FBI begins recording call-ins


 

FBI begins recording call-ins

 


Posted: October 14, 2011
11:35 am Eastern

© 2011

Next time you call a talk radio station, beware: The FBI may be listening.

According to WMAL.com,
“The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much
radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet. … The FBI says
it is not playing Big Brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking
access to what airs as potential evidence.”

The agency’s reasons for recording all these radio programs don’t get any
clearer as the news report goes on. No doubt that is intentional.

Rush Limbaugh

“Don’t hold out hope for Palin.”

That was Rush Limbaugh’s advice to a caller who was clinging to hope that the
former Alaska governor would finally enter the 2012 Presidential
race.

“You’ve got practical things like filing deadlines coming up, some are within
a week now,” Rush explained, “so I think it’s time to move on. I think it’s time
to let go and move on” (FREE
audio
).

Ken
Hoffman at the Houston Chronicle complained
that, “Limbaugh is now calling
first lady Michelle Obama … ‘Moo-Chelle Obama.’ Even for El Rushbo, that’s
stupid and insensitive. Limbaugh reportedly earns $38 million a year and lives
in a beachfront mansion in Palm Beach, Fla. He can’t afford a mirror?”

Michael Savage

This week, Michael Savage labeled Barack Obama a “lifetime Marxist” and
renewed concerns about his eligibility to serve as president.

He explained to listeners: Obama is “a man who refuses to show a valid birth
certificate, a man who applies for college aid as a foreign student and then
denies he’s foreign, a man who has a Social Security number from a state he’s
never even lived in.” (FREE
audio
).

Savage also declared: “The second Bolshevik revolution is beginning in the
United States of America, egged on by our first communist president and his
cronies. Obama is using the rabble in the gutters to draw attention away from
the ‘Fast and Furious’ Mexican gunrunning scandal, and all the other scandals in
this administration”:

(Column continues below)

 

Sean Hannity

The New York Times shadowed Sean Hannity as part of a story about Fox News’
15th anniversary, and were
forced to concede
: “Despite the inflammatory rhetoric he instigates, Mr.
Hannity is good-natured and humble in person, as interested in his children’s
tennis matches as in Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions. He rarely agrees to interviews, and
when he did last week, he said he did not read negative articles about him, or
even the friendly Twitter account all about his abundant head of hair.”

Newt Gingrich joined Hannity on the air to analyze the most recent GOP candidate’s debate, both his own performance and
those of the other potential Republican nominees (FREE
audio
).

Mark Levin

“These debates are starting to bore me,” Mark Levin told listeners this week.
He complained that there were too many participants, and none of them will dare
take on Mitt Romney (FREE
audio
).

Speaking of Romney, Levin slammed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for
endorsing him. Levin feels neither of these men are “true” conservatives, and he
is tired of hearing that “conservatives can’t win” (FREE
audio
).

Laura Ingraham

Two Republican governors offered Ingraham different takes on who could take
the White House in 2012.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told Laura and her listeners that Herman Cain
would “sweep the South” if he is the GOP nominee (FREE audio).

However, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told
her
, “If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama
in Pennsylvania – a state the president won by roughly 10 points in 2008.”

Rendell warned the party not to select a “wacky” nominee, and stick with
somebody “competent.” He added, “Sometimes I think the Republican Party has a death wish.”

“I actually agree with you on that,” Ingraham replied. “In many ways I think
the Republicans can screw things up easily.”

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck expanded his business empire this week, announcing the launch of
his “1791″ clothing line.

Beck
explained
, “The main thrusts of the 1791 line are to remember where we came
from as Americans … and to restore values and efforts that have made America
great.”

Beck sided with Hank Williams Jr. this week, after the singer/songwriter got in
trouble for making a clumsy analogy that mentioned “Hitler” and “Obama” (but
contrary to what’s been reported, he didn’t compare the two.) Beck played
excerpts of Williams’ new song “Keep the Change,” and condemned ESPN and his
former employers at Fox News for throwing Williams under the bus (FREE
webcam
).

