NPR Station Censors 'God'

Yeah, NPR.. the only station that gives airtime to music "dedicated to the worship of Satan" as one of their sub-affiliates near my area said.
All to give 'equal airtime' to 'music' and 'musicians' that stink.
Defund NPR.
And then sue them.

My e-mail was sent along with a copy of the story to my Congress critters. One of these days these people will be removed from the American peoples' tax trough.

I got involved with this issue several days ago when it started. It is interesting to note that KSUT public radio has CHANGED THEIR WEBSITE in the last few days, to limit the emails listed...since the One Million Dads group sent an email to members about the situation.

Now, the KSUT website lists only contact@ksut.org as their email...but I have a list of some others on staff, below.

Copy these emails below into your To:, CC or BCC fields and send KSUT a message. If you choose to only mail to one, may I suggest Station Manager Beth Warren.

beth@ksut.org, steve@ksut.org,stasia@ksut.org,sean@ksut.org,hugh@ksut.org,ron@ksut.org,
bruce@ksut.org,susan@ksut.org,edub56@hotmail.com,joan@ksut.org

When you email the station, be SURE to put the word COMPLAINT in the subject..since they must follow government-ordained bureaucracy to lodge and handle complaints.

This station is licensed to the Southern UTE Indian Tribe in SW CO. You can visit their website here and use their feedback form to lodge a complaint...

Also, I have been emailing the sponsors, listed in posts above, with the following message:

Dear Pagosa Hot Springs Owner,

I am upset with you as a sponsor on KSUT....discrimination radio.

KSUT recently refused to accept an ad from a dentist because of the word "GOD" in it.

Trash and filth is OK...but GOD is not????

This bigotry toward Christians cannot stand.

I will not be using your services as long as you advertise on this station. Also, I will notify my friends and fellow church members in the SW Colorado area, asking them to boycott you as well.

Please stop your ads on bigotry radio....and support the families of America!

Sincerely,

The thought has evidently not occured to them that someday God might censor them.

Going for the stretch in your defense I see. It was you who stated that I was out of place here based upon an unsubstantiated assumption. Now you go brass ring in the same vein. Let's take a look at what was written, shall we? Said Rutherford: "I was a little incensed the station could run gay and lesbian coalition sponsorship spots — but I couldn't mention God in mine?" "Incensed" implies not only disgust but surprise, as if one should rationally expect any other kind of behavior our of an NPR station.

If I had more money to spend on advertising, there is a large population of my local neighbors who regularly listen to NPR. I'm not "supporting" them with advertising dollars, I'm reaching out to another segment of the population that may not listen to conservative talk radio and therefore haven't heard my ad.

No, you are supporting it, writing off the contribution, and rationalizing your lack of creativity in finding another way to support your local businesses accomplishing the same thing.

No, what makes him a good American is the fact that he is a dentist who seeks to expand his business, employ his neighbors and fosters a better community through a capitalist outreach and trickle-down economics.

That's a lot of assumptions. For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care. He certainly supports socialied radio communications. In supporting NPR in the name of "advertising" our dentist was also looking for a tax break, similar to the corporate communists who support public broadcasting in general. Believe me, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg, Carnegie and the rest are NOT supporting public broadcasting for "charitable" purposes and they aren't doing it to sell trucks, publications, oil, or steel; they are doing it for ideological purposes destructive to the Constitution to inclucate a system where making money carries little risk to them. They do it for power and profit for their global investments that have sucked this country dry.

Further, buying "advertising" on public radio is fraudulent, becuause it is supposed to be a NOT for profit activity in order to qualify for the tax deduction. An unconstitutional IRS looks the other way because it's good for them. No, supporting public radio is tax-exempt influence buying, AUGMENTED BY TAX DOLLARS, and the "protagonist" in this story buys into it all when he gives them his money. You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability.

Ignoring your customers simply because you disagree with their political philosophy is business suicide and patently unAmerican.

Straw man. I never suggested he ignore his customers and he is now clearly alienating that same clientele with his comments, so your argument in his support fails the test of consistency.

