Got this from Drudge ....

Fox News Channel 4,043,000 viewers
MSNBC 974,000 viewers
Headline News 842,000 viewers
CNN 826,000 viewers

Hey ... CNN! How's that ban on radio talk show hosts as guests working out for you? Fourth place! You folks are HOT! Oh ... and is it any wonder that the ACORN Administration absolutely HATES Fox News? Seems the people in this country don't share that hatred.

Boortz on Twitter ... @Talkmaster Tweeting irreverent thoughts during the show. Here's a taste.

Barack Obama says that he isn't losing any sleep over Fox News. I'll buy it. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are a lot of Obama officials and dogwashers who lose plenty of sleep over the fact that Fox News is VERY effective at poking holes in their White House bubble. But the latest comments actually come from the president himself. Obama says that Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio."

Here's the full quote: "I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes ... And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

Here again we see The Community Organizer focusing on three shows: Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. Two currently have talk shows. O'Reilly had one, but got his ass kicked in the ratings. So once again let's make this point: Obama's gripe with Fox News is with the opinion and commentary shows, not the news shows. It might be nice if someone would sit The Community Organizer down and try to explain to him the difference between news and opinion. Hey, PrezBO .. you're never too old to learn!

Because it's effective, that's why. I'm really enjoying this orchestrated Obama Administration attack on Fox News. It's the same old story line ... Fox News is biased. And it's the same old flawed story line. To prove bias these leftists continually invoke the name of Hannity, O'Reilly or Beck. These, in case you haven't figured it out, are opinion shows.

During the presidential campaign I challenged my listeners to come up with an example of biased reporting in any of the NEWS content on Fox News. They couldn't.

The left is so accustomed to controlling the media they just can't stand it when someone strays off the reservation.. and does it with such devastating effectiveness. Remember, Fox News has ratings way and above those of CNN. It's no wonder the left is upset.

Plus, Fox News isn't just bad, it's unamerican.

OK, so Chicago lost its Olympic bid. Big stinking surprise, right? There they were, Barack, Michelle and Oprah, traveling all the way to Copenhagen (on the taxpayer's dollar) to schmooze on behalf of the windy city, and Rio gets the Olympics. Maybe Oprah should have bought every member of the IOC a nice shiny new car. It really was rather sad to see that rock band up there in front of a few thousand Chicagoans trying to figure out what to play after the announcement was made. Any suggestions? How does that tune go.....?

Chicago!

Chicago!

We got our butts kicked.

Oh well, here's my problem. This got really absurd real quick last Friday afternoon. Across the web and the radio dial this whole Chicago/Olympics debacle suddenly became the sole and exclusive fault of just one man ... Barack Obama. He was the reason .. and the only reason .. that Chicago lost out.

Are you kidding me?

Let's consider some other possible reasons. First ... I went through the names of the members of the International Olympic Committee. Now this is probably not accurate because some of these gender-bending international names are hard to figure out; but I put it at about 89 men and about 17 women, give or take one or two of each, and maybe a few GLBTC types in there as well. Now ... have you been to Chicago? Have you seen the women there? Fine. They're OK, by Chicago Standards. And no ... Catherine Zeta Jones does NOT live in Chicago. Now ... have you been to Rio? Nuff said, right? Do the math; 89 men, 17 women voting on whether to hang out for the next seven years in Chicago or Rio. Now just how difficult is that?

Another comparison: Navy Pier to Rio's beaches.

Then there's the possibility that the president actually did make a difference when he went rushing off to Copenhagen; a negative difference. Not, however, because it was President Obama, but because it was the President of the United States. Look; many foreign countries are a bit weary of what they view as America throwing its weight around. Naturally, if they're attacked or buried under an avalanche or tsunami they would just LOVE to see some weighty American money thrown around ... but unless there's danger at the doorstep they want us to stay in the background for a change. Now I may see this as a dangerous policy, but I don't count. Perhaps the IOC saw a presidential visit as some sort of a mandate. Here's the American President over here telling us what to do again. Let's show him we can't be pushed around. Sure, some other heads of state made the pitch as well, but these buffoons couldn't get a Home Depot to move in, let alone an Olympics.

Then there's the Chicago reputation itself. Let's face it, Chicago is not known as the city of lights. I happen to love the place, but overseas Chicago is gangsters. It's Al Capone. It's the St. Valentine's Day massacre and Elliot Ness. Also .. even though I love visiting Chicago, once that jerk Daily plowed under Meigs I've wanted his butt in my briefcase. This isn't it, but it's good enough. Too bad Chicago had to suffer with him.

The point here is that a lot of conservatives are keeping themselves busy looking for a way to blame everything that is negative in their lives or every bad thing that happens to anyone who lives in or is associated with our country on Barack Obama. I think Obama is a dangerous man. Anyone who believes that America's greatness comes from government is dangerous to freedom. We have a community organizer who's primary political flirtation during his college years was with Marxism. I truly believe that this could be the man who ultimately destroys the dreams of our founding fathers.

Obama is dangerous and must be watched. Those who value freedom and independence would be well advised to chose their fights with Obama and the Social-Democrat Party well. If an alarm is sounded every time he scowls or steps on a crack then America's uneducated dumb masses will completely stop paying attention. A lot of political capital has been wasted ranting about something that really, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't make all that much of a difference; that being whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics. When a true threat comes along, how do we get the attention of a weary public? Let's forget this Olympics thing. It's over. The only real losers here are the corrupt Chicago political class that undoubtedly would have cashed in on this big time, and the unions that most certainly would have controlled every square foot of Olympic-related construction.

We could have a problem though. Isn't there a huge Jesus statue looking down on Rio? I guess the ACLU is going to have to get busy getting that thing removed before our athletes will be allowed to carry an American Flag during the opening ceremony.

The left thinks it has come up with a new and powerful weapon to use against those who oppose their plans; especially their plans for nationalized health care. The first salvo came from the Aging Hollow-eyed Hippie from Haight-Ashbury, none other than Princess Nancy. A few more Democrats fell in line immediately. Then came someone not really know beyond the radio realm, talk radio consultant Holland Cooke writing for the leftist Daily Kos website. Now we have a member of America's Royal Family, Congressman Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island.

Kennedy now joins Pelosi, Cooke, assorted Democrats and others in delivering the dire warning that opposition to ObamaCare is going to lead to violence. Oh ... and of course he singles our "right wing talk shows."

"I will note that there were a number of prominent security people in this country who spoke very openly this past week that ... that there are consequences in terms of trying to protect public officials. There are consequences to violent rhetoric. Some people can see through TV ratings and right-wing talk show hosts that just try to create some theater, but unfortunately, there are some that can't see through it. And that's the danger in it. There is definitely freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not allow yelling 'fire' in the middle of a crowded movie theater."

