Posted: 13 Nov 2008 10:29 AM CST
I do not care what side of the political aisle a person is, this type of behavior is unacceptable, from an adult or from children as was the case of Idaho children, on a school bus, chanting "Assassinate Obama."
Video below is of the KIKD News report, via YouTube.
I have read a couple reports about this and haven't seen anyone that can pinpoint who started the chant, but from the accounts, whoever started it, got the other kids chanting the same sick theme.
Whoolery and his wife couldn't believe it when their second and third graders got off the bus last week and told them what other students were saying.
Whichever kid started it, they heard it somewhere, from someone that obviously did know what the word assassinate means.
The Madison County School District has sent out an email to all teachers, principals, and bus drivers making it clear that children should immediately be told this type of language is unacceptable, but it brings a more chilling issue.
Children not knowing what it means, chanting that, is bad enough, but the thought process of whoever taught those children to say it, makes for dangerous individuals.
Anyone that reads this blog knows I am not a fan of Barack Obama, but no elected official should ever be threatened with assassination.
I can hear people now saying, but they are children, this isn't a threat.
The fact remains, the children learned it somewhere and since this was one bus full of children, it should not be too difficult to find out who started the "chant" and work backwards to figure out who that child heard those words from and do a little investigating to make sure that person isn't a threat to Obama, or part of a group that could be considered a threat.
I would say the same thing if McCain had won the election or if this was chanted about Bush.
Wrong is wrong.
Posted: 13 Nov 2008 09:33 AM CST
Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook
Democrat dominance in Washington, D.C. guarantees the reinstitution of some type of policy to control the balance of Conservative and Liberal radio talk shows.
"The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.Should the FCC fail to resurrect a Fairness Doctrine, Congress can pass laws to mandate it, and are willing to do so.
Stiffle dissent...any and all judgement of The Obama Years, and the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate - that's the goal. The only way to do it is to hush Rush, and Hannity, and Ingraham, and Boortz, and O'Reilly, and Levine, and the list goes on.
Will the FCC, under Rivera, attempt to resurrect a Commission Fairness Doctrine? We don't know the answer, but consider this:
Here's what you may not know about the Fairness Doctrine: In January 2007, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps unveiled a new American Media Contract at a gathering of the National Media Reform Conference in Memphis.
The text of the speech appears to have been removed from the web, although I have found several links to it, one titled Copps Unveils New American Media Contract, which then takes the reader to the 2008 Conference speech. Just a typo? I don't think so. Maggie's Notebook reported on this on January 27, 2007 and is likely not the only webpage documenting the words of Michael Copps.
Here are portions of the American Media Contract 2007:
We expect these:Who decides what America "looks and sounds"like?
Who decides if the news is "canned" or not"
Who decides what strengthens our democracy?
Copps said this about the state of television in 2007:
And what do the American people — who own the public airwaves, by the way — get in return? Too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists. Too little of America, too much of Wall Street and Madison Avenue...."An immediate red flag: "...too much baloney passed off as news." I think Mr. Copps' baloney is not my baloney.
Other speakers for the event were well-known leftists Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Geena Davis, Senator Bernie Sanders, Bill Moyers, Helen Thomas and Jessie Jackson.
Henry Rivera is said to see "communications as a civil rights issue," and my research bears that out. As current Chair of the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, he has proposed to:
1) funnel more "federal advertising" to minority media 
2) allow foreign ownership; relax U.S. trade barriers to provide "overseas capital," for minority broadcasters 
3) develop "constitutionally permissible yet non-dilute method of defining" the class [race] of licensees, i.e., "an applicant's race would be one of the numerous factors considered when the Commission reviews a license application." 
4) change the FCC Commission to a more diverse Commission - it should look like America 
In addition, Rivera wants a blue-ribbon panel discussion, now, to bring Communications to the table by creating a White House Cabinet position, and he advocates for "localism" to prevail when issuing broadcasting licenses - a position to be seen in Copps' comments above.
The above is taken from Rivera's Minority Media & Telecom Council pdf, page numbers are in brackets.
To date I've found nothing in Rivera's own words directly calling for a Fairness Doctrine, however, in a January 2008 news release, Rivera and a law partner, Richard Wiley, discuss the issue of "localism," - requiring TV stations to "cover local news," Mr. Wiley added, "Are we going to return to the broadcast regulations of the past? That's the question."
I believe this may speak directly to a Fairness Doctrine, which is particularly difficult for smaller local stations to implement. Limited cast and crew find it difficult to allow equal time ON EVERY ISSUE. It's costly, often not pertinent, and history shows that that the stations just give up and don't report controversial issues.
