The Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Thread - Monday, November 17, 2008

AND NOW . . . amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic first- and second-hand premium cigar smoke. . . it is time for . . . that harmless, lovable little fuzz ball, the highly-trained broadcast specialist, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, from behind the golden EIB microphone, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila-the-Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies, the Mandarin of Talk Radio, with talent on loan from G-d, at the cutting-edge of societal evolution, with half his brain tied behind his back — just to make it fair, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, Maha-Rushie! America’s anchorman, truth detector, and doctor of democracy. A Real Man, a living legend, a way of life. Commander in Chief of U.S. Operation Chaos. Chief Waga-Waga El Rushbo of the El Conservo Tribe. Chief of the Patriotism Police. A Weapon of Mass Instruction. El Rushbo (a little Spanish lingo, there). He is the man who is running America (you know it and I know it). He knows the Democrats like every square inch of his glorious naked body. He is ready to do what he was born to do—that’s host. Get ready to what you were born to do—that’s listen (and post your comments on the Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Thread).

“Rush is back today. YAY” ~ IMissPresidentReagan

Dittos!

While we’re waiting:

November 17, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html
Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio
By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.

Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky’s beliefs and methods.

“Alinsky jujitsu” as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

Team Obama and the “localism” weapon

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.” Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”

FCC complaints as politics by other means

Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station’s license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.

There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry’s war record:

Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company’s willingness to respect “localism,” a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.

One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:

But what isn’t done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates’ FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.
More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a “fill in the blanks” official FCC complaint form which begins “Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting.”

Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments

These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:

[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...
To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.

The “community advisory board as permanent complaint department” model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:

[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...

By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].

Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask “right wing hatchet man” Stanley Kurtz.

For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.

Can localism be stopped?

FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.

However, Kevin Martin’s determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, “a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one.”

This scare tactic — agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow — is having an impact.

What broadcasters need to do: speak up now

Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals.

If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.

The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism

While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.

Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html at November 17, 2008 - 04:23:15 AM EST

The Soros Connection in the Minnesota Senate Race Vote Count
American Thinker ^ | November 17, 2008 | Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html

The Minnesota senate race is generating a level of heat rare in a Minnesota November. With a filibuster-proof Senate hanging in the balance, it is worthwhile looking to the fine hand of George Soros, operating through a network of fat cat leftwing money bags who have collectively funded a myriad of nonprofit political spawn. At least two entities funded by Soros and his plutocrat wannabe pals hav prepared the soil for the contentious and suspicious process of tabulating and recounting the vote totals of incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken.

We have written several times the rising influence of the Democracy Alliance, a network of wealthy Democratic activists who have formed a network designed to influence the course of American elections and policies. Billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros is one of the founders of this group, but he has joined with other billionaires, such as insurance magnate Peter Lewis and Herb and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (sold to Wachovia) Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form the core of a network of wealthy activists and Democrat partisans making up Democracy Alliance.

The canny billionaires realized that they could magnify their power by working in unison and tapping other wealthy donors to further their agenda (the superb Boston Globe article “Follow the money” is a good primer on how money and 527 groups have come together to have a huge impact on politics in America). The Democracy Alliance has helped fund a constellation of groups, including the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) that has been mired in a series of voter fraud cases.

The Democracy Alliance is a major avenue to help the left wing would-be plutocrats achieve their goals. Its growing membership roster consists of billionaires and mere multi-millionaires who collectively hope to give upwards of 500 million dollars each year to further promote a left-wing agenda. A partial roster of the Democracy Alliance membership can be found here. Directors also include union leaders with access to union funds to engage in politicking. The politically hyper-active Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is engaged in these efforts, too.

Taco Bell millionaire Rob McKay is a key figure in funding and running this effort. He is the chair of the Democracy Alliance. The vice-chair is Anna Burger of the SEIU. They are becoming important players in the world of politics.

The Minnesota Senate Election Vote Count

One part of the political strategy of the group has been a project called the Secretary of States Project. The goal has been to help elect Secretaries of State in targeted states across the nation. The SoSP was successful in, among other places, Ohio and Minnesota. Secretaries of state are crucial in elections, since these officials are charged with ensuring the integrity of the voting and counting process. They are the gatekeepers: helping to decide who is entitled to vote and who is not. In Ohio, the Democrat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was widely criticized (at least among Republicans) for her efforts in the last few months, which were perceived to favor Barack Obama.

