number of successful conservative, and even libertarian, radio hosts with shows that has listeners in the millions every day.

Liberals, usually Democrat, will complain and argue that these shows are biased. Of course they are biased, they are conservative talk shows. There is no hiding that fact. That is the purpose of these talk shows. Just like Air America, or Alan Colmes, these sell themselves as being conservative or liberal. Unlike the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, which is to deliver the news of the day, without bias (which I still question), these are talk shows, even entertainment. It is obvious that the liberal based talk radio shows are not as successful as the conservative shows. In fact, conservative talk radio has played a huge role in rallying Republican and conservative independent voters; a much larger role then liberal talk radio. Could this have anything to do with Nancy Pelosi and her thought police trying to bring this "Fairness Doctrine" back into play? Whey would anyone who believes in freedom of speech want this doctrine? I would say that they want to shut down, and shut up conservative talk radio.

Supporters of this doctrine will tell us that this is not censorship, but rather a way of allowing equal debate. That is fine and dandy if that is the purpose of a radio program; like the cable program Hannity & Colmes. But if the sole purpose of a radio program is to talk about topics from a conservative perspective, not hiding that fact from the get go, then who has the right to come in and "police" that speech and platform. This is a free country, and liberals have had successful talk radio program too. They have that right, and many of those people are also against this doctrine. Talk radio is just not as popular among liberal listeners as conservative listeners. The numbers speak for themselves. But that does not give the government a right to be the program director of the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Alan Colmes for that matter.

It is sad, but has become the norm, to see people who claim to be free thinkers, even "liberal minded", be willing to put a proverbial dog muzzle on the mouths of Americans who want to speak freely on our airwaves. When will they decide to control what we, the bloggers, can write about. Will they force me to write, equally, about liberal topics that I don't agree with? Why do liberals always live by the "do as I say, not as I do" motto. I think the new name for Democrats should be the "Hipocratic Party" (they can keep the donkey, stubborn as they are). My fellow Americans, liberal, independent, conservative; Barack Obama says he wants to bring "change" to our government. Once again, is this the type of change that he intends. Remember it is Pelosi and the Democrat run Congress that has been running things for the past couple years- this is a little preview of "change". Obama, Pelosi and gang- we don't want YOUR kind of change. Don't Tread on Us!

Unity, N.H. ... give me a break.

Are people in New Hampshire gullible? Or is it just the people in Unity, N.H.? Hillary Clinton and the "Obamanator", in what looked more like a scripted stage play, stroked each other as if nothing they said about each other for the past year had any meaning. This event, as staged as it was, is living proof that you can't take anything these two political illusionists say seriously. Do they think we are that naive? Well, apparently they do; and the people in Unity, NH who were gathered at this nauseating political rally must be. I know the majority of the Obama supporters are obviously swooned by empty promises and fake smiles, but there are a lot more people in America who can see through his smoke and mirrors (at least I hope so). I feel like I need to take a shower after watching those two on stage today...

Hillary's gift to McCain...

In sports, there are times where the opposing team accidently scores a point, fouls out a player, or simply makes an error so bad that it is looked at as a "gift". Something that can help propel a team ahead, or even into victory, even if the home team isn't playing up to par. On March 3, 2008, Senator Clinton, rightfully so, questioned whether Barack Obama had passed the "Commander in Chief" test. But it doesn't stop there. She also went on to explain that, "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience...". This is a gift. The fact that she is going out and campaigning for Obama now doesn't do a whole lot for her credibility. Why would someone campaign for someone who they didn't believe passed the "Commander in Chief" test 4 months earlier. Did I miss something here? Did Obama go to some sort of "Commander in Chief Boot Camp" that I didn't know about? Or is Hillary bowing down to typical partisan politics, rather then what she believes in. This news conference video clip is a golden opportunity, and says a whole lot more about Hillary then anything else. Now let's see if the McCain team will do anything with this one; and will the mainstream media pick up on it, or sweep it under the rug. We'll be watching! Click on the video below to watch...

Obama say what??!

In case you didn't hear it, or had forgotten about it, Barack Hussein Obama would rather see the United States defense and military look something closer to Afghanistan's (of course since we have helped them out these past few years they might be better off then us with Obama as president). In this video message from 2007 he explains what he would do if elected. The key words to pay attention to are, "...I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems" (just because we haven't had to use them yet, doesn't make them unproven Mr. Obama) and "I will slow our development of future combat systems" (great, while Iran and the rest of the America haters are building up their arsenals, Obama wants to "castrate" our military technology. Yeah, we here you loud and clear Barack). So with that said, I will let the "Obamanator" speak for himself in this video...

Inform yourself...

Author and Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, Paul Kengor, writes an incredibly revealing and fact finding article over at the American Thinker. Whether you are a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, or Independent voter, this article is a must read. The sad thing is, there are large amounts of journalists who would like nothing more then for you not to read this article and others like it. Why don't we hear about this side of history? Do yourself a favor, politics aside, read this article. One of the topics of the article is how American Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis went on to mentor none other then Barrak Obama- though his story has started to change now that he is in an election year. But putting Obama aside, this article goes into details of how American liberals were used, willingly, by the Communist Party U.S.A (CPUSA)...here's an excerpt:

"...He showed not only that Davis was a communist, but -- listen up, liberals -- how Davis and his comrades worked to undermine genuine liberal causes because of their lock-step subservience to the Comintern and the USSR. Modern liberals need to understand, for example, how the American communist movement, including men like Davis, flip-flopped on issues as grave as Nazism and World War II based entirely on whether Hitler was signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin or invading Stalin's Soviet Union. The disgusting about-face by CPUSA on this matter was unforgivable. And what a shame that liberal college professors don't teach this to their students. Liberals also need to know how their friends inside government were used by communists who sought victory for Mao Tse-Tung in China in 1949, which would lead to the single greatest concentration of corpses in human history: 60-70 million dead Chinese from 1957 to 1969."

