Saturday, February 28, 2009

Nothing Fair about the Fairness Doctrine

The legislation that we know as the fairness doctrine is actually the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993. It's based on a similar act that took effect in 1949 but overturned in 1987 by the FCC.

The reason given was that it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues (which was its original purpose). The FCC was also concerned that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles.

What the doctrine does is force radio stations to give equal air time to opposing views. Currently, talk radio is almost exclusively conservative.

Now that the Democrats have sole rein of the government, they are pursuing reenactment with reckless abandon.

But why is it ethically unfair? Because the case can be made that it violates the American principle of free enterprise, for one thing. Radio stations are not owned by the government, they are only licensed by the government.

They are privately or corporate owned businesses. They exist by selling ads. Advertisers only buy air time when the number of listeners warrant it.

The bottom line is that listeners are overwhelmingly conservative; that's why you only hear the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and Dennis Prager.

Nobody is conspiring to keep liberals off the air waves. Americans just aren't interested in listening to it. Just as your grocery store won't stock a product that consumers won't buy. Simple economics.

Liberals have tried to enter the market with such colossal failures as Air America. You might have heard of Al Franken? He was a talk show host there before going on to be a tax cheat and to conduct "alleged" election fraud in Minnesota.

Liberal talk shows just don't sell, bottom line. The only success of note is NPR (National Public Radio). It survives by selling tote bags and funneling off your tax dollars.

If these private businesses are forced to air liberal hosts, who will pay for it? It's a clear violation of the first amendment.

So if Nancy Pelosi and her band of whiners are successful at getting the doctrine reinstated, it will be clear case of forced government propaganda. You can sugar-coat it all you want, but that's what it is.

Visit my site for free home improvement and repair articles!

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Obama's Theoretical Tax Cut


Book with Expedia and SAVE!
How gullible are Americans, really? Quite gullible is what Obama must be thinking. He claims he's going to give us all a tax "cut", but what he's actually done is tell employers to reduce the federal withholding tax on paychecks.

Who really thinks that's a tax cut? For the overwhelming number of workers, it just means they will get a smaller income tax return next spring. Folks, this is nothing but a shell game. It's not a cut, it's a shift.

The problem is that not enough people are working. But they want to. Here's an idea, Mr. Obama; get serious about the illegal aliens in this country. Send them packing and let Americans have their jobs.

The old bone about, "They only do the jobs Americans won't do" is a fiction. Just look at any construction site or road construction project in Texas. You won't hear much English being spoken.

Not five miles from my house there's a convenience store next to an apartment building. Drive by any day in the morning and you'll see upwards of fifty "guest workers" loitering, waiting to do day labor jobs.

And they won't budge for under $10 an hour.

Don't think for a minute that they're paying any taxes. But they certainly use city services. Where's the Immigration Service in all this? Asleep at the wheel. Why? Because this is one of many sanctuary cities.

So stop already with the shell game, Mr. President. Enforce the law of the land and allow citizens to take these jobs. Let them earn a wage and pay taxes.

That's the way to stimulate the economy. Not by encouraging illegal workers while extending unemployment insurance to the states with strings attached. Si se puede.

Visit to Read Free Home Improvement and Repair Articles

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Obama's Declining Approval Rating


Click Here to Save on your Favorite Magazines!
As with most incoming presidents, Obama's approval/disapproval rating is trending towards convergence. This began just after the lights were turned off at the inauguration parties and real business began.

According to Gallup polls, currently his approval is 67% and disapproval stands at 25%. I believe things are just going to go downhill from here. Why? Let's take a gander at some of the issues affecting the slide.

First, as I predicted, his total lack of executive experience is tripping him up. The process of naming his cabinet is tragic. Either his staffers are the shoddiest vetting panel ever assembled, Obama doesn't care about the ethics of those he surrounds himself with, or it's a combination of the two.

For example, both Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury) and Daschle (Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee) are out and out tax cheats.

