ANCHORAGE: This spring Senator Lisa Murkowski agreed to step aside should she lose the Republican primary. Guess what? She lost, but then decided to run as a write-in candidate to sabotage the Republican winner.
Now radio personality Dan Fagan rallies voters to fight Murkowski by signing up themselves as write-in candidates. How does his radio station react? He gets fired.
A day after urging Alaskans to sign up as write-in candidates in the U.S. Senate race as an act of “civil disobedience,” a popular Anchorage talk show host was pulled from the air today.
KFQD 750 AM host Dan Fagan said he returned from lunch to learn that his 2 to 5 p.m. show had been canceled after a representative of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s campaign called to complain. Fagan said he’s not fired and that the status of the show will be “re-evaluated” on Monday.
The caller said “that I should be punished for electioneering and that I may have violated electioneering laws,” Fagan said.
Listen to clip from yesterday’s show:
The conservative radio host, a supporter of Republican nominee Joe Miller, rallied voters to register as write-in candidates to protest an order by the Alaska Supreme Court that allows election workers to show voters a list of write-in candidates.
The decision was expected to help Murkowski’s write-in bid by making it easier for people to get her name right at the voting booth. Fagan argues that it amounts to illegal electioneering on behalf of the state by promoting a candidate who failed to win a spot on the ballot in the primary elections. Anchorage Daily News
Lisa Murkowski needs stopped, and congratulations to Dan Fagan for standing up to her. Now it’s time for us to fight back on Fagan’s behalf. Call KFQD and flood their switchboards in protest of Fagan’s firing. Murkowski needs stopped and so does anyone supporting her. If you want to flood the studio line call 907-522-0750 (outside of Anchorage call 1-888-909-0750). Or flood their “News Hotline” at 907-275-2277.
SAN FRANCISCO is well known for its fog. But while the sunshine sometimes cuts through fog in the atmosphere, one fog that rarely seems to lift is the fog of anti-gun thinking. Twice, the city has tried to ban handguns, and been turned back by court challenges. The city’s public housing authority also had to be sued to end its ban on gun possession by public housing residents. And the NRA is currently backing a challenge to the city’s gun storage law, which requires city residents to store their handguns in locked containers or disabled with trigger locks.
But as if all that weren’t enough, SF Weekly blogs reported this week that the city of San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) doesn’t allow advertisements with guns in them. Specifically, SFMTA advertising policy regarding firearms says, “Advertising on Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA”) property, or as authorized under any contract with the MTA, constitutes a nonpublic forum. No such advertisement shall: … appear to promote the use of firearms.”
One victim of the policy (other than the First Amendment rights of advertisers) is a subway poster for the action-comedy movie “The Other Guys.” The official poster for the movie shows Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg (their characters are law enforcement officers, no less) flying through the air with guns drawn. Typical movie stuff. But not for SFMTA, which apparently finds the poster threatening and will only allow a revised poster, featuring Ferrell holding a can of pepper spray and Wahlberg sporting only his fists, as they supposedly take on the bad guys. The anti-gun lobby presumably would be happy if real cops had to use pepper spray instead of firearms.
Ads like the official movie poster pose no threat to anyone. The ridiculous SFMTA policy, as applied to movie ads, is not only unconstitutional, but is another example of anti-gun paranoia and political correctness. And that makes it an outrage.
WASHINGTON: Yesterday Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced his opposition to Kagan’s appoint to the Supreme Court. We here at the NIP hope that other Senators will put personal interests aside and remember their oath of office. Hatch enumerates two main objections, lack of experience and a proclivity toward judicial activism. The NFL draft has tighter standards than this judicial process. It’s time to take it seriously.
Orrin Hatch Opposes Kagan as SCOTUS
I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.
Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.
Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration’s extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court. Orrin Hatch
WASHINGTON: Coming to a computer near you, “Your PC becomes a boat anchor.” The NIP has been warning for some time about the administration’s attempt to seize control over the Internet. Last Thursday Senator Lieberman’s Committee on Homeland Security passed the doublespeak “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010” which instead of protecting cyberspace nationalizes it.
