The Myth of Right Wing Fascism

Leave a comment


The Myth

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile’s entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

The Problem

The problem with this definition is can anyone name the so called corporations that controlled the government in Mussolini’s Fascist regime or any other?  Of course not.  It was government control of the means of production (socialism) minus actually holding the deed.

The Reality

Mussolini like his father was a Syndicalist (socialist) like his father.

Syndicalism is a proposed type of economic system, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that workers, industries, and organisations be systematized into confederations or syndicates. It is “a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers”.[1]

Its theory and practice is the advocacy of multiple cooperative productive units composed of specialists and representatives of workers in each field to negotiate and manage the economy.”

He never left his socialist roots, he instead took a “National Syndicalist”

National syndicalism is an adaptation of syndicalism to suit the social agenda of integral nationalism. National syndicalism developed in France, and then spread to Italy, Spain, and Portugal. . . . In the early 20th century, nationalists and syndicalists were increasingly influencing each other in Italy.[5] From 1902 to 1910, a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists including Arturo Labriola, Agostino Lanzillo, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Alceste De Ambris, Filippo Corridoniand Sergio Panunzio sought to unify the Italian nationalist cause with the syndicalist cause and had entered into contact with Italian nationalist figures such as Enrico Corradini.[6] These Italian national syndicalists held a common set of principles: the rejection of bourgeois values, democracy, liberalism, Marxism, internationalism, and pacifism while promoting heroism, vitalism, and violence.[7] Not all Italian revolutionary syndicalists joined the Fascist cause, but most syndicalist leaders eventually embraced nationalism and “were among the founders of the Fascist movement,” where “many even held key posts” in Mussolini’s regime.[8] Benito Mussolini declared in 1909 that he had converted over to revolutionary syndicalism by 1904 during a general strike. . . . In November 1918, Mussolini defined national syndicalism as a doctrine that would unite economic classes into a program of national development and growth.”

Fascist Manifesto

Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.

c) The abolition of the Senate.

d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.

e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

For the social problems: We demand:

a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.

b) A minimum wage.

c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.

e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.

f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:

a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.

b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:

a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.

c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

Progressivism

Does the above list look familiar? It should. It started from the same foundation. Syndicalism.

Herbert Croly

Herbert Croly was one of the creators of the progressive movement and co-founder of the progressive magazine “The New Republic”  He called for a more “Nationalistic” government with “syndicalist” reforms.

The Promise of American Life has received criticism from a number of angles. Many feared the underlying tones of totalitarianism or fascism. Others worried that Croly’s plan would make America socialist—a criticism Croly foresaw in his book and attempted to combat by labeling his government as nationalistic rather than socialistic.”

Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.

Croly’s synthesis — the ameliorative national state in opposition to the internationalism of socialism

“The salutary and formative democratic purpose consists in using the democratic organization for the joint benefit of individual distinction and social improvement” (461). Thus such a democracy would be dedicated “to liberty and equality, in so far as they made for human brotherhood.” It is only in this way that democracy can “claim the allegiance of mankind on rational moral grounds” (462).

But this demands a subordination of the machinery of democracy to “a reconstructive programme and an efficient organization”

Popular government “is to make itself expressly and permanently responsible for the amelioration of the individual and society” (462-463).

Democratic nationalism versus socialism. This is not so much socialistic as nationalistic. Unlike socialism, it is dedicated to “the development of a higher quality of individual self-expression,” and this requires “the preservation of the institution of private property in some form, and the . . . radical transformation of its existing nature and influence” (463). Croly also rejects “violent means.”

– “The great weakness of the most popular form of socialism consists, however, in its mixture of a revolutionary purpose with an international scope” (463). It would undermine “national cohesion” for international class conflict. “permanent good” can only come “through the preservation and the development of the existing system of nationalized states” (464).

