Keep Radio Free from Communist Liberals The Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest
The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: ...
If they win, Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.
Why the Don Imus controversy was the first skirmish in a bigger war Hillary Clinton's secret role in getting Imus fired Why Imus calls Hillary "Satan" and vows revenge Talker Glenn Beck's chilling prediction for freedom of speech Why liberals can't win ratings in radio — but conservatives do Naming names: powerful Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine How Ronald Reagan torpedoed the Doctrine — and fought off its reinstatement Trent Lott's surprising remark about talk radio How Rush Limbaugh turned the tables on Sen. Harry Reid Wesley Clark's campaign against Limbaugh Media Matters' "blacklist" of conservative talkers National Public Radio's tilt to the left Laura Ingraham's dire forecast about a Hillary Clinton presidency How presidents tried to wield the Fairness Doctrine for political advantage Imus' new simulcast partner: "Training Mules and Donkeys" Talk radio and the "new McCarthyism" GOP Rep. Mike Pence's campaign to stop the Fairness Doctrine Clear Channel's strategic moves to "appease" Democrats The supposed adversary that saved Air America How the Fairness Doctrine's repeal led to the surge in talk-radio stations The lawsuit that threatens political talk radio How Democrats can re-impose the Doctrine — without congressional action And much more
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I suspect their intention is to tackle the one-sidedness of talk radio. If so they are a bit late, as people like Thom are working on it. Actually, I think that right wing radio could benefit from some competition. Nothing like a bit of competition to raise standards, don't you think?
The hosts mentioned by the article are not right wing talk hosts, they are hate speech peddlers, IMO. And no, I'm not being partisan here, just focussing on the list you posted. I'd be the same about left wing hosts if I heard of them saying the same sort of things.
Michael Savage lives up to the name he chose. He called Islam "a bloodthirsty religion that's practiced over there by a bunch of throwbacks, and we're gonna to kill 'em." Sounds like he is pretty bloodthirsty to me. And this is how he refers to a modestly dressed woman: "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see -- how do you like that? -- a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, 'You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can'. That's how I see it! What do you want me to do, mince words with you? I'm not going to mince words. We're too far gone in this country." (link). He also calls Barbara Walters an an empty mind-slut, a mental prostitute, vermin and dirt. He calls Diane Sawyer a lying whore, disgusting, and a hag.
Any persons or organizations that have been infected with Moscow-directed plots to penetrate the American foundations in order to use their funds for communist influence upon Americans, such as, to name a couple of dangerous organizations:
One can learn a great deal about the values and core beliefs of a political figure by taking note of the people he or she assigns to key government posts. Consider, for instance, what we can learn about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the basis of her February 8th appointment of Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. “This is a critical time for the Congress and the country,” Onek said following his appointment, “and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to return to government service and work on behalf of the American people.”
But who is Joseph Onek, and how exactly does he define working “on behalf of the American people”? A not insignificant clue is provided by the fact that Onek, a 1967 graduate of Yale Law School, is currently a Senior Policy Analyst for George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI), one of the world’s major financiers of the political far Left. OSI is a member of the benignly named Peace and Security Funders Group, an association of more than 50 foundations that earmark a sizable portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways: ......
Under the guise of 'protecting American civil rights', (Roger) Baldwin's ACLU has sued to; Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities. Deny tax -exempt status for Churches. Remove all military chaplains. Remove all Christian symbols from public property. Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time. Remove In God We Trust from our coins. Remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they admit gays and atheists
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Among the ACLU's pantheon of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government. In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government. According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government. Therefore, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion. Learn more about how the ACLU works to preserve Freedom of Religion and Belief and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and similar groups want "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments removed from public places, prayer prohibited in schools, teachers fired for wearing cross necklaces, etc.
At the same time, the ACLU defends pornography, abortion, polygamy, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and prints "Getting Hitched in Canada" – a guide for homosexual marriage.
These groups state they simply want the government neutral with regard to "religion." Their argument sounds reasonable ... until one looks up the definition of "religion."
The "Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" defines "religion" as: "a set of beliefs." Webster's "New World Dictionary" defines "religion" as: "a system of belief."
The word "belief" is defined as opinions, convictions – thoughts upon which one bases their actions.
Thus, it follows, that as long as a person is doing "actions," they have thoughts preceding those actions – and that collection of thoughts is that person's "system of belief" or "religion."
As long as the government is doing "actions," the government has thoughts preceding those actions – and that collection of thoughts is the government's "system of belief" or "religion."