Well, just leave it to this logically-challenged Kennedy lightweight to use that "fire in a crowded theatre" stuff. So voicing opposition to nationalized health care is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre?" Drawing on 40 years of politically-oriented discussions here; I can tell you that when you hear that phrase you know you are dealing with an intellectual lightweight.

Every time the left starts wringing its hands over the potential for violence due to the opposition to their big-government plans they mention talk radio. This, of course, stems from their visceral hatred of talk radio. They have pretty effective control over the mainstream media and thought this would be enough. They see, however, that day-by-day more people are abandoning their precious New York Times and Washington Post and turning to Internet sources and (gasp!) talk radio. They trace much of the opposition, and perhaps the ultimate failure of their cap-and-tax plan and nationalized health care to evil talk show hosts. They've tried talk radio themselves, but continue to be miserable failures. Somehow talk radio must be brought under control .. and they have a plan.

Here's the game. This is a giant and seemingly well-coordinated set up. Kennedy, Pelosi et al, are waiting for some act of violence. It might be a shove or someone throwing a shoe at a press conference or town hall meeting. Someone with an anti-ObamaCare sign might take a swing at some purple-shirted SEIU goon giving them a hard time at a demonstration. It could be something worse. But if and when it happens the Democrats and their media supporters will come out of the gates with a vengeance blaming talk radio. In the days that follow the left will demand action ... something will just have to be done to reign in these dangerous talk radio hosts before the violence spreads.

Watch it play out, folks. Then tune in for my "I told you so."

Back in the 90s when news broke about Billy's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary came up with this line about a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Remember that? All this was just a plot of the vast right-wing conspiracy to ruin her husband's presidency! Well it seems as though Barack Obama, too, is going to suffer at the hands of the evil right-wing conspirators. That is, according to Bill Clinton.

Clinton says that the right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on Barack Obama. He says that "their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

See, this is a typical Clinton way of thinking. When things start to go downhill, blame it all on the vast right-wing conspiracy!

Barack Obama can't get healthcare legislation passed, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't commit more troops to Afghanistan, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stand up to Iran or Russia or Venezuela or North Korea, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't convince the American public that we must pass global warming legislation, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stimulate our economy to create more jobs, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Are you starting to understand how this works now, folks?

Well ... you really showed up over the weekend. Those of you who participated in the Tea Party protest in Washington sure did make a splash. You are to be congratulated. You did it! You showed up in numbers that not only surprised the DC police, but that I suspect shocked the political class. I was at an event last evening where I had a chance to shoot the breeze with both of Georgia's U.S. Senators. Let me tell you, my friends ... you've made an impact. There will be a lot of Senators and Representatives heading back to their Capitol Hill offices today trying to figure out just what this tremendous showing means.

The White House seems to already have it figured out. Presidential dog-washer David Axelrod said yesterday that the people who showed up in Washington yesterday "don't represent mainstream American views." So ... there you have it.

I'll tell you who else is surprised. That would be the New York and Washington press corps. As my father would have said, "They didn't know whether to s___ or go blind." (Where did these Marines get all of these colorful sayings?) The media, you see, has an ideological platform to support; and trying to give the appearance of presenting an objective picture of what happened media in Washington over the weekend, while protecting their ideological platform, turned out to be almost impossible.

The first issue to come up was the parsing down of the crowd size. Many lamestream media outlets described the protest as "thousands." Then it grew to "tens of thousands." But in fact, the number could have been as high as 1.5 million protestors. Sadly, it took a British newspaper to report the higher figure. To visually see how many people showed up in Washington, take a look at this time lapse video. Pretty neat, huh?

Also take a look at two instances that occurred on CNN, while trying to cover the Tea Party protests over the weekend. The first is CNN trying to do a story on Rep. Joe Wilson:

Toward the end of the live broadcast, the anchor just turns around to address the crowd because she is being drowned out by the protestors. The next is CNN interviewing a Tea Party protestor. You can tell exactly what this anchor is thinking, but this protestor handled himself with civility and eloquence.

If you ask Obama or his advisors like David Axelrod ... they will tell you that this DC protest does not represent the mainstream view in America. That's also what they said over the month of August for people who voiced their opinions at the healthcare town halls. This is the strategy of the left: marginalize the outcry. Make them feel isolated. It's harder to fight something if you feel that you are alone.

If you really want some change in Washington, you can't let Washington and the mainstream media marginalize you in this manner. You have to continue this sentiment through next year's election and beyond.

My question: Was this a moment or a movement. If this is truly a movement, you have to keep the momentum going through election time because that is when you can really make a change.

We can hope, can't we?

We are still experiencing some liberal derangement syndrome over the resignation of "green jobs czar" Van Jones. It wasn't hard to predict that the whole mess would end up being about race. Mary Mitchell of the Chicago-Sun Times offers this:

"Ironically, Beck isn't looking for evidence of corruption or malfeasance. He's apparently hunting for rhetoric that would scare the bejeebies out of white folks, many of whom have never had a conversation with a black person ...

"The Beck attack is the same strategy that right-wing conservative radio and TV hosts used during the Obama campaign.

"After finding video of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright using harsh language to describe race relations in this country, the hosts at Fox News had a field day.

"Jones is being sacrificed in the same way the Rev. Wright was sacrificed.

"Ironically, Beck, who had the gall to call the president of the United States a racist, is using the race card to alarm whites.

"African Americans aren't the ones who are crying because Obama has a platform to talk to all of America's children about doing well in school.

"And African Americans aren't losing sleep at night worrying that radicals have taken over the White House.

"Although the Obama administration has bent over backward trying to gain the acceptance of distrustful whites, so far it isn't happening.

"Beck and people like him can't seem to accept that John McCain lost the election and a black man and the people of his choosing are running the country.

"Given the critical battle under way over health care, Jones did the right thing.

"But let's stop pretending that the fierce opposition from the right isn't racism.

It is."

Just hold on folks .. you're going to see more and more of this. As Obama's popularity dips .. .and more and more people begin to doubt the wisdom of his plans for massive government expansion and retribution toward the private sector, the Obama defenders are going to run to the refuge of race. After all, they have years of practice here. Whenever someone who happens to be black encounters opposition to a policy idea ... those who disagree are charged with racism. It's childish, moronic and inevitable. Get used to it. It will become standard fare with Obama.

You'll see an article in the reading assignments where Charles Krauthammer says that ObamaCare 1.0 is dead. Perhaps so, and if that's the case those evil, hate-spewing, conservative, Nazi right-wing talk show hosts had better watch their backs.

