Monthly Archives: October 2009

by

The Capitol Hill Day Care

Democratic_Seal

Looks like we have Romper Room on Capitol Hill.

Childish Democrats actually changed the locks to keep Republicans out of a conference room.

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren’t present.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

Republicans charged that Towns canceled the meeting to avoid the subpoena vote. Democrats first claimed the mark-up was canceled due to a conflict with the Financial Services Committee. Later they said it was abandoned after a disagreement among Democratic members on whether to subpoena records on the mortgage industry’s political contributions to Republicans.

The prime targets of the Countrywide Financial scandal, of course, are Democrats, namely Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both of whom received sweetheart mortgage deals from the financial giant.

The children running the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee perhaps need their blankies and pacifiers or maybe a timeout is in order. They definitely need their diapers changed, because you know what they are full of.

by

Mister Newt Meets Some Real Conservatives

More proof that Newt Gingrich has jumped the shark.

In Dallas to promote his book, Gingrich came face to face with Dallas Tea Party activists and, well, let’s just say they were in no mood to listen to Mister Newt and how much he has “grown” since he left Congress. And, by “grown” we mean he has become more liberal.

Via Michelle Malkin, here’s Newt telling an incredulous crowd that they’d no doubt have problems with Ronald Reagan because Reagan undoubtedly wouldn’t be conservative enough for them.

Agree with the YouTube poster. We love Reagan precisely because he stood on principle. He gave on little things to get the big things he wanted, unlike the linguini-spined sorts running the GOP now, who consistently sell out conservative principles in the name of the almighty “bipartisanship,” which in Washingtonspeak means Republicans caving to agree with Democrats to advance the agenda of the state.

Here’s another clip. In this one, Newt is worried about intra-party fighting in the New York 23rd CD special election:

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but it was you along with the NRCC and the RNC who triggered this spectacle by endorsing a RINO, liberal Democrat running as a Republican, one who was pushed by two other liberals and backed by party leaders. She never ran in a Republican primary, never received one Republican vote. And she’s a raging liberal. To wit, Dede Scozzafova:

  • Received an award named after Margaret Sanger, the Nazi sympathizer who endorsed eugenics and Adolf Hitler’s theory of the master race by eliminating so-called inferior races, specifically blacks and Jews.
  • Voted for numerous tax increases while a member of the New York state legislature.
  • Refused to sign a no tax pledge for Congress, meaning she’d intend to vote for Democrat tax increases.
  • Strong supporter of the card-check legislation, which would force workers into unions against their wills.
  • Associated with and endorsed by ACORN and its affiliate in New York, the Working Families Party.
  • Also pushed by the Kos Kiddie Day Care Center.
  • Has refused to rule out switching parties after the 2010 election.

Here’s a Tea Party activist calling the former Speaker out:

When the Republican Party follows the Big Tent philosophy as defined by the Left and the state-run media, it means the circus is back in town, complete with all the clowns.

In other words, we don’t want the lefties if they aren’t going to change their views and agree with us. No political party can be all things to all people. It has to stand for something.

Remember: those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

by

Cheney’s Speech, The One’s Reaction

Vice President Dick Cheney gave a brilliant speech at the Center for Security Policy the other night. The text can be found here.

Cheney called out Our Lord and Savior’s administration for its inept mishandling of the Afghanistan front of the war on terror as well as its “present” vote on what to do next. Also, its other foreign policy blunders.

Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama thought all he needed to do was apologize for everything America has ever done, bow, kowtow and grovel to every Marxist and Islamonazi thug dictator in the world and all the evil would go away and people would like the U.S. again.

Liked? Maybe. Respected? No way. And it’s much better to be respected than liked in today’s world.

Here’s Cheney on the Obama administration’s abandonment of Eastern Europe on the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II:

I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

America os judged on whether it keeps its word. We gave our word that we would protect Eastern Europe against aggression, and clearly the Russian bear is hungry and looking to devour the likes of Poland and the Czech Republic once again. And President Pantywaist just opened the door for that, should Vladimir Putin choose to move in that direction.

