Pigs Will Fly

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Another rant by Pat Condell




Click here if the video fails to load.

Facebook Policies

For those of you who use Facebook, you should be aware of their policies and proposed changes to them.  Some of the policies are ambiguous at best and can be interpreted in a very broad manner to prevent users from posting content that is deemed politically incorrect (censorship).

For instance, rule #7 under paragraph 3 (Safety) in Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

"You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence."

"Hate speech" is a subjective term and is therefore a tool that can be arbitrarily applied to limit your speech since it can be defined in almost any way one wishes.  It can be used to censor the truth when speaking about other religions or cultures, and can be employed to support other culture's laws such as Sharia.  Restricting "hate speech" is also the beginning of government control over the content of the Internet since they can dictate what is considered hate speech, and what is not.

(Read more on hate speech in "Hate Speech.")

Prohibiting language that "incites violence" can be used to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws.  If this restriction means you cannot explicitly direct others to commit violent acts, that is understandable.  However, it should not be used to prohibit speech that may precipitate a violent reaction because another does not like what is said.  The perpetrator of the violence is responsible for their own actions, not the writer.  However, much like the lie that the Benghazi attack was in reaction to "The Innocence of Muslims" video, violent reactions to speech are quickly used as a reason to limit what citizens are allowed say.  In fact, the latter interpretation encourages the blatant use of violence to intimidate others to self-censor their speech.

(Read more about freedom of speech in "Appeasement and Betrayal.")

In conclusion, Facebook needs to clarify some of the policy statements so that users know exactly what they mean.  After seeing where Facebook is headed with their policies, citizens may want to pay more attention to the policies being created.  (You could leave comments on Facebook's "Proposed Updates to our Governing Documents" page until this past week.  If you have issues with their proposed and current policies, you might be able to contact them directly.)

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Appeasement and Betrayal

By outlawing the criticism of Muhammad, a man who lived over a thousand years ago, and his ideology, Islam, we are appeasing the followers of that ideology and contributing to our own destruction.

In the 1930's, the world feared Adolf Hitler and appeased him by giving up land.  They thought this would satisfy him and bring peace to Europe.  They were wrong.  By giving in to his demands, they were only emboldening him and feeding his evil desires.

Now we are faced with a similar evil, but this time it is manifesting itself as an ideology wrapped in a religion that must be respected.  To appease its ravenous desires, we are not sacrificing land, however.  We are sacrificing our liberties, which is much more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous.

The first liberty we are sacrificing is our Freedom of Speech.  Laws are now in the works, most notably at the United Nations, that will forbid the insulting of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.  Should we ratify any such law, it will become Islam's point of penetration into the very fabric of our society, tearing past the defenses established by our Constitution and allowing Islamic ideology to attack all our institutions with relative impunity.

You see, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, established by their prophet, which dictates all aspects of life and government.  Should you criticize the ideology, you are ultimately criticizing Muhammad.  Thus their ideology will be beyond reproach, and will slowly and steadily destroy the institutions of freedom we hold so dear.  It will be the loss of our ability to speak out against it that will seal our doom.

Considering these proposed blasphemy laws, what if you are found guilty of criticizing Muhammad or his ideology?  What then?  Will it be a fine?  Will it be imprisonment?  Or will it be your beheading, as devout Muslims so vocally demand?

Do you see where this is going?  This is a means to an end to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.  It will begin with the loss of our voice, our ability to acknowledge, speak out against, and resist this evil.  It will be given a free pass in our nation to trample us underfoot...unopposed.

I will not defend the content of the movie "Innocence of Muslims," nor the way that it was presented.  But I will defend that individual's right under the First Amendment of our Constitution to say what he did.  Just as I will the individual who created the "Piss Christ."  Do I like either one--no.  But, should an individual be forbidden to express such things, what is to stop someone from forbidding me to speak my mind?  This, my friend, is the road to tyranny.

If our government is given the authority to determine which speech is allowed and which is forbidden, then they can outlaw dissent against the government.  Should this occur, we will all suffer under the tyranny that has risen within our borders.

--Against All Enemies

AAE blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Is It Possible To Question Islam?

What an interesting question?  Can one question the history of Islam?  Did Muhammad actually exist?  Was he really illiterate?  Creeping Sharia asks those and other questions.