– Croly admits that “national traditions . . . contain a large infusion of dubious ingredients,” and that there are “governments whose ruin is a necessary condition of popular liberation” (464). But to “the extent . . . [a] government is representative of national traditions and is organized in the interest of valid national purposes” it is entitled to the citizen’s loyalty.

The Problem With Both Fascism and Progressivism

Remember e from the Fascist Manifesto?

“e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers”

Under progressive legislation we have all of that through a multitude of regulatory agencies that now control almost every aspect of our lives.  While the modern progressive continuously blames those evil “capitalist” for every problem in this country.  They ignore the fact that the capitalist no longer control the economy, they do as Thomas Sowell points out.

“What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.”

In some respects the corporations do now control the country, not by design of the progressives.  But they failed to understand that which the founders understood all to well.  The Truism of Lord Action

““Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

When they bestowed upon themselves to create these powers “regulatory agencies”  They ignored Lord Actions words and also the greed of the individual.  Greed is not just the lust for money but also the lust for power and there are always those in power that will sell out the country for more of both.  The cure was in the founding principles of limited government denying would be tyrants the power or authority to do so.  Wisdom can be found in the words of Milton Friedman on the subject.

Advertisements

Attack on the First Amendment

Leave a comment


There are massive moves on the left to stifle the freedom of speech.

Of course they tell massive lies.  Corporations are restricted on what they can donate to candidates.  They however can take out issue advocacy ads and donate to issue advocacy groups.  But hear it right out of their own mouths.

Bernie

Funny thing is that they don’t want to take money out of politics, they just want to silence those they choose to steal from.  Yes that’s a harsh statement but it’s the only thing that makes sense.  They make the wild claim that corporations own the government and then in the next breath they call for more regulations.  I guess you just can’t argue with circular logic.  Of course the obvious cure is not to punish business.  They want to survive.  The cure is to take away the power of the federal government and to pass laws that criminalize politicians who do pass laws that favor one group or business over another.

corporatism

But to start out let’s look at what Citizens United really says.

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering  communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. . . . These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship. Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. . . . Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” . . . . If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect. Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.

So contrary to the spin the left puts on this it is a direct attack on the first amendment. Vicki McKenna a conservative talk show host spoke of this this morning when she interviewed Eric O’Keefe this morning.

Most people don’t know who he is but he and many other people were subject to Gestapo type predawn raids on their homes because of their political activism during the Scott Walker recall.  Those predawn raids were highlighted in John Stossel’s “Censured in America”

Here in Wisconsin they even used donor lists to intimidate businesses who donated themselves or who’s employees made political contributions You can read about that here and here .
And those on the left like Madison Mayor Paul Soglin want you to disclose your political donations as a condition of bidding on a government contract.

Again from Citizens United.

For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” . . . Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. . . . . In Buckley, the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending. 424 U. S., at 66. The McConnell Court applied this interest in rejecting facial challenges to BCRA §§201 and 311. 540 U. S., at 196. There was evidence in the record that independent groups were running election-related advertisements “‘while hiding behind dubious and misleading names.’” Id., at 197 (quoting McConnell I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 237). The Court therefore upheld BCRA §§201 and 311 on the ground that they would help citizens “‘make informed choices in the political marketplace.’” 540 U. S., at 197 (quoting McConnell I, supra, at 237); see 540 U. S., at 231. Although both provisions were facially upheld, the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “‘reasonable probability’” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.’” Id., at 198 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 74).”

As I stated above we have seen the donor lists used to harass and intimidate.  If there is corruption in government it is done by the officials themselves and not the public at large.  No speech should be limited in order to give the illusion of fairness.  More speech is better speech and one can always consider the source.

bfsecurity

The Queen of Strawman is back

Leave a comment


Sue Wilson’s attack on talk radio continues over at Brad Blog.

The radio industry magazine Radio Inkcaught wind of my recent article, “Tell the FCC: Talk Radio is NOT ‘Bonafide News'”, as published at The BRAD BLOG, (and subsequently reprinted by the Huffington Post.)