So there can never really be a separation of "religion" and government – as long as the government is doing "actions," there are thoughts or beliefs underlying those actions.
The ACLU is not trying to be "religion" neutral, but, in fact, it is promoting a religion – a "non-deity-based" secular-humanism system of belief.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform.
Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA? In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.
Sue N, Yes I will. It has been the intention of the AMerican Civil Liberties Union to undermine democracy, freedom, and America's way of life and living from its inception.
More later.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The supervisors of the great Los Angeles County decided to turn tail and run rather than fight a lawsuit threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Why such weak-kneed response? Lawyers for the county ominously warned that the county might lose the case and have to pay the ACLU's attorney's fees.
The ACLU is demanding that the county remove a tiny cross from its seal, one of nearly a dozen symbols it portrays. One need only look at the seal to see how ridiculous is the ACLU's demand.
A third of the seal and the centerpiece is the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean. The ACLU doesn't object to her; portrayals of pagan goddesses are okay.
Six side sections of the seal depict historical motifs: the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, the Hollywood Bowl, two stars representing the movie and television industries, oil derricks, and a couple of engineering instruments that signify Los Angeles' industrial construction and space exploration. The cross is so tiny that it doesn't even have its own section and consumes maybe two percent of the seal's space.
Removing the cross is a blatant attempt to erase history, to drop it down the Memory Hole as George Orwell would say. It is just as reasonable to recognize the historical fact that California was settled by Christians who built missions all over the state as it is to honor the Spanish ship, the San Salvador, which sailed into San Pedro (St. Peter) Harbor on October 8, 1542.
The reason the Los Angeles County seal is such a big deal is not because it is a violation of the First Amendment. It is because a pot of gold hiding under it is attracting the ACLU like honey attracts flies.
A little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act enables the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for its suits against crosses, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments. This law was designed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases, but the ACLU is using it for First Amendment cases, asserting a civil right NOT to see a cross or the Ten Commandments.
The financial lure created by this law is the engine that is driving dozens of similar cases all over the country. Every state, county, city, public park or school that has a cross, a Ten Commandments plaque or monument, or recites the Pledge of Allegiance, has become a target for ACLU fundraising.
There are thousands of Ten Commandments plaques or monuments all over the country, and lawsuits to remove them have popped up in more than a dozen states. In Utah the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt with a prize for anyone who could find another Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could persuade an activist judge to remove.
The most famous Ten Commandments case is the one in the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama, installed by Chief Justice Roy Moore and ordered removed by a Carter-appointed federal judge. As their reward for winning its removal, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center collected $540,000 in attorney's fees and expenses from the Alabama taxpayers.
Kentucky taxpayers have handed over $121,500 to pay the ACLU for its action against the Ten Commandments display outside its state capitol. Taxpayers in one Tennessee county had to pay the ACLU $50,000 for the same "offense."
The ACLU profited enormously, collecting $790,000 in legal fees plus $160,000 in court costs, as a result of its suit to deny the Boy Scouts of America the use of San Diego's Balboa Park for a summer camp, a city facility the Scouts had used since 1915. The ACLU argued that the Boy Scouts must be designated a "religious organization" because it refuses to accept homosexual scoutmasters, and because the Scouts use an oath "to do my duty to God and my country."
In northern Minnesota, the Duluth city council voted 5 to 4 to acquiesce in the ACLU's demand to remove Ten Commandments monument from public property because the city couldn't afford to pay the legal costs of defending the monument plus the ACLU's legal fees. Redlands, California likewise backed down after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit to force removal of a cross from part of the city logo.
Similar lawsuits could challenge "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since the U.S. Supreme Court ducked deciding the issue this week in the Michael Newdow case. There are 16,000 public school districts that could become targets of lawsuits to ban the Pledge.
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) has introduced H.R. 3609 to end this racket by amending the federal law that makes it possible. Most lawsuits do not award attorney's fees to the winner, and the law should not give a financial incentive to those suing to stop our acknowledgment of God, or to continue a practice or a symbol that the American people have approved for decades.
Phyllis Schlafly column 6-23-2004
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I would tend to agree that the call for the removal of the cross from the seal seems rather over the top, since it was such a small part of the seal and had historical significance, and had been there for getting on for 50 years. But it is still an example of the principle outlined in Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACLU Charge That Cross in Mojave Federal Preserve Violates Constitution. I expect that the people who already lived there were not so happy about the missions' activities, or the erection of crosses on their land.