The question really should be whether it is possible to question Islam and not be threatened, injured or killed, slandered, or arrested. Robert Spencer via PJ Media » Is It Still Possible to Question Islam?.

---

Is it “Islamophobic” to question whether or not the standard picture of Muhammad as depicted in Muslim texts is historically accurate?

Certainly many people think so, notably the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a fifty-six nation body (plus the Palestinian Authority) that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, comprises the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. It has been working for years to compel the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the OIC in December 2011, apparently to facilitate just that and figure out ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech.

Journalist Claire Berlinski notes that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:

It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

Yet the mainstream media has for the most part bought into this perspective, treating all investigation of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “Islamophobic,” however useful it might be to understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization. Into this atmosphere comes my book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, which doesn’t touch directly on terror issues at all, but does demonstrate that Islam was political, supremacist, and violent before it was religious — a fact with considerable implications for today’s political scene.

In broad outline, the accepted story of Islam’s origins is well known. It begins with an Arabian merchant of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, known to the world as Muhammad, a name that means the “praised one.” He rejected the polytheism of his tribe and was given to frequent prayer in the hills and caves outside Mecca. In the year 610, when he was forty, he was praying in a cave on Mount Hira, about two miles from Mecca, when he was suddenly confronted by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite.

For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, Muhammad did just that: He recited the messages he received from Gabriel, presenting them to his followers as the pure and unadulterated word of the supreme and only God. Many of his followers memorized portions. The Arabia in which Islam was born was an oral culture that respected poetic achievement, and thus the prodigious feats of memory required to memorize lengthy suras were not so unusual. After Muhammad’s death, the revelations he had received were collected together into the Qur’an, or “Recitation,” from the accounts of those who had memorized them or written them down.
Muslims around the globe are not the only ones who take this account for granted; even non-Muslims generally accept the broad contours of this narrative, which has been told and retold for centuries. However, virtually none of that standard account stands up to historical scrutiny, for several key reasons:

• No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
• The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,”“Muha- jirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
• The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
• The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
• During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross – a symbol abhorrent to Islam.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

Obama’s FCC Threatens Internet Freedom

Obama’s FCC threatens Internet Freedom
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

We have issued this warning until we are nearly blue in the face, yet, somehow, Americans still do not seem to grasp the fact that there is, currently, a stealth attack on the First Amendment by the US government.

We have warned, time and time again, that a free Internet is an immeasurable threat to the liberal-socialists who currently control the US government.

Let me try, once again, to help my readers understand why I am convinced the Federal Communications Commission is such “a clear and present danger” to freedom of speech in the United States.

The Congress bestowed upon the FCC the power to issue regulations, and to make it worse, the Congress declared that the regulations issued by the FCC would have the force of law. Now, what that means is simply this: The FCC CAN MAKE LAW ON ITS OWN! It does not need to wait for Congress to introduce a bill, debate that bill, then vote it up or down, nor wait for the President to sign it into law. The FCC can issue the regulation and set a date for it to become law, and on that date -- IT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND!

The ability to make law that affects everyone in the United States is an awesome power. When that power is abused, or misused, especially when it is misused to serve a form of government other than the constitutional republican government we enjoy in the United States, then it becomes a danger to the citizens of the US.

I am very afraid that is exactly where we find ourselves today with the FCC about to begin regulation of the Internet.

Understand something very important. The US Congress has never given the FCC the right to regulate the Internet! And, in May of 2010, three hundred-plus members of Congress told the FCC to stop their attempts to regulate the Internet. Basically, the Congress told the FCC THEY (The Congress) would regulate the Internet.

For a time, over the summer, the FCC seemed to acquiesce to the demand of Congress. Now, it seems, their acquiescence was only a form of camouflage.

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal December 19th, 2010, Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, says this:

“Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?” (SOURCE)

Commissioner McDowell goes on to say: “On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.”

Call it “Net Neutrality,” or whatever you wish, but, as a conservative, I believe Net Neutrality is just the first step in government control of the Internet including censoring speech, which does not toe “the party line” of the Democratic Party.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the nation when its very own government holds the citizens in contempt as the Obama Regime so obviously does.

Another word, which so aptly describes the FCC and the Obama Regime, which spawned today’s version of the FCC, is – TYRANNY!

C. S. Lewis, that great British author (Of whom – I am NO FAN.) once said this: “... Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." (I give Mr. Lewis credit where he deserves it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!)