And now, from the left side of the dial …

Did you ever think you’d live to see a cable news host question the
“blackness” of a potential president?

That’s what happened when Al Sharpton and Prof. Karen Hunter struggled to
make sense of Herman Cain’s campaign for the Republican nomination (FREE
audio
).

Weirder still, the producer of progressive Stephanie Miller’s radio show made a bizarre on-air suggestion that Cain
was an anti-Semite. It was so outrageous even Miller expressed her embarrassment
and tried to change the subject.

While these outbursts are painful to listen to, they reveal the unprincipled
desperation of people whose worldview is crumbling before their eyes. That’s
probably the only redeeming social value these radio programs
have.

Read more: FBI
begins recording call-ins
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=355881#ixzz1arqkHMbG

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

America’s Orwellian Liberalism

By Marvin
Folkertsma

The ink was barely dry on the
asterisk in Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s rant about taking out those “son-of-a-b*tches” –
referring to Tea Party members — when the vice president made his own
contribution at a Labor Day rally.  “This is a fight for the existence of
organized labor,” the veep shouted.  “You are the only ones who can stop the
barbarians at the gate!”  And the diatribes have continued with the
establishment of a website designed to track unfair comments made by those who,
in President Obama’s words, want to “cripple” America.  Congresswoman Maxine
Waters’ snippet about telling the Tea Party to “Go to H*ll!”(that pesky asterisk
again) added a nice sentimental touch, and some Wall Street protesters are denouncing free enterprise with
words snatched from Robespierre’s rich vocabulary.

 

This is pretty harsh stuff applied to
a menagerie of mostly gentle souls whose views of constitutional government
differ from those of President Obama & Company, but such perfervid comments
take on a clearer meaning when viewed in a more appropriate context: George
Orwell’s 1984.  That is, somehow the voices of liberalism today sound
less like traditional partisan pep-talks and more like Oceania’s “Two-Minute
Hate” sessions, where party members screamed at a giant telescreen filled with
the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, one of Big Brother’s objective enemies.  The
purpose was to deflect rage against miserable social conditions by directing it
to a foreign source, to siphon off the hatred by venting against Big Brother’s
enemies.

 

The parallels go beyond hurling
epithets at that massive Leon Trotsky lookalike in one of 1984‘s most
memorable scenes.  Consider the three slogans of the Party applied to today’s
Orwellian liberalism: “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is
Strength.”  As explained in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical
Collectivism
, “the book” within the book, the purpose of war was to
preserve the domestic power structure.  As applied to today, Orwellian
liberalism’s increasingly vicious attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans
perform the same function, which is to preserve the current liberal power
structure by blaming others for its colossal failures.  High unemployment,
failed foreign policies, high energy prices, horrible housing markets,
disastrous federal deficits — they’re all the fault of liberalism’s enemies.
Republicans, Tea Party members — meet Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

“Freedom is Slavery” offers a host of
villains in civil society to whom the American public is “enslaved” under the
guise of being free, though the slogan offers a variant of what Orwell had in
mind.  Thus, freedom to choose one’s own health care plan or no health care plan
at all is slavery to the insurance companies; Americans “addicted” to oil
driving gas-guzzlers are slaves to Exxon and its partners; freedom to eat French
fries is slavery to clever McDonald’s advertising campaigns; and freedom to make
your own investment decisions is slavery to Wall Street.  In fact, Orwellian
liberalism assumes that citizens’ own decisions to live their lives pretty much
as they please constitute slavery to someone or another in a so-called “free
country,” which is why Big Brother in the form of the nanny state is becoming so
enormous, so oppressive.

