I've made my list and checked it twice. As we approach Christmas 2009, here are some of the things this conservative proudly hopes for in the new year.
I wish that the war on one of the most sacred and revered holidays would cease. I'm referring to Christmas. The secularists who have inserted something into the Constitution which does not exist, namely a separation of church and state, are trying to destroy something which the vast majority of Americans celebrate: the birth of Jesus Christ. Idiots like Erik Brown, principal of Walsh Elementary School in Waterbury, Connecticut, who has banned Christmas and replaced it with the celebration of winter, should be run out of town on a rail. It's time for parents to take a stand by either confronting school officials and demanding that they stop this crap, or pull their kids out of the public education system and put them in private schools or home school them.
I wish that the health care bill will die a horrible death. It is a trillion dollar debacle that will force private insurers out of business, run good people out of the medical profession, and socialize this country. You want to save health care? Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
I wish that the hackers who exposed the fraud of global warming be given a ticker tape parade on Wall Street. I wish that Barbara Boxer, who has called for a criminal investigation of those who brought the truth to light, gets a lump of coal in her stocking, and a liberal dose of "shut up".
Al Gore should crawl back under his rock and stay there, after giving back his Nobel prize and his Oscar.
I wish that our troops will be given everything they need to finish the mission in Afghanistan. Barack Obama, by his dithering, has endangered the lives of the fine men and women serving in our military. He should be ashamed of hanging them out to dry and using them as photo ops.
I wish that Obama's birth certificate surfaces and proves that he is not a natural born citizen. This guy is a usurper to the Oval Office.
I wish that somehow, some way, we find Osama bin Laden and kill him.
I wish that the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other plotters of the 9/11 terror attacks is reversed. The United States should not be put on trial, and these guys should not be allowed to spew their venom against this nation.
I wish that the anger that spawned the tea parties and the town hall meetings will continue unabated through the midterm election cycle and result in a bloodletting at the polls come next November.
I wish that Barack Obama will be a lame duck, one term president who disappears and is never, ever heard from again.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Throwing Our Military Under The Bus
The ditherer-in-chief will finally announce to our military and the rest of the world his decision regarding General McChrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan this Tuesday.
After months of keeping the fine men and women serving our country twisting in the wind, Barack Obama has at last made up his mind. It is estimated that he will elect to give McChrystal roughly 30,000 to 35,000 of the 40,000 troops McChrystal requested. The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan had warned in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needed more forces within the next year and had bluntly stated that without them, the eight-year conflict would likely result in failure.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, Obama repeatedly stated that the real war, the one the United States military should be engaged in, was the war in Afghanistan. He was hell bent on pulling our troops out of Iraq. He based most of bid for the White House on ending our presence there until the surge worked and took the wind out of his sails.
So what took him so long to make up his mind on McChrystal's request?
Two things are in play here.
First, Obama's base is opposed to any surge in Afghanistan. Democrats are in revolt because a.) they believe the real threat from Al-Qaeda exists in Pakistan and b.) Obama has yet to convince his own supporters that the United States has an exit strategy and will not become bogged down, as it did in Vietnam.
Secondly, Obama has never shown much support for the war on terror. He has eliminated the word 'terror' from the lexicon and replaced it with 'overseas contingency operation'. Terrorist attacks are now referred to as 'man-made disasters'. The fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his minions are being brought to New York to face charges in a civilian court, where they will be allowed to spew their venom and rail against the United States as opposed to a military tribunal, is a clear indication that Obama has gone soft on terror at best, and is in bed with radical Islam at worst.
Witness also the three Navy SEALS who are facing criminal charges stemming from the capture of one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial in the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed. He claims that he was punched by his captors — and had his lip bloodied. Now, instead of being lauded for the capture of this high-value target, the three SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained attorneys.
If Obama were truly a supporter of our military and their mission, he would have answered McChrystal's request much sooner. And he would immediately put a halt to the prosecution of these three SEALS.
But this president is allowing the fine men and women of the United States military to be thrown under the bus.