History seems to be repeating itself in Minnesota where that state’s Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, was also elected with the help of the Secretary of States project. He has operated in a very partisan way during the contest between Franken and Coleman, for example making statements that the Coleman campaign is “trying to win at any price” and then denying he said it.

More significant than outrageous statements being made are the actions being taken.

As the Wall Street Journal noted the “corrections” being made favor Al Franken in such a way that raises suspicions about the integrity of the process being overseen by Ritchie. The Powerline blog has had a running commentary on one suspicious action after another which give the correction process a very blue tinge. Among the “irregularities” are:

- misplaced” ballots turning up in an official’s trunk;

- “errors” in reporting vote totals almost entirely for the Senate race and no others;

- many of the new numbers coming out of three small precincts;

- and so on.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten has also written about her suspicions that the integrity of the voting process may have been compromised:

Let’s assume the 32 disputed ballots in Minneapolis were legitimate. Let’s assume the newly discovered 100 votes in Pine County — all for Al Franken — were just overlooked by a sleepy official, and the 100 votes found in Mountain Iron — again, all for Franken — were valid.

Let’s suppose the trickle of votes moving inexorably in Franken’s direction is just a function of a normal process, as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office assures us.

One fact remains troubling. The referee in Minnesota’s hotly contested Senate race must act in a nonpartisan fashion, yet Ritchie came to office through a nationwide partisan strategy. He was elected in 2006 as part of a national campaign to ensure that Democrats could wield influence in precisely the sort of hair’s breadth race we now have here.

Ritchie gained office with the help of the Secretary of State Project (SOS), an independent 527 group co-founded by former MoveOn.org leader James Rucker. SOS is based in San Francisco, and is funded in part by ultra-liberal kingmakers such as George Soros.

Secretary of state positions are a “new front” in the “battle for political control,” the paper explained, because they are “the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”

“National Democratic groups ... are pouring resources” into secretary of state races in key swing states, in order to enhance their control in future tight elections, said the paper. Minnesota was one of the top six states targeted.

Now it appears that another group supported by the Democracy Alliance is stirring trouble for Norm Coleman. The “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” is a so-called 527 group, non-profit group, putatively restricted to only advocating on issues, but whose actions in fact are often geared toward or against candidates. (This is one area where we need more regulation and monitoring.)

The Alliance is calling for investigations by the FBI and the Senate Ethics Committee into allegations that a major fundraiser and longtime friend diverted thousands of dollars to Coleman’s reelection efforts. Coleman denies any wrongdoing and welcomes a quick investigation to put the controversy to rest. This follows in the wake of other efforts by the same group to besmirch Norm Coleman during the campaign (it paid for ads attacking Coleman for granting tax breaks to oil companies, and connected those actions to donations made to him by “oil and gas” interests).

Who is funding The Alliance for a Better Minnesota? Rob McKay, Anna Burger and George Soros are all involved in funneling money and presumably advice to a group called Fund For America, a so-called 527 political action committee. This group serves as a conduit to funnel money and support to, among a few other groups, the Alliance for a Better Minnesota. A map of the relationships has been prepared by the Center for Investigative Reporting, which is, in part, supported by George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

The Democracy Alliance is also tied into the tangle: just another holding for the billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros, though this one is not involved in the stock market but in the political marketplace.

The efforts of such “527 groups” (such as Democracy Alliance, Fund for America, and the Alliance for a Better Minnesota) to influence American politics is growing. They can help elect political leaders. These may be senators, representatives and now even secretaries of state. The political food chain is all fair game for these obscure groups that all too often escape even mild scrutiny.

These groups are a way to skirt Federal limits on campaign contributions. While they are required by law to focus on issues and not candidates, this is often a distinction without a difference. In practice, their efforts all too often used to help some political candidates and harm others.

They are tools that can be used to help fix an election for favored candidates.

They are Shadow Parties, operating in the shadows and through Byzantine networks (see the above “power map”) that obscure the channeling of power and money to help select and elect candidates that will hew to the policies advocated by the networks of wealthy Democratic donors.

They also a blight on our political landscape.

If Democrats were truly interested in honest government and transparency in politics, they would heighten the regulatory oversight of such groups: force more disclosure of donors, interlocking directorships (a favorite cause of Democrats when they examine corporate America), and the actions the groups take that frequently violate the law by working to elect favored-and usually-Democratic candidates.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.