Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?
Listen to the Ed Meese Radio SpotFreedom of Speech Our 1st Amendme... I have just taken action to stop the attacks on our Free Speech Rights, and I'm asking that you join with me by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice? + + Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice? Will 2009 usher in a fanatical push to re-instate the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Such a move would effectively silence the conservative voice and remove the last conservative stronghold against a fast-moving liberal agenda. James & Lydia, One need only read the words of Dianne Feinstein to see the true threat to conservative speech that is brewing on the horizon!" Talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information ... I'm looking at the [Fairness Doctrine]... Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way." Recognizing this threat, the Media Research Center has created the Free Speech Alliance which is a coalition of organizations and citizens strongly opposed to any such move to limit or undermine our Free Speech Rights! Please take a moment right now to join the hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and all that it stands for by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice? Thanks for joining with me. Mr. & Mrs. James & Lydia Everitt P.S. If the liberal voice in America has their way, the Fairness Doctrine will end conservative talk--including Rush, Sean, Laura, Mark, and a host of others. Take action today by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice? Hey, President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he’s counting on all of us to get involved.I just signed up to learn more about the presidential transition, and I thought you might want to do the same. Just visit Presidential Transition, and enter your e-mail address in the top right corner. Thanks. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, The Bill of Rights Freedom of Speech - Our 1st Amendment - Our Sacred Right! Posted by Better Home Business at 9:04 AM 0 comments Links to this post Labels: biden, blueprint, Bush, commercial, Congress, economy, Election, energy, gotcha, grassroots, independence, kennedy, McCain, News, Obama, outreach, palin, pickensplan, political, senate
Watch the candidates do their day jobs and take that Commander-in-Chief test. Schedule and witness panels for all related hearings here.
…“The White House has rejected congressional calls for Fallon to appear. Fallon will remain a Navy admiral for several months, and Democrats would like his views to be more widely known. Citing Fallon's resignation and the administration's subsequent refusal to allow him to testify, Democrats accuse Bush of stifling officers who disagree with administration views on Iraq. But Petraeus' appearance this week also could place the Democratic presidential candidates in a position much like Bush's: Testifying before them will be a battlefield general with whom they disagree. Clinton is on the armed services panel, Obama on foreign relations. "If you want a commander-in-chief test, here it comes: How do they handle the commander when he comes back to report on a controversial situation?" said Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped devise the administration's troop buildup plan. "How do they handle a respected and amazingly successful general when he comes back and tells them something they don't want to hear?" Aides to Clinton and Obama have sought to play down the importance of the candidates' coming encounter with Petraeus. A Clinton spokesman couched the appearance as just one of multiple committee hearings and trips to Iraq that have helped her develop expertise on the military and the region. Obama, said an aide of his, intends to "ask the questions that the administration has failed to answer" about the Iraqi government's shortcomings."I don't know if this one moment will have grand historical significance, but it is important to have this debate," said the aide, an Obama national security advisor who was not authorized by the campaign to speak publicly on the subject. Democrats are wary of seeming too focused on presidential politics at the expense of serious matters. Senators examine committee witnesses in order of seniority. McCain, in the first committee hearing of the day, will have an early and lengthy opportunity to question Petraeus.”…
Obama, said an aide of his, intends to "ask the questions that the administration has failed to answer" about the Iraqi government's shortcomings.
Senators examine committee witnesses in order of seniority. McCain, in the first committee hearing of the day, will have an early and lengthy opportunity to question Petraeus.”…
read entire article from LA TImes 04 06 08 at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-petraeus6apr06,0,5346734.story?page=2
Best prep hearings ever were on April 2. A few senators admitted this was like being in grad school. on C-Span: "Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) continues (April 2) a series of Senate hearings looking at the effects of the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq. The Foreign Relations Cmte. is hosting this event in advance of next week’s Iraq hearings with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "
April 2 Foreign Relations hearing: Security Situation in Iraq 3 hr 20 minutes Lt. Gen. Odom, William E. (Ret.) Former Director (1985-1988), National Security Agency; McCaffrey, Barry R. General (Ret.), U.S. Army ; Scales, Robert H. Jr. Major General (Ret.), U.S. Army; Flournoy, Michele A. Co-Founder and President, Center for a New American Security
watch video at: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=562847343
April 2 Foreign Relations hearing Political Situation in Iraq. Biddle, Stephen Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Policy; Said, Yahia Director, Middle East Revenue Watch, Middle East; Rosen, Nir Scholar, New York University, Center on Law and Security
watch video at: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=562847272
On April 8, Petraeus and Crocker will both be testifying before Levin's Armed Services Committee (Clinton and McCain) at 9:30 a.m., and then at 2:30 p.m. before Biden's Foreign Relations Committee (Obama). Senators Jim Webb, D, VA, and Bill Nelson, D, FL, are the only senators on both committees.
April 9: 9:30 a.m. Armed Services will 'receive testimony on the situation in Iraq and progress made by the Government of Iraq in meeting benchmarks and achieving reconciliation' from Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich, Professor of International Relations and History, Boston University ; General John M. Keane, USA (Ret.) , Senior Managing Director, Keane Advisors, LLC ; and Dr. Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa Program Director International Crisis Group
April 10th at 2:00 p.m., Armed Services will 'receive testimony on the situation in Iraq, progress made by the Government of Iraq in meeting benchmarks and achieving reconciliation, the future U.S. military presence in Iraq, and the situation in Afghanistan' from Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen.
April 10, starting at 9:30 am, Foreign Relations' hearing "NEGOTIATING A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAQ " has two panels of witnesses:
Panel 1: The Honorable David Satterfield, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq Department of State; The Honorable Mary Beth Long, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Department of Defense; Ms. Joan Donoghue, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser Department of State
Panel 2: Michael J. Matheson, Professor, George Washington University Law School; Washington, DC; Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA ;
This post will be removed from IR and other groups on Thursday, April 10.
Former President Clinton gave the following response the other day:
But since you raised the judgment issue, let’s go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign.‘It doesn’t matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I’m the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.'First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn’t co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way.Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004 and there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since?’ Give me a break.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(a) Authorization.–Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.(b) Requirements.–Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance.
But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports, What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.
Clinton's and Levin's call for Maliki's resignation seems rash. Malaki has been grossly ineffectual, but we should not be calling for his resignation without a good idea who is going to replace him. Haven't we yet learned that "regime change" requires a plan with respect to the replacement?
