America’s Broadcasting Crazies aka ABC news is refusing to run a national ad critical of Obama’s healthcare reform plan.
Remember in June when ABC ran that awesome (read: extremely boring) health care special while being hosted by the Obama White House? Well now ABC news has said they will not run the ad that pokes holes in Obamacare because it is “partisan.” ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in her written statement,
The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue. Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News.
I love when our lovely unbiased news networks refuse to run paid advertisements like this one from the League of American Voters (a non-profit group that advocates individual liberty and government accountability). CBS has approved the ad for national distribution while NBC is still considering the ad pending a few revisions. Just ABC won’t sell time for partisan positions on controversial public issues, but they’re happy to include them in regularly scheduled news programming.
ABC in all their “non-partisan” glory deserves to be questioned for selling out to Obama’s healthcare propaganda while refusing to run an ad that presents the other side.
Related posts:
- Present Obama Suffers Another Outlandish Attack from Past Obama During the neverending 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Barack Hussein Obama...
- Susan Roesgen Suits CNN to a T* If you hadn’t heard of Susan Roesgen before Wednesday, join...
- CNN is Running Out of Religions to “Respect” Have you seen this gem by über-cartoonist and Pulitzer winner...
- How in the Name of Saul Alinsky Did I Miss This? I know I’ve been a little hard on Jimmy Carter...
- CBS = Christian Broadcasting Service? UPDATE: CBS is reportedly considering running a Super Bowl ad...
I’m SHOCKED! Shocked I say! Imagine, an un-biased network not running an ad that offers an opposing view point! JUST SHOCKING!
***Round up the usual suspects***
Not surprising from the network that let Obama take it over for a night, right?
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh wait, ABC is being serious. My bad.
So, that means they don’t run ads, right?
I guess all those ads criticizing the wars, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Obama, Hillary, Palin, the economy, etc. just slipped through the cracks last fall.
Remember, when liberals talk about “corporate media”, they mean Fox News. Because the other outlets are purer than a 9-year-old Duggar.
Now there’s legislation in the works to give Obama control over the Internet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/?test=latestnews
Tell me again about this “transparency”. Somebody tell me how this “can’t happen” in America, because “the President doesn’t have that kind of power”. Because it IS HAPPENING.
And believe me, if this does turn out to be a hoax, I’ll load up on champagne. At this point, nothing that lying SOB does surprises me anymore.
ABC won’t run this ad, but they’ll give Eli Stone an hour of prime time every week?
Well it aint April Fools day Beige, so I’m worried. But what do we expect from a Pres who beknights “Czars” by a way that gets around laws controlling legally appointed White House administrators? We did not vote for these mostly self-proclaimed Commie goons and soon there will be no more elections anyway.
It just keeps getting scarier by the minute. What was once a great country, founded on liberty and dimocracy is now the laughing stock of the middle eastern terrorists thanks to the lying sack of crap now residing in the white house. Let’s take away all of our liberties and go on a world apology tour for actually having balls to help other coutries. Seriously, this is getting scary.
Well you know the current regime of politicians “in charge” sold our souls to China……and the government there makes Big Brother look like a pipsqueak. They’ll only let us hear what they want us to hear. The rest doesn’t exist because they decree that it doesn’t.
Socialism at its finest.
Maybe it’s the fact that a buddy of mine just got back stateside and forced me (really, there was so much arm twisting I would have given him the Sudetenland and Poland if I’d owned it) to celebrate USMC style, but I do feel the need to reel a few of my good friends on here in a bit.
I’ve heard a lot of big brother type stuff recently, and while I agree we need to keep a sharp eye on govt. overreaching it’s mandate, we need to be sure we don’t come off as off our rocker as the libs did about the Patriot Act. Sure, the liberal news isn’t running a conservative leaning ad after running a freaking infomercial for Obama, and that makes them the pinnacle of doucheyness. I also feel the need to point out that this isn’t new or specific to this administration though. The media has leaned dramatically left for more than 50 years, and people hardly even noticed or commented on it before talk radio and Fox News offered the other perspective. It was like not noticing how bad your house looks until your neighbor fixes his up and you get to look at the two side-by-side.