As might be expected by an industry with a long track record of willfully misinforming the public, perhaps it is not surprising that Radio Ink — which bills itself as “Radio’s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine” — would wildly mischaracterize not only the piece I wrote, but the legal underpinnings of the case which is helping to bring the question of what comprises “Bonafide News” to the forefront.

Of course there is no mischaracterization by Media Trackers Radio Ink or me.  The FCC rule that she refers to only applies to qualified candidates and not to the followers of candidates.  Again the FCC rules are narrow and quite specific.

(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
The fact that neither she nor her followers are qualified candidates and by extension the rest of her argument is moot.  From the FCC’s own pages she does not have a standing.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

Rather then arguments of actual law and the constitution Sue makes emotional arguments of “fairness” which is subjective depending on your point of view.  Nowhere can Sue show that the above rules are extended to anyone other then the candidates or can she show that even the candidates are entitled to equal time to the talk show hosts.  What makes Sue think that she or her followers are entitled to more time then the candidates themselves?

The Zapple Doctrine that she refers to is a leftover from the “fairness doctrine” and pertains to advertising time Which is why Zapple is called quasi-equal opportunities (having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes).  DAVID OXENFORD a renowned broadcast attorney goes into detail here.

So no Sue Radio INK’s statement is not incorrect.

Garziglia concludes, “Radio listeners often have the erroneous impression that they, or others who are not the radio station licensee, have some sort of First Amendment right to airtime. That is wholly wrong. With the exception of equal opportunities afforded by law to political candidates themselves, there is no such right to airtime.”

As Sue is aware of  David Oxenford has written extensively on the subject.  Her socialistic claims of ownership of the airwaves is yet another red herring, not even the FCC makes such a claim. Regulation is not ownership otherwise we would all be slaves to the state as we are all regulated and by Sue’s logic by extension owned.

The legal underpinnings of your case are non-existent, what is  bona fide  is moot as only qualified candidates qualify for equal time but even if your arguments were valid the FCC has ruled on what is bona fied on several occasions as David Oxenford discusses here.

So again Sue WTMJ station manager Steve Wexler’s letter is entirely accurate both factually and legally.

Thank you for your email. We frequently receive emails about our programming and the discussion of important political elections in particular. While some of our programming may include commentary and the personal opinions of program hosts, the station works diligently to ensure that a variety of views on important public issues are reflected in the totality of our news and talk programming.

We understand that not all listeners will agree with every opinion or statement made on the station. However, we are neither able, nor is it legally required, to provide each listener who disagrees with a statement made on the station the opportunity to appear on the station and express his or her opinion.

Thank you again for providing us with your thoughts.

Steve Wexler
Executive Vice President
Journal Broadcast Group
720 E. Capitol Dr.
Milwaukee, WI
53212

Direct Line: [redacted]
Direct Fax: redacted

[email redacted]

The Red Lion case she refer’s to was struck down in it’s entirety by FCC vs League of Woman Voters.

Unidentified Justice: But what if, say, the State of Alabama or the City of Birmingham, whatever the other, say we would like our station to editorialize?

Samuel A Alito Jr: Well, I think the Congress in regulating broadcasting can take into account the kinds of abuses that may develop when a publicly owned station using public funds, even state or local funds, engages in editorializing and supporting or opposing candidates.

I think that creates the possibility of grave abuses that are not present, certainly in the area of commercial broadcasting.

It creates the danger that the station will be used as an outlet for government propagandizing, and I think that one of the things the First Amendment tries to prevent is government at any level drowning out private voices in the media of communication.

The entire oral arguments can be heard here.

Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for League of Women Voters of California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 47 U.S.C. 399

Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, “since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity,” Congress must use the First Amendment to “inform and give shape” to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which “lies at the heart of First Amendment protection.”

As a result the FCC struck down the “fairness doctrine” in it’s entirety.