Governor Richardson is facing corruption charges for awarding New Mexico state contracts to a financial firm estimated at over $1.4 million just after making contributions to Richardson political action committees.

Another popularity slide is going to happen as soon as the peace-at-any-cost gang that elected him discovers that he's not really going to bring the troops home from Iraq. No, he's just going to shift them to Afganistan.

And he's already authorized more bombing there. So, either he really was in la-la denial land on the campaign trail and has woken up to reality after some security briefings, or he was misleading the peaceniks for votes. Either way, they're not going to be happy campers.

And don't even get me started on good old Bumblin' Biden. Mr. President, I respectably suggest that you either buy him a muzzle at Petsmart or hide him in the bunker. I think Dick Chaney left the lights on for him.

So there you have it. I think we're all going to be looking on in dismay before the first 100 days are over.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Will Obama Administration Nationalize Banks?

That's the question being bandied about not only in the financial sector, but around kitchen counters and in diners across the nation. The Obama administration is trying to quell this speculation.

They trotted out Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, who said, "This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring they are regulated sufficiently by this government."

It seems the keyword here is "believe". That's a relatively lukewarm term when citizens (at least conservatives and libertarians) would prefer to hear something more along the lines of "insist".



The two banks that are currently the most worrisome are Bank of America and Citigroup. The bottom line is if nationalization takes place, shareholders would likely be wiped out.

Is this any way to treat citizens? Hardly. When times were great, Wall Street institutions didn't mind slamming people with high credit interest rates. When times got bad because of lending irresponsibility, taxpayers had to bail them out. Some of the money went for lofty bonuses.

Where is the shame, where is the shame? President Obama needs to step up and show leadership and take these banks to task. That's some change I'd like to see.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Chavez Diggs in His Heels



Hugo Chavez, the barking chihuahua from Venezuela, claimed a victory by winning the right to run for that country's lead job for life. And the way he buys votes it will likely happen. Kind of like Fidel Castro's little brother.

In fact, at a recent rally, announced that he would accelerate “the construction of true socialism” in Venezuela. Really? Too slow for you, Hugo? He's already taken control of the nation's oil fields. It really boils down to thievery.

While it's true that Venezuela produces a huge quantity of petrochemicals, there is one issue; the crude drilled there is extremely sour, meaning that the sulfur content is very high. It takes special refining units to process it.

If we adopted the Pickens plan to use more natural gas, it would be possible to wean ourselves from Chavez and his red-shirted lackeys. What would that do to his Bolivarian revolution? Probably not stop it, but it might take a bit of wind out of his sails.


Heard any good Audiobooks lately? Get one free!


Whether we take this opportunity or not is largely in the hands of Obama and his Democrat majority. They are extremely anti-energy, but it's got to come from somewhere. Time will tell.

Monday, February 16, 2009

It's Spending, Not Stimulus, Stupid

That's the problem, isn't it? Everyone wants to stimulate the economy, but unfortunately, Obama's "stimulus" package is not the way to do it. The main problem with it (other than the bloated nature of it), is that it's pretty slim on production.

It might put people to work, but it doesn't really produce any durable goods. That equals a lot of money chasing a dwindling pool of goods. The end result? Economic Inflation. The goods that will be available will all be produced elsewhere. Bonehead Jimmy Carter all over again.

So what does that mean? Stimulating someone else's economy, if anything. Like China. Would you like a little lead with that?

The whole thing stinks of the huge government spewing of greenbacks that Pelosi and the other socialists on the hill claim brought us out of the Great Depression. Wrong. It extended the depression. It was the war that got us out of that particular problem.

Why? Because it shifted paychecks to people producing things that could be marketed and purchased. That is stimulation. Get those dollars circulating. To people to make things, other people have to produce the raw materials. Other people have to move it, and others have to sell it. See where all this is going?
Angie's List!
Paying poets to write didn't do it back then and it won't today either, sheeple.