I'm guessing the looters will retaliate ... big time. They've enacted a little boycott of Glenn Beck that has sent his Fox TV ratings through the roof. They must hate that, but you know they won't learn from it. My guess is that you're going to see a widely-organized leftist attack on all companies, big and small, that dare to advertise on conservative talk radio shows. Some companies (Bose comes to mind) will cave. But other advertisers will rush in to fill in the gaps as the ratings for these shows go up.

The death of ObamaCare must be avenged. I'm watching my back.

Yesterday I (@talkmaster) suggested on Twitter that someone should do a poll: Which would you rather have? (1) Swine Flu, or (2) ObamaCare. Here are some responses:

@rachelburks - I will take my chances with the swine flu.

@shizelbs - Swine flue without a doubt.

@ContractHdwGirl - Definetly the swine flu.

@hoss7071 - I would rather have the swine flu. Unlike ObamaCare, swine flu is something I have a chance of getting rid of.

I loved our marginally-intelligent HHS Secretary telling us yesterday that the Swine Flu is so dangerous because it is a new strain and most people don't have immunity. Well ... here's a flash for you. Every year we have a new flu strain and every year people don't have immunity. Duhhhhhh.

I'll be constantly throwing out tweets during the show. Some will make sense.

• Carbonite Rules! I head about it on your show. Been having some issues. Tonight, computer nuked itself. Carbonite saved me!
• Breaking news: Vikings are expected to receive $4500 from the Federal Govt under the cash for clunkers quarterback program.
• Neal, you gotta love this. I'm at Wal-Mart, in line behind a woman who is using food stamps while talking on her iPhone

Follow @Talkmaster on Twitter.

We will see if this one actually passes the smell test. A CNN spokesperson confirmed with TVNewswer that, "CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts. 'Complex issues require world class reporting,' Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is 'all too predictable.'" Apparently some hosts like Lou Dobbs and Bill Bennett and Roland Martin will not be affected by this.

I tell you what the problem is here. The problem isn't that talk radio hosts are "adding to the noise" it is that they are producing the "wrong" kind of noise for CNN. It isn't that talk radio hosts are "all too predictable" it is that some of us dare to ask the questions and push the topics that the lamestream media often chooses to ignore. I'm not talking about subjects like Barack Obama's birth certificate, but I am talking about simple truths ... like the fact that Barack Obama could never offer a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes. It's little truths like that that the lamestream media can't stand.

CNN is sucking in the ratings big time. This isn't going to help.

If talk show hosts are to be banned by CNN ... then this is one talk show host that will no longer watch CNN. Period. End of story. They could be showing live coverage of Barack Obama carjacking an old lady on the Beltway and the ensuing chase, and I would chose to watch The Billy Mays Story instead.

Truth is that in my worst hours I have many more listeners than CNN has viewers. If I banned someone from my show ... now THAT would be news.

Now I'm not asking you to do or not to do anything .... I'm just saying .......

Ok, I had seen the headlines proclaiming this to be the worst interview anyone has seen in a long time. So naturally, I had to check it out for myself. After watching this grueling eight minutes of Lawrence O'Donnell filling in for my buddy, Ed Schultz, I would have to agree.

Here's the set up. Lawrence O'Donnell was filling in for Ed on his TV show on MSNBC. O'Donnell's usual gig is as a political analyst for MSNBC. He was interviewing potential Senatorial candidate Peter Schiff. He is going to oppose Chris Dodd in the 2010 election. Now, from the little bit that Peter Schiff gets out of his mouth, you can gather that he is not a big fan of government. That's my kind of guy. But the fact that he could hardly get a word in edgewise is pathetic.

How long do you think this O'Donnell guy would last with a talk radio show?

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez isn't particularly fond with the idea of freedom of expression. Well, big surprise there. Most despots aren't. The more someone wants to control the people, the more they want the free flow of information slowed down or stopped. When tyrants seize control the first place their henchmen go is to the newspapers and broadcast stations.

It's no secret that the left in this country wants to shut down the free flow of information ... and that goes triple for the free flow of information from the hated conservative talk radio hosts. The left's hatred of talk radio is intense .. so intense it almost has a physical presence. The left's hatred of talk radio is rooted in (a) their utter and miserable failure to succeed in the genre; (b) the fact that talk radio is the most popular format in radio; and (c) their dismay over the fact that virtually all of the truly successful talk radio hosts are and have been conservatives.

Now if you read the newspapers over the weekend you will have noted that Hugo the Horrible is in the process of shutting down radio stations in Venezuela. He's going to close 34 to begin the process. Certainly there will be more. These radio stations have been a principal voice of opposition to his socialist policies. Chavez, of course, doesn't want to simply state that he's turning off these stations because they oppose his policies. That would be just a bit too obvious. So he's come up with an excuse; a word that will fly with his supporters. He calls it "democratization." He says that these stations now "belong to the people and not the bourgeoisie." Chavez' attorney general, Luisa Ortega, probably said it better: "Freedom of expression," she said, "must be limited."

Liberals in the United States must be green with envy. They've worked for so many years to promote this asinine concept of "the public's airwaves" as an excuse for control over the free flow of information over radio and TV. Now Hugo their Hero is shutting down the opposition media in Venezuela. Why can he do that there, they wonder, when we can't here?

Well .. take heart my statist friends. Don't think for a moment that your champions in Washington aren't working as hard as they can to rein in these evil conservative talk shows in the U.S. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is, for now, a dead issue. It's just a bit too transparent, and there's the courts to worry about. So the left has come up with a nifty new idea: Community advisory boards. The left can't be quite as bold as Chavez was, but there are still ways to shut down conservative talk. The idea here is to institute some new FCC regulations requiring radio stations to appoint community advisory boards in the markets they serve. You can rest assured that the left will create regulations that will guarantee that these advisory boards will be left-leaning. I can envision requirements to make sure that each board is represented by labor leaders, members of government employee unions, civil rights activists and assorted advocates for various grievance-based community factions. The Democrats will also pass some new regulations shortening the term of a radio station license to three years, and requiring an affirmative response from that particular station's community advisory board before the license is renewed. A bad report card from the advisory board would, at worst, result in the denial of a license renewal; and, at best, the imposition of a fine against the radio station ... the proceeds of which would go to National Public Radio. This, of course, will cause the radio stations to pander to the advisory boards instead of worrying about programming that will attract the greatest number of listeners with money to spend.

As you watch the spectacle in Venezuela, know this: If the left in this country thought for one minute that they could get away with a similar program here, they wouldn't hesitate to move. Liberals are failures at the talk radio venue because they are unable to present and promote their ideas in the face of an onslaught of fact and rational thought. The only weapon they have left is the government's unique access to force. Look for them to use it when they get a chance.

The Talkmaster has been twittering from vacation. Just in case you don't follow him and don't check the boortz.com home page, here are his latest updates. This is also the place you can make fun of him for using twitter.

An FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, has an internal report which examines the state of media journalism. The report discusses, "ways to address issues such as the rise of media conglomerates and the prevalence of opinion journalism." Known as the Notification of Inquiry, this is the first step the FCC usually takes when making new rules to regulate media.

As you can imagine, the report talks about the decline of traditional media and the rise of others such as blogging. But there are a few ideas that I want to point out. These are ideas that are circulating in the FCC and could have potential impact on yours truly, not to mention the basic concept of freedom of the press.

One idea presented in the report is using the tax code as an incentive to help struggling news outlets. We are talking about either tax breaks or government handouts. See politicians love to do that .. use the tax code to punish or entice. That is why they are so resistant to ideas like the FairTax - because it would remove this powerful weapon from their arsenal. Consider this ... if the government creates a system of government tax breaks or handouts for various elements of the media, don't you just know that media outlets that are more friendly to Obama will get the goodies? After all, that's the way its working with stimulus funding. If your area voted Obama you're more likely to get help. Here we will have government bureaucrats picking media winners and losers. Some Americans see the danger in that.

Another issue floated in the report is the possibility of "behavior rules" for broadcasters. I love this one. All we know as of right now is that "behavioral rules" might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest - as defined by government.

Look ... despots know they need to control the dissemination of information to their people. They already have their control over our education processes .. now control over information is next.

You can see the despot's desire to control broadcasting in his words. Copps says, "Since we still need broadcasters to contribute to the democratic dialogue, we need clear standards that can be fairly but vigorously enforced ... It is time to say 'Good-bye' to post-card renewal every eight years and 'Hello' to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth."

Talk radio is shaping up to be the primary gathering point for opposition to Obama's grand government schemes. This is not going to go unchallenged. Obama will most certainly shut us down if he can find a way to do so.

I hope that you got the chance to see the exchange yesterday at White House press briefing. Robert Gibbs starts to get really flustered when a CBS reporter continues to hound him over the fact that Obama town hall events are completely staged. There are no "random" questions from the audience. Everything is pre-selected, every question is screened, etc. So this reporter calls him out on it, and then Helen Thomas gets involved. She says that she has never seen this level of control in the White House before. And if anyone should know, Helen Thomas would.

I just LOVE that woman!

If the White House wants to get a message out, how do you go about doing that? Apparently the answer to that question is now: have Ashton Kutcher twitter about it.

Seriously.

The White House wanted to get the word out about National HIV Testing Day. So what did they do? They contacted Ashton Kutcher. The guy has over 2.5 million followers on Twitter. So they asked him to tweet about National HIV Day.

You can read this article that appears on Salon.com. The article highlights all of the crazy conspiracy theories cooked up by the evil right-wing! The article also documents who has been spreading these "myths." Mind you, I am not a Republican and I am surely not at the top of the talk radio pecking order ... but these people didn't even bother to include me. Go figure. But I'll just give you an example of this list:

Myth: The president wants to raise my taxes.

What they believe: No matter what he may have said on the campaign trail, many conservatives are convinced President Obama's secret agenda now that he's in office is to suck every last cent out of hard-working Americans through tax increases. The anti-tax tea parties on April 15 vividly displayed this widely held belief. Granted, some who attended the events exist on the political fringes, but many notable Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina were also big tea-party supporters.

Who's been spreading it: CNBC's Rick Santelli won fame for his trading-floor conniptions, but he didn't start the tea-party movement or the post-inauguration antitax groundswell. (A whole cadre of conservatives has been warning about Obama's desire for higher taxes. In addition to Gingrich, Perry and Sanford, other right-wing luminaries such as Michelle Malkin and Dick Armey have also propagated the tax myth. However, give credit where credit is due: Unquestionably, the unofficial sponsor of the "Obama is going to raise my taxes" movement has been Fox News. Fox on-air personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity steadily warned their audience of promoted the tea party demonstrations with unbridled gusto and Fox Business has the impending Obama tax hike.

What is real: Obama will raise taxes -- just not on most of the people who are worried about it. For those who make under $250,000 a year (the vast majority of Americans), Obama's tax plan will either lower income taxes or leave those taxes unchanged. The tax increases, which by most estimates amount to $1 trillion over 10 years, are targeted at the incomes of top-tier earners, as well as their capital gains and itemized deductions, such as charitable donations. Obama wants to use the increased tax revenues to pay for healthcare, as well as the soaring national debt and the two wars his predecessor started. Making the myth even more ridiculous is that even with Obama's tax raise on the wealthy, the top tax rate in the nation will still be far lower than it was during the reign of Ronald Reagan, that great beacon of conservative economic policy.

Reality ... there are many ways to raise taxes. Obama's wonderful plan to raise taxes on the evil SOBs who earn more than $250,000 a year amounts to a plan to raise taxes on America's small businesses. These small businesses account for about 70% of all existing jobs, and about 80% of all new jobs. Here's the dirty little secret. The owners of these small businesses report their business income on their personal tax returns. These small businesses represent a huge percentage of the people who report those earnings over $250,000 a year. Obama wants you to believe that his tax increases will simply be taxing people who make over $250K a year. The reality is that he will be taxing these small business owners. And how will they respond? One way would be to raise prices. Pass those tax increases off to the consumers. Government-educated myrmidons don't really see price increases as tax increases, but that's the reality. If the tax increases can't be passed off in the price structure, they will be passed on in wage limitations for employees, or even a reduction in employment figures.

Are you starting to see how useful government education is to the looters? Obama can repeat his "no tax increases on those making less than $250,000" a year line, and the government-educated dupes buy it. Isn't it time for you to look beyond the headlines a bit and try to figure out what is really going on?

A Fox News Channel crew visited me in the studio yesterday. They wanted my comments on the closing of Bowen Homes in Atlanta. I understand that Bowen Homes, a breeding ground for crime, is this city's last welfare housing project. Residents are going to be given vouchers to be used in finding a place to live elsewhere in the city.

I knew when they came to me for a opinion that it would never be aired ... and it would seem that I was right. My feelings here are what you might call somewhat politically incorrect.

Let's keep Bowen Homes. Let's keep the parasites and crime breeders right where they are so we can watch them. Why spread this culture of crime and dependency throughout the city? I told Fox news that people who are looking to rent an apartment or condo should always inquire about the presence of Section 8 housing in the neighborhood. For the most part, you don't want these people around. They do nothing to enhance your living experience. They bring nothing to your neighborhood but crime and drugs.

Any wonder I didn't (so far as I know) end up on any Fox newscast?

The economy has hit broadcasting just as every other industry out there. Advertising revenue is down and people - damned good people--are being laid off. In one sense it doesn't seem logical. When business is bad you advertise to bring more customers through the door. Our weasels are trying hard to get that message across .... But in some cases the money just isn't there.

