Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harry Reid smear letter of Rush Limbaugh on eBay

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, as I have not listened to The Rush Limbaugh show in a while. I am a fan of his even though I disagree with a lot of what he has to say, especially the idea that the United State was founded on religious principles, but for someone to have done what he has done and become a success at speaking about issues is remarkable, and I think it should give assurance to more rational speakers wanting to get their own radio show (i.e. some future Objectivist oriented talk show host).

What I heard via my parents who do listen to him almost every day, is that someone claiming to be a soldier having fought in Iraq was stating that American soldiers were routinely murdering Iraqis and raping their women. However, it turns out this guy never served in Iraq as he was kicked out of boot camp -- hence Rush Limbaugh referred to him as a phoney soldier. So, the whole controversy is yet another big lie by government officials.

Even if Rush had done what it was claimed that he did -- called those soldiers who disagreed with our foreign policy "phoney soldiers" -- this is clearly an abuse of many of the Democrats who currently hold power in the Senate. They have no business whatsoever in trying to shut down someone who they disagree with either by putting public pressure on him or by an implied threat of the government officials being against him. I don't think he can be held in contempt of Congress for his replies in writing and over the air, but I wouldn't put it past those in power now to try something like that.

And look how Senator Harry Reid makes reference to the First Amendment, when he and other Democrats want to re-introduce the "Fairness Doctrine" that would effectively put talk radio (as we know it) out of business. I think this smear letter may be a means of trying to assert that, "See, we need government oversight of Talk Radio so we can prevent these sort of lies from being spoken to the public." You know as well as I do that many people will take the Senate action as serious, regardless of the facts; that if the government had to do this against Rush Limbaugh then we had better have the "Fairness Doctrine" back to protect us from the radio owners and speakers -- especially since the Liberals can't get the popularity together like the Conservatives can, so they need a helping handout from the government.

I also wouldn't doubt that those Senators are wringing their hands in glee that Rush Limbaugh will be out $2 million dollars as he vowed to match the winning bid for the document. They couldn't outright fine him, due to the First Amendment, but this will be the next best thing to them; principles notwithstanding.

Rush Limbaugh and other Talk Radio shows, even insofar as they are wrong on many philosophic issues, are fighting for their First Amendment rights; and in so doing are fighting for ours as well. I think we need to make sure that Talk Radio, and the Internet, remain free from government interference (aside from force or fraud); rather than doing what is normally done, siding with regulating Talk Radio and the Internet since other "public airways" are regulated by the government.

This is a landmark issue and will help to determine our future as Objectivists who have something to say. If they can shut down Talk Radio and later the Internet, then how will we get our message out? What means will be left to us to have our voices heard?

I think rational men and women everywhere ought to speak out against this governmental abuse; as it doesn't bode well for our future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then how will we get our message out? What means will be left to us to have our voices heard?

I think rational men and women everywhere ought to speak out against this governmental abuse; as it doesn't bode well for our future.

I am not at ease with this kind of congressional strong arm tactic. HOWEVER, talk radio can be shifted to beam casting and internet. For example Sirius Radio. The net and cable are not regulated under the same laws as set out in the FCC act if 1934 and amended subsequently. Talk Radio can appear in media that are more analagous to the press (which is how internet is handled). What would really set off the fire bells would be an attempt to repeal the First Amendment or alter it radically. At that point the shit will have hit the fan.

The internet blog is, in effect, the talk radio of the current day. It is a forum of opinion and is not regulated by a "fairness" doctrine. The Press was -never- so regulated. The "fairness" doctrine is predicated (mistakenly) on the notion that the electromagnetic broadcast spectrum is a property (or resource) that is publicly owned and is regulated by the government. Whereas the Press is privately owned and is governed only by the laws regarding libel or disclosure of classified data. The Internet is essentially privately owned and operated even though it is available at little or no cost to a wide public. For example, this forum, on which we are both posting, is private property and not subject to direct government regulation (so far, anyway).

