WMD Thought Chabot Could Do No Wrong

Over the years, I have heard what a conservative saint Steve Chabot has been throughout his long, and storied career in the United States House of Representatives. The headline really isn't much of a stretch as there are some folks in the Greater Cincinnati area who put this guy up as the paragon of all things a Member of Congress ought to be and is.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy a lot, but stuff like this is just a dumb unforced error.

If anybody on Team Chabot would care to explain why on Earth they thought it was a good idea to have police confiscate cell phones at a Townhall, I'd love to hear it. I can be reached at wmdtvmatt - at - yahoo - dot - com.

Obama-Style Transparency: Van Jones

Check out this post where an "open to the public" event meant JUST US socialists. Here is the link. Go, check it out, watch the video, and see what Obama and Co. mean by transparency and freedom.

Obama Hates Freedom Update: They Said if I Voted for Bush, My Free Speech Would be At Stake...

Turns out they were right...but GWB isn't taking it away or scaring it away, it is Barack Obama...George W. Bush used dissent to highlight our freedoms and what makes us great. Obama is trying to scare away those who dissent with whisper campaigns, urging people to "inform" on others (gee, Obama, I guess you read Mao as well as Woodrow Wilson and FDR), and coming up with rude names to call the 55% of the American people who think your healthcare plan is a terrible idea. Check it out:

Faced with protesters camped outside Bush’s residence in Crawford, White House officials chose to meet with Cindy Sheehan and others:

About 70 anti-war protesters shouted “bring the troops home” from Iraq near President Bush’s ranch on Saturday, prompting two White House officials to come out to meet with mothers who lost children in combat in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin listened to the concerns of Cindy Sheehan and five or six other mothers in a meeting that lasted about 45 minutes, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. Duffy said Sheehan told the two officials she appreciated the meeting.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer didn’t question the legitimacy of anti-war protesters:

I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known,”

White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy echoed these sentiments:

The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we’re fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans.


While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was demonized by the Left, he blocked security from removing a protester at one of his appearances:

Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of antiwar sentiment.

“Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?” asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

“I did not lie,” shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said protesters were ‘well-intentioned:’

The President talked about some of this the other day in remarks at the Pentagon. He recognizes that there are differences of opinion on Iraq and our role in the broader Middle East. Some people want us to withdraw from Iraq and withdraw from the Middle East. They are well-intentioned.

Interesting. How does that compare with the Obama White House?

The Democratic National Committee addresses health care protests:

The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.

However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of ’socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.

These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.

The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the President’s citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 – and it is bound to backfire again.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs won’t give protesters any legitimacy - in stark contrast to Fleischer, Duffy, and McClellan:

“I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astroturf nature of grass-roots lobbying,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a morning off-camera session in his office with reporters.

“This is manufactured anger,” he said.

Chilling. Be safe out there, my friends. Obama and his goon squad might be listening....But stand tall and stand firm. We have fought off tyranny by a government in our land before, and we can do it again...if we will stand up.

Your Chance to Stop the Censorship Doctrine

From the Free Speech Alliance:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There’s a chance to get the newly expanded Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA) tacked on as an amendment to the Financial Services appropriation on Tuesday. The BFA is currently being redrafted to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from not only reimposing the Censorship Doctrine - also mis-known as the “Fairness Doctrine - but also to address the new censorship threats – including “localism” and “media diversity.”

To get it a full, fair up or down vote, we need to act over the weekend and all day Monday.

We need to get as many people as possible to call their Representatives and have them tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi to add the BFA as an amendment.

They can look up their individual Representatives here: http://ow.ly/h0tU

I know its short notice, but this afternoon is when the Speaker announced the Monday amendment deadline – all in keeping with her promise of bi-partisanship and openness. ;-)

The Limbaugh Attack and Free Speech

I'm not really going to offer up any new earth-shattering information in this post, but I do think it is important that we take a minute to think a bit about what the White House-led attacks on Rush Limbaugh are all about and why they are important.