You, on the other hand, are criticizing him for a background you do not know in market conditions you don't understand with insults that are more a product of image projection than reality.

You don't seem to be the sort of person who has ever run a business.

Look who's doing the projecting here? I have created real industrial products, patented them, developed the manufacturing process, built the machinery, managed regulatory compliance, and implemented production worldwide. I now own a business in the process of patenting a management method that will replace the need for regulatory government. It has been hand carried by a Senator (gratis, I might add, on the strength of its ideas alone) to every cabinet level secretary and to the Vice President.

You were saying?

The Rules of the Senate mean that a real majority in the Senate is 60 (61?)

So that means we're going to have to wait until 2004?

Sue them Dr. Rutherford. I'm a citizen and am supporting this station with money I send to the government and say he can use the name of God to advertise.

It seems this will be an all day affair...

> "No, you are supporting it, writing off the contribution, and rationalizing your lack of creativity in finding another way to support your local businesses accomplishing the same thing."

Business people are very creative at promoting their businesses. It's not for a "lack of creativity" that we would advertise on an NPR station, it's for customers. If they have a strong medium (whether or not I agree with their message) and a large demographic, they can expect advertisers. It's a simple rule of marketing. What they should neither expect nor receive is taxpayer funding. When that is finally pulled, they will either die on the vine or be self-supporting. When they are no longer the "voice of balance" that they claim to be now as supported by the government, they will have to answer to their listeners and advertisers. Right now, though, it's academic.

> "That's a lot of assumptions. For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care."

And you say I'm reaching?! Let's look at what we know from the article and stop injecting our own values on him, shall we? He is a dentist. What do dentists do? They clean and repair teeth. For whom do they provide these services? Their clientele. How do they build their clientele? Advertising. I have not reached in my assumptions, you have. You have ascribed to this man a full ideological point of view not found in the article. WHERE he chooses to advertise is based on finding customers, not ideology. If he only chose based on ideology, he would be a business idiot.

> "In supporting NPR in the name of "advertising" our dentist was also looking for a tax break, similar to the corporate communists who support public broadcasting in general."

Let's see... I can reach a large segment of the population AND I get a tax deduction... He's not the one who sounds like an idiot here. I agree with your take on the IRS but while these are the rules, he is free to use them.

> "You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability."

Do you know how communist you sound? He's a business man who made a business decision. You would rather judge him based on a trumped up ideology you invented. He was incensed that he couldn't use his business slogan in his ad and has taken action against NPR. This guy is a hero. If he knew his ad would be rejected, then he set them up for a Constitutional challenge. If he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market, then he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market.

> "I have created real industrial products, patented them, developed the manufacturing process, built the machinery, managed regulatory compliance, and implemented production worldwide. I now own a business in the process of patenting a management method that will replace the need for regulatory government. It has been hand carried by a Senator (gratis, I might add, on the strength of its ideas alone) to every cabinet level secretary and to the Vice President."

[clapping] I'm impressed (though not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be).

> "You were saying?"

I was saying that you have impuned a good man who is either smart at marketing his business or a Constitutional Don Quixote by attributing your own biases and myopic vision to him. He deserved better.

The putative use of God as an uncompensated spokesman is reprehensible, IMO.

Barry Lynn is also a former ACLU lawyer....big surprise there, huh?

Every Federal Election, he sends scare letters to churches, warning them not to take voter guides....implying (but carefully not stating) that they are illegal....in fact they are PERFECTLY LEGAL...but he manages to scare some churches into NOT taking voter guides..that show the candidates positions on issues without endorsing candidates or parties.

Here are the KEY people responsible for funding NPR/PBS. If you live in their district they would like to hear from you.

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary (top)
H309 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515-6017

Frank, R. Wolf, Virginia (CH)	José E. Serrano, New York
Harold Rogers, Kentucky	Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia
Jim Kolbe, Arizona	Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., Alabama
Charles H. Taylor, North Carolina	Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island
Ralph Regula, Ohio	Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
David Vitter, Louisiana (VC)
John E. Sweeney, New York
Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois

While the committee above has some role in "Public Broadcasting" this committee below will pass the bulk of the legislation and spend most of the money.