What a disgrace to our nation.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
After months of keeping the fine men and women serving our country twisting in the wind, Barack Obama has at last made up his mind. It is estimated that he will elect to give McChrystal roughly 30,000 to 35,000 of the 40,000 troops McChrystal requested. The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan had warned in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needed more forces within the next year and had bluntly stated that without them, the eight-year conflict would likely result in failure.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, Obama repeatedly stated that the real war, the one the United States military should be engaged in, was the war in Afghanistan. He was hell bent on pulling our troops out of Iraq. He based most of bid for the White House on ending our presence there until the surge worked and took the wind out of his sails.
So what took him so long to make up his mind on McChrystal's request?
Two things are in play here.
First, Obama's base is opposed to any surge in Afghanistan. Democrats are in revolt because a.) they believe the real threat from Al-Qaeda exists in Pakistan and b.) Obama has yet to convince his own supporters that the United States has an exit strategy and will not become bogged down, as it did in Vietnam.
Secondly, Obama has never shown much support for the war on terror. He has eliminated the word 'terror' from the lexicon and replaced it with 'overseas contingency operation'. Terrorist attacks are now referred to as 'man-made disasters'. The fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his minions are being brought to New York to face charges in a civilian court, where they will be allowed to spew their venom and rail against the United States as opposed to a military tribunal, is a clear indication that Obama has gone soft on terror at best, and is in bed with radical Islam at worst.
Witness also the three Navy SEALS who are facing criminal charges stemming from the capture of one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial in the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed. He claims that he was punched by his captors — and had his lip bloodied. Now, instead of being lauded for the capture of this high-value target, the three SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained attorneys.
If Obama were truly a supporter of our military and their mission, he would have answered McChrystal's request much sooner. And he would immediately put a halt to the prosecution of these three SEALS.
But this president is allowing the fine men and women of the United States military to be thrown under the bus.
What a disgrace to our nation.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Civilian Trial An Insult To Americans
The decision by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other masterminds of the 911 attacks on this country to New York City to face a civilian trial is an insult to every citizen of the United States.
Mohammed and his minions should be facing a military tribunal for the worst attack on our soil. What they did was not a crime; it was an act of terror and an act of war. The plan to try them here has infuriated New Yorkers, still reeling from the horror of that day, and the loss of almost 3000 of their fellow countrymen.
This decision was wrong on many fronts and may come back haunt the Obama administration.
First, by trying them in New York City, Obama and Holder are playing directly into the hands of Mohammed, who wants nothing more than to use this trial as a bully pulpit to spew Islamic venom against the United States. What better venue to launch verbal attacks against the 'Great Satan' than the city where Islam 'taught us a lesson'?
Second, our national security is placed at high risk. The threat of another attack occurring during the course of these trials is very high, and will put the city of New York on high alert, sapping the resources of the New York police to protect the citizenry.
Third, bestowing upon these enemy combatants the same rights afforded to U. S. citizens is not only disrespectful of the American people, it also puts the prosecution at risk. If a court decides that any confession or evidence obtained through techniques that it deems illegal is inadmissible due to a violation of the combatants' rights, these guys could actually walk.
Imagine that. The worst attack against our nation ever, and these terrorists get off.
Why would Barack Obama and this administration take such a risk?
Quite simply because in the eyes of this president the war on terror no longer exists. The term has disappeared from the lexicon. It has been replaced with 'overseas contingency operation'. And as far as what happened on that fateful day in September 2001, it was a 'man-made disaster'.
Barack Obama is doing everything in his power to diminish the respect of the United States in the eyes of the world. He continues to make apologies for our country and what it stands for. He bows down before leaders of other nations, such as the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. By doing this, he makes us look weak.
Barack Obama wants to appease the Islamic world by giving them and admiration they do not deserve. After all, he has said he is one of them. But Islam does not value such a stance of sub ordinance. They take advantage of it.
And they will take advantage of these civilian trials to the detriment of our nation.
How can Obama live with himself knowing what he is doing by making this decision to try these terrorists in this fashion?