And there’s The Messiah’s complete abdication on Iran, clearly OK with the mad mullahs having nuclear weapons. Of course, that’s not surprising, since He turned His back on the freedom protesters there earlier this year. Of course, of course, it’s Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pronounced “I’m A Nutjob”) that has promised to nuke Israel and wipe it off the map in an attempt to bring on Armageddon.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran’s leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic’s authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran’s democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran’s democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran’s protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran’s authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Answer? It won’t. Never had a chance, especially when The Anointed One started out from a position of weakness — announcing meetings without preconditions — and deteriorated from there. Seriously … did anyone think His negotiations with Tehran stood a chance when He couldn’t even land the 2016 Olympics for his corrupt machine pals in Chicago, getting bitchslapped on a worldwide stage?

Finally, He has decided to vote “present” on the war in Afghanistan rather than commit the troops that the general in charge says we need and tying the hands of the troops on the frontlines with silly rules of engagement that expose them to danger. In fact, Obama has somehow found time to make 21 campaign fundraising appearances, appear on The Tonight Show to insult Special Olympians, make a round of appearances on Sunday news shows (except the one where He’s get real questions) plus David Letterman, fly to Copenhagen to get the aforementioned bitchslap … pretty much do everything except meet with Gen. McChrystal, the man in charge of Afghanistan. And that was only to chastize the general after he called out the Narcissist-in-Chief.

Plus, the White House has chosen the same path as it has on all of its other problems. Namely, blame President Bush. In this case, they are lying and Cheney calls them out on it:

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff says the Obama administration is lacking in class and even worse in terms of character:

We’ve known for some time that Obama and his operatives have no class. This is apparent, for example, from the fact that Obama has never been able to say a positive word about his predecessor. George W. Bush, by contrast, was quite gracious towards Bill Clinton as, indeed, Clinton was towards George H.W. Bush.

But what Cheney described last night goes well beyond lack of class. One typically exhibits class by doing small, gracious things beyond the minimum that is expected. Class, in another words, is a plus. It’s a very good thing to have, but its absence is not really a negative and certainly does not pose any danger.

But the rank, opportunistic dishonesty described by Cheney demonstrates an affirmatively bad character. And an administration craven enough to engage in it is a dangerous, potentially thuggish administration — the kind that probably would think nothing of developing and acting upon an enemies list, for example.

And, via Power Line, Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard documents that Cheney is telling the truth and Obama and His gang of thugs are lying.

Once again, the Little Black Man-Child refuses to accept responsibility for His own incompetence and that of those around Him.

Adds Red State:

Bush brought Obama fully into the loop right after the election. Obama asked Bush to keep that a secret, which he did. Then Obama appropriated what Bush shared as *his* strategy in March as if *he* had developed it from scratch. Then if that were not bad enough, he adds to the back-stabbing by continuing to blatantly lie in saying Bush had given him nothing. Just when you think Obama can’t get any more abominable, you find out you were wrong.

by

TOTUS And POTUS: FAIL

Another epic FAIL from Barack Hussein Obama, as His Teleprompter lets Him down:

Via Breitbart TV:

The stereotype of George W. Bush was that he couldn’t put two words together, let alone a complete sentence. Yet, here’s Bush, without a teleprompter in that memorable off-the-cuff speech at Ground Zero:

The reason? He believed what he felt, deep down. He wasn’t a two-bit, phony-baloney, plastic-banana, goold old time rock-and-roller like the Teleprompter-in-Chief.

by

The GOP Speaks

 Conor – or as Dan Riehl calls him, Conor with one N – Friedersdorf sent this questionnaire out to a number of Republican Party officials. You can read the responses here.