Rush thinks that these attacks are about diverting attention away from the total failure on the part of the President to deal with the economic meltdown. The stimulus/porkulus bill didn't work and Congress is moving on ahead with even more frivolous spending in the omnibus budget. I suspect that Rush is right on this point as it has been revealed that Obama political adviser David Axelrod is the guy behind these attacks.

Let's ponder what it would have been like if the Bush administration had similarly targeted Michael Moore. There would have been outrage like you would not believe from our friends on the left. But since it is their guy doing it, it's a-okay with them.

Which brings me to my next cliche...

First they came for Rush Limbaugh...and you said nothing because Rush is a mega-star and he should be able to defend himself.

Then they came for the radio stations with the Fairness Doctrine...and you said nothing because talk radio isn't really your thing anyway.

Then they came for the bloggers...and you said nothing because who cares about a bunch of dorks in their pajamas hanging out in their momma's basements anyway.

By the time they came for you...there was no one left to say anything.

And let me channel my good friend Mark here and say that all of this reminds me of a certain paper hanger in Europe... This is fascism mixed with socialism marketed with Hope and Change and America bought it hook, line and sinker. Well, now we're paying the piper and the price is high.

Free speech isn't free...(I'll disagree with the Team America guys too...it costs a bit more than a buck-oh-five.) We, as Americans, must join together to protect the right of Rush Limbaugh to be on the air every bit as much as we rise voices to support Michael Moore's right to make crappy movies. Let the people decide what they want to listen to and watch. Government has no place in it at all.

Obama Comments Deemed Offensive by a University

[Story: Dayton Daily News]


Now this is a tricky one. What was posted was not appropriate in any way, but for a university to start policing "decency" that crosses the line into politics is a slippery slope. If the student called Bush a Nazi or something along those lines, it probably would never had come up. I defend the right of a university to police itself but with these social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, it has to be careful on what it does with this right. When talking politics, where is the line drawn on free speech? Is the university system going to check every Facebook page for anything it deems as offensive? Do political messages fall in this category? Personally I find some comments made by some professors on their websites about our president as not appropriate but I defend the right of these people to have their opinions. Should they also be censured?

President Urges Passage of Broadcaster Freedom Act

This just in...

Pence Says President’s Support of “Immeasurable Value” and Urges Congressional Action

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence released the following statement in response to remarks given by President George W. Bush at the 2008 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, TN. Pence attended the speech at the invitation of the President.

“President Bush's call for passage of the Broadcaster Freedom Act at the National Religious Broadcasters convention is of immeasurable value to those of us fighting to preserve freedom on the airwaves of America,” Pence said.

“Congress must heed the call of our president and end the so-called Fairness Doctrine once and for all. Our freedom of speech and of religion on the airwaves of America demand action now.”

School Sues Blogger...

As the new media expands and blogging becomes more well known, this is bound to continue to happen:

GALVESTON — The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.

Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.

Tetley said she’ll review the postings cited by David Feldman of the district’s firm Feldman and Rogers. She’ll consider the context of the postings and consult attorneys before deciding what to delete.

“If it’s not worth keeping in there, I’ll take it out,” she said. “If in fact it is libelous, I have no problem taking it down.”

Libel Or Opinion?

Feldman said Tetley’s Web site — www.gisdwatch.com — contained the most “personal, libelous invective directed toward a school administrator” he’s seen in his 31-year career.

“It is not the desire of the School District, the Board, or this Firm to stifle free expression or inhibit robust debate regarding matters pertaining to the operation of the public schools,” Feldman wrote in the demand letter. “This is solely about the publication of materials that clearly go beyond that which is legally and constitutionally encouraged and permitted, and into the realm of what is legally offensive and actionable.”

Feldman cited 16 examples of what he says are libelous postings. Half were posted by Tetley; the other half were posted by anonymous users.

