Bob Robbins just forwarded a Post and Email article on Sean Hannity's rather recent but in my opinion 14 months late and $14 short (we are, after all, living in the age of the Federal Reserve Bank) demand that President Obama make his vault copy birth certificate public. The demand was made in response to remarks by Governor Sarah Palin. The Post and E-mail writes:
"(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.
"His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to 'prove' anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real McCoy."
The Post and Email article in turn refers to a World Net Daily Article:
"Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin's recent comments about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND's pursuit of the story."
He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.
"What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'"
With all due respect to Mr. Hannity, where was he when this question was important, for instance, in October 2008??
Showing posts with label sean hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sean hannity. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
George Phillips Fights Free Speech Suppression
George Phillips ran a courageous race against incumbent Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York's 22nd Congressional district. The 22nd district includes Ulster County and is gerrymandered to include several college towns (New Paltz, Binghamton and Ithaca) as well as a nursery for left-wing trust fund babies, Woodstock, NY. Despite the Democratic Party's corrupt gerrymandering and a bad election year for Republicans, Phillips won 39% of the vote against Hinchey. Recall that Hinchey was the Congressman who advocated price controls on gasoline last summer when the price had temporarily escalated. With an economic illiterate like Hinchey in Congress, Americans have reason to fear.
Phillips has started a new website to fight the fairness doctrine called "Stop the Fairness Doctrine". It is located here.
According to Stop the Fairness Dcotrine:
"Hinchey has been the champion of legislation known as “MORA” — the Media Ownership and Reform Act. The first provision of this bill would reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.” MORA would also put a cap on how many radio stations a company can own, place a similar cap on television ownership and require more ‘independent’ programming. Hinchey has gone on national TV to defend his leadership of and support for the “Fairness Doctrine” — even going toe to toe with Sean Hannity."
Hinchey calls anyone who disagrees with his pathetic, ignorant views "a Nazi". Yet it is Hinchey who aims to use the violence of government to suppress the speech of those with whom he disagrees.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey is a totalitarian thug who aims to suppress speech in the interest of political opportunism. The hard left which Hinchey represents and the ACLU claim to favor free speech when the speech furthers hard left goals--destruction of economic freedom, impoverishment of ordinary Americans, and egregious taxes. But when speech opposes such goals, Nazis like Hinchey aim to suppress dissident speech.
Phillips has started a new website to fight the fairness doctrine called "Stop the Fairness Doctrine". It is located here.
According to Stop the Fairness Dcotrine:
"Hinchey has been the champion of legislation known as “MORA” — the Media Ownership and Reform Act. The first provision of this bill would reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.” MORA would also put a cap on how many radio stations a company can own, place a similar cap on television ownership and require more ‘independent’ programming. Hinchey has gone on national TV to defend his leadership of and support for the “Fairness Doctrine” — even going toe to toe with Sean Hannity."
Hinchey calls anyone who disagrees with his pathetic, ignorant views "a Nazi". Yet it is Hinchey who aims to use the violence of government to suppress the speech of those with whom he disagrees.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey is a totalitarian thug who aims to suppress speech in the interest of political opportunism. The hard left which Hinchey represents and the ACLU claim to favor free speech when the speech furthers hard left goals--destruction of economic freedom, impoverishment of ordinary Americans, and egregious taxes. But when speech opposes such goals, Nazis like Hinchey aim to suppress dissident speech.
Friday, September 12, 2008
E-mail To Sean Hannity Re the Economy
Dear Mr. Hannity--I listen to your TV program as well as your radio broadcast and enjoy them both. I agree with you most of the time. I enjoyed your exchange with Robert Kuttner but want to take issue with a point with which I disagree--your support for President Bush's economic policies. I think that your position is a mistake from both "conservatives principles" and tactical viewpoints.