A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website. Grant Gross, TechWorld
The enables the President to seize the Internet and control it in any manner he wishes, without Congressional oversight for a period of 120 days, which could be further extended with Congressional permission. Traitorous Susan Collins (R-Maine), co-sponsor of the bill, says detractors like the NIP are just being inflamatory: Read more…
Stocks of Internet providers fell dramatically in early May as the FCC said it would move forward with net neutrality rules as the FCC is moving closer to seizing control of the Internet. Investors fear that increased federal regulations will present significant challenges to the viability of fledgeling new media. Verizon and other providers are alarmed that the FCC is trying to reclassify broadband to put it under their control:
CTIA and Verizon expressed alarm over FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.
CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent said in a statement that he was “disappointed” with the announcement. “This complex, interdependent ecosystem is currently thriving to the benefit to all Americans,” he said. “Putting that success at risk is unnecessary and dangerous, particularly in today’s economic environment.” Maisie Ramsay, Wireless Week
It is the same principle as the EPA reclassifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is required by all plant life on the planet but the EPA has seized control over it in order to leverage power over every aspect of American life. Now the FTC wants to use the same ploy to control the Internet:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to “reinvent” journalism, and that’s a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC’s policy staff fears this new reality…
With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue. Read more…
Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn’t waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are — as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year — only waiting to “pick the time,” should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon’s speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal “assault weapon” ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.
However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation’s legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation’s murder rate fell to a 45-year low.
If you have a desire to protect your 2nd amendment rights you need to do all you can to oust those from office who seek to take them away from you, like Dianne Feinstein:
WASHINGTON: On Thursday, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, where prohibitive gun laws prevent good people from having firearms for protection against criminals and governments of dubious legitimacy (historically the norm in Mexico), encouraged Congress to reinstate the federal “assault weapon” ban. With a warning seemingly designed to appeal to those who believe that speaking out against the Obama Administration’s policies are one step short of sedition or worse, Calderon said, “[I]f you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the United States with access to the same power of weapons will not decide to challenge American authorities and civilians.”
Calderon also misinformed Congress, claiming that violence in Mexico rose significantly after the U.S. ban expired in 2004. In fact, Mexico’s murder rate has been stable since 2003 and remains well below rates recorded previously. However, he did not explain why violent crime has declined significantly in the U.S. since the ban expired, or how a ban on flash suppressors and bayonet mounts relates to drug thugs in Mexico or anywhere else.
Notwithstanding the Washington Post’s judgment that Calderon “made a powerful case,” we suspect his speech fell on mostly deaf ears in Congress and in Arizona, which he inappropriately criticized for having an illegal immigration enforcement law that is similar to Mexico’s. But it had some effect, however. New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy issued a statement incorrectly claiming that she has repeatedly introduced legislation to “reinstate” the ban. She has repeatedly introduced legislation, of course, but not to reinstate the ban. Rather, her bills have proposed to apply the “assault weapon” label to far more firearms than were covered by the expired ban, including the M1 Garand service rifle, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22, and any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle a future attorney general might claim is not “sporting.”
Host your site with the most experienced professionals in the business, rm1.net. 99.9999% uptime since 1996. (And that's not prevaricating!)
WordPress, Mambo, osCommerce, and much more. Linux and Windows servers available.
Are you an animal with a "beef" against a human? You have the right to sue, but you need an attorney. Put your hoof to work and dial 1-202-456-1414 for a no-cost consultation with Sunstein & Assoc. LLP.
Have you ever been exposed to asbestos, 2nd hand smoke, had a drug reaction, or ever had a headache?
You may be entitled to join one of our class action settlements against the medical industry. Although our offices are in Mississippi we can represent YOU, thanks to coast-to-coast advertising. Contact one of our top experts today and get your piece of the malpractice pie: Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Part of our fees are tax deductible as we contribute heavily to congressional campaigns.
Save BIG money on insurance for car, truck boat, motorcycle, home, condo, renters, car collectors, personal umbrella, commercial auto, ...*
Get quotes online at Progressive.com
*Not allowed by law to sell medical insurance across state lines. We're not called Progressive for nothing!