It is reported that Obama is not interested in a Fairness Doctrine, but if you take a look at his press secretary, Michael Ortiz', statement, it not reassuring:
He [Obama] considers this debate [Fairness Doctrine] to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.When it comes to "fairness" in media, we have nothing to feel good about in an Obama administration. Team Obama attorneys:
1) asked the Department of Justice to remove TV ads produced by American Issues Project
2) threatened individual TV and radio stations airing NRA ads even "intimidating cease and desist letters...threatening their FCC license if they run the ads" according to the NRA
3) at the direction of a Team Obama email, deluged the Milt Rosenberg's Chicago radio show interview of Dr. Stanley Kurtz, by jamming phones during the live show, sending copious emails, and gathering outside the studio. ALL at the command of the Obama campaign.
Obama does not bode well for free speech.
The SayAnything Blog put it this way:
...only liberals would think that "fairness" is something that can be implemented by government mandate. but that speaks to how they see the world. This country was founded up on the idea that all men are free, and that all should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But rather than equality of opportunity, liberals are only interested in equality of outcome.For more, here's a video discussion hosted by Fox News' Neil Cavuto, on the Fairness Doctrine:
Posted: 12 Nov 2008 10:19 PM CST
Chuck Schumer fired the opening salvo in the war against free speech this week by calling Conservative talk radio "Pornography"
What Schumer is not telling you is that Radio is probably one of the most Democratic institutions in the world. If people want to hear what is on they listen, if they don't.... well there are tons of radio stations, listeners can turn the dial to find what they like. If a radio program doesn't generate listeners, it doesn't get advertising, no advertising, no radio program. It's really a simple process.
You see, raising the fairness doctrine back from the dead, is taking away our right to select the programming we want to hear. Its only being brought up because the democrats want people like Rush Limbaugh to have less air time. The fact is the American Public has already made their voice heard. Remember when Air America was launched with great fanfare? It was to be the Liberal Voice of Talk Radio. Guess what happened? NOBODY LISTENED, IT GENERATED POOR RATINGS, MADE NO MONEY AND WENT BANKRUPT. Oh its still around, I believe in its third incarnation, still generating no ratings, still loosing money hand over foot.
Allow me to put it another way, Rush Limbaugh signed a multi-year mega-million dollar contract, because people WANT to listen to him . Al Franken, former Air America host, is waging a campaign for Senate, because on Air America he was talking to a brick wall.
If you think its going to stop there forget it. The Democratic Party Brown Shirts have started to go after blogger
Posted: 12 Nov 2008 10:14 PM CST
This week the "religion of peace" sent another child on a mission to act as a human bomb. There has to be a special place in hell for people who recruit and celebrate the killing of their own children. But its a frequent occurrence in Islamofacist society:
While all homicide bombings are heinous, the US of children is even more inhumane. It is time for the leaders of the free world to speak out against this practice. Why aren't we getting involved, bringing it up at the UN? Forcing the Arab nations to speak out against this, or finally admit that they are as disgusting as the Imams that sent these poor kids to their deaths.
Read more BY CLICKING HERE
Posted: 12 Nov 2008 10:11 PM CST
It was with great fanfare, that President-elect Obama's transition team would not hire any lobbyists. All across the mainstream media there was praise for the incoming President. I would imagine Chris Matthews even had that Tinkle down his leg once again. But banning lobbyists does not stop him from hiring the people who got money from the lobbyists, or the people who did major fund raising for the candidate.
Five of the 12 members of Obama's transition advisory board raised at least $50,000 for his presidential campaign, and eight contributed the maximum individual donation of $4,600. Other transition team members include a partner in a lobbying firm and two executives of financial companies whose employees were among his biggest donors.So just like everything else Obama has done, there is a huge difference between perception and reality. Read the rest of the story by CLICKING HERE
Posted: 12 Nov 2008 10:08 PM CST
During the horrible years of the '50s many people in show business weren't able to work. They were blacklisted because of their leftist political views. Now its happening again. This time to people who supported Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage as between a man and a woman.
Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre is being forced to resign his post and leaving the organization due to a donation to the movement supporting the amendment. Because of Eckern's support, playwrights and other artists mounted a boycott of the theater and promised not to stop unless Eckern resigned.
Isn't it ironic that a profession built around expressing one's emotional and moral views is forcing someone out of a job that they have held for 20 years because of his views? Read the rest by CLICKING HERE
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|