Check me to see if I am wrong on this: The Fairness Doctrine (so-called) is only applicable to political campaigning by individuals running for office. It does not apply to general opinions on public issues such as -should abortion be abolished or regulated-, and similar questions.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not at ease with this kind of congressional strong arm tactic. HOWEVER, talk radio can be shifted to beam casting and Internet. For example Sirius Radio. The net and cable are not regulated under the same laws as set out in the FCC act if 1934 and amended subsequently. Talk Radio can appear in media that are more analogous to the press (which is how Internet is handled).

This would effectively amount to a retreat, rather than fighting for the right to free speech on principle.

The government should not be permitted to regulate private speaking on any forum, including radio and television broadcast on the premise that such are "public property" since the radio and television broadcast studios and signals ought to be considered private property.

Whether the "Fairness Doctrine" regulates only political campaigns or speech during political campaigns is not relevant, as the government has no right to regulate the speech of private citizens whatsoever. The First Amendment is there to protect our freedom of speech from those who want to initiate force to keep us quiet, and by regulating the airwaves during political campaigns it is the government that is initiating force.

Besides, they want to expand it to cover anytime anyone mentions a political candidate or someone in office -- the idea that opposing views must be heard or they will attempt to shut down the broadcast. If we permit this to happen, then the government will find some excuse to shift to those forums that are still free; for example on the grounds that it tends to be "Conservatives" who do most of the blogging on the Internet, which is unfair to "Liberals." In other words, there is a power struggle going on between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" -- and the "Liberals" want to initiate force to keep the "Conservatives" from speaking out. That is, Talk Radio is dominated by "Conservatives" and those "Liberals" in power don't like that and want to initiate force to shift the balance.

While neither Conservatives nor Liberals are for freedom across the board -- as they each want to regulate some aspect of the economy -- their power struggle should not be permitted to regulate free speech in any forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While neither Conservatives nor Liberals are for freedom across the board -- as they each want to regulate some aspect of the economy -- their power struggle should not be permitted to regulate free speech in any forum.

The place to draw the Line of Battle is at the First Amendment. That is where to fight and die in necessary. As long as the press and cable/satellite radio and t.v. is unregulated our freedoms are no more endangered than they were when the 16-th amendment was passed. If you want to fight a battle further out, fight to get the 16th amendment repealed.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to hear on this from those who think we should support Democrats in order to counteract the danger from Christians like Rush.

Well, I have a question then for you, and Thomas.

If the tables were turned do you think it would be any different? If a Liberal said something that may be taken as them calling soilders who support the war as phoney soilders, the Conseratives wouldn't do the same exact thing? A congressman wouldn't send an angry letter?

I don't see Harry Reid threaten to shut them down at all either. The letter seens genuinely concerned actually. I'd expect the same response from a Republican senator if a well-known liberal talk radio host was saying something bad about the American soilders.

And don't trump these guys up as defenders of free speech, they call for the government to step in and regulate things too. Look at all the regulation and calls for regulation to defend good Christian family values on the air waves. That's the whole reason we have the FCC.

Plus, if the don't use the government to intiate force then they will, or encourage people too. How? Through smear campaigns, lieing about certain people. That's fraud and it's just as wrong when private citizens do it then when government does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to hear on this from those who think we should support Democrats in order to counteract the danger from Christians like Rush.

That's becoming a very difficult decision to make. But remember, it is an issue of the lesser of two evils. However, in terms of fundamentals, I do think that the Christian Right will do more damage to this country than the Socialist Left, because faith is much more destructive than bad politics. I'm talking in terms of what will be the basis of making decisions for those in political / governmental power (and Rush isn't one of these). If politicians begin making decisions based on faith instead of mangled reason, then this country will begin to move towards an M2 type of floating abstraction government (i. e. a theocracy) which will have no basis in reason for the laws passed -- and one won't be able to argue with them based on facts and reason, because these will be considered irrelevant.