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (top)
2358 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-6024

Ralph Regula, Ohio (CH)	David R. Obey, Wisconsin
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma	Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland
Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi	Nita M. Lowey, New York
Anne Northup, Kentucky (VC)	Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, California	Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois
Kay Granger, Texas	Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania	Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
Don Sherwood, Pennsylvania
Dave Weldon, Florida
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

You sound fairly savy regarding the law maybe if more of us took action on our ideas and opinions we could get our country out of the quagmire the librals have created.

Thank the Lord!!! Someone with a little less talk and a lot more action. God Bless you and yours.

GOD! bump.

And then in the interest of sanity patriotism . . .

uhhhhh perhaps unplugged.

Oh, right, they have the right to undermine our existence as a nation of free people.

It seems this will be an all day affair...

Lucky you. I have a speaking engagement this weekend.

Business people are very creative at promoting their businesses. It's not for a "lack of creativity" that we would advertise on an NPR station, it's for customers.

It's for lack of creativity that he can't find a preferable and ethical alternative.

If they have a strong medium (whether or not I agree with their message) and a large demographic, they can expect advertisers. It's a simple rule of marketing. What they should neither expect nor receive is taxpayer funding. When that is finally pulled, they will either die on the vine or be self-supporting. When they are no longer the "voice of balance" that they claim to be now as supported by the government, they will have to answer to their listeners and advertisers. Right now, though, it's academic.

Ends don't justify means. Go read Aristotle's ETHICS and get back to me. Oh, that's right, Aristotle is academic.

For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care."

And you say I'm reaching?!

No, I'm demonstrating how little you have supporting your conclusions.

Let's look at what we know from the article and stop injecting our own values on him, shall we? He is a dentist. What do dentists do? They clean and repair teeth. For whom do they provide these services? Their clientele. How do they build their clientele? Advertising.

In case you didn't know, contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. It is used as such, while still being called non-commercial. The IRS winks because PBS supports their agenda. That you would justify it because "everybody does it" is more of the twisted ethics I cited above. That it is commonplace is no excuse.

I have not reached in my assumptions, you have. You have ascribed to this man a full ideological point of view not found in the article. WHERE he chooses to advertise is based on finding customers, not ideology. If he only chose based on ideology, he would be a business idiot.

Upon which you clearly place a higher value than an ethical, moral, or political idiot.

Let's see... I can reach a large segment of the population AND I get a tax deduction... He's not the one who sounds like an idiot here. I agree with your take on the IRS but while these are the rules, he is free to use them.

Ends don't justify means. Go read Aristotle's ETHICS and get back to me. Contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. (I'm repeating because your reading skills are clearly lacking.)

"You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability."

Do you know how communist you sound?

Projecting again and name-calling. Sigh, how lame. You just don't recognize integrity when you read it. By their fruits shall ye know them.

He's a business man who made a business decision.

Business decision. As if such things were isolated from ethics or politics. Nope, it depends upon politics. You would rather judge him based on a trumped up ideology you invented.

Trumped up? Oh really? In case you didn't know, contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. That you would justify it because "everybody does it" is more of the twisted ethics I cited above. That it is commonplace is no excuse.

This guy is a hero. If he knew his ad would be rejected, then he set them up for a Constitutional challenge. If he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market, then he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market.

If that's your qualification for heroism, I feel truly sorry for you.

[clapping] I'm impressed (though not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be).

Your sincerity is overwhelming, especially considering the performance of your "hero."

I was saying that you have impuned a good man who is either smart at marketing his business or a Constitutional Don Quixote by attributing your own biases and myopic vision to him. He deserved better.

Impugned, and I don't think he does. He deserved better from NPR. He didn't get it because he was a fool to expect it. See "realistic." Then see "waste of time." Then reconsider whether he's really such a good businessman.

Quixotic? No. Principled.