“Net Neutrality,” believe me, will be the beginning of the end for the Internet… at least, as we know it.

The Internet is NOT BROKEN. The government should keep their hands off it. We implore you to not be taken in by the liberal-socialist’s claims that they want the Internet to only be “fair.” If they haven’t already, they will soon be claiming their efforts at regulation of the Internet is all “for the children.” It is the same old smoke screen and the same old propaganda the left uses time and time again to get what they want, which ultimately, is a citizenry that is nothing more that slaves to their socialist form of government.

Look, I know, even before I click on the “post” button, I am going to be accused of “fear mongering” by the left. Allow me to assure you that fear of tyranny is a fear worth “mongering!”

Yes, we live in America. But tyranny is always hovering, just out of sight, waiting for a single moment of weakness to grasp freedom by the throat and throttle it … even in America -- ESPECIALLY in America.

We desperately need the Congress to geld the FCC at the earliest possible moment. Allow the free market to continue to build the Internet into the most successful enterprise on the globe, while, at the same time protecting American’s constitutional right to free speech. After all, the ultimate goal of the FCC, in our opinion, is the squelching of America’s free speech on the Internet -- and on America’s airwaves.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama’s Socialist Hammer Comes Down on the Internet!

Obama’s Socialist Hammer Comes Down on the Internet!
Conservative Bloggers: LOOK OUT!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

CNSNews.com reports the following: “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski--even though federal law calls for an Internet "unfettered by Federal or State regulation." The report goes on to say: “The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web.”

How is Obama’s FCC planning to get their mailed fist around the throat of the Internet? It is very simple, really. CNSNews informs us in their report how they will do it. The report says: “The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service – its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks. But the report goes on to explain: “As a telecommunications service, such as a telephone network, the Internet would fall under a much broader regulatory scope – giving the government the power to enforce universal service requirements, making them pay into a federal universal service fund used to provide communications services to poor areas.”

Please, we URGE you read this article in its entirety. You will find it at CNSNEW.COM HERE.


If there was ever a case of the “camel’s nose under the tent,” this is most assuredly IT!

Look, I worked in the broadcast industry for nearly 30 years. I can tell, from experience, that, in my day, the broadcast industry was one of the most government-regulated industries in the country, if not THE most regulated.

To the broadcast industry, the Federal Communications industry is G O D! They say: “JUMP!” and the broadcaster says: “How high?” And he does it while jumping!

So, bloggers enjoy your freedom of speech for a few more months. Experience tells me the end is in sight.

The old soviet KGB has nothing on the agents of the FCC. Expect them to monitor the Internet much as they did the AM and FM broadcast bands. If they hear something they don’t like, you WILL get a visit. It could be a costly visit.

We are convinced that Obama’s FCC is a political machine, a club to be wielded against those who speak out against the Socialists, Marxists, Statists, Progressives, Liberals, and/or Democrats controlling the US government today. Unless the Supreme Court stops them they WILL swing that club and conservative sites, conservative bloggers, especially, will be the very first targets.

See, the Obama Regime must gain control of the communications networks in America. The broadcast networks apparently have voluntarily made a gift of their fealty to the socialist agenda of this regime, as have many in the major print media – that which we often refer to as the Mainstream Media.

As we have so often reminded our readers, Obama promised to “fundamentally change” America. He cannot do that as long as the Internet hosts conservative bloggers who insist on pointing out the socialist agenda of the Obama regime. I am convinced this administration would nationalize the broadcast and print media -- and the Internet -- if they thought they could get away with it. Believe me – if we give them that time, they WILL do it!

Think I am paranoid? Let me assure you, there may be times I would agree with that assessment of my scribbling – but NOT THIS TIME! I KNOW what the FCC can do when they decide to bring the hammer down.

CNSNEWS informs us: “The FCC will now begin the mandatory public comment period, where it will solicit input from private companies and citizens about whether it should reclassify the Internet and, if so, how it should do it.”

If you value a free and open Internet then let your voice be heard. Write the FCC and tell them so -- and demand they back off and leave the Internet alone. Write your Congresspersons and Senators and explain your feelings on this matter to them and ask for their support of a free and open Internet.

I have warned for months, yea, years, that this was coming. I have seen no sense of alarm among fellow bloggers. Maybe it was/is there and I have somehow missed it. I sincerely hope that is the case. I fear it is not.

