The Durbin Doctrine’s Assault on Free Speech
Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now, Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate.
During the debate over the unconstitutional bill that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment. DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech.
However, Durbin’s amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin’s amendment do? It forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nation’s airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: “The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners.”
The true intention of the Durbin Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin told The Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin Doctrine.
From the Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
How the Left Twists...
I get a daily listing of news stories that refer to Rush Limbaugh (Google Alerts). It's interesting just to scan the headlines. After a bit the Left leaning newspapers stand out like the proverbial sore thumb. The Right leaning usually don't stand out quite as easily, simply because they try for a little balance. They usually, but not always, toss in some middle of the road or fully opposing pieces.
I also get to watch the story turn from what it may have originally been, to what the Left wants it to be. You get to see the subtle twists in the story titles and subjects.
Another thing I get to see if how so many of them walk in lock-step.
Here's one that I got a kick out of in today's batch:
Rush Limbaugh the Rev Wright of the GOP
TPMCafé - New York, NY,USA
Everyone in the GOP is still all a twitter about the latest WH attacks on Limbaugh. It is not a new strategy though, it is exactly the game that the GOP attempted to play during the campaign with their endless Rev Wright and Ward Churchill fantasies. The difference is that Democrats really don't have a problem criticizing Wright, or Churchill or even Michael Moore while the Republicans dare not speak against Rush. By some measures of power, that makes Rush their leader.
It's not much of a story, it's actually more of an opinion. Short, sweet and stupid.
There's a little bit more than I printed here, so feel free to click the link above and go comment if you'd like.
The flawed logic in this idiotic piece are so obvious I really don't have to explain it to you do I?
Tell you what, if you're a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, let me know and I'll explain it to you. The rest of you, I know I don't have to bother going further.
I also get to watch the story turn from what it may have originally been, to what the Left wants it to be. You get to see the subtle twists in the story titles and subjects.
Another thing I get to see if how so many of them walk in lock-step.
Here's one that I got a kick out of in today's batch:
Rush Limbaugh the Rev Wright of the GOP
TPMCafé - New York, NY,USA
Everyone in the GOP is still all a twitter about the latest WH attacks on Limbaugh. It is not a new strategy though, it is exactly the game that the GOP attempted to play during the campaign with their endless Rev Wright and Ward Churchill fantasies. The difference is that Democrats really don't have a problem criticizing Wright, or Churchill or even Michael Moore while the Republicans dare not speak against Rush. By some measures of power, that makes Rush their leader.
It's not much of a story, it's actually more of an opinion. Short, sweet and stupid.
There's a little bit more than I printed here, so feel free to click the link above and go comment if you'd like.
The flawed logic in this idiotic piece are so obvious I really don't have to explain it to you do I?
Tell you what, if you're a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, let me know and I'll explain it to you. The rest of you, I know I don't have to bother going further.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Michael Reagan: This Tiger Is Not Dead
There's an old adage that explains that one does not shoot arrows at dead tigers. If there is a fusillade of arrows flying in the direction of a tiger you can be sure of two things: the beast is very much alive and is seen as a dangerous threat to the people manning the bows.
We are now watching this played out in the current scandal of a White House expending energy -- better spent on reviving the economy -- on an all-out and not-so-covert attack on a single talk-show radio host, Rush Limbaugh.
This should come as no surprise. President Obama opened the campaign against Rush by advising Republicans to pay no heed to anything Limbaugh tells them. Earlier, there were those veiled threats to silence Rush and all conservatives talk show hosts by reviving not the economy, but the so-called fairness doctrine that would effectively silence conservative voice heard on the airwaves.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mreagan/2009/mr_03071.shtml
We are now watching this played out in the current scandal of a White House expending energy -- better spent on reviving the economy -- on an all-out and not-so-covert attack on a single talk-show radio host, Rush Limbaugh.
