"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," ~ Barack Hussein Obama
*Cross Posted at American Descent*
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Part 2:
On a lighter side:
Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.
I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.
I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.
So far, not one penny.
And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.
After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.
So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.
I never saw it published.
But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.
To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.
The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians
In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."
Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."
He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.
The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."
Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.
Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Congrats on your publication. I too send "letters to the editor". Unfortunately, my newspaper is quite liberal, so many of mine don't "make it". And even though you don't see any monetary value from your work (yet), it's still nice to see it somewhere other than a computer screen. Good Luck.
This is one of the most idiotic first amendment arguments I've ever "seen in print."
Obama didn't say Limbaugh couldn't spew his drivel. He simply suggested that people who wanted to get things done shouldn't listen to him.
Idiotic? I know what he said. It is the quote at the beginning of the post.
What part of "Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh" didn't you understand?
I said it was merely a suggestion. I pointed that fact out. Why do you insist on repeating me?
But you missed the point. Obama is the President. He is the most powerful man in the world now. With great power comes great responsibility. Even if he was just kidding (which is likely)Obama was being irresponsible with that remark.
His job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Suggesting that we not listen to anyone, regardless of who, is not defending free speech. It is an implied threat. I cannot see how you don't understand this concept.
It is also entirely possible that Obama was sending up a trial balloon, testing the public to see if his remark would garner any controversy, in preparation for bigger and better Constitutional abuses.
So, now he knows. Perhaps the resulting expressed outrage will prevent him from more blatant attempts at censorship in the future.
Do you even read the entire posts here, or do you cherry pick certain lines and then try to start arguments? It certainly looks like you aren't reading the whole thing.
Pamela, I have had other letters published but this was the first in this newspaper. I've had sevarl letters published in the Hagerstown, MD newspaper in the past, all of which were also posted as an entry on this blog.
This was clearly a veiled threat. What Obama was saying is anyone who opposes him will be shut out of the process. You would think that after after the black eyes Rush has inflicted on democrats that they would learn that they're outmatched, but nope.
It's a gas to get a letter printed in the paper. It's a greater gas when someone who knows you saw it and comments directly.
The paper to which I usually submit my letters asks for name, town and phone number and when I first got one considered, they called first to make sure the name attached was really the person who sent it in. I thought that was reasonable. The first time they called, they printed it, but the next time I got a call, the letter didn't get printed. The last letter that got printed did not follow a call, so I guess it's not a hard and fast rule, or they just screwed up.
BUT! You have reminded me that the last one I tried to send just a week or so ago was followed by an email that said the person who handles it was out and would return in a day or so. I'll have to try and resubmit it and see what happens.
If anyone cares, at AmericanDescent there is a post on this wherein I've listed examples of a few leading Dems supporting the Fairness Doctrine, as well as an Obama end-around to get the same result.
Post a Comment