Believe me, t will take a MASSIVE effort to stop this particular power grab by the Obama Regime. Frankly, I don’t expect those of us who value a free and open Internet to be victorious.
But we have to try!

My close friends refer to me as the original Man of La Mancha. I have a penchant for joisting with windmills. I have been “un-horsed” and knocked on my behind so many times I cannot count them. I have learned a valuable lesson from those painful encounters. That is -- you cannot hope to win, if you don’t attack, and continue to take the battle to the enemy, time and time again for as long as you have the strength to press the attack.

There is the famous story, among we descendants of Confederate soldiers, of the Confederate general who sent a dispatch to General Lee in which he declared that he was totally surrounded by the enemy, cut off from any reinforcements, his troops were decimated, out of ammunition, and their rations were gone. The brave general declared that his situation was hopeless. Therefore, he informed General Lee, he would attack at dawn!

THAT is the attitude we must have as we gear up to fight this attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We must take a stand for freedom and we must do it NOW!

J. D. Longstreet

Your Government at Work: Censoring AM Talk Radio

By James Shott

Older readers will remember the heyday of radio, those days when AM radio was king, the primary entertainment and information medium. There was no TV, no FM radio, no satellite radio. In those days, there was just AM.

As time passed, television got its start and AM radio’s golden years came to an end. Later, AM faced the further challenge of FM radio, which eventually became the more popular of the two bands, due to superior technical capabilities. As FM radio grew in popularity in the 70s, AM radio’s popularity faded, and nearly died.

There was a huge investment in AM radio by private businesses, many of whom gradually invested in the newer FM technology. But owners didn’t want to just pull the plug on the AM band stations.

Commercial radio stations are successful if their programming attracts listeners in large enough numbers to attract sufficient advertising to pay the bills. Broadcasters experimented with a few new formats on AM, which eventually produced a talk show format that people liked and listened to. AM radio was revived.

Station owners will put any talk program that meets broadcasting standards on the air, as long as it attracts a large enough audience to produce adequate advertising dollars. They don’t care if it’s Rush Limbaugh or Alan Colmes or Bill Bennett or Randi Rhodes, so long as people listen and advertisers buy spots.

Through the years listeners have told station owners through their listening preferences that they like conservative political talk far more than they like liberal political talk, thus conservative shows dominate the medium. This is a choice freely made by listeners in a free and open marketplace.

That may be because more Americans are conservative than liberal; or more conservatives listen to talk radio than liberals; or that conservative programs and hosts are superior to their liberal competitors. However, the listening audience prefers conservative talk programs to their liberal competition, and the “why” doesn’t matter. This should be the end of the discussion, since the issue has been resolved by the consumers of AM radio.

It isn’t.

The people on the short end of the market surveys — liberal Democrats —think it is unfair that they have fewer hours of programming than conservatives, and apparently believe that listeners should not have the programming they have clearly demonstrated they prefer, and some even go so far as to charge that there is some sort of sinister plot by right-wingers.

Unwilling or unable to produce a product that listeners will accept in numbers equal to their competition, they want the government to force balance between hours of conservative talk and hours of liberal talk, and they have chosen to achieve this goal by bringing back the odious governmental control mechanism called, curiously, the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Briefly, the Fairness Doctrine is an outdated (1949) attempt by government to provide balance on public issues in an era when people had far fewer sources for news and information than they have today. The Federal Communications Commission wanted to be sure that broadcasters presented both sides of public interest issues. There may have been justification for this rule in the 50s when there were few cable TV systems, few FM radio stations, no Internet, and fewer print sources. But not today when there are multitudes of news and information sources of all varieties, many of them free for the taking. Anyone who isn’t well informed on important issues these days just isn’t trying.

There is some sympathy in the Congress for reviving the Fairness Doctrine from Senators John Kerry and Dick Durbin and Representatives John Dingell, Dennis Kucinich, and Louise Slaughter. And, in his confirmation hearings Attorney General-designate Eric Holder would not give a straight answer on whether he supports it.

Proponents say this is about fairness, and will try to substantiate that claim by saying that radio airwaves belong to the public and the government has an obligation to see that there is political balance. But commercial broadcasters are private businesses, not government information agents. This is an effort to silence dissenting voices and replace the people’s judgment and free choice with the judgment of the politicians in Washington.