The postings accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for “personal gain,” violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.

Tetley said the postings were opinions only.

“Everyone deserves to have their opinion,” she said. “I don’t think they have a right to make me, or anyone else, take down criticisms of them off the Web site. They’re not going to force us to take off our opinions because we have no other place to go.”

Tetley said she had not removed any of the postings as of late Tuesday.

Rare Move

One legal expert said the district’s move to sue Tetley is rare and unlawful. Under the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, government entities cannot sue for libel — any court would toss out the “threatening” suit as being inconsistent with U.S. law, said Sandra Baron, executive director of New-York based Media Law Resource Center. She called the district’s potential lawsuit an intimidation tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Feldman said the district is only asking Tetley to remove a small percentage of postings on her site that he says accuse trustees and administrators of breaking the law. They’re not trying to shut down the blog or eliminate postings, he said.

Bloggers beware...you never know who is watching and who is trying to silence you...sometimes they might even be fellow bloggers who are jealous, or entities you write about. I have faced intimidation for writing some things about local politics, but I always counter with..."go ahead, beat me up, kick my ***....see what happens to your relative or friend when I write you did this because of something I posted." Then the phone call or discussion ends.

Bloggers will need to contend with this issue as more people turn to us for news and opinion. I don't think the school district has much to stand on, but who knows?

Fighting 'Under God' Update

Over the weekend, I wrote a story about Rep. Turner's fight to restore God to certificates issued for flags that have been flown over the Capitol. A journalist finally got around to putting Speaker of State Nancy Pelosi on the record. If you guessed that she would defend the policy, then you are today's winner... The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Sabrina Eaton has the story on OPENERS:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol's refusal to permit use of the word "God" on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.
...
Asked about the issue today at a press luncheon, Pelosi said the architect's policy was adopted because "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well." She said the official policy is to send a certificate that lists nothing beyond the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient. She said that members of Congress who request flags on behalf of constituents can "add whatever they wish" to the certificates, "whether it is a political statement or a religious statement."

"It's not about being anti-religion," Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. "It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate."

I saw Rep. Turner (my mayor!) on Fox and Friends this morning saying that 137 congressmen have signed his letter so far and Sabrina reports that Turner has vowed legislation on the issue if the Speaker doesn't take action:

Turner said Tuesday that he will continue seeking more signatures for his letter asking Pelosi to overturn the policy, and "if the speaker and the architect continue to implement their censorship program, we will drop legislation to compel the architect to return to granting inscriptions permitting the acknowledgement of God."

He said members of Congress vet the appropriateness of messages constituents request with the flags, and their discretion should be sufficient.

"We have the responsibility for these common sense issues that might arise with flag inscriptions and this one is basic," Turner said. "The architect has decided the word 'God' is offensive. This rule should not be allowed to stand."

I'll go ahead and point out that there is already a law...it's called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't know why the Architect of Congress and the Speaker of State fail to understand about that, but there it is...

I am also hearing that Leader Boehner addressed this issue this morning in conference and that we can expect action if the Speaker fails to instruct the Architect to get on board.

UPDATE: Boehner to Pelosi: "No Compromise on God in Flag Certificates"

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) calling on her to immediately use her authority to direct the Architect of the Capitol to stop the practice of removing references to God from the official certificates that accompany United States flags flown over the Capitol. In the letter, Boehner calls for full restoration of the longstanding congressional tradition of using the word God in such certificates upon request.

“The American people have grown weary of endless attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to bar the word God and even the most tacit references to faith from our public institutions,” Boehner said. “We are One Nation Under God, and the rules and procedures of our national legislature should continue to reflect it.”

“This policy does not reflect the will of the American people. It was not applied in this manner under previous House majorities. And those of us who serve in the current Congress should not allow it to stand,” Boehner said in the letter. “There is an easy solution: as Speaker, you have the authority to instruct the Acting Architect to disregard the written policy and restore the longstanding practices that have been the tradition of the House for generations. This would be the right thing to do. As Speaker, you have the authority – and the opportunity – to do the right thing.”