This should come as no surprise. President Obama opened the campaign against Rush by advising Republicans to pay no heed to anything Limbaugh tells them. Earlier, there were those veiled threats to silence Rush and all conservatives talk show hosts by reviving not the economy, but the so-called fairness doctrine that would effectively silence conservative voice heard on the airwaves.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mreagan/2009/mr_03071.shtml
Friday, March 6, 2009
Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio
(CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588
This isn't socialism, this is the outright communistic shutting down of free speech. Americans should watch this carefully and do everything in their power to hound those who will be voting on any version of the "fairness" doctrine. They're chipping away at our freedoms and many are sleeping through the process. How do we reach the mind-numb dummies out there who will one day shriek when Nancy Pelosi and friends have their full way?
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588
This isn't socialism, this is the outright communistic shutting down of free speech. Americans should watch this carefully and do everything in their power to hound those who will be voting on any version of the "fairness" doctrine. They're chipping away at our freedoms and many are sleeping through the process. How do we reach the mind-numb dummies out there who will one day shriek when Nancy Pelosi and friends have their full way?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MRC's Free Speech Alliance Calls on Pres. Obama to Oppose All Forms of Government Censorship on the Radio
The President’s stated opposition to the Censorship Doctrine is not enough
The Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance (FSA) today called President Barack Obama’s stated opposition to a reinstatement of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine, just a first step towards ensuring that talk radio remain free from government censorship. The FSA calls on the President to publicly declare his opposition to all forms of regulatory assault on talk radio.
Conservative and Christian talk radio face the real threat of government censorship on several fronts. Besides the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, the nebulous FCC “diversity” in ownership and “localism” requirements may also be used to deny stations their broadcast licenses.
Liberal organizations and individuals like MoveOn.org, ACORN, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others have expressed their intention to silence talk radio by these alternative regulatory means so as to avoid the outcry from millions of Americans should they try to reinstate the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“We are glad that President Obama says that he ‘does not believe the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.’ But he should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves.
“The President should also insist that his nominee for FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, publicly pledge right away – before his confirmation hearing -- that he too vows not to use the regulatory powers of the FCC to silence talk radio. We need to know definitively that the man who will head up Obama’s FCC will in every way possible preserve free speech on the airwaves.
“Only then will the American public – conservatives and liberals alike -- who oppose government censorship know President Obama is serious about protecting free speech on the radio.”
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist:
“While I’m pleased to hear the President say he opposes revival of the ironically named “fairness doctrine,” I’d like to hear him come out with full-throated support for freedom of speech. Government censorship has many forms, and while President Obama now opposes this form, where does he stand on the more ominous issue of censorship by proxy under the friendly sounding ‘localism’ banner?
“Call me a skeptic, but while what a politician says worries me, what they explicitly don’t say worries me even more. If liberals want an equal voice on talk radio they simply need to produce a product the public wants to hear. It’s the public rejection of the products they’ve offered thus far that has made liberal talk radio a failure, not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ Bullying through the power government to force their shows on the air won’t grow them an audience. This isn’t Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come, you have to provide a good product. That’s where liberal talk radio fails, not in some mythical ‘smoke filled room’ somewhere.”
The Free Speech Alliance (www.FreeSpeechAlliance.us) is made up of fifty-nine (59) organizations representing millions of Americans...
The Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance (FSA) today called President Barack Obama’s stated opposition to a reinstatement of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine, just a first step towards ensuring that talk radio remain free from government censorship. The FSA calls on the President to publicly declare his opposition to all forms of regulatory assault on talk radio.
Conservative and Christian talk radio face the real threat of government censorship on several fronts. Besides the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, the nebulous FCC “diversity” in ownership and “localism” requirements may also be used to deny stations their broadcast licenses.
Liberal organizations and individuals like MoveOn.org, ACORN, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others have expressed their intention to silence talk radio by these alternative regulatory means so as to avoid the outcry from millions of Americans should they try to reinstate the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“We are glad that President Obama says that he ‘does not believe the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.’ But he should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves.
“The President should also insist that his nominee for FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, publicly pledge right away – before his confirmation hearing -- that he too vows not to use the regulatory powers of the FCC to silence talk radio. We need to know definitively that the man who will head up Obama’s FCC will in every way possible preserve free speech on the airwaves.
“Only then will the American public – conservatives and liberals alike -- who oppose government censorship know President Obama is serious about protecting free speech on the radio.”