Well, come to think of it, probably quite easily.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Mohammed and his minions should be facing a military tribunal for the worst attack on our soil. What they did was not a crime; it was an act of terror and an act of war. The plan to try them here has infuriated New Yorkers, still reeling from the horror of that day, and the loss of almost 3000 of their fellow countrymen.
This decision was wrong on many fronts and may come back haunt the Obama administration.
First, by trying them in New York City, Obama and Holder are playing directly into the hands of Mohammed, who wants nothing more than to use this trial as a bully pulpit to spew Islamic venom against the United States. What better venue to launch verbal attacks against the 'Great Satan' than the city where Islam 'taught us a lesson'?
Second, our national security is placed at high risk. The threat of another attack occurring during the course of these trials is very high, and will put the city of New York on high alert, sapping the resources of the New York police to protect the citizenry.
Third, bestowing upon these enemy combatants the same rights afforded to U. S. citizens is not only disrespectful of the American people, it also puts the prosecution at risk. If a court decides that any confession or evidence obtained through techniques that it deems illegal is inadmissible due to a violation of the combatants' rights, these guys could actually walk.
Imagine that. The worst attack against our nation ever, and these terrorists get off.
Why would Barack Obama and this administration take such a risk?
Quite simply because in the eyes of this president the war on terror no longer exists. The term has disappeared from the lexicon. It has been replaced with 'overseas contingency operation'. And as far as what happened on that fateful day in September 2001, it was a 'man-made disaster'.
Barack Obama is doing everything in his power to diminish the respect of the United States in the eyes of the world. He continues to make apologies for our country and what it stands for. He bows down before leaders of other nations, such as the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. By doing this, he makes us look weak.
Barack Obama wants to appease the Islamic world by giving them and admiration they do not deserve. After all, he has said he is one of them. But Islam does not value such a stance of sub ordinance. They take advantage of it.
And they will take advantage of these civilian trials to the detriment of our nation.
How can Obama live with himself knowing what he is doing by making this decision to try these terrorists in this fashion?
Well, come to think of it, probably quite easily.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
No Time For Apathy
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken over health care.
Despite the tea parties, the town halls, the rallies and the protests, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill 220-215. The bill now heads to the Senate. The legislation on which Barack Obama has hinged his presidency is close to coming to fruition.
Unless we act.
Republicans, almost to a man, fought the good fight in attempting to stop this massive $2 trillion monstrosity from seeing the light of day. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. said, "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick.'" But in the end, the liberals rammed it through along party lines as they had planned to do all along. This is the arrogance of the left. A jubilant Pelosi even had the audacity to compare the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
So are we doomed to Obamacare? Is this the end of the battle to prevent socialized medicine from taking over our health care system? Will we be like Europe or Canada, where people wait endlessly for life saving treatments? Will death panels determine ho lives and who dies?
That depends on the degree to which we allow apathy to take over.
It is so easy to become complacent and to decide that what the Democrats have done was inevitable. But this is no time for apathy.
Now is the time for us as Americans to rise up. The question is, do we have the backbone to do it? And if we do, is there a blueprint for getting it done?
The answer is unequivocally yes. And there are two excellent resources for stopping the oncoming juggernaut of massive government expansion.
The first is a new book by Don Crist. What Can I do? After The Tea Party offers outstanding ideas on how to take American angst toward bloated government to the next level. Crist provides a blueprint for organizing relatives, friends and neighbors in a cohesive effort to stop those in Washington who wish to take away our liberties and erode our form of government to the point where what the Founding Fathers intended becomes unrecognizable.
The second resource for putting the brakes on government control of our lives is a relatively new organization called Pinecone Conservatives(www.pineconeconservatives.org). This group has as its mission statement "motivating all voters that share our desire for a return to fiscal responsibility and conservative thoughts to our local, state and national communities". When joining their forum, you receive a free practical guide to conservative community organizing. This guide offers insightful ideas on how to coordinate efforts to stop government from completely taking over our lives.
These two excellent resources provide a method for taking the anger that many conservatives feel toward what the Obama administration has done and designing a proactive plan to stop it utilizing the greatest asset available: people.