Text of the letter:

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

In recent days it has been brought to our attention that employees of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AoC) are removing references to God from the official certificates that accompany United States flags that are flown over the Capitol and sent by Members of Congress to their constituents.

This practice, which overturns a longstanding and long cherished congressional tradition, has rightly drawn outrage from the American people, who have grown weary of endless attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to bar the word God and even the most tacit references to faith from our public institutions. I am grateful for the actions of Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), who had the courage to speak out about this situation after the word God was erased from a certificate that accompanied a flag requested by a young Eagle Scout who wanted to honor his grandfather.

The Acting Architect of the Capitol believes he is required to enforce a written policy, put in place by his predecessor in 2003, until directed otherwise. But this policy does not reflect the will of the American people. It was not applied in this manner under previous House majorities. And those of us who serve in the current Congress should not allow it to stand. Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), the senior Republican on the House Administration Committee, has sent a letter to the Acting Architect urging that the policy be rescinded immediately.

There is an easy solution: as Speaker, you have the authority to instruct the Acting Architect to disregard the written policy and restore the longstanding practices that have been the tradition of the House for generations. This would be the right thing to do. As Speaker, you have the authority – and the opportunity – to do the right thing.

I am writing to request that you immediately use your authority as Speaker to instruct the AoC to resume its longstanding practice, and allow the word God to once again appear on the certificates that accompany American flags. We are One Nation Under God, and the rules and procedures of our national legislature should continue to reflect it.

Sincerely,

John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Leader

Waxman Seeks to Silence TalkRadio...Stalinist Tactic

Henry Waxman, head of oversight in the House, has put your tax dollars to work....by putting his staff on the job to investigate Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others. You see, the Dems think Rush Limbaugh and Talk Radio is running for President and office. Actually, they are like the Communists. They hate anyone who disagrees with them. So, they are going to abuse their power and try to silence them. In fact, the Democratic Party is coordinating with the Congressional leaders to use taxpayer resources to go after dissenters of the new fascism that is Liberalism:

The Democrat Party senior leadership is feeling a Rush. Rush Limbaugh, that is. Late last week, DNC Chair Howard Dean, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, his deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin and Senatorial Committee chair, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi all signed off in some form or another direct mail fundraising plans that will feature Limbaugh for their national party.

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

So, who cares about the Constitution, this is about power! That is the message. These people disgust me. They will support the right of people to smear poo on the Virgin Mary, but God forbid you do an entertaining radio show that is against their political views.

You know, you liberal kooks better be careful, and so too you moderates. First, they came for Limbaugh. Then they came for Hannity. Then it was Cindy Sheehan, by the time they got around to everyone else, there was nobody left to stop them. Don't let the US become 1930s Germany or Stalin's Russia.

Matt's Chat

As I am sure Glenn Reynolds has already said... They said that if George W. Bush were re-elected President that the First Amendment would get shredded and used as toliet paper. And they were right...

Rep. Pence Announces that All House Republicans are Co-Sponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act

Via email:

Washington, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence announced today that all 202 members of the House Republican Conference are cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill that would prevent the Fairness Doctrine from ever being reinstated without an act of Congress. Pence also announced the first Democrat cosponsor, John Yarmuth from Kentucky.

Pence’s statement follows:

“Following calls from many in Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, House Republicans have responded in force. As of today, every Republican in Congress has cosponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act and millions who cherish the dynamic forum of American talk radio should be thankful.

“House Republicans know that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves.

“The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures freedom will remain the anthem of our radio airwaves.

“I call on my Democrat colleagues to join me and every House Republican in cosponsoring this important legislation to keep America’s radio airwaves free from censorship.”

This is a great day for American talk radio. Now if we can get another great day lined up for internet radio, that would be fantastic!