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist:
“While I’m pleased to hear the President say he opposes revival of the ironically named “fairness doctrine,” I’d like to hear him come out with full-throated support for freedom of speech. Government censorship has many forms, and while President Obama now opposes this form, where does he stand on the more ominous issue of censorship by proxy under the friendly sounding ‘localism’ banner?
“Call me a skeptic, but while what a politician says worries me, what they explicitly don’t say worries me even more. If liberals want an equal voice on talk radio they simply need to produce a product the public wants to hear. It’s the public rejection of the products they’ve offered thus far that has made liberal talk radio a failure, not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ Bullying through the power government to force their shows on the air won’t grow them an audience. This isn’t Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come, you have to provide a good product. That’s where liberal talk radio fails, not in some mythical ‘smoke filled room’ somewhere.”
The Free Speech Alliance (www.FreeSpeechAlliance.us) is made up of fifty-nine (59) organizations representing millions of Americans...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Democrats Want to Resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."
An article by Air America Radio founder that might surprise you... Received via the National Federation of Republican Women no less!
Members of the Democratic congressional party are attempting to silence talk radio by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine." Although Democrats would tell you otherwise, the regulation would limit free speech.
Freedom of speech, one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, now Democrats want to silence a select few. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the responsibility to modify that right and thus regulate content of speech.
Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete
By JON SINTON
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Want to Learn More?
http://www.protectfairness.com/
Members of the Democratic congressional party are attempting to silence talk radio by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine." Although Democrats would tell you otherwise, the regulation would limit free speech.
Freedom of speech, one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, now Democrats want to silence a select few. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the responsibility to modify that right and thus regulate content of speech.
Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete
By JON SINTON
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Want to Learn More?
http://www.protectfairness.com/
Sunday, February 8, 2009
They are SO coming after Rush and talk radio
All you need to do is scan the headlines to see that they're continuing to go after Rush with the ultimate goal of shutting down talk radio and any opposition viewpoints.
On the radio: Barack Obama - George Rush feud adds heat, not light
New York Daily News - New York,NY,USA
By David Hinckley Bob Slade of WRKSÂ was asking the other day, rhetorically, why President Obama had taken on Rush Limbaugh by name - knowing he was pouring ...
Judge a president in three weeks? Breathe....
Kansas City Star - MO,USA... in the Senate—and their inclusion of too many pet projects handed choice weapons to Rush Limbaugh and company, and embarrassed their own president. ...
The Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh
National Ledger - Apache Junction,AZ,USA
An ongoing battle with President Barack Obama and radio host Rush Limbaugh continues. Obama recently scolded Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush ...
Understanding Limbaugh
Northwest Herald - Crystal Lake,IL,USA
I heard the interview with Rush Limbaugh by Sean Hannity and saw it on TV. The “hope President Obama fails” remark is taken out of the whole sentence which ...
President calls on Republicans to be patriots not dittoheads
Examiner.com - USA
Let’s show that we are and let’s do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time.” Will Republicans serve Rush Limbaugh or the ...
Don’t be like Limbaugh
Kansas City Star - MO,USA
Or would you rather join Rush Limbaugh’s bandwagon and hope President Obama fails, therefore putting party politics before the welfare of country? ...
GOP Leaders Embrace Rush Limbaugh As Their ‘Unofficial Leader’
Think Progress - Washington,DC,USA
By Faiz Shakir at 1:30 pm The Los Angeles Times’ Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak observe that “Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone,” having ...
Rush Limbaugh's GOP Role In Question
Post Chronicle - USA
by Staff US conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has a place in the Republican Party, but may not as a self-proclaimed party leader, party officials say. ...
Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone
Los Angeles Times - CA,USARob Carr / AP Rob Carr / AP LOUD AND CLEAR: After President Obama called out the radio host by name, he went on the air and said: "I am Rush Limbaugh, ...
Ruben Navarrette Jr: Extremists turned Hispanics against the GOP
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
That's pretty much what radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said during a recent interview with fellow talker Sean Hannity. I like listening to Limbaugh, ...
On the radio: Barack Obama - George Rush feud adds heat, not light
New York Daily News - New York,NY,USA
By David Hinckley Bob Slade of WRKSÂ was asking the other day, rhetorically, why President Obama had taken on Rush Limbaugh by name - knowing he was pouring ...