My point is that while it sucks, it’s not like this is a new development, and we’re really no closer to 1984 than we were ten or twenty years ago. Try and remember that we’re perfectly capable of seeing this ad (it’s posted on Youtube and lots of Conservative websites) and we don’t have FBI agents kicking down our doors and dragging us into the night for watching it.
We talked about this very issue tonight over drinks – it’s not like you need to worry too much about Obama trying to take over the country, the damn military doesn’t trust him. They wouldn’t have fired on American Civilians for Bush or Reagan, let alone the Barney Fife of Presidents. Worry about health care, worry about illegal aliens, worry about terrorism, worry about voter intimidation and Nancy Pelosi’s makeup, but always remember that in order to institute a police state, a person or regime actually needs the support of people capable of exerting their will on others. Last I checked, all the groups actually capable of that vote Republican, so we’re good. Worrying about it excessively makes us look like the anti-government black helicopter watchers the Democrats try to peg us as.
Drunken rant/off.
Scott F, you sound like my husband. Which is actually pretty reassuring, given that you’re both Marines (ex? There’s no such thing, is there?) and well-educated.
The thing that DOES keep me worried is that if we don’t pay attention, if we don’t keep on top of this, we’re liable to wake up one day and find that our civil liberties really have gone the way of the dinosaurs. And we will have let it happen. It’s interesting that you bring up the Patriot Act, because at the time, liberals were yowling about how we were “trading in our constitutional freedoms for security”. Well, they don’t seem to have trouble with the idea of trading every freedom we have, plus all our hard-earned money, for the sake of supporting deadbeats who’ll vote Democratic.
True, that ad is available via other outlets. And while Fox News is reviled by liberals–oh, sorry Darla, socialists–it is still on the air, last I checked. But the time to make a fuss is while you still can.
I had to talk an elderly relative down the other day, b/c she was convinced that there are already hundreds of thousands of concentration camps hidden amongst the strip malls and docs-in-boxes all over the US, just waiting for us. So I know what you’re talking about; hysteria isn’t going to help anyone. Imagine, though, where we’d be if people weren’t throwing Tea Parties and protesting at these town halls. We may get there anyway, but if we don’t put up some kind of struggle, we’re beggars to our own destruction.
One brilliant strategy Obama employed very early in his presidency was to float the idea of a “Media Bailout”, at the exact time the two most liberal papers in the US, headquartered in Portland and San Francisco, were at the brink of destruction.
Never mind that it would permanently destroy the free press, just the mere suggestion had a an effect not dissimilar to dogs salivating around the food dish 24/7, or the Walton children waiting from Sam (of Wal*Mart fame) to die off.
Scott F.,
To a point you are correct. But my major concern is that, as von Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom there is an inevitable course to the collectivist mindset. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China were not aberrations: They were the inevitable result of states where Utopian systems were attempted with no checks.
Call it the Leia principle. To paraphrase Princess Leia: The harder you squeeze your fist the more people slip through your fingers. As the state tries to make things more perfect via increased legislation, more people find ways around it. As more people find ways around these regulations the state closes up ‘loopholes’. This cycle results in ever-increasing regulations on our lives. One of the current ‘problems’ within the Donkey’s attempts at Utopia is our ability to fight back (in a totally nonviolent sort of way) via free speech. But with the revamped Cyber Security Act (here) and a new diversity czar trying to mandate local ownership of radio stations (which would virtually eliminate talk radio, and serve as a back-door approach to achieving the same ends as the “Fairness Doctrine”, <a=href"http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055")Here.) I have a real concern that the First Amendment will go the way of the dodo. Now, of course, this is what a man who has been in office about six months is “starting” to do and past results are no guarantee on future performance…
Not to sound too black-helicopter here, but I just don’t trust the man.
A drunken rant sometimes has truth to it, Scott F….lol
I didn’t know that the military didn’t trust the big O. All I know is that so many people believe everything the media tells them…and that is scary. They don’t take the time to educate themselves farther, about both sides of the aisle.