The big question is: How soon will this happen? How soon before major politicians are trying to turn this country into a "City of God" instead of the secular country that it is now? Some politicians are already talking about making this country into a country based on God's Law, which is what led to the Dark Ages for Ancient Rome. So, what is worse, socialism or theocracy? And are we going to have to accept socialism (Hillary Health Care, etc.) in the short run in order to stave off a theocratic government in the long run?

I mean, that's a hell of a choice! Do you want to vote for the guy with a knife at your throat or the guy with a bazooka aimed at you? And maybe this country could recover from a knife wound (even a serious one by the socialists), but could it survive a bazooka blast in the brain (the theocrats)?

The socialists made headway in about 50-75 years, little by little; and I don't see why the theocrats couldn't do likewise in the same amount of time, especially since even those on the Left are jumping on the God wagon.

However, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Hillary. I guess it would depend on how theocratic the Republicans become, and whether or not the theocratic politicians could win the Presidency and both houses. And, of course, there is the Supreme Court to worry about; theocrats in there could cause very serious damage indeed.

Personally, I don't want to be stabbed or be hit by a bazooka blast; that is, the choices are quite dismal. But if the Republicans become explicitly theocratic and want to enact God's Law, they won't be getting my vote, though I might have to hold my nose in voting for the socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have a question then for you, and Thomas.

If the tables were turned do you think it would be any different? If a Liberal said something that may be taken as them calling soilders who support the war as phoney soilders, the Conseratives wouldn't do the same exact thing? A congressman wouldn't send an angry letter?

To a private citizen? There is free speech in this country. Furthermore, and less important, they lied about Rush.

I don't see Harry Reid threaten to shut them down at all either.

No, they had the courage to fight back, and the smarts to know how to get him. They hoist him by his own petard, so to speak.

The letter seens genuinely concerned actually. I'd expect the same response from a Republican senator if a well-known liberal talk radio host was saying something bad about the American soilders.

Reid has no business using the power of Congress to shut anyone up. This is a massive abuse of power.

As to Reid being genuinely "concerned", not a chance. It was a power move, plain and simple. They lied about Rush's position. They made his position up out of whole cloth, and then went after him. This was started by Media Matters, which was started by Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's like to sneakily go after people.

The difference between the democrats and republicans today is that the democrats as a rule are more nihilistic. They don't engage in ideas, rather they seek to destroy people and they don't care about the facts. The problem with republicans is their religion, and the fact this is what appears to be more important to them than does freedom and individual rights.

And don't trump these guys up as defenders of free speech, they call for the government to step in and regulate things too. Look at all the regulation and calls for regulation to defend good Christian family values on the air waves. That's the whole reason we have the FCC.

The difference is that the republicans do it for ideological reasons, while the democrats do it because they don't care about right and wrong, they just want power. Neither one is right, but there is a real difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tables were turned do you think it would be any different? If a Liberal said something that may be taken as them calling soilders who support the war as phoney soilders, the Conseratives wouldn't do the same exact thing? A congressman wouldn't send an angry letter?
Of course they wouldn't. Liberals keep calling soldiers all kinds of names all the time and most Republican politicians never even get the idea of responding to those comments with a counterargument. Repubs are all about compromise and bipartisanship and moving to the middle and giving in and loving their enemies and trying not to seem too "extreme," while 'Rats are all too eager to implement their "principles"--i.e., to seize all the power they can, as fast as they can, never yielding an inch of ground unless they absolutely have to, only tempered by the American voters' innate aversion towards collectivism.And the issue is not that Reid wrote an angry letter. Any politician has a right to write angry letters. However, they do not have a right to demand that the owner of a private radio station publicly repudiate the ideas expressed by a host he has chosen to employ.
faith is much more destructive than bad politics.
Then don't vote for the mystics. Vote for the party of the bad politicians, the pragmatists, the compromisers, the ones who are always only concerned about appeasing their enemies. See above for my take on which party that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...