Judge a president in three weeks? Breathe....
Kansas City Star - MO,USA... in the Senate—and their inclusion of too many pet projects handed choice weapons to Rush Limbaugh and company, and embarrassed their own president. ...
The Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh
National Ledger - Apache Junction,AZ,USA
An ongoing battle with President Barack Obama and radio host Rush Limbaugh continues. Obama recently scolded Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush ...
Understanding Limbaugh
Northwest Herald - Crystal Lake,IL,USA
I heard the interview with Rush Limbaugh by Sean Hannity and saw it on TV. The “hope President Obama fails” remark is taken out of the whole sentence which ...
President calls on Republicans to be patriots not dittoheads
Examiner.com - USA
Let’s show that we are and let’s do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time.” Will Republicans serve Rush Limbaugh or the ...
Don’t be like Limbaugh
Kansas City Star - MO,USA
Or would you rather join Rush Limbaugh’s bandwagon and hope President Obama fails, therefore putting party politics before the welfare of country? ...
GOP Leaders Embrace Rush Limbaugh As Their ‘Unofficial Leader’
Think Progress - Washington,DC,USA
By Faiz Shakir at 1:30 pm The Los Angeles Times’ Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak observe that “Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone,” having ...
Rush Limbaugh's GOP Role In Question
Post Chronicle - USA
by Staff US conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has a place in the Republican Party, but may not as a self-proclaimed party leader, party officials say. ...
Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone
Los Angeles Times - CA,USARob Carr / AP Rob Carr / AP LOUD AND CLEAR: After President Obama called out the radio host by name, he went on the air and said: "I am Rush Limbaugh, ...
Ruben Navarrette Jr: Extremists turned Hispanics against the GOP
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
That's pretty much what radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said during a recent interview with fellow talker Sean Hannity. I like listening to Limbaugh, ...
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
Does President Barack Obama believe that the greatest threat to progress resides in Rush Limbaugh? Earlier this week while trying to sell his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan to Republican leaders, Obama said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Thankfully House Republicans listened to the hundreds of constituents calling their offices asking them to vote against the bill and not the guy who thinks he can buy their votes with a couple of cocktail and Super Bowl parties. Now we find out that Obama’s far left allies are upping the ante. The leftist umbrella organization American Untied for Change is pouring money into radio ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The ads ask listeners, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?” ... More
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
We're ready to rumble for Rush!
Mr. Obama threw down the gauntlet regarding Rush Limbaugh recently. The President told GOP leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
This may be the first time a sitting President has elevated a talk show host to this level of power!
We believe Mr. Obama's ultimate goal is to shut down talk radio and the voice of opposition. Free speech will be on the chopping block.
In a separate move, the mainstream media took some of Rush Limbaugh's comments out of context (again) and piled it on a bit more saying Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail.
Now there is an ad pitting Rush and Obama against each other, and the Democrats have a petition to express outrage at the out-of-context, incorrectly portrayed comment.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh as a rallying point to continue their assault on any speech that voices opposition to their policies and agenda. The implementation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" is the next step in this war. Once we start down the path of curtailing freedom of speech on the radio there will be more. It will be the Internet, the television and other media. We invite you to help fight this battle.
Whether you are a ditto-head or just someone who believe in free speech, you can't afford to sit on the sidelines in the current skirmish.
This may be the first time a sitting President has elevated a talk show host to this level of power!
We believe Mr. Obama's ultimate goal is to shut down talk radio and the voice of opposition. Free speech will be on the chopping block.
In a separate move, the mainstream media took some of Rush Limbaugh's comments out of context (again) and piled it on a bit more saying Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail.
Now there is an ad pitting Rush and Obama against each other, and the Democrats have a petition to express outrage at the out-of-context, incorrectly portrayed comment.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh as a rallying point to continue their assault on any speech that voices opposition to their policies and agenda. The implementation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" is the next step in this war. Once we start down the path of curtailing freedom of speech on the radio there will be more. It will be the Internet, the television and other media. We invite you to help fight this battle.
Whether you are a ditto-head or just someone who believe in free speech, you can't afford to sit on the sidelines in the current skirmish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