UPDATE:

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence will discuss the Fairness Doctrine on C-SPAN this Saturday at 6:30pm. It will re-air on C-SPAN 2 on Monday, August 13 at 8am and 8pm.

We Won't Win the War on Terror if the Story Can't be Told

Mark Steyn pens an absolutely horrifying scenario in this piece (read the whole thing - he'll say it a thousand times better than I will anyway). The story is about what has happened to a book written by two Americans about the terrorist financial system and includes allegations against one very powerful Saudi in particular.

The book is no longer available via Amazon. In London, the University Press is buying back unsold copies. Why? England has some intense libel laws that heavily favor the plantiff and this particular Saudi has tons of cash to burn to prevent books like this one from being read. Even the anti-Bush crowd pleaser House of Saud, House of Bush is unavailable in Britain because of this guy.

The book in question is called Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World and it exposes the truth about Muslim "charities." And the powerful Saudi? Well, perhaps I should let Steyn tell that part:

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

We will never win the war on terror if the truth about these charities is never told. Western civilization continues to give our Islamofascist enemies every creature comfort while yielding not an inch in return. I am still amazed that in some corners of the world the closest thing to a soldier being deployed in this fight is a lawyer in a courtroom.

If the war on terror continues to be fought in courtrooms the world over, this war will never be won. The rule of law is stacked against Western civilization in this case and we have no one but ourselves to blame. Can you imagine instead of fighting World War II, we decided to take Japan to court? We'd all be speaking German today because we'd have lost that one too.

We must not be afraid to tell the truth. This is why the John Doe Law was so important. If you see something, report it and fear not the consequences of being sued. We are at war, after all. Why should we take a different approach about exposing the money men who fund these operations?

Dems Against Free Speech....Still

Don't ever let it be said again that Democrats are for free and unfettered speech and are the ones against censorship. What Senate Democrats did with the Coleman amendment and other attempts to permanently destroy the Fairness Doctrine shows once and for all that they only care about free exercise of THEIR SPEECH, not anyone elses.

Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues.

Although no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans have been mounting a pre-emptive attack in recent weeks. They argue that a return to the old rule would give the government too much power in regulating content. The House recently passed an amendment banning the rule's return.

When Coleman, R-Minn., tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, objected. Levin's office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq.

The subtext of the debate over the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio's perceived dominance by conservative voices.

Now, on pure principle, I would agree with Levin, if not for the fact that we see attached to defense bills pork beyond belief and other non-germaine riders. Therefore, Levin's point is moot. But wait, there's more.

In a telephone interview, Coleman said his motivation was to preserve the First Amendment. But he added: "I do have a strong objection to folks wanting to cut off talk radio because it's conservative. Let the people be able to make the choice."

Thune agreed.

"Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press," he said.

Republicans have seized on a comment made last month by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said "it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine." Durbin's spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said that Durbin was expressing support for the concept but has no plans to introduce legislation.

"There is no big conspiracy here, there's no secret plan, there's no nothing," he said.

Oh really? Then why are you and the chicken hearted blue blood Republicans caught time and again talking about how you are going to handle talk radio? Liberals don't get it. They are not entertaining, they are not insightful. They are boring. For exhibit A, see (dead)Air America. However, liberal talkers are joining the chorus with bogus bull:

Durbin and Coleman briefly debated the idea on the Senate floor Friday, with Durbin asking Coleman if he believed it serves the interests of an educated electorate if people could hear both sides of the story.

"Absolutely," Coleman responded. "But I believe - strongly believe - that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating, 'now here is the other side.'" He said with the proliferation of communication options such as the Internet, Americans have plenty of opportunity to get the other side.

"The airwaves belong to the American people," Durbin said. "Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." He said that broadcasters should provide both points of view on an issue.

Ed Schultz, a North Dakota-based liberal-leaning talk show host who has more than 3 million listeners on more than 100 stations, also said the airwaves belong to the public.

