Rush Limbaugh has been taking a beating by nearly everyone, about his comments in January on his radio show, and then again in late February in his keynote speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), where he expressed his hope for President Obama to fail.  He’s even come under fire by prominent conservatives, such as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele and even former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. 

Gingrich said on Meet the Press, “You've got to want the president to succeed…You're irrational if you don't want the president to succeed. Because if he doesn't succeed the country doesn't succeed... I don't think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail.”

He then goes on to say, “ I want some of his policies to be stopped. But I don't want the president of the United States to fail.”

I have always had a great deal of respect for Mr. Gingrich, but honestly this is a ridiculous statement.  A President is defined by his policies and his agenda.  To hope the President succeeds, is to hope that his policies and agenda succeed.

The policies that President Obama is putting into place are not new.  They have been tried before and they have never worked, at least not for helping an economy.  These kinds of policies have worked however, for government expansion and the elimination of the middle class.

Of all the things one could say about Obama, stupid isn’t one of them.  He knows full well what the inevitable outcome to these kinds of policies will be.  And yet he continues down this path.  Since he is not stupid, that leaves only one explanation, he is purposely trying to destroy our economy, eliminate the middle class and augment the government into a Fascist Regime.

To hope that President Obama succeeds, is to hope for the destruction of America.

I stand with Rush.  I hope the President fails.  I hope he fails abysmally.  If he succeeds, we the people lose.

As Rush pointed out on his show yesterday, we don’t have a king.  We have a system of government that was designed with a separation of powers.  We don’t have one all-powerful person or office.  Our system of government was designed to insure that the president would fail, if he was wrong.  And in this case, he is. 

So I will go a step further; if President Obama does not fail, then we have strayed too far from our original form of government and given way too much power to the president.

For what it’s worth Mr. Limbaugh, as a typical white person, who’s clinging to my God and my guns…I’m with you, I not only hope Obama fails, I’m praying that he will. 

Gotta love those Illinois politicians!  Representative Bobby L. Rush, who represents the 1^st district in Illinois, is a huge advocate for criminals, and he’s not afraid to use his office to help them however he can.

Just days ago, he introduced H.R. 1133 that will apparently make it cheaper for convicted criminals to make phone calls. 

But this isn’t his first Pro-Criminal bill, only last month he introduced H.R. 45, which is known as ‘Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009’.  This bill would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, to require a license to possess a firearm.

This bill would also ban private gun sales, prohibit keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm with the ammunition within access of a child, “establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse”, “conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries”, “and collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.”

The most troubling aspect of this bill is obviously the registration and licensing of gun owners.  For those of you who live in Illinois, you are already familiar with this.  The Bill of Rights is obsolete in Illinois, let’s not let it happen everywhere else as well. 

Call, write and email your elected officials, and tell them to reject this unconstitutional bill.  Bobby Rush’s buddy will sign this if it makes it to his desk.  Let’s stop it now, before it can go any further.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

President Obama held a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” yesterday in the White House, where apparently Senators from both sides of the isle and others, gathered to solve the problem of fiscal irresponsibility.

They all gathered, the President told them what the goals were, and then they split into smaller groups and brainstormed.  They were to report back to him by the end of the day with their proposed solutions.

The President warned them, "If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road."

He has promised to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term.  He said he would institute a pay-as-you-go policy which would require money to be cut from the budget, before it could be spent elsewhere.

Aside from President Doom and Gloom’s propensity to overuse words like “crisis” and “catastrophe”, does he remember what he signed last week?  “Pay-as-you-go”?  Is he serious?  This is an interesting policy to put into place a week after signing the largest Pork-Barrel spending bill this nation has ever seen.  He just massively increased spending without cutting a thing, and now he is going to lecture about responsible spending.

Perhaps he needs to be reminded of the definition of “Hypocrisy”. 

So how does he plan to cut the deficit in half?  By cutting spending on the war in Iraq, streamlining government, and ready for this, raising taxes on the wealthiest.  The administration says that there is a $1.5 trillion deficit.  To cut that in half would mean to cut spending by $750 billion, per year. 

