Turncoat Specter Finally Jumps Ship

So Arlen Specter finally comes to the realization that he is not a conservative. I've got one question for Arlen Specter; 'What took you so long?' Check out this story from the Washington Post.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

He now finds that his political philosophy is more in line with Democrats than Republicans. How could he have only just now have come to this realization? Specter's 29 year record is one which has always betrayed his true political ideology.

- He is pro abortion.
- He believes in Roe vs. Wade as "inviolate" and that "nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it".
- He voted against Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert H. Bork.
- He supported the judicial obstructionist mentality of the Democrats during the Bush administration.
- He has all but stated outright that the idea of Supreme Court rulings being limited by the principles of the constitution is abhorrent.
- He is a firm believer in race based preferences.
- He has long opposed tax reform.
- He is a supporter and friend of the International Criminal Court.

How could it be that the only person who was unaware that Arlen Specter a Democrat (at least at heart), was Arlen Specter himself. And why now? Did he suddenly bolt upright in bed this morning and exclaim, 'Oh, my God! I'm a Democrat!' Not at all. Mr. Specter has always been a opportunist, and this is just more of the same. He believes that his best chance of being re-elected in 2010 is by switching parties. "I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

Well, Mr. Specter, on your way out, don't worry about the door, look out for the boot.

Pelosi Calls Illegal Aliens "Patriotic"

Speaking at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco to an audience of both legal and illegal aliens, House Speaker Pelosi said that the current practices employed in the enforcement of our immigration laws are "un-American" and referred to the members of her audience as "very patriotic". See the full story here.



Only through the prism of the liberal mind is it un-American to enforce the laws of our country, and patriotic to violate them. An America under liberalism is an America where good is evil. Where God is the devil. Where criminals are victims. Where terrorists are freedom fighters and NRA members are terrorists. Where success is punished and slothfulness rewarded. Where forced confiscation of wealth is considered patriotic contributions. Where freedom of speech only exists when the are no dissenting voices. Where consensual sex between men and women is rape, and homosexuality is natural act. Where putting convicted murderers to death is immoral, but putting innocent children to death is a 'choice'.

How is liberalism not a mental disorder?

The 'Fairness Doctrine', 'Localism', and 'Ownership Diversity'

Tyranny begins with the silencing of dissenting voices. To this end many on the Left are calling for the reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine'.




Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Fox News,

"Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio.... The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That's not consistent."

Obama campaign statement on the 'Fairness Doctrine', August 2008,

"He [Obama] considers this debate 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Dianne Feinstein complained to Fox News’ Chris Wallace,

“In my view, 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.”

"Well, I'm looking at it (reviving the 'Fairness Doctrine'), as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Bill Moyers interview with Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on PBS. Read it here.

Lou Dobbs interview with Dennis Kacinich on CNN. See it here.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) radio interview. Hear it here.

Enacted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the 'Fairness Doctrine' required broadcasters to present all sides on political issues equally. The only fairness associated with the 'Fairness Doctrine' was that it silenced political speech altogether. Broadcasters simply avoided topics which would fall under the FCC equal time rules. One blogger compares the 'Fairness Doctrine' to the 1765 Stamp Act. It is an interesting comparison.

In 1987, President Reagan rescinded the 'Fairness Doctrine' Since then, political speech on talk radio has flourished. Conservatives have dominated it. Conservative talk radio has 50 million listeners, with Rush Limbaugh taking the lions share of the ratings with 20 million listeners. Liberal talkers have had a tough time competing in the talk radio medium. Their show have trouble selling advertising for by virtue of the fact that talk radio listeners do not want to hear their shrill voices spewing negative, often anti-American, diatribes.

As far as the Left is concerned, conservative domination of the airwaves is a violation of the First Amendment. In the Liberal mind, the First Amendment not only guarantees them the right to express their opinion, it also guarantees them the right to be heard. As always, the Left is looking to the government to level the playing field. It is not enough that there is equal opportunity, there must be equal results.

While Obama has claimed that he will not be seeking a reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine', he is very much in favor of expanding upon an FCC rule known as 'localism'. Under this rule radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. More on this from American Thinker.

Obama has chosen as as his transition chief John Podesta. Podesta is president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a socialist think tank. Cap is in favor of expanding the concept of 'localism' and promoting 'ownership diversity' to solve what it believes are inequities in radio broadcasting. In a June 21, 2007 report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, CAP complained of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and recommends that to ensure that local radio stations fulfill their obligations to meet the needs of the communities which they serve, the FCC needs to exercise greater control over local broadcast licencing and the fining of radio stations who continue to air conservative talkers who are perceived to be out of step with local needs. The report also recommends that the money generated by the fines be used to support liberal dominated , taxpayer funded public broadcasting. It gets worse. Since conservative talk radio does not reflect the diverse interests of the communities which they serve, the report also recommends handing over media properties to selected minority control. One wonders how this might be accomplished. Through Stalin-esque seizure of private property? For more, go here.

Many on the Left dismiss the concerns of conservative talk show hosts as far fetched paranoia, others are in complete denial, and the mainstream press is wallowing in self imposed ignorance.