Hello Thanks heaps for this indeed!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Piano Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Here is a new one from ACORN.

Instead of the usual dead, illegal or Mickey Mouse fraudulent ballots being used to steal an election, they now will send their agents to collect information from you and will cast your ballot for you.

From Fox News:…

On October 20th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, MarcoPolo said: #827639

My post spoke to the conspiracy theories, exaggerrations and mischaracterizations suggested by Lord in his article.

OK. I will address your comments that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

Hush little Ziggy. Democrats are all about majority rule – they won, right? So let the majority decide, via the ratings system, how the community uses their channels.

Absolutely, majority rules and the rating system, success and what the people want to listen to, watch and read should be the only arbiter of what appears in the market.

And “clamoring for?” I don’t seem to recall anybody clamoring for DTV, and they certainly aren’t clamoring for more community programming.

Neither do I. Those are Commissioner Copp’s words. Not mine.

The Limbaugh accusation is clear – he made a comment about illegals, and a few weeks later some boys beat a Mexican under the guise of being upset about the negative effects on wages as a result of an excess of labor in the American market. They never mentioned Rush, but the media implied that it was his fault for not supporting amnesty.

Read the petition. Read Lord’s article. Both are clear as to what each said.

[NOTE: Lord 'implied' far more than the petition did. And, as Rush has said and explained repeatedly many times, there is a difference between 'imply' and 'infer.']

If we don’t organize this opposition soon, our rights will be usurped to the point that we will never be able to mount an effective opposition.

There have been so many actions taken since last September one would think they would have an opinion on a lot of the actions being taken by the executive and legislative branches? Does someone have to file a law suit? What does it take to get them to weigh in?

Maybe we should be asking how stations are using all that new multi-cast capacity they were clamoring for in the DTV transition—just Doppler radar scopes and syndicated reruns, or new programs reflecting community life? We need a real dialogue about such things.”

The Limbaugh accusation is clear – he made a comment about illegals, and a few weeks later some boys beat a Mexican under the guise of being upset about the negative effects on wages as a result of an excess of labor in the American market. They never mentioned Rush, but the media implied that it was his fault for not supporting amnesty.

On October 20th, 2009 at 8:13 pm, Little Ma said: #827615

Dear ziggy,

What?

Dear Litty,

What, what?

What?

Lord says in his article -

“Rush Limbaugh, claims this formal petition from American churches to the FCC, is responsible for beating up Mexican men.”

Nope. The petition does not say that. What the petition does say, is the following -

“This incident occurred after radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called Mexican immigrants, regardless of legal status, “a renegade, potential crime element that is unwilling to work.”

Lord assigns meaning to, and misrepresents, what was actually written. The petition does not say Rush was responsible in any manner for beating up Mexican men, or that he himself has beat up Mexican men. Though Lord goes on at length suggesting in his article that this is what Rush has done, and is doing.

For the record, Rush is not beating anyone up or has advocated beating any one up.

In fact Lord continues in his article -

“There is no record provided that a single kid ever mentioned Rush Limbaugh. Not one. Quite aside from the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t advocate beating up anyone.”

So why does Lord go on and speculate about what he thinks the petition means about Rush? Could Lord be a conspiracy theorists?

Lord says in his article -

“Read the key phrases again. “Open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.” Meaning, church members are being asked to sign on to an already-in-progress petition to the FCC that is opening the door to legal sanctions from the federal government on “hate speech in the media.”"

Lord’s concern is legal sanctions.

The reality is that this has been done already and the petition is an effort to update a previous study.

From the petition -

“On behalf of the So We Might See Coalition, we are supporting the requests of the National Hispanic Media Coalition and urge the Federal Communications Commission to open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media, and urge the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) to update its 1993 report, The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes. We are concerned about this issue because of the possible connection between hate speech and violent hate crimes and the lack of information for members of the public concerned about the issue.”

Were there legal sanctions as a result of the 1993 report? Were any media outlets shut down as a result of the 16 year old report?

Is speculating about non existant legal sanctions the domain of conspiracy theorists?

I will grant that many things can, and will, be used for many different reasons, but that does not mean that the thing should not be done, made, or written, because of concern about how it will misused. Yep, kind of like the gun issue. Don’t prohibit them because others misuse them.

Lord says in his article -

“He says: “I am also pushing for a comprehensive FCC evaluation of the state of broadcast journalism.”

“The state of broadcast journalism. Which includes, of course, talk radio.”

“Now, how would one push for such a “comprehensive FCC evaluation” of talk radio?”"

Lord makes the first statement in reference to Commissioner Copp’s speech. Lord then suggests what this includes. And, in the third statement asks how this should be done.

From Commissioner Copps speech -

“I am also pushing for a comprehensive FCC evaluation of the state of broadcast journalism.”

The very next sentences of Commissioner Copp’s speech -

“Study after study tells us that most Americans continue to rely for the bulk of their news on broadcast television and newspapers. We also know these enterprises are under economic strain, partly from the Internet, partly, I suspect, from their own bad decision-making.”

No mention of talk radio, but a specific mention of television and newspapers. Does it take a conspiracy theorist to ignore what is mentioned and talk about what is not mentioned?

From Commissioner Copps Speech -

How does he intend to push for a comprehensive evaluation of broadcast journalism.

“You know, when a license renewal application comes in, maybe—just maybe—your FCC should be asking how that station is serving the interests of its locality. And maybe—just maybe—the answer should determine how we handle that application. Maybe we should be asking how stations are using all that new multi-cast capacity they were clamoring for in the DTV transition—just Doppler radar scopes and syndicated reruns, or new programs reflecting community life? We need a real dialogue about such things.”

Maybe, just maybe? You mean he does not have a formal plan? And, having a dialogue is just absolutely sinister.

Lord says in his article –

“. . . Rush is formally singled out in the petition . . .”

Yep, this is true. The petition does not address anyone else.

Though Lord works into his article the following people and organization – Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Dick Morris, Andrew Breitbart, and Fox News.

Commissioner Copp does not mention any individual, or specific organization, in his speech, either. Lord mentions these individuals because links in an email he received, mentions a few of these people. Well actually, only Lou Dobbs is specifically mentioned in one of the links from Lord’s email. No one else is metioned.

Why does Lord mention these additional people? Why does he exclude Ann Coulter?

Lord says in his article -

“An assault by name on some, on others with their names left out, but surely every bit the target as the others.”

And yes, for those who wish to pray, include the conspiracy theorists.

What Rush actually said was clearly in the context of illegal aliens. It’s even portrayed as such on the left-leaning Media Matters.

Yes, I got a screen cap.

On October 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, WarTip said:

Unlawful immigrant – Illegal alien

An “immigrant” is defined in the dictionary as someone who has emigrated from their country of origin to a new home. Legally speaking, an Immigrant is someone who has gone through or made efforts to participate in the immigration process.

If someone has violated our laws and that is the sole reason for their being here in the first place, they are not lawful in their presence, and subsequently any and all actions by them are illegal in nature and they are not going through the legal and limited immigration process … they are an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

I think Michelle had it right: they are more accurately called INVADERS. You can bet the Poles, French, Czechs, Russians etc., never thought of the German army as “undocumented immigrants”.