I thought I’d take a shot at answering those questions myself, although I seriously doubt a pinhead elitist like Conor really cares what real Americans like myself think. After all, it’s the Boston-Washington corridor “conservatives” – and he’s one of them – that are trying to conduct a purge of the Great Unwashed – blue-collar and ethnic types, talk radio listeners, Tea Party protesters – reminiscent of the one William F. Buckley conducted to rid the GOP of the John Birch Society affiliates.

1) So long as it’s in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?

The Republican Party needs to focus on returning to its Ronald Reagan conservative roots. Ronaldus Magnus didn’t get elected twice by landslide margins by compromising his core conservative principles. He drew people to the GOP and to conservatism by not being ashamed of who he was and what he believed.

Right now, Republicans in Congress need to be doing three things: first, blocking the neo-Marxist agenda of Barack Hussein Obama and His disciples by any means necessary. Make the Democrats Statists own the crap sandwiches they are forcing down the throats of the American people. Stop falling for the argument that they need to be bipartisan – which in Washingtonspeak means Republicans dropping their principles to agree with Democrats – and being the Go Along Get Along Gang and simply vote “No!” on every piece of Marxist legislation that comes before Congress. Not just no … HELL NO!

Second, they need to be pushing a tax-cutting agenda, even though it stands no chance of being adopted by Bela Pelosi, Dingy Harry and pals. Not one Republican vote for any tax increase, and party leadership needs to crack the whip on the linguini-spined RINOs that consistently vote with the Democrats (Olympia Snowe, call your office). Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Let’s have an open and honest debate about real tax reform, namely the flat tax and the Fair Tax. Something as radical as eliminating the current tax code, which punishes success. Remember: the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Finally, continue to stand up for our military, as President Pantywaist undercuts and undermines the morale of our troops abroad by voting “present” on key decisions, by apologizing for America all around the world, by cozying up to Marxist thugs and by defunding our troops.

2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama’s presidency?

Yikes. Where to start … a deadly combination of fascism and Marxism. Government taking over and running as many segments of American society as it can get its hands on, down to running individual lives. Robbing the productive to pay the non-productive. Creating a Marxist society like all others: widespread poverty with a rich elite. Pushing an economic plan that is basically reparations for slavery … robbing one group of Americans who had nothing to do with slavery to pay off another group that had nothing to do with it, either. And that’s when the Little Black Man-Child isn’t destroying America’s reputation around the world, appeasing our enemies, apologizing to every tinhorn dictatorial thug, groveling to the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the King of Saudi Arabia and setting the U.S. up to be attacked in a manner by the jihadists that we really cannot fathom.

Worst. President. Ever. After 10 months of Our Lord and Savior, I am nostalgic for Bill Clinton. Hell, I even miss Jimmy Carter.

3) There’s been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?

First, let’s separate two people from that group. Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are both populists. O’Reilly is to the left on a number of issues, including supporting the government’s slashing of salaries of corporations taking bailout money. Likewise, Beck is a populist, having done an excellent job on exposing both the evil of ACORN and the Little Black Man-Child’s radical czars.

El Rushbo and his 20 million listeners as well as Levin are the voice of the conservative base of the Republican Party. Bash them and ignore them at your own peril. Remember, an attack on Limbaugh — as well as any talk show host — is an attack on the listeners as well. The people who make the country work.

After the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, Rush addressed the freshman class and urged them to stand strong and not give in to the desire to be accepted in Washington. Why? Because they never would be accepted. Not long after, Republicans abandoned that advice and went native. 12 years later, they were in the minority once again.

This week, in a story on how the grassroots movement as well as talk radio has unnerved the GOP establishment, The Politico went to Bob Michel, the one-time loser who headed the permanent Republican minority in Congress for comment. Naturally, Michel maintained the Republicans needed to moderate themselves and try getting along with the majority Democrats.

Nice. Going to the Tweedledee of the Original Go Along Get Along Gang, the Tweedledum being Bob Dole. Michel and Dole couldn’t find their rear ends with both hands.

Losers with a capital “L.”