Is there any evidence that the ACLU actually makes a profit out of any cases? Lawyers don't come cheap, on the whole.
If I was going to court, I would want impartial, not religiously biased, judgement, so I would not want to see any Christian symbols prominently displayed. The same goes for any government facility - I would not want to see symbols that gave the impression that any religion was preferred there. And I certainly would not want to be forced to say "under God", since I do not believe in any God. Didn't Jesus himself say that you should pray in private, anyway?
Just think how you would feel if it was a crescent not a cross, or quotes from the Koran not the Bible, or "under Allah" not "under God".
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
I would not want to see symbols that gave the impression that any religion was preferred there. And I certainly would not want to be forced to say "under God", since I do not believe in any God. Didn't Jesus himself say that you should pray in private, anyway?
America's freedom to worship is what has been the foundation of our very prosperous nation. The ACLU wants that freedom removed, as well as any reference to "natural law" - the inherent rights of a person - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These references you post are hypocritical and I will continue to point that out.
quote:
Just think how you would feel if it was a crescent not a cross, or quotes from the Koran not the Bible, or "under Allah" not "under God".
Our great nation was not built on the jihad mandate of the Koran.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
The Schiavo case in which the ACLU was a monied interest active in violating the rights of a disabled person was without a doubt one of the largest cases of discrimination and violations of disability rights in the United States in the past 20 years, issues which ACLU pretends to work to protect but yet it worked feverishly to end the life of a disabled woman based solely on the self-serving hearsay of Michael Schiavo who had more to gain by Terri's death than if she lived. After all, there was always the possibility, especially with the ever-evolving technology, that Terri could recover enough to communicate what really happened 17 years ago today on Feb. 25, 1990, when she inexplicably collapsed in the early morning hours following a day of arguments and discourse with Michael Schiavo who she was contemplating divorcing.
The ACLU claims to protect the disabled, saying that "people with disabilities are still, far too often, treated as second class citizens, shunned and segregated", as was Terri Schindler Schiavo by the orders and commands of Michael Schiavo, locked away in a nursing home and then a hospice, denied even sunlight. The Florida Chapter of ACLU in advocating Terri's death worked against their own stated mission.
The ACLU fights for sexual offenders, on behalf of serial killers and mass murderers, rapists and terrorists, and apparently for Internet predators but yet despite 17 national disability groups supporting Terri Schiavo's right and will to live, ACLU fought for and continues to fight for the rights of convicted murderers and sex offenders rather than disabled people.
The ACLU maintains that the death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties yet they had no problem pouring money and legal resources into advocating and causing the public execution of disabled Terri Schiavo.
On the website of the Florida ACLU which joined with Michael Schiavo, George Felos and California attorney Jon Eisenberg to advocate for the death of the brain damaged woman, it is stated that capital punishment is the ultimate denial of civil liberties yet the ACLU had no problem investing money and lawyers into denying the civil liberties of not only disabled Terri Schiavo but vulnerable adults across the country. Talk about hypocrisy.
Try listening to Thom. He can quote plenty of sources to indicate that the founders wanted church and state kept separate, and that many were Deists or of other religions rather than Christians.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
Sue N. It was Terri's sweatheart husband who denied her the right to rehabiitation FROM A FEEDING TUBE.
Many people live with a feeding tube. She was not kept artificially alive - she was a viable human being who's life had been compromised by a wayward husband already the father of two by his mistress.
Terri's family begged to take her home and care for her at THEIR expense. Dr. Death, ACLU, and schister husband killed her.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Originally posted by Sue N: Try listening to Thom. He can quote plenty of sources to indicate that the founders wanted church and state kept separate, and that many were Deists or of other religions rather than Christians.
Is un/inalianble rights of the human person being acknowledged? Or is the Declaration of Independence being glossed over?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
I hope that nobody ever decides that I am viable if I am ever in the condition Terri was in.
Everyone has the right to be Christian, Deist, atheist, agnostic, Muslim or whatever. And each has the right not to have their government favouring a religion, for example by prominintly displaying one religion's symbols in government buildings, or to have somebody else drowning out their thoughts with loud religious reading.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
I hope that nobody ever decides that I am viable if I am ever in the condition Terri was in.
No one chooses to suffer as Terri was suffering, Sue. It was not her choice either. She was denied the care she desperately required by a very selfish husband and a culture of death motivated society.
Human beings don't kill another simply because they have become disabled. If we won't stand for Terri, who will stand for us. Life is precious and murder is never the means to an end.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Read-Only Topic