Well ... the Democrats have a solution. A solution, that is, if you're not a broadcast company owned by a white male. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (SC) is one of the preeminent race pimps in Congress. Every issue has a racial component for Clyburn. Clyburn has teamed together with Slobbering Barney and tax-cheat Charles Rangel to urge the Treasury Department to start spending some of that bailout money to minority-owned broadcasters.

If you're a broadcasting company owned by a white male you need not apply.

We'll just rely on your comments here. You pretty well know what I might have to say about this.

The headline from the Associated Press reads "5 Miami men convicted of Sears Tower attack plot". Read the story here ... then click back.

There ... did you notice anything. Though at the end of the story you'll see some references to al Qaeda .. nowhere in the story are these men identified as Muslims; and yes .. they were all Muslims. Another story identified them as "members of an apparent militaristic religious sect", but not Muslims.

Radical Muslims can rant all week long about their intentions to kill as many Americans as possible and to bring destruction to our shores, but for heaven's sake we simply cannot identify these people for what and who they are. That would just be oh so insensitive and offensive, wouldn't it?

The Media Research Center did an analysis of the lamestream media's coverage of Obama's first 100 days. Guess what? Turns out that they have done a great job of sending tingles up their legs but a lousy job acting as watchdogs.

MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Here are some of the interesting, though not surprising, things that they found:

- Obama's first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama's policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term "socialist" to describe Obama.

- Not only that, network reporters never used the word "liberal" to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.

- The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.

- In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget -- with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit -- four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.

- Reporters treated Obama's hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).

- The networks applauded Obama's decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).

- Network coverage of Obama's mortgage bailout was also positive -- 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.

- Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President's actions on global warming (78% positive).

- President Obama's decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage -- a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush's successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.

- Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the "infuriated" reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians' grandstanding (16).

- The networks spent days decrying AIG's $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.

They made him. They must support him.

(From Breitbart.com)

Happy ending for the muggers? I like the word "fends".

Fox News .. being the evil right-wing network that it is ... has actually turned down yet another PrezBO does Prime Time press conference. The administration requested that networks air his 100 day address to the nation during primetime on Wednesday, and Fox News turned it down.

Man does this have the liberal thongs in a wad! That means, of course, that I love it.

We don't need another tradition here. The media is already compelled to carry a state of the union address every year .. and valuable broadcast time is surrendered to the governing authorities several times a year to make room for their propaganda. That, mis amigos, is zactly what this Obama speech will be - propaganda. In years past it has been the province of the media to grade the president on the first 100 days. Obama has already tried to turn this around by having his spokesperson grade the press. Ha ha. Laughed my codpiece off. Now Obama wants to grab the news cycle by doing his own 100-day critique, and Fox News is the only outlet (thus far) to say no. Good show.

Obama's 100 day mark is approaching rapidly. But don't you worry .. the lamestream media has already had their '100 day round-up' stories ready for months. In fact, they probably started writing them when Obama was inaugurated. To the statest media in this country, Obama really can't do wrong. No matter what he did or didn't accomplish in this first 100 days, he was going to be compared to the likes of Abraham Lincoln and FDR. He was going to be praised for bringing 'change' to Washington.

Did you happen to see the AP article written by Ron Fournier and Trevor Tompson? Apparently Americans are "high" on Barack Obama and the direction he is taking this country. What? Is PrezBO a controlled substance? Would that it be so!

Are you freaking kidding me? We are talking about a man who has spent trillions of dollars within the first months of his presidency, made America look weak on the world stage, grins at dictators, can't say good morning to his wife without a teleprompter and is over-seeing the largest expansion of the imperial federal government in the history of this nation. You want me to believe that most people out there are OK with this? The parasite/looter class, maybe. Unfortunately, they're making up a bigger and bigger percentage of the total as we go.

I know exactly why Americans are so high on Obama and on the direction of the United States. Government schools. No, seriously, folks. Government schools teach our children to love government. What else would you expect government schools to do? Preach the benefits of the private sector? The people that run these schools are government-trained government employees. What else are they going to do other than teach that government can be the solution to all your problems. That you can rely on the government when you fall on hard times or if you are one of those 'less fortunate' people in this country. Our students are being bred to become Democrat voters .. and Democrats typically adore government. So they don't recognize the hideous job Obama and Pelosi have done thus far.

The pro-Democrat media doesn't help, either. Take a look at some of the language of this AP article. The idolization is comical.

For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.

Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance ...

So far, Obama has defied the odds by producing a sustained trend toward optimism. It began with his election.

Did you catch all of the words in there? Change ... inspire ... optimism ... yes-we-can spirit ... strong.

I shouldn't be too surprised, though, based on the level of intelligence of the average Obama voter.

Cristina Kirchner of Argentina is really making some waves lately. Just a few months ago, she proposed the idea of nationalizing all private pension plans in her country. (Coming soon to the US, if I don't miss my guess.) Now, she wants an overhaul of the media laws in her country ... and there is a lot of suspicion that she wants to change the laws in order to punish the largest media group in Argentina and silence her critics during an upcoming election campaign.

What she wants to do is reduce the control of a few companies that dominate broadcasting. More specifically, she wants to limit the number of broadcast licenses one company can hold locally and nationally, increase the number of soccer games shown on free channels instead of pay-TV, and guarantee a share of the airwaves for nonprofit groups.

This woman is a despot. Despots learn that you must control the media. Despots talk of such things as the "Fairness Doctrine." Watch her, she's dangerous and Obama likes her.

I hope that by now, the name Susan Roesgen is a household name. I hope it is a name that is equated with idiocy. I'm sorry, folks. There is no other way to put it. Her little tirade at the tea parties the other day was an embarrassment for CNN.

A blogger has now released footage of what happened after Susan Roesgen decided that her tea party coverage was "no longer suitable for family viewing" .... It seems as though the tea party protestors had their way with her. Gotta love it. Warning: bad words.

Also ... if you're wondering why Roesgen targeted Fox News in her rant, this might clear that up for you. About once a week Drudge profiles the ratings for the cable news networks. Here, through the magic of cut-and-paste, is the latest:

Total viewers Wednesday from 8:00 to 11:00 PM:

FOXNEWS 3,390,000
MSNBC 1,210,000
CNN 1,070,000
CNN HEADLINE 909,000

See that? Fox News has three times plus the viewers that CNN draws in. And you wonder why CNN takes shots at Fox?

Viewership for specific shows:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000

So now you know why Anderson Cooper was grumbling about the tea parties. Looks like he's feeding on the bottom of the fish tank here.