Oh, Koka. When Obamites swallow whatever they’re handed, they’re just being good Americans. Anyone else? They’re stupid morons, moronically acting stupidly, during breaks from oppressing the poor and lynching minorities. Yeah, there are gullible and unthinking people on both sides; what rankles is that it’s always presumed to be right-wingers.
Beige, we are on the same wavelength.
Koka, it is a known fact that the military does not trust this guy. Think about all the apologies he has been dishing out all over the world and apologizing for us bringing safe and security to others. how many military brothers and sisters were lost? Way to kick them when they are down. Not to mention this whole CIA thing. Many SF guys turn towards Blackwater and the CIA after Army so that they can carry on defending our freedom. Talk about taking away guns and calling them terrorists (which they did) will really hurt you among those that are sworn to follow your lead. That and the fact that he has zero experience.
A lot of nails being hit smack dab on the head, here.
“But the time to make a fuss is while you still can.” –Beige
“That and the fact that he has zero experience.” –aaw
I keep saying we have a rookie in the White House. It’s great we’ve broken the color barrier in the White House, but he’s still a rookie.
Scott, maybe the motto should also include Semper Vigilans. Always gotta watch your six, and now your 7, 8, 9, and 5, 4, 3 as well.
I remember the feeling in the air when former Pres Clinton was in office, and service members were used as waiters in White House events (can’t seem to find this as an urban myth).
********************************************************************************************
Air Force One comes in for a landing at the airport. A ramp is wheeled up and President Clinton appears carrying a pig under each arm. As he comes down the ramp, the Marine at the bottom snaps to a salute.
Clinton says, “You’ll have to excuse me. I can’t return your salute. My hands are full.”
“Yes Sir. I see the pigs Sir!” responds the Marine.
“Now hold on,” says Clinton. “These aren’t just pigs. These are genuine Arkansas Razorbacks.”
“Yes Sir! Razorbacks Sir!” says the Marine.
“I got this one for Chelsea and this one for Hillary,” Clinton explains.
The Marine answers, “Yes Sir! An excellent trade if I may say so myself Sir!”
Air Force One comes in for a landing at the airport. A ramp is wheeled up and President Clinton appears carrying a pig under each arm. As he comes down the ramp, the Marine at the bottom snaps to a salute.
Clinton says, “You’ll have to excuse me. I can’t return your salute. My hands are full.”
“Yes Sir. I see the pigs Sir!” responds the Marine.
“Now hold on,” says Clinton. “These aren’t just pigs. These are genuine Arkansas Razorbacks.”
“Yes Sir! Razorbacks Sir!” says the Marine.
“I got this one for Chelsea and this one for Hillary,” Clinton explains.
The Marine answers, “Yes Sir! An excellent trade if I may say so myself Sir!”
********************************************************************************************
(In alpha order)
Go Air Force
Go Army
Go Coast Guard
Go Marines
Go Navy
That’s so good, I quoted it twice (sorry – it’s getting late).
At the risk of opening a can of worms, this goes WAAAAAAY back. This started a long time ago. It started when we traded our moral code of the supremacy of the individual for one in which you pursuing your own self-interest was regarded as “evil”, one in which the group is considered of greater importance than the individual pursuing his own happiness.
Nor was it overnight. This was gradual.
There is a mindset out there that we cannot legislate morality. That’s utter bullsh*t. Of course we legislate morality. Every law on the books differentiates between what the legislator views as “right” vs. “wrong”. (Right and wrong being in the realm of morality.) Such-and-such a law outlaws “wrong” while upholding “right”. It is wrong to rob and murder, thus they are outlawed. Right there morality is being legislated.
Now laws in and of themselves are powerless, useless things. Laws are pointless without a means of enforcing them. Physical force is the only way to guarantee that such-and-such a law is obeyed. Disobey a law? Find yourself in handcuffs on your way to prison.
The question is whether any particular law is justified in being enforced. There was a time (a long time ago) when force was considered appropriate only in self-defense, and only against the person or group that initiated aggression. (Which I maintain is still the only true moral justification for the use of force.)