"...Where does Obama meet Davis? -- in Hawaii. Similar to Obama, whose mother moved from Kansas to Seattle to Honolulu, with Obama on to Chicago, Frank Marshall Davis went from Kansas to Chicago to Honolulu. Obama freely admits to learning and taking advice from Davis, which surely was nothing like the "Midwestern values" that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) claimed his mother learned in Kansas. While most Americans by the late 1970s and early 1980s were at last convinced that détente with the Soviets was a sham, and that the USSR was an Evil Empire that needed to be dissolved, Obama almost certainly was learning exactly the opposite -- moving totally against what Ronald Reagan described as the "tide of history," a "freedom tide" that would "leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."

READ FULL STORY HERE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/return_of_the_dupes_and_the_an.html

Obama's church value system...

Now I don't want to reverse the wheels and bring up the whole Trinity United Church circus again...BUT...I can't stop thinking about what makes up this guys inner core for the past 20 or so years. Its not like we have this vast timeline work this guy has done. He has spent more time hanging with sketchy people in Chicago then time spent working for our country's best interest. Ok, so he isn't a member of Trinity United Church of Christ at this time. If he had stopped attending 15 years ago or so, one might give some credit to his judgment. But he dropped his membership only after the mass media got wind of the views shared and preached at this congregation. The question in the minds of many is whether or not this had anything to do with his personal beliefs or politics...yeah. Let's look at what's at the core of Trinity United. Taken directly from their website...(my commentary in parenthesis)

"These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They consist of the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God. (after they talk down whitey, Hillary, and America)
   
   
2. Commitment to the Black Community. (and only the black community)
   
   
3. Commitment to the Black Family. (not a bad idea here either, but don't ask about marriage counseling- story here )
   
   
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. (hey, we're on a roll here, positive stuff here- of course education means a steady stream of Maoist and Marxist ideologies with a sprinkle of Black Panther, with a side of Nation of Islam.)
   
   
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence. (Great idea, if only it didn't just apply to the "Wright" people, see #8)
   
   
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic. (Ok, now they are starting to lose me. What exactly is the difference between "work ethics" and "Black Work Ethic", does this mean if one becomes successful they must turn their earnings over to "the Wright man"?)
   
   
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. (Even when cheering on racist remarks in church, mocking white people, jewish people, or Hillary Clinton)
   
   
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” (Class warfare, here we go. Those evil middle class people, we should model ourselves like good old Rev. Wright and his country club mansion- elevator included. Also see communism, socialism, Marxism.)
   
   
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.(Unless these skills lead them to success- unless you are a pastor or politician)
   
   
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions. (Can't argue with this)
    
    
11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System. (The key phrase here is "embrace the Black Value System", forget about successful black leadership that embraces a united multi race value system)
    
    
12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System. (once again, its all about the "embracement of "black value system")"

This is the "ideological stew" that the man who is one election away from being our commander and chief has been marinating in for the past 20 years. If John McCain, or any other person, Democrats included, had spent 20 years with a group who was their "spiritual mentor" like this, but replace the word "black" with "white", they would not even have made it through a week of campaining. How can Americans even begin to buy into this guy's weak statements when he comes out with them, saying that he does not share these beliefs? Have people's brains become so numb to reality that they can't detect what is, excuse my wording, but b.s. This is not American Idol people. Ladies, this is not America's Top Model, "Male Edition". And for the college kids whose parents are paying your way through your dooby-fused education, just because Obama is half black doesn't mean he can rap. This is the guy who will make decisons like dismantling our defense systems- he talks about it here (very disturbing indeed). So next time you hear Barack Hussein Obama talk about unity, go back to the list that became part of his "spiritual mentoring" listed above. Is this what the United States needs? Has he really been around people who are really about "uniting" or "dividing". The answers seem pretty clear. Put down the cell phone, i-Pod; log off MySpace, really listen to what Obama is not saying.

Obama = change?

Obama has been drilling into the minds of Americans that he is the candidate of change. Like ants taking the poison back to their nests, people have been taking Obama's "bait" and regurgitating it back in the offices, classrooms, factories, and even churches. Here's the problem; we really don't know what "change" means in a Obama world. A lot of leaders throughout history spoke about change, even following through with it. I don't want to give a history lesson, anyone can go read about those wonderful dictators in history books if they haven't been removed at our public libraries yet. Castro brought change. But not a whole lot has changed in the past few decades in the hills of the island south of Miami. I'm sure if we ask the many political prisoners who spoke out against Castro they would share their views on that subject- if we had access to them. Now, I am not saying that Obama wants to follow in the steps of Castro, but he does have some interesting connections in the friends and heroes department. You know, the whole 5th degree of separation. But that's another story.

Obama says he want to bring change to Washington. But how is he change, when he is in fact, a member of one of the most unpopular congresses in recent history. Our economy, even in wartime, was doing exceptionally well until the new Democratic congress came into play. Since then gas prices have gone up as well. Is this a reflection of change in Obamas mind? More to come...