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[13] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country’s inception.[14]

Update June 11, 2013

Given the left’s proclivity for censorship I’ve added the following which I posted on their site along with a screen shot.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
… Marshall Keith said on 6/10/2013 @ 10:12 pm PT… 

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ Gus Wynn I also would like to add to your comment “As users of the limited public-owned airwaves” The government does not own the Airwaves as you and Sue claim, Radio stations are privately owned businesses that are regulated as most businesses are. I challenge both you and Sue to show ownership papers or what act of congress committed the socialist act of seizing ownership? In the FCC vs the League of Women voters pertained to Public Radio which at the time were for the most part owned by taxpayers and the FCC ruled that the stations ruled that the stations had the right to editorialize and they had control over the content. The equal time rules only apply to the candidates. From the ruling.”Court upheld the right of access for federal candidates imposed by 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act both because that provision “makes a significant contribution of freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process,” id., at 396, and because it defined a sufficiently “limited right of `reasonable’ access” so that “the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming” was not impaired. Id., at 396-397 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, the Court affirmed the FCC’s refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380] of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.” Id., at 110, 126. 13 ”

sue_wilson

Update #2 June 19,2013

As I predicted,  owner of the blogs challenges to me.  He argued that the airwaves were socialistic, (owned by the people) and therefore subject to government censorship.

Finally, you claim, without offering a shred of evidence, that “The government does not own the Airwaves”. Really? Who does then? If the government (we, the people) do not own them, why do stations agree to license them from us? Seems kinda stupid of them, no?

 

I showed him in plain English the supreme courts ruling to the contrary.

Finally, although the Government’s interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have, at the same time, made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity. As a result, the First Amendment must uniform and give shape to the manner in which Congress exercises its regulatory power in this area. Unlike common carriers, broadcasters are “entitled under the First Amendment to exercise `the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public [duties]

The Queen of Censorship is Back

2 Comments


With the obvious attack on Liberty minded people blatant and obvious from the administration’s attack on journalist and the obvious attack on Liberty groups by the IRS, the attack on right minded people continues.

Sue Wilson is renewing her attack on Conservative talk radio.  Of course she again shows her ignorance of both Constitutional law and broadcast rules and regulations.  She bases her arguments on the first amendment ignoring the fact that all of the “Bill of Rights” put limitations on the government and not private individuals or businesses.

President Obama recently nominated Tom Wheeler as the new Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the federal agency tasked with protecting the public interest in broadcasting, particularly over our public airwaves. . . . Such selective private censorship over our public airwaves violates not only the First Amendment — by denying certain individuals free speech — but also the “Zapple Doctrine,” a little known FCC rule (also called the quasi-equal opportunities rule) that requires stations to provide comparable time for supporters of both political parties when it is requested.

The following is the first amendment that she refers to emphasis mine for the constitutionally challenged like Sue.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The “Zapple doctrine” that she refers to was an offshoot of the “Fairness doctrine” that was found unconstitutional. It pertains to time purchased on the air and has no bearing on the editorial content of the talk shows.  What she fails to mention that the FCC already informed her of that fact!

For the Zapple Doctrine to be invoked, the supporters of the opposing candidate would have to specifically ask the station for air time.  If the station refused, the supporters could then appeal to the FCC, but no such Zapple complaint has been made in at least eight years.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Zapple Doctrine by the stations here, and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.(Emphasis mine)

She also makes the socialist/communist claim that the government owns the airwaves and therefore by extension the radio stations themselves.

But broadcasting, local radio and TV, is a  public/private partnership:  the public owns the airwaves needed for transmission;  private business own the buildings, equipment, etc. needed to broadcast programming.   When private business goes into broadcasting, it makes a deal with the public:  a free license from the Federal Communication Commission – if it agrees to “serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Again wrong Sue, the FCC is a regulatory agency that regulates all modern forms of electronic communications eg radio/TV, telephone and even the internet, is it your assertion that they own these too and can dictate content?

Can You show under what constitutional authority this ownership was taken or show documentation of this ownership?

Name any forms of governments that dictate the content of the media, are any of them not totalitarian?

Then she goes on to make the claim that the entire industry is racist/sexist without showing how any female or minority group has been denied the right to buy or own a radio station.

However, just because that restriction is built into the law does not mean the FCC will necessarily either enforce or obey it. (For example, on issues of the lack of women and minorities having access to radio licenses,

Broadcasting like any business is competitive and unless you have a customer base you can’t survive.  The success of any radio station depends on the number of listeners. The arbitron shows the number of listeners and the success of radio.  The market that she attacked is in the Milwaukee Area and the minority viewpoint was unsuccessfully represented.

The Milwaukee radio station WMCS-AM (1290) has served the city’s African-American radio audience for more than two decades with a variety of popular on-air hosts and personalities.

Black talk radio is a vibrant force in town, particularly during local elections, but the city’s two black-owned radio stations have always been challenged by economic realities that made the going tough. (The other station is  WNOV-AM 860, which still offers talk radio.)

The general manager at the company that runs WMCS chalked up a drastic decision to end the all-talk format on most days to strictly business. “Radio stations have to make money and serve the community,” said Bill Horwitz, vice president and general manager of the Milwaukee Radio Alliance.

The bottom line is that no one wants to listen to the pabulum spewed by leftist like Sue, The ratings of The Rachel Maddow show are a clear indication of this.  Free Markets are the ultimate form of Democracy, you the listener get to decide what you listen to.  The enemies of freedom would deny you of that right.

Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Letter to Governor Walker and Budget Committee

Leave a comment


My name is Marshall Keith and am an active Tea Party Member.  Your recent action as members of the budget committee is appalling and betrays every principle this country was founded on, namely the right of property and the right to own and run a business. Your action take against RYO machines amount to a regulatory taking without just compensation.

  I have a personal friend who is directly affected by this action, he mortgaged his house to buy two of these machines to the tune of $70,000 dollars. As a result of this he will more then likely lose both his home and his livelihood.

 

Do any of you think that sticking something like this in the budget even closely represents anything even closely related to Due Process?  I remind you all that you swore an oath to defend and uphold both the State and Federal Constitution, are any of you aware of these words from both the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. How about these words from the state constitution  ”The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor”

 The vast majority of you ran on the Republican platform of limited government and individual rights yet use the same tactics that Governor Doyle used to strip property owners the right to use their property and cater to the clientele of their choice and enact what is essentially a “Jim Crow” type law when enacting the smoking ban.  He slipped it into the budget.

 Is this what you mean by limited government and freedom, because to me it seems that we have just replaced one statist regime for another.  I was active in the fight against the Recall against Scott Walker but recent actions, namely Walkers DNA proposal, his endorsement of the Marketplace Extortion Act make me regret that decision.

 Before you claim that it is about the evasion of taxes, it is not.  These RYO shops pay the draconian 70% of list price tax inflicted by the Doyle administration?  If they are considered manufacturers did you exempt them from this 70% tax in favor of the cigarette tax stamp?  Of course not, you caved to the lobbying interest of “Big Tobacco”, the convenience stores and the likes of Smoke Free Wisconsin.

 When election time rolls around again I will be working hard to get every one of you replaced in favor of candidates that actually believe in the principles of limited Government and property rights.

Marshall Keith

Committee Members

Senate Members​ ​Assembly Members
Senator Alberta Darling, Co-Chair​ Representative John Nygren, Co-Chair​
Senator Luther Olsen​ Representative Pat Strachota
Senator Sheila Harsdorf Representative Dale Kooyenga
Senator Joe Leibham Representative Dean Knudson
Senator Mary Lazich Representative Dan LeMahieu
Senator Glenn Grothman Representative John Klenke
Senator Jennifer Shilling Representative Cory Mason
Senator Robert Wirch Representative Jon Richards
Committee Clerk:
Joe Malkasian
Room 305 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI  53702
(608) 264-8314

Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Older Entries