This information came from an radio industry email overnight. We've learned something that we already knew. A lot of people out there have a rough time accepting responsibility for their own actions. If you spend too much ... if you run up a huge balance on your credit card ... it just must be somebody's else's fault, right?

It would seem that this is so. A new Harris Poll tells us that most - not just some, but most ... Americans believe the media is in some part responsible for the current economic crisis. And how would that be? Because the media, through advertising, made these poor pitiful people go out there and buy things they couldn't afford. Fifty-four percent of these Americans actually blame talk shows as having some responsibility.

Some specific findings from Harris:

• Ad agencies took the brunt of the blame, with 66% of people saying they believe the agencies are somewhat responsible and 33% attributing complete or a great deal of responsibility.
• Print media, including newspapers and magazines, are the next most culpable, with 59% of Americans pointing a finger at the medium.
• Other media that got shares of the blame include news and information Web sites (56%), cable news programs (54%) and networks and local news programs (53%).

This brings smiles to those handsome leftist faces out there. The mantra of the left is that people cannot be held responsible for their actions and that government, therefore the government must be there to take care of them.

The more you think about this the more depressing it gets.

I am not sure that anything can top the idiotic coverage of the Chicago tea party by CNN's Susan Roesgen. But here's something to last you through the weekend.

John Zeigler went to ask questions outside an event hosted by USC's Annenberg School of Journalism. The event was a ceremony honoring Katie Couric with the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism. I know, I know ... you can stop laughing. So at this event, hosted by a journalism school, to honor excellence in journalism, take a look at what happens to John Zeigler.

Link:

I was wondering yesterday how the media would be responding to these anti-tax rallies across the country yesterday. I suggested that the leftist media would be presenting the protestors as rightwing extremist nut jobs who were motivated by greed and wanted to make sure that none of their money was ever used to help the (ugh) "less fortunate."

So, how did it turn out? Have you heard about this CNN reporter named Susan Roesgen? If you have the time and want to listen to her report from the Chicago tea-party you can click right here or watch below. If not, well ... let me tell you. This Roesgen person was, as I said, covering the Chicago rally. She picked out a rather inarticulate person from the crowd: "Ok, you're here with your 2-year-old ... why are you here today?" The protester said that he was here today because he heard the president say that he believed what Lincoln stood for and he then tried to explain Lincoln's attitude toward taxes. Rather than interviewing this guy, Roesgen started to argue with him: "Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" Then she asked "Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit ...?" At that point the man said "let me finish my point?"

Wait a minute! Read that again? This guy is protesting taxes, and this ignoranus CNN reporter asks him if he realizes that he is eligible for some type of $400 credit? What is she saying? I'll tell you what she's saying. This guy shouldn't be protesting taxes because he's going to be getting a check!

The interview proceeds. The man says that Lincoln believed that people had a right to the fruits of their own labor and that "government should not take it." Roesgen then stuck her finger in his face and said "Do you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion dollars out of this stimulus, that's $50 billion dollars for this state." At this point someone in the crowd says something and the man becomes a bit frustrated. Roesgen turns away and starts talking to the anchor. Now listen to this gem from this wonderful, objective CNN reporter:

"OK, Cara, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government. Anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network Fox, and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing it's time to come back to you Cara."

The CNN anchor ... Cara or Kara or whatever ... then says "Wow, that is a prime example of what we're covering here. Susan pointed out everything plain and clear what she's dealing with."

Well .. there you have it. These tax protestors are "anti-government." The don't want to be taxed out of fifty percent of everything they earn .. and they're anti-government. They're also anti-CNN. Where did THAT come from? Do you know that Pew research did a poll last year and found that more Democrats and independents watch Fox News than Republicans? But to Susan Roesgen Fox is right wing and conservative.

The fact is Roesgen was saying just what the Democrats wanted her to say. Last night the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was reporting that "...critics -- especially Democrats -- have labeled the gatherings as frauds created by Republican advocacy groups with the backing of deep-pocketed lobbyists and Fox News." Yup ... these idiots at these rallies couldn't possibly have opinions of their own. They're just a creation of the Republican Party and Fox. Roesgen handled the Democrat message a little clumsily ... but handle it she did.

It was also rather odd that when Roesgen would look into the camera when she was talking about stimulus checks for Illinois. Why? Because she was making her own statement. She was the person being interviewed ... not the actual protestor. She wasn't really that interested in what this guy had to say ... she had her own opinions and she wanted to make sure they got aired.

There you have it folks. This is the way much of the liberal media will be covering the protests today. These are anti-government right-wing kooks

That ShamWow guy on television? You know, the one with the idiotic pointy hairdo? Well, it seems he's been arrested. OK .. here's how it went down:

1. The ShamWow guy is Vince Shlomi.
2. Vince picks up Sasha in a Miami Beach night spot
3. Sasha is a working girl. That means she's a hooker.
4. Vince takes Sasha to his hotel room
5. Vince pays Sasha $1000 for "straight sex."
6. At some point during the "straight sex" Sasha bites Vince's tongue
7. Sasha won't let go
8. Vince is hurting mighty bad
9. Vince slugs Sasha
10. Sasha screams and releases tongue
11. Vince runs like hell .. ends up at hospital for treatment
12. Sasha gets treated for lacerations and facial fractures
13. Sasha isn't looking so hot right now (picture)
14. Even on her best day, this gal is worth a grand?
15. Maybe she was saving up for a chin implant
16. Did they clean Sasha up with a ShamWow?
17. Boortz is wondering how Vince does this damage while she's hanging on to his tongue with her teeth. But then, that's Boortz. Limited experience
18. Vince looks somewhat better, but where's the pointy hairdo?
19. When will Vince do a spot for a battered woman's shelter?
20. Silly women will keep buying those ShamWows.

Do I have to keep you people up to speed on everything?

I make my living from advertisements. Sitting here and criticizing ads, then, would seem to be a bit self-defeating. Sorry, can't help it. Some of the stuff I see on television and hear on the radio is so stupefyingly idiotic that I just can't help myself.

I've been commenting for years about loud, screaming car commercials. I have many friends who are car dealers and work in dealerships. This goes from Chevy to Jaguar ... one end to the other. If you will listen to commercials for the various types of cars you will notice that the louder the commercial, the cheaper the car. Now here's my theory .. and it's a bit insulting, I'll admit. The more educated you are the more money you're going to make, and the more money you make the more expensive car you are likely to buy. So .. education dictates how you roll. Now since the loud and obnoxious commercials are ALWAYS for the cheaper cars, this must mean that the louder the commercial the dumber the advertiser thinks you are. I've actually heard a commercial lately where the announcer keeps yelling "BAM!" at the top of his lungs. Trust me, they're not trying to sell you a Mercedes.

By the way .... I just bought a Chevy Equinox, so don't give me a hard time here.

