Monday, August 20, 2007

So lets talk about the "Fairness Doctrine"

You may have heard of late, that the Dems want to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine", set aside by President Ford in the 1970s.

Their sole rational is that convservative talk-radio has an unfair influence on the American population, and the liberal/progressive agenda can't get fair airtime.

For the time being, we'll forget that the liberal agenda own ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS television, and we'll just talk about radio, which is all they want to talk about.

Why can't the liberal media get enough a fair amount of airtime on talk-radio? Cause no one's listening. Talk radio is driven by one thing...capitalism. Those advertisers pay for airtime on shows that consumers listen to. And when Air America went on the air...the liberal response to Fox News...it was a bust. Why? No one listened, so no one bought airtime.

So, instead of figuring out why no one listens to their opinion on the radio, they would rather have the government FORCE radio staion owners to give free airtime to offset the conservative talk. So when a fully funded show like Sean Hannity gets three hours of paid airtime, the station owners would then have to give away free airtime to 3 hours of liberal crap. Keeping in mind, no one is listening, so they wont be able to sell ad space even if they tried.

Now let's be real...this doesn't have anything to do with getting equal airtime....it has everything to do with shutting down conservative talk. Lets take a look at what happened the last time the Dems ran everything, and how they used the "Fairness Doctrine".

  • Former CBS News President Fred Friendly, in his 1976 book, 'The Good Guys, The Bad Guys and the First Amendment,' Friendly's account was summarized by the CATO Institute's Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa in their 1997 paper, "Chilling the Internet: Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcast," in which they recalled how the Kennedy administration "and the DNC seized upon the Fairness Doctrine as a way to 'counter the radical right' in their battle to pass" the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  • The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was established and funded by the Democrats, orchestrated a very effective protest campaign against hostile radio editorials, demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine whenever a conservative broadcaster denounced the treaty. Ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty by far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.
  • Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections. Democratic Party funding sources were used to establish a professional listening post to monitor right-wing radio.
  • The DNC also prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine," which was handed out at conferences.
  • As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

Why not let the industry run itself? Or, why not figure out why a liberal talk station can't sustain itself? Why not let the masses decide what they want to hear by voting with their dollars? Oh, no, no, no....we can't have the public running around deciding what it wants to hear....the Dems have to tell us what is good for us, what we should listen too, what we should eat, what we should drive....big government remember?

I could help the liberals figure all this out if they wanted to. You know why liberal talk radio doesn't work. Well, in order to absorb information from a talk radio show, it takes time. These shows go on for 2-3 hours..and it takes intelligence to digest the words your hearing into coherent thoughts. Those are the two probelms. Liberals don't have an attention span long enough to follow a story for more than the 90 seconds Katie Couric talks about it, and if they aren't shown pictures....they're lost. That's why they dominate TV, but can't focus long enough to follow a radio show. They're like first graders that can only read "The Big Red House" because it has very few words, and nice big pictures!

If liberals succeed in restoring the Fairness Doctrine, history would likely repeat itself. Instead of the "Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Band Treaty," organizations like MoveOn.org and CAIR (who already have a track record of pressuring conservative talk shows) would doubtless demand "free reply time," and the dominance of conservative talk radio, which has been driven by real demand and market forces, would be put into a deep freeze. (last paragraph taken from another author, but I can't find the origianl quote to give him/her credit)

More walking the talk.....John Edwards




Recently, while on the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has railed against sub prime lenders, especially those that have foreclosed on the homes of Hurricane Katrina victims. An in general, proclaimed himself an advocate for the poor.









  • During a visit to Katrina-ravaged New Orleans in April, Edwards proposed to rein in sub prime mortgage companies, saying their "shameful lending practices” threaten millions of homeowners. In July he also visited a neighborhood in Cleveland with a high foreclosure rate, saying: "This is wrong ... These people have been taken advantage of.”



  • The Wall Street Journal reports that (34) New Orleans homeowners have faced foreclosure suits from a company called the Fortress Investment Groups, LLC.


  • Fortress Investment Groups have also foreclosed on (4) homes in the Cleveland neighborhood where Mr. Edwards spoke.


What does Mr. Edwards think about this horrible company????



  • Edwards has invested about $16m in the Fortress Investment Group.


  • Edwards worked for Fortress, a private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006


  • In 2006 Fortress paid him $479,512 for part-time work, according to a Federal Election Commission report.


  • Fortress employees comprise the largest class of political contributors to Edwards, having donated more than $150,000 to his presidential campaign in the first six months of this year.


  • When confronted about the apparent hypocrisy of his anti-sub prime efforts, Edwards told the Journal that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleans residents who have lost their homes to Fortress, and he vowed to divest his portfolio of any investments that may profit from their losses.




Want more proof of what a tool this guy is???







  • NewsMax reported, on Aug. 2, that Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for taking more than $20,000 in donations from officials at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.


  • But Edwards himself pocketed a $500,000 advance from publisher HarperCollins for his book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.” HarperCollins is a Fox News Corp. subsidiary.


  • After Edwards criticized Clinton, News Corp. asked if he would return the advance. Edwards said he would not.


  • He has also said he donated the money to charity, but Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox claimed that when asked, he did not provide proof of the donations

Who Walks the Talk....



House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guesthouse, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.



House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every' green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
House 1 - Is owned by Al Gore...friend of the environment, the inventor of Global Warming.
House 2 - Is onwed by George W. Bush....anti-environmentalist

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Long, but worth reading....by the way, I don't agree with all of it...but most of it

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America carrying food and war materials.

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.

America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.

The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.

Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs. They believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East. For the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win, the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC. Not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades; Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and
2,000,000 Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to kill here.


WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945, a 17-year war, and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . a 27 year war.

WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP, adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater - a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.

The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons, unless somebody prevents them from getting them.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

OR

4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!

Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany!

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

The stakes are at least as high. . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!

Monday, August 06, 2007

Some Catching Up To Do...

..as I've been on the road alot lately, I've fallen behind...so here are some quick thoughts....

  • I've now become one of the growing number of American's that are buying my medicine from Canada...why? Well, my insurance company says that because there are "similar" items available to me OTC for my Allegra, they wont cover it anymore. Even though my DR told them the option (Claritin) doesn't work for me....they know better...and if I want Allegra, I'll have to pay about $40 for a (1) month supply. Why...because Allegra isn't avaialble over the counter...why...because the mfg knows the Insurance companies are pushing off the covered lists, and hope to cash in. In Canada, Allegra doesn't needa RX, and I just purchased a THREE month supply, with shipping, for $56!
  • Michael Vick - Shot him in the head.
  • Willie Herenton - Try to get him lined up in sites with Michael Vick, and save a bullet.
  • Dem Congress - Last Thursday, the most honest congress in history stole a vote from the republicans. Just as the gap was closing on a procedure vote to kill a liberal bill, the Dems realized they were about to lose, and without notice, closed voting when it became a tie. Why? Because the majority in the house automatically win a tie. They later came back, and in an unprecedent move, declared the vote an outright victory 207/204, but didn't offer any proof. Why? Because the next day they planned a press conference, and wanted to make sure they had enough bills past to try to make it look like they've done something before the August break.
  • Barak I'll-O-Bomba-U: Decalred that, if he had reasonable intelligence, he would make strikes against Al Queda in Pakistan, with or without Pakistani permission, or oversight by the UN. Now.....help me out here....isn't this EXACTLY what Bush did, and they're throwing him under the bus! No WAIT ITS NOT....Bush didn't invade an allie...O-Bomb-U wants to invade Pakistan, a US allie.