It's equally clear that you might have said the same of Messrs. Jefferson et al and been one of those who hid when the Revolution commenced. I have merely observed the MASSIVE scale of corruption in this country using political means to contort regulations or socialized risk to make a buck instead of winning in the marketplace on the merit of creative ideas and productive services. How is that communist? I did something about it because I think it worth risking a half million dollars (so far) to restore our government to its Constitutional footing, not just for me, but for my fellow citizens and my children. Call it foolish self-aggrandizement, call it anything you want; but I regard you as the fool for going along with the usual and customary use of the system and justifying it as you have. Why? Because, in the end, if you condone such behavior and act in similar vein, then you have supported it. You will have then chosen to profit by participation in the downfall of this nation's founding principles.

There are other things more valuable than that.

Does anyone know where to get information on salaries of these "public" radio and TV bureaucratcy?

Sorry it took me a couple of days to get back to you... I've been traveling. This will be my last post to you on this subject as it's getting tedious. Besides, you won't look beyond the end of your nose so why should I waste time with you? I'm going to say this one more time and in one more way to help you (and any interested lurkers) understand the founding principles involved.

The problem with NPR isn't their message, like it or not. They are free to spew their bilge just as you are and, if they get an audience, they are free to sell minutes on their shows to businesses seeking their demographic. However, we know it isn't working this way. The problem with NPR is that they are funded by tax dollars. They do not have a right to have you and me fund their idiocy. Where you and I disagree the most is in this area... THEY HAVE FREE SPEECH TOO... they just don't have a right to take my money in support of their efforts. However, like all ideologues, rather than seeking to just pull their unconstitutional funding and let them compete in the marketplace of ideas, you seek to silence dissenting opinions. You asked in your post how your position sounds communist... THAT's how.

If their tax funding were pulled, they would have to be more balanced in their perspective if they intended to increase their income base. They would have to reach out to a larger audience of advertisers and listeners and would seek programming aimed at building their following. Hiding under the guise of "government approval" they are given an automatic credibility they haven't earned. Since they don't have to concern themselves with audience and advertisers in their message, they rant with a closed perspective. Like the newly proposed "liberal" radio talk show, I expect they would die on the vine in short order or remain open and bleed their constituency of funds without their government funding.

Let me a take an aside to deal with your definition of advertising. Is advertising only those means of expression officially recognized by the IRS? Of course not. When I go to a Chamber of Commerce event, play golf with clients and potential clients, give financial seminars or just stand on the street corner, I am advertising my business. Whether or not the IRS calls it advertising is immaterial... I am getting the word out on my business.

Anyone is a potential customer for my hero, the dentist. Yes, I see him as a hero. You scoffed at this but I will try to explain it better...

Scenario 1: Mr Dentist doesn't listen to NPR because he doesn't like their liberal slant. He knows, though, that they are a PUBLIC radio station. He knows a lot of people who do listen. He buys advertising (makes a contribution, in your book) to have these people hear about his business. While their mouths are numbed in his dental chair, he may take this opportunity to explain the evils of liberalism...maybe not but that doesn't matter. When NPR, a PUBLIC radio station turned down his ad on the basis of his religious message, he didn't go away quietly. He fought them on Constitutional grounds. He isn't an activist or a Constitutional lawyer, he is a dentist who is challenging this station for their bias. I call that heroism.

Scenario 2: He knows all about NPR and knows they won't accept his ad. He submits it anyway to foment the aforementioned Constitutional challenge. I call that heroism.

Scenario 3: He listens to and agrees with NPR's position on the issues. He decides to contribute to the cause. When his "buds" turn him down for his religious views, he's outraged and fights the very people with whom he has so much in common. I call that heroism.

No matter how you slice it, this dentist is a businessman who, in the course of going about his business, was challenged on his religious and patriotic expression. Rather than back down from the fight, he is taking it to NPR. I say again, he is fighting the good fight, a fight you should agree with (whether or not you think he should be in this position at all) and we Freepers should support him, not disparage his courage and "imagine" evils we know nothing about.

This isn't an attempt to say the ends justify the means in violation of Aristotle's principles. This is an attempt to explain to a closed-minded ideologue that he is attacking the wrong dog in this fight based on a narrow view more suitable to the likes of Stalin.