He said the Republicans' efforts are overreactions, and said he is traveling to Washington next week to talk to talk to Democrats about the issue.

"The issue is liberal talkers haven't even been given a market opportunity in many markets across the country," he said.

He is frustrated because his show is not airing in such major markets as Boston and Philadelphia, where he says certain companies are keeping progressive shows out.

"I'm just open to hearing these conservative companies explain their thought process," he said.

First, the airwaves belong to the people, not the government. The people are making a profit using their talent, not government help. The arrogance of Dick "the turban" Durbin and the Left is ridiculous, but not surprising, since they are leftist socialist communist fascists. They want to dictate everything you do, from what you cook with, to what you can do for work, to what you can drive, to what you can listen to. It is a shame that there appears a majority in Congress that wants to turn the Land of the Free into a Soviet Gulag.

You see, Durbin and Co. don't understand the free market. It decides what works and does not. Coke Classic works, New Coke did not. It was not determined by government action or by a Coke or Pepsi conspiracy, the consumer decided New Coke sucked. That is what Mr. Shultz does not get either. He talks about how liberal talkers have not been given the same access. Bullsnot! We had ClearChannel in Cincy create a whole new station by removing a beloved talk radio station and moving it down the dial for the "revolution" in talk radio. Jerry Springer was on the new progressive station and it had all these liberal talkers, including, I belive, Mr. Shultz. Guess what? It didn't last 5 months. Now, 1360 has become a second sports station of espn programming. The free market has decided that liberal talkers are not entertaining. Nuff said. And as for opportunity, how much George Soros money do you need? How many radio stations do you have to buy or harass to get on, only to have them go nearly bankrupt because of the crappy liberal programming? Shultz doesn't get it.

If liberals get their way, we will no longer have choice, but we will have to listen to NPR like boring programming 24/7, 365. Ed Shultz is whining not because he hasn't been allowed to compete--he has competed and lost, and he doesn't like it. Therefore, government should subsidize him by forcing people to listen to him. It is funny, really. The only choice Dems believe in is the choice to murder unborn babies.

Yet Another Democrat Who Thinks That His Rights Are More Important Than Yours

Back in the day, "Baghdad Jim" McDermott (D-Saddam's Iraqistan) got an illegally taped conversation between Republican Leader, my Congressman and a Great American -- John Boehner -- and other Republican leaders discussing strategery on how to deal with an ethics charge made against then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Boehner sued and won a hefty settlement in an appeals court decision that made news back in May, but that isn't why you called...

Now, McDermott is appealing to the Supreme Court saying this (Politico):

"With all due respect to the Court of Appeals, the constitutional issues involved here are much too important to be confused by a split decision," McDermott said in a statement released by his office. "The protections afforded all Americans by the First Amendment have been placed on a very slippery slope by this decision. By taking away my First Amendment protections, the decision endangers freedom of speech and the press across America."

So now illegal wiretaps are a First Amendment matter when Democrats do it, but when a Republican administration wants to tap the phones of folks talking to terrorists that's a no-no.

When you play politics, Mr. McDermott, especially the way you Democrats do, sometimes you get burned. You got burned. But you got what you wanted. Newt Gingrich stepped down. Democrats keep talking about winning at all costs, but when they are actually forced to pay the cost, they never seem to want to pony up. Your victory against Mr. Gingrich costs nearly a million dollars. If you weren't willing to pay the costs of acquiring this information illegally, you should never have done so in the first place.

Now let me put on the prognosticator hat for a moment. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, McDermott and his friends will claim that the Evil Right Wing Conspiracy is out to get him. If they do take up the case and then decide that McDermott still is liable, the same result. My view: Scooter on, Baghdad Jim...and pay up for your victory.