We do have a choice. We can be apathetic. Or we can take our nation back.
Listen to America Talks Saturday at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Despite the tea parties, the town halls, the rallies and the protests, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill 220-215. The bill now heads to the Senate. The legislation on which Barack Obama has hinged his presidency is close to coming to fruition.
Unless we act.
Republicans, almost to a man, fought the good fight in attempting to stop this massive $2 trillion monstrosity from seeing the light of day. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. said, "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick.'" But in the end, the liberals rammed it through along party lines as they had planned to do all along. This is the arrogance of the left. A jubilant Pelosi even had the audacity to compare the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
So are we doomed to Obamacare? Is this the end of the battle to prevent socialized medicine from taking over our health care system? Will we be like Europe or Canada, where people wait endlessly for life saving treatments? Will death panels determine ho lives and who dies?
That depends on the degree to which we allow apathy to take over.
It is so easy to become complacent and to decide that what the Democrats have done was inevitable. But this is no time for apathy.
Now is the time for us as Americans to rise up. The question is, do we have the backbone to do it? And if we do, is there a blueprint for getting it done?
The answer is unequivocally yes. And there are two excellent resources for stopping the oncoming juggernaut of massive government expansion.
The first is a new book by Don Crist. What Can I do? After The Tea Party offers outstanding ideas on how to take American angst toward bloated government to the next level. Crist provides a blueprint for organizing relatives, friends and neighbors in a cohesive effort to stop those in Washington who wish to take away our liberties and erode our form of government to the point where what the Founding Fathers intended becomes unrecognizable.
The second resource for putting the brakes on government control of our lives is a relatively new organization called Pinecone Conservatives(www.pineconeconservatives.org). This group has as its mission statement "motivating all voters that share our desire for a return to fiscal responsibility and conservative thoughts to our local, state and national communities". When joining their forum, you receive a free practical guide to conservative community organizing. This guide offers insightful ideas on how to coordinate efforts to stop government from completely taking over our lives.
These two excellent resources provide a method for taking the anger that many conservatives feel toward what the Obama administration has done and designing a proactive plan to stop it utilizing the greatest asset available: people.
We do have a choice. We can be apathetic. Or we can take our nation back.
Listen to America Talks Saturday at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
New York Race Puts Republicans At A Crossroads
An interesting thing happened on the way to the congressional election in New York's 23rd district. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race. This bodes well for the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, who, as it turns out happens to be a Republican who ran on a third party ticket against Scozzafava and the Democrat Bill Owens.
This is a fascinating race to watch, because it forces those in the Republican Party to take a hard look at what has become of the GOP. In the last few weeks, there has been a huge rift within the party between those supporting Hoffman, and the party loyalists who backed Scozzafava.
Hoffman was endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, Steve Forbes and others. Media outlets and personalities supporting Hoffman included the New York Post, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.
Those who put party ahead of principle endorsed Scozzafava. They included Newt Gingrich, Peter King, and the Log Cabin Republicans, as well as an unsolicited endorsement from liberal activist Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the Daily Kos blog. Scozzafava was also supported by GOP Chairman Michael Steele.
Why would a Republican running in a district that has been held by Republicans since the 1860s cause such a divide among those in her party?
Let's examine her record.
She has received the endorsement of the Working Families Party in her earlier campaigns, which has close ties to ACORN. She is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage.
In taking a look at what is happening with this race, one realizes that the GOP is at a crossroads. Republicans have to decide what they stand for and whether or not they can define themselves as being clearly different from the opposition.
After the Democrats swept both house of congress in 2006, there were many who said that conservatism was resoundingly defeated. The nation was headed in a new direction, one that would perhaps take us on the path toward socialism. That's what the people wanted, many believed. Others, however, argued that it was not conservatism that lost the election; it was "republicanism". The conservative electorate decided that if Republicans were not going to stand on principle, they needed to be punished.
The Republican Party seems to have lost its way. It has become 'democrat lite'. It is difficult to distinguish many Republicans from Democrats on many of the core issues that used to define them. Republicans used to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military. They used to be pro-life, pro-second amendment, and in favor of traditional marriage.