I disagree with Mr. Kuttner on many things but agree with him on this point. The Bush administration has permitted the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed to behave like a hyper-Democratic government agency. This was true antecedent to 2000, since the days of President Reagan and Chair Greenspan, and it has not gone away.
If you are a conservative then you probably believe in less government. Artificial stimulation of misdirected (or as von Mises put it malinvested) economic activity is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government intervention. This has been the policy that the Republicans have pursued since the 1980s (and indeed, in the 1970s under President Nixon) and it is antithetical to conservatism if you are adhering to the small government, Jacksonian variant. Of course, it is also possible to be a big government Whig economic conservative, along the lines of Rockefeller and GW Bush, but that viewpoint has come to be viewed as a form of liberalism or left-wing Republicanism rather than the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.
In any case, if you are an advocate of big government monetary expansion, support for big business, government intervention in the economy and Keynesian economics, which are the policies of George W. Bush, you should say so. I don't think that all Republicans or conservatives agree with you. I find this especially troubling because Fox has limited its exposure of conservatives to the Whig-American Enterprise Institute-Progressive conservatism, which is not what many of your viewers believe, and I think there is a sleight of hand going on. You should clarify your position on this issue.
I would hope that you reject big government, and therefore the monetary policies of the past 25 years. I do not believe that government should intervene on behalf of the rich, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, or Lehman Brothers. Nor do I believe in welfare. Many of the Fox pundits believe in welfare for the rich, and this is a serious weakness in your presentation.
In addition, I do not think the cause of John McCain and Sarah Palin is helped by association with the Whig-AEI-Progressive approach to the economy. Americans are by many measures worse off. The average hourly wage has been declining since 1971, when President Nixon took us off the gold standard. It is tragic if you allow the Democrats to steal this issue because of short-sighted fixation on big money donations from the board members of AEI. In the long run there is going to be backlash against the feudal, inflationary economy of post-1968 Republicanism, and if the Republicans don't start re-thinking their position on hard money they ultimately will be thrown out of office.
I disagree with Mr. Kuttner on many things but agree with him on this point. The Bush administration has permitted the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed to behave like a hyper-Democratic government agency. This was true antecedent to 2000, since the days of President Reagan and Chair Greenspan, and it has not gone away.
If you are a conservative then you probably believe in less government. Artificial stimulation of misdirected (or as von Mises put it malinvested) economic activity is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government intervention. This has been the policy that the Republicans have pursued since the 1980s (and indeed, in the 1970s under President Nixon) and it is antithetical to conservatism if you are adhering to the small government, Jacksonian variant. Of course, it is also possible to be a big government Whig economic conservative, along the lines of Rockefeller and GW Bush, but that viewpoint has come to be viewed as a form of liberalism or left-wing Republicanism rather than the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.
In any case, if you are an advocate of big government monetary expansion, support for big business, government intervention in the economy and Keynesian economics, which are the policies of George W. Bush, you should say so. I don't think that all Republicans or conservatives agree with you. I find this especially troubling because Fox has limited its exposure of conservatives to the Whig-American Enterprise Institute-Progressive conservatism, which is not what many of your viewers believe, and I think there is a sleight of hand going on. You should clarify your position on this issue.
I would hope that you reject big government, and therefore the monetary policies of the past 25 years. I do not believe that government should intervene on behalf of the rich, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, or Lehman Brothers. Nor do I believe in welfare. Many of the Fox pundits believe in welfare for the rich, and this is a serious weakness in your presentation.
In addition, I do not think the cause of John McCain and Sarah Palin is helped by association with the Whig-AEI-Progressive approach to the economy. Americans are by many measures worse off. The average hourly wage has been declining since 1971, when President Nixon took us off the gold standard. It is tragic if you allow the Democrats to steal this issue because of short-sighted fixation on big money donations from the board members of AEI. In the long run there is going to be backlash against the feudal, inflationary economy of post-1968 Republicanism, and if the Republicans don't start re-thinking their position on hard money they ultimately will be thrown out of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