By imposing the Fairness Doctrine on commercial talk radio after the public has made its programming choices, our government is replacing the judgment of listeners with the judgment of Washington politicians.

But Americans can think for themselves; they don’t need a bunch of politicians telling them what they should like or what they can listen to. And more important, the federal government has no business sticking its nose into commercial radio.

By providing people what they want, businesses of all types succeed where their competitors who do not provide customers what they want fail. This is how the free market works. If a successful business model has to be modified because of a government edict to include programming that has proven unsuccessful, AM radio operators can count on advertising income dropping, putting their businesses in jeopardy.

If Big Brother insists on trying to impose “fairness” on AM radio, it had better also get to work on NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and, of course, National Public Radio.

Cross-posted from Observations

To Fairness Doctrine Naysayers: Support from RINOs

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Graphic courtesy of CityPages

We now have the first Republican, Senator Richard Lugar, showing support for a Fairness Doctrine. Will Senators Olympia Snow, Chuck Hagel, and Susan Collins follow suit, and abandon any semblance of Conservatism? If ever there was an issue to be defended by Congress, Republican or Democrat, free speech is it.

We have one thing to remember and to fight for: a Fairness Doctrine is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's that simple:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (enactment, endowment, formation, setting-up) of religion, or prohibiting (forbidding, preventing, suppressing) the the free exercise (pursuit) thereof; or abridging (abbreviating, compressing, curtailing, decreasing, lessening, omitting) the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition (ask, call upon, request, seek, urge) the government for a redress (adjustment, amendment, rectification, reformation) of grievances (damages, injustices)

Senator Dennis Kucinich is on record saying that a Fairness Doctrine will aid in:

...achieving a free exchange and a multiplicity of ideas," and finally, with a new law, we will be able to determine "if there is a balanced and fair representation"

The First Amendment does not guarantee "balanced and fair representation." "Fair and balanced" has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

If Congress actually respects the First Amendment and makes "no law," but relies on the Federal Communications Commission to, again, institute a Fairness Doctrine - which would also abridge the First Amendment - is not law, but is a "regulation," what can we do about it? Take the FCC to court?

For my activist readers, let's attempt to find out where Snow, Collins and Hagel stand on this issue. If you are a constituent of one of the three and get a statement, please leave it here in comments or blog about it and send a link.

Email Senator Lugar: (R-IN)
Phone: 202-224-4814, Fax: 202-228-0360

Email Senator Collins (R-ME)
Phone: 202-224-2523, Fax: 202-224--2693

Email Senator Snow (R-ME)
Phone: 202-224-5344 and 800-432-1599, Fax: 202-224-1946

Email Senator Hagel (R-NE)
202-224-4224, Fax: 202-224-5213

Visit VoteSmart for all the pertinent information and background about you Congressman

Please read the following excellent report from Martin at Blogbat who was sitting at the table with Senator Richard Lugar:

*****

Senator Lugar Hints at Support for "Fairness Doctrine"
by Martin at Blogbat.com

Last week I [and] other World Affairs Council members had the chance to meet with Indiana Senator Richard Lugar at the Capitol.

During our visit with the Indiana Republican on 7 November, he seemed to offer his support for a revived “Fairness Doctrine” tailored to target only one viewpoint – that of the comparatively modest talk radio industry. On the topic of such legislation, Lugar seemed sympathetic to the significant hostility among the left towards what he called “irresponsible” “right wing” radio, using catch-phrases right out of the Idiots Guide to Liberalism, intimating that talk radio was somehow a rogue entity that merely stirred up the common people to the consternation of all-knowing legislators. (Never mind the rogue entity on Capitol Hill that is attempting to usurp the Constitution.)

Senator Lugar first greeted each of us and was extremely friendly and cordial, before taking his usual seat (now that the Democrats are in power) in the Senate Foreign Relations committee room, as we each grabbed a chair – I wound up with the honor of holding down the chair of genuine conservative Louisiana Senator David Vitter. Senator Lugar then gave us a quick run-down of things like the international financial crisis, his own biography, and the in-coming administration before taking questions. During much of this, much that was said was nothing notable or new. The senator is indeed truly likable man and I must say I can see why, politics aside, he has been as successful in the Senate as he has been. However, unfortunately, beyond personality and congeniality, the Senator and millions of Americans part ways – and do so on numerous issues. However, Lugar, who voted in favor of an amendment in the 2007 Defense Authorization bill sponsored by Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman that would have killed such a censorship doctrine’s revival, is also known, as a Rockefeller Republican for among other things most recently ganging up with Ted Kennedy against the American people during the Amnesty war of 2006. Now that it seems safe for him to do so, he appears to be reversing his position on the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as well.