4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America — with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor’s “wise Latina” comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?

You aren’t attacking race; you are attacking liberalism, socialism, fascism and Marxism. Face it: the Left is going to call you a racist no matter what you say. Simply criticizing, say, government-run health care is now raaaaacist! And yes, there are 5 a’s in raaaaacist!

The Anointed One is, as Glenn Beck said, a racist who hates white people. That’s why He’s disguised reparations for slavery as an economic plan. Taking from those who He’s been trained to think have stolen from His people and redistributing it.

No matter what the criticism, the cry will be “Raaaaacism!” Deal with it. And don’t be defensive. Attack every single time that phony charge is thrown out.

5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn’t get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.

Republicans here care about the same thing Republicans care about in other parts of the country, namely taking our country back from the radical socialists, fascists and Marxists currently running it and stopping those in the GOP are willing to play the role of enabler in the process. Problem is, the state-run media plays to the stereotype of the grassroots and lionizes the so-called principled Beltway conservatives who’ve pretty much gone native.

These people — I call ‘em blueblood countryclubbers — hated, and I mean hated, Ronald Reagan. Hated him. Said the same things about him the Left did. Still hate him deep down to this day, all the while trying to claim his legacy.

We want Republicans to stand for something. Remember: those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. Lower taxes, smaller government, protecting our liberty and the moral fabric of our society, strong national defense. Stop giving in to and enabling America’s domestic enemies.

6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?

That’s the same coalition that gave Ronald Reagan two landslide victories and gave Republicans control of Congress in 1994. Why change it? The coalition didn’t change; the Republicans themselves did. Went native with big spending, big government me-too approachs. Trying to out-Democrat the Democrats. Became corrupt (Abramoff, Foley) as a result of going native.

7) Is there anything I didn’t ask about that you’d like the media or the country as a whole to know?

It’s too much to ask, but just for once I’d love to see the state-run media start telling the truth about conservative for a change instead of demonizing us.

Conservatives have to take a stand and take the Republican Party back precinct by precinct to give the American people a real choice. The state-run media will try to spin it as divisive, but it’s not. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 73 percent of Republicans feel the GOP leadership is out of touch with the base. That’s three out of four Republicans voters. And the majority of Americans still live their lives in a conservative fashion, even if they don’t always vote that way. It’s up to Republicans to give them a reason to vote that way. Ronald Reagan did.

Bottom line is this is still a center-right country. Moving to the left won’t put the Republicans back in control. Faced with a choice between Democrats and me-too Democrats, the country will choose the real ones every time.

Reagan said in back in the 1970s: the GOP does not need to blur the distinction between the parties. Rather, it needs to make those difference more stark and plain.

It worked then. It will work again.

by

Egomaniac On Display

Wow.

Is there a room big enough to hold this ego? The Grand Canyon might not suffice.

From The Politico via The Conservatives via Steve Eggleston on Twitter, here’s His Highness playing basketball with a ball containing His own campaign logo:

091021_obama_basketball2_392_regular

One can imagine the West Wing is stuffed with towels, toothbrushes, drinking cups, silverware, stationery, and a slew of other items – all carrying the Obama logo.

This is a true Cult of Personality.

What a narcissist.

by

The Jobless Recovery

Seen on Twitter this morning:

A jobless recovery is no coincidence. An unhappy workforce is needed for Marxist revolution.

With unemployment approaching and about to pass 10 percent, and Americans being told to accept 10 percent unemployment as the norm, is there any real chance this economic mayhem being caused by the Merry Marxists in the White House and Congress is an accident?

by

Silencing The Opposition

The criminalization of conservativism continues.

Looks like the FCC is working iron-hand-in-velvet-glove with an extreme leftwing religious group to silence both Fox News and the voices of opposition on talk radio.

Writing at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord details a website complete with petition and pressure campaign for the FCC to investigate “hate speech” in the media, particularly against illegal aliens.