Many Republicans, such as Gingrich and Steele, seem to believe that it is time to redefine the party, and become more inclusive of those who hold views that don't necessarily fall in lock-step with the base. Gingrich and others feel it is more important for Republicans to win elections, than it is to stand by the principles on which the party was founded.
The New York 23rd district election is a special election. It was created when John McHugh resigned his seat to become Secretary of the Army.
Doug Hoffman says that if he wins, he will run for re-election as a Republican. Hoffman defines what the party used to stand for.
Bu there is the very real possibility that a viable third party may emerge in this country which could challenge both the Republicans and Democrats. Many would welcome a third party as a refreshing change, because they feel that right now, they have no real choice.
The Republicans are at a crossroads right now. They need to decide if they want to fill the GOP with members, or of they want to stand on the foundations upon which the party was built. If they do not wish to be the party of true conservatism, a new party may emerge which will take back the values which once made us great, and restore this country to what the Founding Fathers intended.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
This is a fascinating race to watch, because it forces those in the Republican Party to take a hard look at what has become of the GOP. In the last few weeks, there has been a huge rift within the party between those supporting Hoffman, and the party loyalists who backed Scozzafava.
Hoffman was endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, Steve Forbes and others. Media outlets and personalities supporting Hoffman included the New York Post, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.
Those who put party ahead of principle endorsed Scozzafava. They included Newt Gingrich, Peter King, and the Log Cabin Republicans, as well as an unsolicited endorsement from liberal activist Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the Daily Kos blog. Scozzafava was also supported by GOP Chairman Michael Steele.
Why would a Republican running in a district that has been held by Republicans since the 1860s cause such a divide among those in her party?
Let's examine her record.
She has received the endorsement of the Working Families Party in her earlier campaigns, which has close ties to ACORN. She is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage.
In taking a look at what is happening with this race, one realizes that the GOP is at a crossroads. Republicans have to decide what they stand for and whether or not they can define themselves as being clearly different from the opposition.
After the Democrats swept both house of congress in 2006, there were many who said that conservatism was resoundingly defeated. The nation was headed in a new direction, one that would perhaps take us on the path toward socialism. That's what the people wanted, many believed. Others, however, argued that it was not conservatism that lost the election; it was "republicanism". The conservative electorate decided that if Republicans were not going to stand on principle, they needed to be punished.
The Republican Party seems to have lost its way. It has become 'democrat lite'. It is difficult to distinguish many Republicans from Democrats on many of the core issues that used to define them. Republicans used to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military. They used to be pro-life, pro-second amendment, and in favor of traditional marriage.
Many Republicans, such as Gingrich and Steele, seem to believe that it is time to redefine the party, and become more inclusive of those who hold views that don't necessarily fall in lock-step with the base. Gingrich and others feel it is more important for Republicans to win elections, than it is to stand by the principles on which the party was founded.
The New York 23rd district election is a special election. It was created when John McHugh resigned his seat to become Secretary of the Army.
Doug Hoffman says that if he wins, he will run for re-election as a Republican. Hoffman defines what the party used to stand for.
Bu there is the very real possibility that a viable third party may emerge in this country which could challenge both the Republicans and Democrats. Many would welcome a third party as a refreshing change, because they feel that right now, they have no real choice.
The Republicans are at a crossroads right now. They need to decide if they want to fill the GOP with members, or of they want to stand on the foundations upon which the party was built. If they do not wish to be the party of true conservatism, a new party may emerge which will take back the values which once made us great, and restore this country to what the Founding Fathers intended.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Zero Tolerance To The Max
Three stories in the news this week pointed out the lunacy of what has become known as "zero tolerance".
In the first case, a 6-year-old boy was suspended and threatened with reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school. Zachary Christie, a first-grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Del., was so proud of the spoon-fork-knife combination gift that he wanted to show it off and use it to eat his lunch. He was by all accounts a good student, who sometimes wore suits to school because he took his education seriously. He was also a Cub Scout.