You commit an act of assault against your neighbor? You have initiated aggression, and thus the State is right and correct in using retaliatory force against you, since it is the proper role of government to protect the citizens’ lives and property. But let’s say, for example, that you work X number of hours and earn X amount of pay. You decide that what you earn is yours to use as you see fit, not someone else’s. So you keep it. You have not committed an act of aggression against anyone, you’re simply keeping what you earn. But not according to the altruists in government. They have decided that a portion of what you earn is owed to the poor and downtrodden. Now you yourself didn’t actually cause their poverty, you simply wish to keep what is yours. Suddenly the altruists have equated you keeping your justly earned wealth with causing the poverty of your neighbors. And so government initiates physical force against you and sends you to prison.
You see the question is whether any particular law is justified when it is enforced. The “litmus test” (so-to-speak) is to ask “Is the enforcement of this law a preemptive use of physical force or is it a defensive use of physical force?”
Many, many of the current and potentially future laws and regulations on the books rely on the preemptive use of force, not the defensive use of it. Shutting down major portions of the Internet? There’s no way in hell you can possibly say it’s a defensive use of force, despite Obama’s rhetoric. Closing down talk-radio stations? Preemptive use of force, not defensive. Taking more $$$ from millionaires and billionaires to pay for health care? Preemptive use of force, not defensive.
I once made a statement that I stand by to this day: “When you try to justify the initial use of physical force, it’s only a matter of time before you attempt to justify the use of a little more force. And then a little more…”
We will never turn back these altruistic intrusions into our lives unless we challenge the altruistic moral code itself. I am not talking about attacking compassion. You can be as compassionate as you want. Nothing is stopping you from voluntarily making a donation to your favorite charity. I am talking about the notion that you live for the whim of others, that your life’s purpose is to serve someone else rather than yourself. As long as that twisted moral inversion is the basis of law, we will continue to see more and more intrusions, laws and regulations, regardless of whether the politician has a D. or an R. in front of his name.
….in addition to starting a law firm just to sue Fairey, I also have another life dream: I want to be czar of something. Make me the Invisible Unicorn Czar, if you want, but I want in on this title craze!
Vince, I LOVE that post. You couldn’t be more right about the legislation of morality. Laws ARE the codification of a society’s mores–no more, no less.
I also totally agree with you about confiscation vs. compassion. Forcibly shaking down the producers of wealth is not generosity or compassion; it’s extortion. I’ve seen statistic after statistic showing that Americans of just about every stripe donate more time, money and effort toward helping others, but try slapping confiscatory taxes on those who work, and I bet that trend will reverse itself over time. I don’t believe that even Obama or Pelosi could totally turn Americans into cold misers, but there will definitely be a chilling effect, not only on free speech, but on voluntary giving as well.
This may have started a long time ago, but lately it’s begun to toboggan madly downhill, and that needs some watching.
AAW….I knew there was a mistrust (to put it mildly) in the armed forces with our prez, I just know just how deep it ran. I’ve got a really good friend and ALL of her menfolk are in the Sandbox. Her hubby is a Reserves MP in Iraq, her oldest son is in the Army in Iraq, and her youngest son is a Marine in Afghanistan. They will not talk about how they feel on how BO is handling this other than to say they do not want to leave until the job is done. They could have asked for whatever it is called for family members to not all be in a warzone at the same time, but refused. The oldest son told his CO he did NOT want to be left stateside while he was needed over there.
Meanwhile, our prez acts like he is playing that board game, Risk.
Koka,
My husband will gladly volunteer to fight over there again because he is a patriot and a soldier. He does not like Obama and turns the station when we see him on TV. It is a matter of mistrust and his policies.
Great posts, everyone. Lots of food for thought.
Forget invisible unicorns, Pearce, I’d happily be the Hot Brit Actors Czar.
[Why is 'czar' spelled that way? It transliterates from Russian as 'tsar.' Laziness?]
Czar is Germanic, tzar is Byzantine. That ol’ east vs. west thing again.
You have a point, MC Mom. Hot Brit Actors Czar is definitely the spot to be gunning for…