Sonia Sotomayor Is A Member Of La Raza! And Obama Wants Her On The Supreme Court?

So right about now you are asking yourself “what the hell is La Raza and why should I care if Sotomayor is a member of it?”

Well some folks have described La Raza as sort of a social club for Hispanics, as La Raza claims that it’s goal is to reduce poverty and discrimination, and improve opportunites for Hispanic Americans.

Doesn’t sound all that bad.
And Sonia Sotomayor is one of it’s members.

Just what are some of the things La Raza stands for?

La Raza supports the issuing of drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

They strongly support blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.

La Raza has given support, much of it financial, to such radical groups as MECHA, a group that is demanding the annexation from the United States  the supposed birthplace of the Aztec civilization.
This means the are demanding that the United States Government break off from America and turn over to total Hispanic control the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Colorado and Texas.

They oppose a erecting a fence along the Mexico/U.S. border.

They have claimed that asking voters to produce valid identification before being allowed to cast a ballot is an “absolute disgrace.”

La Raza has, and continues to, lobby members of Congress to re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine”, on the grounds that conservative talk show hosts never speak kindly about illegal immigrants.

A former president of La Raza once made the statement that “English is to Hispanics as the Klu Klux Klan is to blacks.”

Now that statement should tell you everything you need to know.

I don’t claim to know for sure if Sonia Sotomayor is a racist, although her statements sure make her sound like one.

But would you want to be a member of a group whose president made such a claim?

I sure as hell wouldn’t.

And I don’t want to hear any of this crap about “Well, just because you are a member of an organization doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything it stands for.”

Feelings like that are so blatantly stupid that they border on lunacy.

Over the years, I have belonged to numerous civic organizations, and I have left more than a few of them when they decided to make a policy change or decided to advocate a stand that I could not morally or ethically agree with.

And I’m not seeking a seat on the Supreme Court of  the United States.

 

 

Sources for the information above can be found here and here

Maybe We DO Need To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

The members of Congress who want to re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” claim that all they want to accomplish is a fair balance between liberal and conservative points of view on America’s radio stations.

Anyone with the common sense of a goldfish knows that it would require a federal law in order to attract an audience to a liberal talk-radio program, however the thought occurred to me that perhaps I should investigate just how far talk radio is tilted to one side of the political spectrum.

So I decided to check the programming schedule of the talk radio station where I live.
And frankly, I was surprised by what I discovered.

They carry (live) three hours of Rush Limbaugh, the undisputed King of conservative talk radio.
On a tape delay, they air three hours of Michael Savage, who, although he is more libertarian than he is conservative, is not a friend of the liberal point of view.
And Savage often gets pre-empted by coverage of local sports events.

Then things take quite a different turn.
They carry all five hours of Coast to Coast AM with George Noory.
George took over the show in 2003 when Art “where’s the Loch Ness Monster hiding” Bell decided to retire.
He spends most of his on-air time talking about the paranormal and UFO’s.

They have one hour of Jim Bohannon, who took over Larry King’s radio show in 1993.
That alone should tell you all you need to know as far as his political feelings.
Bohannon describes himself as a moderate, but the closest he ever came to that title was when Ron Paul was a guest on the program.

They air two hours of Michael Smerconish, who hops from one side to the other so often I can’t tell what side of the fence he stands on.
He has filled in for both Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.
But he has also substituted for Chris Matthews on Hardball.
He claims to be politically conservative, yet he endorsed Barack Obama for President.

The rest of the broadcast day is filled out with local on-air personalities.
They have two hours and forty five minutes of a show hosted by a woman who does lean more to the right than she does the left, but I would have to describe her as a moderate.

They air three hours of a program hosted by a man whom anyone listening would describe as a liberal.

And they also broadcast three hours of a show hosted by a male/female duo who are so rabidly left-wing that they make Al Franken sound like a moderate!
I sometimes listen just to make sure that my high blood pressure medication is working.

So there you have it.
That is the state of AM talk radio in my neck of the woods.
In regards to local programming, you have three hours of a moderate, three hours of a liberal, and three hours of a pair who are so unabashedly liberal that they only enter the station through the left side door.

On a national level, you have three hours of a conservative, three hours of a libertarian (when his time slot isn’t taken over to broadcast a minor league hockey game), an hour of one man who claims to be a moderate, two hours of a guy who doesn’t know whar side of the political spectrum he identifies with, and five hours of programming hosted by a man who probably has a pinched nerve in his neck from alternately looking under his desk for monsters or from looking up and searching the sky for flying saucers.