The school clearly overreacted. At best the school officials should have taken the "weapon" away from the boy and promised to return it to him at the end of the day. They should have explained that bringing such a tool to school is not allowed. And they should have left it at that. Instead, they chose to make an example of this fine young man. It was only after the story went national, and a huge uproar ensued, that the officials relented.
In the second case of zero tolerance gone wild, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was suspended because he had a knife in a survival kit locked in his car. It was a gift from his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town. He did not bring the knife into the school. Initially Matthew Whalen was suspended for five days. But the superintendent of the Troy, N.Y. school district tacked on an additional 15 days after a hearing. The superintendent, George J. Goodwin, 55, said in a written statement that his district "has an established policy of zero tolerance with respect to the possession of weapons of any kind on school property or in school buildings." He refuses to budge on the suspension, despite the young man's excellent academic and behavioral record. The suspension could affect Whalen's record at West Point, as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber. Goodwin should lose his job over this dumb decision.
The third case of zero tolerance revolves around radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his thwarted attempt at purchasing the St. Louis Rams.
False allegations of racism on the part of Limbaugh prompted by unsubstantiated quotes attributed to him and milked by race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton derailed his bid to become a minority stakeholder in the Rams. His potential business partners panicked, and the liberal NFL itself, clearly not wanting any problems from the players union, caved.
Zero tolerance for conservative thought on the part of football.
Limbaugh should take legal action, as he was the victim of character assassination. All involved in this fiasco need to pay dearly for this abomination.
And these idiots Jackson and Sharpton should be put in their place once and for all. Jackson is not only a race baiter, he is a racist who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Sharpton, who has made a living out of shooting his mouth off, was brought to task by Limbaugh in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which Limbaugh pointed out that Sharpton was responsible for the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot."
What Sharpton and Jackson need is a liberal dose of "shut up" and a lawsuit resulting in punitive damages would go a long way to achieve that.
There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.americatalks.com.
In the first case, a 6-year-old boy was suspended and threatened with reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school. Zachary Christie, a first-grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Del., was so proud of the spoon-fork-knife combination gift that he wanted to show it off and use it to eat his lunch. He was by all accounts a good student, who sometimes wore suits to school because he took his education seriously. He was also a Cub Scout.
The school clearly overreacted. At best the school officials should have taken the "weapon" away from the boy and promised to return it to him at the end of the day. They should have explained that bringing such a tool to school is not allowed. And they should have left it at that. Instead, they chose to make an example of this fine young man. It was only after the story went national, and a huge uproar ensued, that the officials relented.
In the second case of zero tolerance gone wild, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was suspended because he had a knife in a survival kit locked in his car. It was a gift from his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town. He did not bring the knife into the school. Initially Matthew Whalen was suspended for five days. But the superintendent of the Troy, N.Y. school district tacked on an additional 15 days after a hearing. The superintendent, George J. Goodwin, 55, said in a written statement that his district "has an established policy of zero tolerance with respect to the possession of weapons of any kind on school property or in school buildings." He refuses to budge on the suspension, despite the young man's excellent academic and behavioral record. The suspension could affect Whalen's record at West Point, as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber. Goodwin should lose his job over this dumb decision.
The third case of zero tolerance revolves around radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his thwarted attempt at purchasing the St. Louis Rams.
False allegations of racism on the part of Limbaugh prompted by unsubstantiated quotes attributed to him and milked by race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton derailed his bid to become a minority stakeholder in the Rams. His potential business partners panicked, and the liberal NFL itself, clearly not wanting any problems from the players union, caved.
Zero tolerance for conservative thought on the part of football.
Limbaugh should take legal action, as he was the victim of character assassination. All involved in this fiasco need to pay dearly for this abomination.
And these idiots Jackson and Sharpton should be put in their place once and for all. Jackson is not only a race baiter, he is a racist who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Sharpton, who has made a living out of shooting his mouth off, was brought to task by Limbaugh in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which Limbaugh pointed out that Sharpton was responsible for the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot."