Lugar’s language was strong and even harsh as he laid out the argument in favor of conservative radio censorship, as if he were a schoolmaster educating his children about the danger of alligators and why we need to trap them. As he sat in his seat sipping water from a glass with an emblem that read, “United States Senate”, Senator Lugar seemed to offer what was hardly a fair and balanced assessment of the state of media bias of his own. Instead, he seemed to ape the utterly false meme that talk radio was some giant politically unified monster for which there was no real counterweight.

Read more from Martin at Blogbat.us

*****

Related:
The Fairness Doctrine: What You May Not Know

Background:
What the FCC and the Media Has in Mind for You and
TheFairness Doctrine: A Chilling Effect,
and then a brush-up on the The Fairness Doctrine, The First Amendment and all that.

Venezuelans Fight the Loss of Free Press

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook


World freedoms dwindle as Danny Glover steps-in and cozies-up with Chavez, snatching the Bolivars right out of the hands of the people.

Venezuelans are in the streets fighting for free press. Their dictator, Hugo Chavez, has taken-down the most popular television station there, and replaced it with a state-sponsored station.

Glover thumbed his nose at Venezuelan liberties (he need not worry, American troops are protecting his) and aligned himself with deep pockets and dictators, revealing his true lack of concern for freedom, for the poor and the down-trodden.

Glover snagged his $20-$30 Million (depending on whose reporting you believe) before Venezuelan actors, anchors, agents, writers, camera crews, and grips lost their jobs. Three thousand people out of work and a station operating for 53 years is gone. Glover will make two movies in Venezuela, but no, the jobs for those in television will not be replaced by Glover's ventures. On Glover's love of America:

Glover was a signatory to "The Conscience of the World," a public letter signed by 160 artists which condemned the War in Iraq, and pledged support for the Communist dictatorship of Cuba. He also supports the Maoist group Not In Our Name (NION), which "pledges resistance to endless war, detentions and roundups, [and] attacks on civil liberties," and is directed by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

As Glover attempts to add legitimacy to dictatorships, Chavez controls the military, the legislature, the courts, most private industry, including our American oil companies - he also controls former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

For thoughts on loss of free speech in Russia, read Russians Mourn the Loss of Free Press

This a day to remember just how precious are our freedoms and to fiercely battle back against those who would hastily feed the gators, hoping they will eat him last.

A closing thought on how we make freedom ours:

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. Clarence Darrow

Technorati Tags:Danny Glover, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela,
Free Press, Free Speech, Fidel Castro, Cuba, Memorial Day, Dictators

Don Imus: Not Nappily Ever After

Sorry, you can't actually look inside the graphic. You'll have to go to Amazon.com to have a peek. More about the book, the movie and Halle Berry in the article below.

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

Don Imus, referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos" on his April 5th show. He and his producer then used two other demeaning words, but according to Imus, those words were used in a discussion about a Spike Lee movie.

Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are all over this. CBS and MSNBC have suspended the Imus Show for two weeks - saying, according to Capitol Hill Blue:

"Our future relationship with Imus is contingent on his ability to live up to his word,"

I have just a couple of thoughts about this:

1) Sharpton, on his radio show today, called Imus to the pious alter of white American guilt (Sharpton has this alter with him at all times). Imus apologized. One of Sharpton's points to Imus was that such language was disrespectful to his daughters, especially the term "hos." I certainly agree with that. It's an egregious slur against women, but what about Black rap, and White rap? and Hispanic rap? Sharpton is against violent rap music. He has called for a ban on violent rap and gotten no where with it. Using the word "ho," if that is indeed how "whore" is spelled in this culture, is all over the music scene, not to mention the streets. Consider the 2005 Academy Award for Original Song:"It's Hard out Here for a Pimp."