Boehner Calls House Passage of Pence Amendment a Victory for Free Speech

Via email:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today highlighted House passage of an amendment offered by Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from funding efforts to reinstate speech regulation known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that was abandoned in 1985. The important amendment responds to new calls by Democrats to reinstate such regulation on talk radio. Boehner issued the following statement:

“The U.S. Constitution guarantees and spells out our rights as citizens. Among those rights is the freedom of speech. Government regulation of speech is a bad idea and leads to the rationing of political thought and expression. If we revive regulation of radio content, should we not regulate film, television, print media and the Internet, media forms many believe the liberal point of view dominates? Wouldn’t that be ‘fair’ as well? Of course not. Government regulating speech is like the fox guarding the hen house.

“I want to thank Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and Jeff Flake for leading the effort to ensure government regulation of talk radio does not become a reality. Reviving the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would amount to government control over political thought expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous idea and would be a setback for the cause of free speech and the constitutional rights our Founding Fathers put in place at the beginning of the Republic.”

NOTE: The Pence-Hensarling-Flake amendment to the Financial Services appropriations bill would prevent the FCC from funding efforts to reinstate speech regulation known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

Sen. McConnell Blasts Efforts to Limit Freedom of Speech

Via email:

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement regarding attempts by Congressional Democrats to revive the misnamed “fairness doctrine”:

“Our Founding Fathers understood free speech is fundamental to our nation and sought to protect it with the First Amendment. As a strong supporter of First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, I will continue to work to prevent government limitations on speech.

“The latest attempt by House Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘fairness doctrine’ will silence active political voices and limit the free flow of information. Government is not the speech police and I will not support these efforts to restrict free speech.

“Political debate is among the most important democratic traditions of our nation and a hallmark of free society. We must continue to preserve the right of all Americans to express their views.”

Background

Legislation is being drafted in the House which would require the government to police the airwaves to ensure radio broadcasters are presenting what the government decides are balanced viewpoints. The “Fairness Doctrine,” as it is called, was abolished by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 because it inhibited debate and the free flow of information.

VIDEO: Congressman Pence Opposes Hate Crimes Bill

Statement:

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the states. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.

Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However, the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our minds.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” America was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.

There is a real possibility that as this bill is written, religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one who “willfully causes an act to be done” by another.

In the debate at the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact that an amendment was adopted by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. However that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that the bill will not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment admitted that a pastor could still be targeted under the bill for incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs. For example, if a pastor included a statement in his sermon that sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong, and a member of the congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence against the pastor.

Putting a chill on a pastor’s words, a religious broadcaster’s programming, an evangelical leader’s message, or even the leader of a small-group Bible study is a blatant attack on the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Last week when the Judiciary Committee took up this bill, I offered an amendment to make it clear that the bill will not affect the constitutional right to religious freedom.

The Pence Amendment stated, “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.”

Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by the majority in the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, I submitted the Pence Religious Freedom Amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration, but that committee chose to adopt a closed rule for today’s debate, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good amendments from consideration.

We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, and the Pence Amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away.

Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing religious thoughts. On this National Day of Prayer, let’s take a stand for the right of every American to believe, speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Take a stand for religious freedom and the First Amendment and vote no on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Boehner Opposes Unconstitutional Thought Crimes Bill

Via email:

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) today issued the following statement opposing H.R. 1592, legislation that imposes additional federal penalties for having prohibited thoughts:

“This unconstitutional bill would effectively give the federal government authority to punish American citizens for ‘thought crimes’ – a concept that has Big Brother written all over it. There are already state and local laws on the books that punish violent crime against any and all Americans. This bill would eliminate any concept of ‘equal justice’ under the law, dividing Americans into different classes of people subject to different protections under the law. It would take us down a frightening road where an individual can be punished for having unpopular or politically incorrect thoughts. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to regulate and punish crimes of thought delegated to Congress.

“This bill could restrict religious freedom and First Amendment rights, and curtail Americans’ rights rather than protect them.”