What brings this on? Well, I was watching the tube today when I came across one of those spots asking you take all of your old gold and shove it into an envelope; then mail it to someone and they'll send you a check. In ordinary times it would be difficult to convince me that someone would actually dump a bunch of their gold into a mailing pack and send it off to people they don't know .. and then sit back and see if they get a check. I say in ordinary times ... but these aren't ordinary times. We have people who voted for a man with absolutely no experience and a cute slogan about "change" to be the president. If you'll do that, you'll send your gold off to someone you don't know and hope you get a check in return.

My guess is that there are more Obama voters driving the less expensive cars than there are driving Jags.

Well .. at least she's not asking for bailout money ... yet. She wants the Justice Department to give San Francisco area newspapers the leeway to merge or consolidate to save themselves. Fair enough. The question here is why in the world would the government stand in the way of these newspapers keeping themselves afloat?

I hope you're distressed over the current condition of the nation's newspapers. They're in trouble, and our society really can't afford for them to fail. If the government, through its antitrust rules and regs, is standing in the way of newspaper survival .. then fix that. I'm in talk radio .. and I recognize that there no way in the world for any talk radio program to cover the important issues of our time in sufficient depth. The time just isn't there. I rely on newspapers every single day. Before I go on the air I've gone through The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times and Post, Investor's Business Daily, The San Francisco Chronicle and the Naples Daily News.

I guess this is turning into a plea. Please, folks. Start reading your newspapers. Information is power, and without the information you can only get from a good newspaper you are next to powerless. Sure, I know ... most of these newspapers have a very liberal slant. Recognize that and deal with it ... but read. An uninformed populace cannot save our Republic. If you don't read newspapers ... you are uninformed.

News/Talk 750 WSB needs YOUR help on several stories they're developing. They need to talk to people about:

• Text messaging
• Economic success stories
• Businesses that are hiring
• Good news from your business, neighborhood or organization

Get the details and find out how to submit your story here.

• Looks like the millions of dollars for contraception in the "stimulus" plan will be removed. That's too bad. Tax-paying Americans .. a thinning minority ... are getting screwed here. A little contraception would only be right.
   
• The American people voted for Barack Obama and made him president. So, he grants his first interview as president to Al-Arabiya, an Arabic cable TV network based in Dubai. He'll get around to American TV when he can.
   
• Biden is warning of more US casualties in Afghanistan. That's OK, though. A Democrat is in the White House. To the media American battlefield causalities are no big deal when a Democrat is running the show.
   
• Do you know why Clinton, Bush 41 and 43, and Obama stood apart from Carter at that pre-inauguration White House lunch? They're afraid senility is contagious.

Some people evidently didn't realize it yesterday, but the election was over and Barack Obama was, indeed, the 44th President of the United States. There is no longer anything anyone can do about Obama's lack of experience, the strange way he won both that first election to the Illinois State Senate or when his Republican opponents mysteriously self-destructed in his race for the U.S. Senate. His relationship with human sludge like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is no longer an issue. He won. He won in spite of the blemishes on his record, his decidedly leftist ideas, and his cadre of frightening friends. He is now the president. Whether you voted for him or not, he is your president and he is going to have a huge affect on your life, your finances, you job and your future.

No .. I can't say that I'm particularly happy that Barack Obama is president. I would have preferred Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. But now, as I said yesterday, I find myself truly hoping that Barack Obama becomes the best president this country has ever had. He's going to have a tough time withstanding the pressures that will be brought to bear by people like Nancy Pelosi and the MoveOn.org crowd.

Now, judging from the emails, quite a few of you are upset with me because I didn't take a negative approach to the proceedings yesterday. I guess in order to please some people I needed to wee wee all over the inauguration parade. I found it more satisfying to look to the future with a small amount of hope rather than dwell on the fact that the YouTube, MoveOn.Org, Facebook, Entertainment Tonight, American Idol crowd - voters stupefyingly ignorant of the workings of government - have elected this president.

I was flipping through channels watching some of the coverage yesterday. Just two different moments I happened to catch on CNN ....

First was a CNN correspondent talking about Obama's policies. She noted that the Obama administration would be crazy not to "take advantage of the goodwill of the American public" and pass as many of his campaign promises ASAP. When asked what Obama's team plans to focus on first - healthcare, Iraq, education - the response was apparently "do it all now." Now wait a minute. Is this the role of a reporter? Were we listening to a journalist here or a cheerleader for big government? That leads to my point that the Obama administration is going to capitalize on his popularity and this economic crisis in order to get his policies passed. Rather than waiting to gradually implement them over a four-year period ... he is going to throw everything at us at once, and hope that most will stick.

The other moment came right before the parade began. CNN was interviewing some young college students from the Bronx. The correspondent asked three different students what they wanted Obama to focus on during his presidency. The exact reaction went as follows:

Student #1: Illegal immigration.

Student #2: Um .... Um .. ummm

Student #3: Like, education.

That pretty much sums it up, folks.

The brutal truth is if you took what most of the people on the Mall and watching that parade yesterday, and I'm talking about 90% here, knew about our form of government and the people who are running it, and shoved that knowledge up an ant's hind end, it would rattle around like a BB in a boxcar.

A Zogby Poll asked people what they thought the most reliable source of news might be. The results are a little disarming. Some 37.6 % said the Internet; 20.3% said national TV news and 16% said radio news.

Please, people ... give this some more thought. Where were newspapers in this equation? Look; I post program notes on the Internet five times a day, and I'm flattered that over a million people look at them. Advertisers like it as well --- but while I provide links to newspaper stories, this is not a news site. This is commentary - opinion - and I do not pretend to be objective. Frankly I think that Internet should be at the bottom of the list, not at the top ... unless, that is, you're referring to Internet sites for recognized and long-standing newspapers and other legitimate news sources.

My gag reflex gets triggered big time every time I hear that absurd "the public's airwaves" phrase when a discussion of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" comes up.

Do any of you really doubt that if broadcasting had been around when the Bill of Rights was written that the broadcast freedom would have been included in the protections of the First Amendment? You know the answer to that one. Of course it would have been there. Back then there were only two ways to spread information. You either spread it by word or in written form. Both were protected. Today you have electronic communication. The same protections should be offered there.

One of the first lessons despots learn is that they must control the means by which information is disseminated if they are to cement their hold on power. By the time broadcasting came along the politician's love for freedom of the press had subsided somewhat. They knew what a powerful force for information broadcasting would be, and they just had to come up with a way to exert government control. This brought us the precursors to the FCC. The excuse? This ridiculous "public's airwaves" nonsense.