Before moving on, here's the words to this Academy winner (our thanks to the Academy):

You know it's hard out here for a pimp (you ain't knowin)
When he tryin to get this money for the rent (you ain't knowin)
For the Cadillacs and gas money spent (you ain't knowin)
Because a whole lot of bitches talkin sh** (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin sh** (you ain't knowin)

In my eyes I done seen some crazy thangs in the streets
Gotta couple hoes workin on the changes for me
But I gotta keep my game tight like Kobe on game night
Like takin from a ho don't know no better, I know that ain't right
Done seen people killed, done seen people deal
Done seen people live in poverty with no meals
It's f***** up where I live, but that's just how it is
It might be new to you, but it's been like this for years
It's blood sweat and tears when it come down to this sh**
I'm tryin to get rich 'fore I leave up out this bitch
I'm tryin to have thangs but it's hard fo' a pimp
But I'm prayin and I'm hopin to God I don't slip, yeah

Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin bullets everyday
Niggaz hatin on me cause I got, hoes on the tray
But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water
Couldn't keep up with my hoes, that's when sh** got harder
North Memphis where I'm from, I'm 7th Street bound
Where niggaz all the time end up lost and never found
Man these girls think we prove thangs, leave a big head
They come hopin every night, they don't end up bein dead
Wait I got a snow bunny, and a black girl too
You pay the right price and they'll both do you
That's the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly pimpin
Gotta have my hustle tight, makin change off these women, yeah

Sharpton doesn't like this music. He has made that very clear...but he hasn't gotten anywhere with his objections. No one can make a louder noise than Sharpton...yet the rappers aren't hearing him. He can get Imus suspended for two weeks, but he fails to even call out the names of the very rappers spewing the vilest music - music that is polluting not only the Black community, but the White as well. Sharpton is better than this - when he chooses to be. He passed on calling out specific billionaire rappers and moved on to a White Don Imus.

2) Halle Berry is appearing in a movie now in production "Nappily Ever After." Berry's character shaves her head after a relationship break-up. The movie, based on the novel of the same name, evidently portrays the protaganist as insecure about her nappy mane. The story belies the title: Nappily Ever After, evidently,"not" so nappily happy.

Sharpton told Imus that the word "nappy" is racial. Our hair is what it is. It's either straight, straight as a stick, curly, corkscrewy curley, nappy or whatever. It is what it is. I recently heard that having red hair is a sign having a defective gene. Redheads are often called carrot tops. Blondes are considered dim. Imus wears a hat most days. It's easier. Get out of bed, skip the brush, grab the hat and be a big star. It's just hair.

I think Don Imus' words were rude and disgusting. I think Rosie O'Donnell is rude and disgusting...so many in the public eye are rude and disgusting. The song above is rude and disgusting (I wonder if "snow bunny" refers to a White woman? - and if so, just what does snow bunny mean?). We accept rude and unacceptable behavior from our children. We allow youth gangs. We don't have to, but we do. We accept fifth graders having sex in school when the teacher leaves the room, and other students watch. My gosh! We allow the ACLU to defend NAMBLA. The Black community allows the use of "hos." The list is endless.

I do not think the Don Imus Show should be suspended, if for no other reason than Sharpton called for it. I really wish that Imus had been "Imus" and issued his apology from his own show. Forget Sharpton. He's a power monger - much of his career made on the backs of his followers who misdeeds conveniently get Al in front of a camera.

If CBS and MSNBC want Imus gone, that's fine. We all have a boss at sometime in our life. Rosie should be gone, in my opinion, but I respect her right to be there, her boss' right to keep her there, and my right to tune out. We need to tune out. We don't need Al Sharpton scolding our morals.

Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/don-imus-not-nappily-ever-after.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/8228477682763719063


Linked by others talking about Halle Berry:
Halle Berry April 10, 2007 Excerpt:
The nights we spend apart alone
I need to get back home to cool cool rain
I can’t sleep and I lay and I think
The night is hot and black as ink
Oh God, I need a drink of cool cool rain

Others talking about Imus and his self-inflicted wounds:
And Now a Word from the The Radio Patriot. Excerpt:IMUS IS DONE. His career is dead. MSNBC says it will no longer carry the Imus in the Morning radio show for calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos."

Others talking about really important issues:
Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission #2 from Wake up America

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, , Perri Nelson's Website, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, The Amboy Times, Hollywood Gossip, Conservative Cat, , stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: Don Imus Al Sharpton Nappy Celebrities CBS MSNBC Rutger's Womens Basketball Rosie O'Donnell