Michael J. Copps, chairman of the FCC, gave a speech at Riverside Church in New York City. Riverside is part of the United Church of Christ, a denomination that is extremely liberal in its leadership.

As Commissioner Copps began his speech, his opening included what appeared to be the perfunctory thanks to the executive director of the UCC’s Office of Communication, Inc., the Rev. J. Bennett Guess.

Then he said this: “I also want to thank my friend Cheryl Leanza for her helping arrange my being at this gathering, as well as at the important luncheon meeting earlier today of the interfaith coalition, So We Might See.”

Who is Cheryl Leanza? She is identified this way by the UCC: “Cheryl A. Leanza, a media attorney who serves as policy director with the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communications, Inc.” The Reverend Guess runs the UCC’s Communications office, and within that office is Ms. Leanza, the policy director for the office. She is also referred to as the “Managing Director” of the OC.

Now.

Let’s go back to the statement made by FCC Commissioner Copps.

Remember that after thanking Rev. Guess, he says: “I also want to thank my friend Cheryl Leanza for her helping arrange my being at this gathering, as well as at the important luncheon meeting earlier today of the interfaith coalition, So We Might See.”

At 2:45 p.m. on Friday afternoon, October 16, 16 days after Commissioner Copps had his privately arranged “important luncheon meeting” with So We Might See and delivered his speech, I received — as did all other UCC members on the appropriate mailing list — an e-mail from the Rev. Ben Guess. The subject line was: “Hate Speech Hurts: Join the 2009 Media Violence Fast.”

Keep in mind that Lord himself is a UCC member and points out that while the leadership is extremely leftwing, its general membership is mixed in political beliefs. He himself received an appeal which stated:

Does violence in the media, particularly hate speech against immigrants, impact levels of actual violence?

That’s the question we will be asking during the 2009 Media Violence Fast, October 19-26. We invite your participation at www.mediaviolencefast.org.

Funny, but I don’t recall any acts of violence spurred on by Fox News or by talk radio. The Unabomber, by comparison, had a copy of Algore‘s book, Earth in the Lurch, on his person when he was captured. Does that mean Algore is somehow responsible for all of the Unabomber’s crimes?

Back to the topic. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

Then came the interesting part, or, if you will, the part that sent a chill through my radio. Reverend Guess, on behalf of my own denomination — without so much as a by-your-leave to the rank-and-file 1.2 million members — made plain, in the name of the United Church of Christ that:

As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media. We will also urge the National Telecommunications and Information Agency to update its 1993 report, The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.

Read the key phrases again. “Open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.” Meaning, church members are being asked to sign on to an already-in-progress petition to the FCC that is opening the door to legal sanctions from the federal government on “hate speech in the media.”

This is a chilling threat to the First Amendment, which as we all know by now matters to the Left only when you are in agreement with them. If you disagree, well, you just don’t have the same rights, except the right to shut up … or worse. Like in, go to jail.

Once again, the prime target is Rush Limbaugh, even once again stooping to using a bogus quote to imply that Limbaugh is a racist who hates Mexican immigrants.

To wit:

The reason Rush is formally singled out in the petition itself as the only talk radio host so-named (and that without the tiniest bit of context) is that he allegedly made a remark on “March 27, 2006″ in which he “called Mexican immigrants, regardless of legal status, ‘a renegade, potential crime element that is unwilling to work.’” Two Mexican men, says the petition, were then robbed and beaten up. Three months later. In June of 2006. By four kids “accusing them of stealing jobs from the U.S.” There is no record provided that a single kid ever mentioned Rush Limbaugh. Not one. Quite aside from the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t advocate beating up anyone.

Let’s not even talk about context. There is once again — like with the bogus quotes about the so-called good points of slavery and the award to the assassin of Martin Luther King — not one shred of evidence, tape or otherwise, that Limbaugh ever said such a thing. Sounds like another Wikipedia quote, made up out of thin air and atttributed to Rush, knowing that it would never be fact-checked — probably because it wasn’t part of a Saturday Night Live sketch.