The most liberal sources estimate Iraq war spending at $150 billion per year.  So if he pulled everyone out of Iraq and ceased all spending, which he is not planning on doing, that leaves $600 billion.  No one in their right mind believes that he will streamline anything, but let’s be extraordinarily generous and say he can save $100 billion by streamlining.  That leaves $500 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy…minimum.

So who does he consider wealthy?  During the campaign, he was asked who he considers rich?  He quickly responded, “I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country…”

Who makes $250,000 a year?  Most small businesses, doctors, lawyers, corporate executives and professional families (husbands and wives who both have professional careers and file jointly), oh yeah, most every television reporter and weatherman. 

What if you don’t make that much?  Not to worry, you’ll be doing your part.  If you use any of the services provided by the people listed above, they are going to pass that cost on to you, the consumer.  But television is free right?  Wrong.  Their salaries are paid by sponsors and sponsors sell you goods and services, so those costs will be passed on down the line and guess where the buck stops?  It stops with you. 

In 2004, there were an estimated 131,113,969 tax returns filed (of course this number does not include House or Senate Democrats), but 42,545,501 of those owed zero tax liability and got everything back.  So that leaves approximately 88,568,468 actual taxpayers.  But that was 2004, so, again, let’s be super generous and say today there are 100 million taxpayers.  That’s $5000 each.

That may not seem like much, but to break that down further, if you work a 40 hour week, that’s a $2.40/hr tax increase.  And that’s if it’s divided equally. 

Even if you divide that by the total number of tax returns, and we generously bump that number to 150 million, that’s still $3,333, or $1.60/hr.

Now these numbers are not terribly accurate, but only meant to give you an idea of the magnitude of the tax hikes that Obama is planning.  The total amount will be significantly higher than $500 billion, and it will be divided up among a fairly small percentage of Americans.  But those Americans own or run businesses and provide goods and services to us.  These people are not going to just suck it up and pay their “fair share”, they will pass that cost onto us.

Now he’s planning on spending another 400+ billion, all earmarks.  So what’s my point?  The point is, this promise of responsible spending is exactly opposite of what he has done and intends to do.  Almost everything he has told us, has been a lie.  Am I calling President Obama a liar?  Yes, there is no other word for it and it’s wrong to call it anything other than what it is.

Remember this the next time you go to vote. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that the Obama administration is considering a tax on drivers that is based on the number of miles you drive.

The former head of the KGB, Vladamir Putin issued the United States a warning about adopting Socialism.  You can’t make this stuff up.

In his speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Putin said,

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute… in the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

Can you believe this came from the former head of the KGB?  But wait, it gets better.  He later added,

“Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

He warned us not to make the same mistakes the Soviet Union made by exercising “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

It seems to me that if anyone would have a first hand understanding of what an abysmal failure Socialism actually is, it would be someone like Putin.  Let’s be real, Socialism brought one of the world’s Super Powers to it’s knees…and then cut it’s head off.

Anyone who was over the age of about 5 in the 80’s remembers the constant threat of the Soviet Union.  The Cold War was raging and the threat of nuclear war was on everyone’s mind.  They seemed unbeatable, it was a lose-lose situation. 

But that was really a battle between Capitalism and Socialism.  And as we all know Socialism fell flat on it’s face and Capitalism not only won, but won big time.  Apparently the Russians now get it, Socialism doesn’t work.  The government is not omnipotent.  The government cannot solve everyone’s problems.  The government cannot conduct business better then businesses can.

But will Obama listen? No, he won’t.  You see, this speech was given back in January and yet Obama and all the Democrats in Washington, using traditional KGB tactics of fear and loathing, pushed this monstrous Socialism Bill through. 

I have now officially, seen it all.  I never thought, not in a million years, that the former leader of Russia and former head of the KGB would be warning America to preserve Capitalism.  Who are the Capitalist Pigs now? 

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the 'Fairness Doctrine' without actually calling it such."
-The American Spectator, February 16, 2009

According to this American Spectator article,

"Waxman [Congressman Henry Waxman] is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. ... Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

So there you have it folks, they’ve decide to knock out radio and internet at the same time.  Please folks, follow the links on my previous post and let our elected officials know that we want H.R. 226 and S. 34 to pass. 

