When you screw with Sean Hannity, you screw with 10-million people who tune in specifically to see him. Republican Senator George Voinovich, Ohio, attempted to slap the crap out of Sean Hannity last night with regard to the immigration bill, and showed a massive amount of disrespect. I suspect this may largely backfire on the senator. I repeat: see my first sentence.
And: haven’t you ever wondered, recently, why seemingly all of a sudden the Fairness Doctrine is being thrown into the public domain?
In other words: why here, on the immigration bill and, most importantly, why now?
I can provide the answer, for both sides of the aisle:
- For Trent Lott, the defeatist RINO, it’s because YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM.
- For John McCain, the defeatist RINO, it’s because YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM.
- For the ENTIRE Democrat Party, it’s because YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM.
The re-emergence of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” has NOTHING to do with fairness and EVERYTHING to do with the most expeditious fashion to make YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP so that you NO LONGER have the greatest amount of input into politics. And now Senator Lindsay Graham enters the fray as well with disparaging comments about talk radio, that talk radio is a problem. For those not familiar, Graham said:
Graham suggested that critics of the immigration bill were motivated by racism, saying on ABC News, “We’ve been down this road before — ‘no Catholics,’ ‘no Jews,’ ‘Irish need not apply.’ ”
Do you understand me?
This is all, on BOTH sides, an attempt to completely abrogate the FIRST AMENDMENT.
This is an attempt to HIJACK the US CONSTITUTION.
And why?
Because our collective voices HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE.
And BECAUSE we have been EFFECTIVE in exposing hazards and untruths about the immigration bill to date, the WAY we make our opinions KNOWN must be REMOVED. Our ACCESS to the FREE SHARING of THOUGHTS and OPINIONS must be deleted. Oh, so sorry to all, that simply is not “appropriate.”
To me, this is heinous.
It is not just heinous, it is TRAITOROUS.
I do not bandy this word about lightly:
traitor
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give — more at date
Date:
13th century
1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give — more at date
Date:
13th century
1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason
treason
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date:
13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date:
13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
treachery
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -er·ies
Etymology:
Middle English trecherie, from Anglo-French, from trecher, tricher to deceive, from Vulgar Latin *triccare — more at trick
Date:
13th century
1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : treason
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -er·ies
Etymology:
Middle English trecherie, from Anglo-French, from trecher, tricher to deceive, from Vulgar Latin *triccare — more at trick
Date:
13th century
1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : treason
2 : an act of perfidy or treason
I leave it to YOU to determine if my label is proper. I generally dislike labels but, in these instances, it is proper and applicable. And just wait for cloture tomorrow — and its results.
BZ
I missed the Voinovich encounter but Mike mentioned it also. I think Sean Hannity has handled the immigration issue fairly well. He’s not one of these people completely abandoning Bush but saying that he disagrees with him on this issue which is where I’m coming from.
As for Voinovich, Graham, McCain and Lott–I would love to see all 4 of them weeded out in primaries.
The Fairness Doctrine has finally got me fired up enough that I’m going to do a comprehensive post on it for Friday. I loved how Newt Gingrich described it on Hannity & Colmes tonight: “Affirmative Action for Liberals”. Isn’t that the truth?
Hopefully, it looks likely that the immigration bill will be killed tomorrow. I pray it does.
LMC: Sean has handled it quite well indeed!
With the weight and power you pull, it is ALL UP TO YOU to make mention of this issue!!
SINK YOUR TEETH into the Fairness Doctrine!!
FIRE it up!!
BZ
VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES!
We need to sweep these losers out of the door.
To be honest, I am glad we are having this problem. I think immigration is the one issue that could both win the election for the GOP and cleanse the GOP of RINOs at the same time. It is powerful stuff.
I wish I could somehow convince La Raza to march in Boston. It would be fun to see how that would shake things up.
Isn’t it funny, Big White Hat, how REGIONALIZED is the Mexican issue.
I need make no further comment here at this time. . .
BZ
Your choice of the word “traitor” is indeed appropriate, BZ. I snagged the pic… it may come in handy.
Let us pray this pos gets dumped!
I’m just surprised you can use the words traitorous and Republican in one sentence and not get called all kinds of bullshit names BZ…
Awesome!!