What Sharpton and Jackson need is a liberal dose of "shut up" and a lawsuit resulting in punitive damages would go a long way to achieve that.
There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.americatalks.com.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Will Obama Silence The Opposition?
In recent weeks, a serious threat has emerged to the liberties of every American with regard to free speech in this country.
This threat has come in many forms and from many fronts.
Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, believes that the government should be able to force broadcasters to air "diversity" ads, which would be a backdoor attempt at reconstituting the Fairness Doctrine.
In his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution", Sunstein wrote "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome."
Sunstein would like to see the creation of a "First Amendment New Deal", or a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Obviously, this would result in time constraints to the private broadcasting companies, which would be forced to give up valuable revenue-generating advertising slots to air these diversity ads. This could also result in programming changes on conservative stations, which might be forced to drop certain hosts or programs to prevent having to equalize all points of view.
At the same time, there is a new bill being drafted behind closed doors in the Senate, S.773 (excerpt) which would give the White House the authority to seize control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. In effect, the Internet would be shut down at a moment's notice due to some perceived (or conceived) threat. After all, wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
If the threat to broadcasters and the Internet aren't bad enough, Obama is now thinking about bailing out the failing newspapers in this country. There are several bills in congress that would boost the newspaper sector, including a senate bill that would allow newspaper companies to reformulate themselves as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. These newspapers would then be print versions of PBS and NPR, which would, in effect make them mouthpieces for the government. The White House could control the advertising and all editorial content appearing in these papers.
Obama already has the mainstream media in his back pocket. All of the major networks and most of the print media are in the tank for this guy. But it still sticks in his craw that there are those outlets that offer opposition to his policies. Several attempts have been made to demonize those who share disparate views. Charges of racism have been leveled against those who oppose health care, cap and trade, the stimulus and our increasing budget deficit.
The charges of racism won't be enough, however, to keep Obama's critics quiet. So other steps must be taken to stave off the growing cacophony of voices that stand to hold this regime's forces at bay. Pushing for another Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters, taking control of the print media through a financial bailout of the newspapers, and the authority to shut down the Internet at a moment's notice, might just give our government a way to silence all of Obama's opposition.
Scary thought.
Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
This threat has come in many forms and from many fronts.
Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, believes that the government should be able to force broadcasters to air "diversity" ads, which would be a backdoor attempt at reconstituting the Fairness Doctrine.
In his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution", Sunstein wrote "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome."
Sunstein would like to see the creation of a "First Amendment New Deal", or a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Obviously, this would result in time constraints to the private broadcasting companies, which would be forced to give up valuable revenue-generating advertising slots to air these diversity ads. This could also result in programming changes on conservative stations, which might be forced to drop certain hosts or programs to prevent having to equalize all points of view.
At the same time, there is a new bill being drafted behind closed doors in the Senate, S.773 (excerpt) which would give the White House the authority to seize control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. In effect, the Internet would be shut down at a moment's notice due to some perceived (or conceived) threat. After all, wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
If the threat to broadcasters and the Internet aren't bad enough, Obama is now thinking about bailing out the failing newspapers in this country. There are several bills in congress that would boost the newspaper sector, including a senate bill that would allow newspaper companies to reformulate themselves as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. These newspapers would then be print versions of PBS and NPR, which would, in effect make them mouthpieces for the government. The White House could control the advertising and all editorial content appearing in these papers.
Obama already has the mainstream media in his back pocket. All of the major networks and most of the print media are in the tank for this guy. But it still sticks in his craw that there are those outlets that offer opposition to his policies. Several attempts have been made to demonize those who share disparate views. Charges of racism have been leveled against those who oppose health care, cap and trade, the stimulus and our increasing budget deficit.
The charges of racism won't be enough, however, to keep Obama's critics quiet. So other steps must be taken to stave off the growing cacophony of voices that stand to hold this regime's forces at bay. Pushing for another Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters, taking control of the print media through a financial bailout of the newspapers, and the authority to shut down the Internet at a moment's notice, might just give our government a way to silence all of Obama's opposition.
Scary thought.
Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