Anyone older than about 25 can remember when AM radio was a joke, but not a funny one.  It was torturous.  There was nothing on worth listening to, except perhaps some “oldies”.  It was hardly even considered legitimate broadcasting.  But about 22 years ago, things began to change.

In 1988, a ground-breaking talk show flooded the AM airwaves.  Remember “Rush Rooms”?  Nearly every restaurant that served lunch had one.  For those too young to remember, those were dining rooms set aside for those who we now call “Ditto Heads”.  They played Rush Limbaugh in banquet rooms, and folks could ask to be seated there (if there was room) and listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio while they ate lunch.

A year earlier and Rush probably have never made it.  Why? Because the FCC had a rule, commonly known as “The Fairness Doctrine”.  It had been in place since 1949, but it was abandoned in 1987.  It was anything but fair.

Now let me just give you a brief explanation of the Fairness Doctrine.  In essence, it mandated that radio talk shows had to present both sides of an issue.  For example, if a radio station broadcasted a pastor who laid out the Biblical view of homosexuality, then the radio station also had to air a pro-homosexual viewpoint.  If they air a pro-life program, then they have to air a pro-choice program.  If you air a Christian sermon, you must air an atheist sermon.  If there is not opposing program available, the other cannot be aired.  If you air a conservative commentator, you must air a liberal as well.  Empirical evidence shows that no one wants to listen to the liberals.  If folks don’t listen, sponsors don’t advertise, if sponsors don’t advertise, stations go out of business.

A rule like this would effectively shut down Christian radio immediately and Conservative radio would quickly dwindle down to nothing.

Today, AM radio is booming business.  In 1990, 3 years after the rule was abandoned, there were 400 am radio stations that were devoted to the talk format (That number was surely smaller 3 years earlier.)  But thanks primarily to Rush Limbaugh, in 2006 that number had grown to 1400.

The vast majority of those talk shows are conservative.  I mention this only because as we all know, the mainstream media is vastly liberal.  So if one wants both sides, the only options are radio and internet. 

Liberals across the country are pushing to have the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” reinstated.  And even those who claim to be against it, such as President Obama, are all for the results of such a rule, they just don’t want to call it The Fairness Doctrine. 

Former President Bill Clinton said recently in an interview, when asked about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine,

“Well you either aught to have the Fairness Doctrine, or we aught to have more balance on the other side.  Because, essentially, there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let’s face it, you know Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he’s saying things that I think are ridiculous.”

That Big Money he’s talking about…that’s called the audience.  With our economy the way it is, why would they want to shut down a profitable business?  Very simply, because they have tried and failed to get a piece of that pie.  They have no one to offer, or at least not anyone that people want to listen to.  So if they can’t join ‘em, they’ll beat ‘em, with unconstitutional laws that selectively strip away First Amendment Rights.

It’s interesting that this Fairness Doctrine would not effect the television airways, just radio.  So this rule would effect only the conservative viewpoint.

So let me translate: “We need the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it to eliminate any public dissention of the leftist administration.  We control television and Hollywood, so now all we need to do is gain control of radio and internet.”  Radio is easier than internet, so they’re going after it first.

Now for the real scary part.  To bring back a rule like this would not take an act of Congress, nor would it take an Executive Order.  This can be accomplished by 3 of the 5 FCC board members.  That’s it, that’s all it takes.  If 3 out of 5 agree, it’s done.  UNLESS…. Legislation is passed to prevent it.  Now the good news:

H.R. 226 & S. 34: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of you political slant, every American should be opposed to blatant violations of our First Amendment Rights.  So I urge all of you to contact your elected officials and tell them to support H.R. 226 & S. 34. 

There are many ways to easily contact your elected officials, even if you don’t know who they are.  Here are a few ways, and these will help you find your officials.  Please do something…doing nothing is unthinkable.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

In addition, I also urge you to support the ACLJ and sign their petition to preserve free speech.