The bogus quote is then cited as motivation for an alleged real-life beating. Again, we don’t know if the crime ever took place or any of the real motives, if indeed such a crime did occur. Nothing is cited that could possibly be fact-checked. Like by Google.

Anyway, here’s the kicker:

Who is sponsoring this petition? Whose name is at the bottom as the signatory? Why, yes indeed, a group called “The So We Might See Coalition.” Where have we heard of this group before?

That’s right. The same group Commissioner Copps saluted when he gave his lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church and said: “I also want to thank my friend Cheryl Leanza for her helping arrange my being at this gathering, as well as at the important luncheon meeting earlier today of the interfaith coalition, So We Might See.”

That’s right. The very same group seeking an FCC investigation into speech on the radio and cable news.

Here’s more. A very telling quote from Copps, one that didn’t make the FCC website but was reported from an attendee (no media were invited):

I am also pushing for a comprehensive FCC evaluation of the state of broadcast journalism.

Why should the government be investigating journalism? They didn’t see a need to investigate Dan Rather and Mary Mapes for using forged documents to try to bring down President Bush. Or for any of the other fake but accurate journalistic scandals — Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jeff Gannon, to cite four prominent fake journalists.

Here are some of the sugar daddies behind this operation. Yes, it’s the usual suspects:

  • George Soros and Open Society.
  • The Ford Foundation to the tune of $100,000.
  • Media Democracy Fund for another $400,000 (Soros also funds MDF).

It’s also being pushed by the liars at Media Matters, with all of their carefully edited audio and video clips. Oh, the Hispanic version of the Ku Klux Klan, La Raza, is hip-deep in this as well, along with seven other liberal religious organizations: U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Islamic Society of North America, United Methodist Communications, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). ELCA, by the way, is a “Christian” church that has officially in terms of doctrine expressed doubt in the divinity of Christ, no doubt in order to be more inclusive.

Here’s more:

[T]he sole “Key Personnel” listed for So We Might See is “Rev. J. Bennett Guess, Executive Director.” Rev. Guess, of course, is the minister who sent me the e-mail from the UCC. The minister who is the boss of Cheryl Leanza, who in turn “arranged” for a private and doubtless cozy lunch with So We Might See whose “Key Personnel” is…Rev. Guess. And on the web site for So We Might See? As you can see here, both Rev. Guess and Ms. Leanza are listed as “staff.”

Nice little cozy relationship. Any more incestuous and we’d have to call the police.

Lord summarizes:

What we are documenting here is a full-fledged assault on conservative media. On talk radio and on Fox News. An assault by name on some, on others with their names left out, but surely every bit the target as the others. You can be assured that also in the bull’s-eye here is Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Someone like Levin, who has both a popular talk radio show and a bestselling book, would be of particular concern. So too those without their own shows but with successful books and websites — the Michelle Malkins, Dick Morrises. Surely Andrew Breitbart, already in their sites for the ACORN investigation, sits on this enemies list.

Leading this charge or involved in some capacity are at least one Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, seven national churches, one left-wing billionaire who helps as always with the funding — and last but certainly not least, the White House. Specifically that would be Messrs. Emanuel, Axelrod and Ms. Dunn.

 Hello? Is anyone home here? Is the First Amendment — which interestingly protects these very same churches — going to be assaulted like this while everyone just sits by and says nothing?

Ummm … yep. The usual suspects that are all up in arms about a cross on a parcel of public land have absolutely no problem with the government using religious organizations in the process of destroying its political opposition.

This also works hand-in-hand with the White House’s campaign to de-legitimize Fox News as a legitimate news organization. Trust me, with the likes of Axelrod and Emanuel, none of this is coincidence.

It’s a very well organized scheme.

And it won’t stop until those of us who disagree with them are put in shackles and prison for disagreeing with them.

It’s how totalitarian fascists operate.