So ... here is the question I want one of you liberal bedwetters to answer. If broadcasting should be controlled by the government - including content control - because it comes over the "public's airwaves," then why should your morning newspaper be similarly controlled? After all, your newspaper comes to you over the public's roads. In fact .. the people actually paid for those roads with their tax money, unlike the airwaves, so the argument for control of newspapers should actually be a stronger one! OK all you brilliant liberals out there ... your response is ...????

Have you noticed these articles lately? I've seen more and more popping up around the Internet ... declaring talk radio to be, essentially, dead. My advice to these naysayers is don't count your chickens. Remember when much of talk radio (excluding the Talkmaster) once declared liberalism to be dead? Yeah, that was stupid. And look where that got us.

But this is an example of what I am talking about. Here's an article from the Boston Globe declaring "The rising irrelevance of talk radio." It says that one of the most significant outcomes of the 2008 election is to declare that talk radio had no major impact on the election. And this is apparently because people grew brains "that are available for persuasion."

The reasons they site include the rise of opinion television programs, the fact that talk radio "no longer pretends to be a 'town meeting on the air,'" and because Americans no longer expect talk radio hosts to be reasonable or rational.

Gawd, wouldn't it be boring to turn on your radio every day and be subjected to my rational arguments? Guess this is just the warm up article. The next one I expect is why this is justification for the Fairness Doctrine. But wait a minute, if talk radio is so irrelevant, why would liberals even care we say?

If you want a good laugh ... and some insight into the mind of a liberal who just can't stand the thought of me "spewing hate" out of a microphone for 4 1/2 hours a day ... just read this column by Douglas Turner in The Buffalo News. Here's the title, "Virulent talk radio may be a loser, too." I'll give you a little taste, maybe with some of the usual Boortz commentary.

"Talk radio lost this federal election in two big ways. Its candidate, Republican John McCain, got creamed. And its most dedicated enemies, who want to trim talk radio's sails, were massively empowered.

Elements of the team of President-elect Barack "Hussein" Obama, as they were fond of calling him, and the expanded Democratic majority will move to remind broadcasters of a fundamental tenet of broadcast law.

That is, that the airwaves do not belong to the station "owners," as they call themselves, but to the people of the United States of America ... As station ownership became more consolidated, talk radio became more virulent, if not violent, and one-sided ...

The basic service that a broadcast licensee owes a community is truth. As the election neared, that commodity was in short supply.

Obama was compared to Hitler on the "Mark Levin Show." Obama would open the United States to an "invasion" of Muslims, according to the "Gunny" Bob Newman show. On the Lee Rodgers show, critics of Obama were going to "be jailed or killed." Host Neal Boortz wanted to know how many prayer rugs Obama owns ...

There are constitutional issues related to imposing equal time. So the Democratic route seems to be to roll-back media consolidation."

We really need to put this stupid "the public's airwaves" nonsense to rest - but that idiotic idea has been hammered into the heard of Americans for so long it's going to be difficult. This whole "public's airwaves" stuff came about with the ascendancy of broadcasting. Politicians realized the great information dissemination potential of radio (and then television) and intuitively knew that if they did not find a way to control broadcasting it could spell big trouble for them. There can be no doubt that the framers of our Constitution would have included broadcasting in the protections offered by the First Amendment - if they could have foreseen broadcasting. By the time broadcasting came around the goal was more about protecting government than it was protecting free expression .. hence this "public's airwaves" idiocy. Any excuse ... the political class just needed any excuse.

Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increases their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat's looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez' attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela? And trust me ... the Republicans would have tried the same thing during the Bush Administration if talk radio had been overwhelming liberal. Richard Nixon used to brag about how he used the "Fairness Doctrine" to harass left-wing commentary on television. Democrats and liberals generally fail miserably at talk radio .. therefore it must be destroyed.

One more point about this "public's airwaves" dog squeeze. How does your newspaper get to you every day? Do you think it just magically appears at your doorstep? Hardly .. it is delivered over --- guess what? --- publicly owned highways and roads! Yeah! The "public's highways!" How about a Fairness Doctrine for newspaper editorial pages! Oh, wait .. there's that darn Constitution in the way again. Don't you just hate that?

If you don't think that the dumbing-down of America through government education had anything to do with Obama's victory, then you ought to be sentenced to reading some of the comments from Obama supporters we've received. You would soon be of a different opinion.

Get ready for retroactive tax increases. When the Democrats begin their punishment of achievement you can bet that that they'll make any tax increase on the high achievers retroactive to January 1, 2009.

An idea for small business owners: Make note now of which of your employees voted for Obama. When the tax increases hit and you're looking for a way to cut expenses to offset the higher taxes, they should be the first to go. They voted for it, let them suffer the consequences.

Did you see those black militants at the Philadelphia polling places? There they were in the black berets brandishing nightsticks guarding the entrance to the polling location. Not much screaming over that. But ... what it if had been skinheads "guarding" the entrance to a predominately white polling place. Yeah .. just imagine the reaction to that for a moment.

I wonder what percentage of the vote can be attributed to the media's fawning over The Chosen One? Not only do Republicans have to fight to win the hearts and minds of Americans again .. but they have to battle the media as well. Nothing there will change. One commentator last night said that Obama will scratch their stomachs every once in a while and they'll roll over like puppies.

While we're on that topic, you cannot imagine the number of "Wait until Barack Obama is President, and see what happens to you" emails we've received here at the Boortz show. We generally chose not to comment on or post them ... but they were there nonetheless - in large numbers. I cannot remember a previous election where a candidate was wielded as a weapon like this.

Do you realize that way back yonder at the founding of our Republic the word "Democrat" was an epithet? Back then if you called someone a Democrat you might well be challenged to a duel --- or just get the snot knocked out of you. In the late 1700s a Democrat was "someone who panders to the whims of the masses." Not much has changed insofar as the definition has changed ... but now we elect them.

Rhetorical ability is so very important in politics. Obama has it, McCain does not. Smooth talkers win at single's bars and in politics .. often with similar outcomes for the listener.

I wonder how many people voted their jobs away yesterday?

Looking ahead to 2012? Unless someone better shows up, Huckabee is my choice on the Republican side. As for the Libertarian ... well, I have a favorite choice, but don't know if he'll run, let alone if he could win the nomination. A lot of peace-at-any-price Libertarians aren't too fond of him.

I still remember in the days after the Republican voter revolution of 1994 when I heard a talk radio colleague telling listeners that liberals are finished .. done. The suggestion was made that we should save a few liberals and put them on display just so we can remember what they were like. "Yeah," I thought. "Don't kid yourself. They'll be back with a vengeance.. looking for conservative blood." Hellllooooooooo!

Here in Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss won reelection. He defeated a Democrat weasel who told voters that "Saxby Chambliss wants to add a 23% sales tax to everything you buy." You see .. there is something to smile about today.