Yet there are members of Congress who feel that they need to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” because such a programming schedule is too heavily biased towards conservatives.
Maybe George Norry can tell us what planet they come from.

Take The Limbaugh Challenge

The Los Angeles Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in America, recently featured a story in which the writer asked a very good question:

“Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh — why don’t you actually listen to his show before bashing him?”

That seems fair enough.
And when someone working for the LA Times asks a question like that, it makes you wonder just what the liberal motivation is.

Read the Los Angeles Times column here.

Amnesty Si! Unemployment? Who Cares?

The number of unemployed Americans is just about equal to the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S.
That sobering fact should point out that, once and for all, it is time to address the illegal immigration situation.
It stands to reason that if there were fewer non-taxpaying people in this country, maybe some folks who actually pay taxes and don’t suck up billions of dollars in free social programs could get back to work.

Nah, that would make way too much sense.

Instead, President Obama seems to think that it is a better idea to be a guest on a Spanish language radio show and voice his support for giving amnesty to 12 million deadbeats.

Click here for more details

Why The Left Hates (And Fears) Rush Limbaugh

In a previous post, I outlined my reasoning as to why if we see a return of the “Fairness Doctrine”, advertisers will save money.

Rush Limbaugh, to hear folks on the left tell it, is the undisputed king.
That isn’t necessarily the case, but it is across a few demographics that truly concern liberals.

Get The Details Here.

Proof That You Don’t Need Common Sense To Be A United States Senator

Or a liberal talk-radio host for that matter.

Recently, Tom Harkin,  Democrat Senator from Iowa called into the radio talk show of liberal host Bill Press.
Harkin was thrilled with an op-ed piece  that Press had written for the Washington Post.
Senator Harkin mentioned how he “Tore the article out of the paper, took it to his office and told the people there, see, we’ve got to get the Fairness Doctrine back into law again.”

Press replied to Harkin that “They are shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,and all we want is some balance on the airwaves. We’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the air, just make sure there are a few progressives or liberals out there.”

And Harkins reply was “That is why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Mr. Press.
Senator Harkin.

With all due respect gentleman, do either one of you have the common sense that God gave to your average, run of the mill goldfish?

Exactly who is it that is shutting down progressive/liberal talk radio shows?
I have read reports of radio stations canceling left-leaning talk radio shows. That’s a little different from “shutting down” radio shows, which implies that the station owners are trying to stifle liberal points of view.
And it isn’t because the owners of these radio stations are part of some vast right wing conspiracy.

Do you have any grasp at all of basic free-market economic principles?
Liberal talk radio doesn’t attract an audience, that’s why radio stations don’t carry them.
Need proof? Just look at the debacle called Air America.

Let me try to explain this in terms even you guys should be able to understand.

If I owned a radio station, and I could generate as much (or more) revenue by airing a radio show geared towards liberals than I could by airing one that leaned towards conservatives, don’t you think I would do so?

The Fairness Doctrine Will Save Advertisers Millions Of Dollars.

Liberal Democrats hate the fact that conservative talk radio dominates the nation’s airwaves.
So much so, that there has been discussion for months now of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine.” And a bill to re-instate it probably working it’s way through the halls of Congress right now.

In it’s simplest terms, the Fairness Doctrine would have the Federal Communications Commission require that talk radio stations, which are licensed by the FCC, present opposing points of view.
The Democrats feel that their message isn’t getting out there.

Here is what drives the liberals crazy:

91% of talk radio programs are conservative.
10 times as may hours of conservative talk radio as opposed to those with liberal leanings air each day.
In the top ten radio station markets, 76% of the programming is conservative as opposed to 24% for the libs.

However, no one has ever accused liberals of being able to learn from their mistakes, or to have the common sense of a bag of wet hammers.

The biggest warning sign for them should have been Air America, the left’s answer to such conservative talkers as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, to name a few.
Air America is bankrupt.
Obviously, the Democrats are unable to figure out how that happened.

I’m afraid I have some more bad news for the left-wingers whose blood pressure spikes when they hear the sound of Rush Limbaugh’s voice.

The reason Air America proved to be a dismal failure is because no one tuned in.
No one listened!

And you can pass legislation forcing radio stations to air programming by such intellectual giants as Al Franken and Rachel Madow.

But if they couldn’t attract an audience in the free market, what leads you to believe that they will be able to do so because of a government regulation?

Oh, and one other thing:
Most companies don’t spend their advertising dollars on programs that no one listens to.
So if the shows don’t bring in any money, are you delusional enough to think that these folks feel so strongly about presenting a liberal point of view that they will work for free?