 

This leaves us with what likely is
the most important slogan of Orwellian Liberalism: “Ignorance is Strength,”
which means in this context that ignorant citizens constitute the foundation of
the liberal establishment.  Indeed, there is no way America’s Oceania Big
Brother equivalent, President Obama, could get away with ludicrous statements
about “millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share” of the income
tax without the silent collusion of Americans’ stupendous ignorance about such
matters.  Similarly, the country’s energy shortages could not conceivably exist
with an informed citizenry that is aware of how well-connected environmental
activists have prevented production in resources where North America dominates,
such as coal, natural gas, and shale.  Further, the massive propaganda campaign
centering on anthropogenic global warming could not possibly succeed with an
attentive public.

 

In short, “Ignorance is Strength” for
Orwellian liberals; pierce it, and the whole century-old liberal-progressive
project collapses in a heap of prevarications and pretense.

 

If this happens, liberals’
presumption to govern on the basis of the other two slogans, as well as a thick
vocabulary of Orwellian doublespeak, will collapse as well.  The question is
whether this situation can endure indefinitely, as it did in 1984.  The
answer depends on Americans’ determination to reclaim control of their
government.  Absent that, we had all better learn to love Big
Brother.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is
a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision &
Values
at Grove City College.  The author of several books, his latest
release is a high-energy novel titled
The Thirteenth
Commandment
.

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

By

Patrick Goodenough

October 14, 2011

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, meets with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Washington in March 2009. (UN Photo by Eskinder Debebe)

(CNSNews.com)

– A U.S. House committee Thursday approved a bill linking U.S. contributions to the United Nations to significant financial and other reforms, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned she would recommend that President Obama veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

Deeply divided along party lines, the House Foreign Relations Committee voted 23-15 for the U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act (H.R. 2829), whose most radical provision aims to force the U.N. to change its funding mechanism from the current system of “assessed” contributions to voluntary ones.

Proponents say this would allow the U.S. – and other member states – to fund only those activities and agencies it regards as being efficiently managed, and in the national interest.

In order to compel the U.N. to make the shift, the legislation would withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budget (which does not include peacekeeping) if the U.N. has not moved at least 80 percent of the budget to voluntary funding within two years.

American taxpayers account for 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular operating budget and 27 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget in “assessed” dues. In addition the U.S. provides billions of dollars in voluntary contributions for various U.N. agencies. In FY 2010 the total U.S. contribution was $7.69 billion.

Conservatives critical of the U.N. have long advocated the U.S. using its leverage, as the biggest funder by far, to push the world body to reform – and to weaken efforts by hostile member-states to use the U.N. to harm American interests.

The bill’s author, committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), told Thursday’s markup hearing that the U.N. budget continues to climb.

“What are we paying for?” she asked, then cited repressive regimes’ membership on the Human Rights Council, a continuing anti-Israel bias, the elevation of member states like North Korea and Iran to leadership positions in various bodies, and corruption scandals.

“Why do we bear the financial burden for this?” Ros-Lehtinen continued. “Every year, scores of member countries that contribute almost nothing to the U.N. vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the costs on to big donors like the U.S., which is assessed a whopping 22 percent.

“In contrast, China pays just three percent. We need a game-changer.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman, said the “real agenda” behind the bill was to end U.S. participation in the U.N. and to “deal a fatal financial blow to the world body.”

He argued that there was no evidence to support the notion that withholding dues can leverage meaningful change.

“Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any significant and lasting reforms – they only succeeded in weakening our diplomatic standing and influence, and undermining efforts to promote transparency, fiscal responsibility and good management practices in the U.N. system,” Berman told the committee.

‘A dangerous retreat’

If the bill does pass in the House – where it has 125 co-sponsors, all Republican – its passage through the Democrat-controlled Senate would be an uphill battle. Even if it did make it through the Senate, its chances of making it into law are slim.

In a letter to Ros-Lehtinen on Wednesday, Clinton expressed strong opposition to the measure, saying if it reached the president, she would recommend a veto.

Citing U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, she argued that international engagement through the U.N. comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.

“This bill also represents a dangerous retreat from the longstanding, bipartisan focus of the United States on constructive engagement within the United Nations to galvanize collective action to tackle urgent security problems,” she wrote

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers