American Republic Online

Demonstrating that Thompson is a real contender for the White House, Democrats have launched a new anti-Fred campaign. One of the main points is that Thompson is “just another corrupt Republican:”

“Remember the Republican culture of corruption?” the letter asks. “The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That’s Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn’t the ‘Law & Order’ star’s profession — it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby’s legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would ‘absolutely’ pardon him. As he runs for president, he’ll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson.”

Read the full article »

What a creepy, disembodied Japanese robot head thinks about Bush.

Senator James Inhofe claims to have overheard Senators Clinton and Boxer say that should be a “legislative fix” for talk radio. Now, regardless of how you feel about talk radio, this has to concern you. Two senators are discussing a way the federal government could limit speech. In all fairness, they may have said it tongue in cheek, but to even consider it is absolutely unacceptable from any legislator. What would the reaction be if Senators Lott and Cornyn were overheard saying that there ought to be a legislative fix for The New York Times?

Consider a recent report by Think Progress (a liberal think tank) that describes the fact that talk radio is almost exclusively a conservative domain. They dismiss the explanation that is market-driven (no one wants to listen to liberal talk radio) as a “myth,” and conclude that it is “the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system…” (emphasis added). A regulation problem?

Look at this statement: ” [this] raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.” In other words, those companies that took the financial risk of setting up a radio station, administrating it, licensing the radio programs, and then providing their service for free to people who have numerous options at the touch of a button all in the hopes that some of them will listen to a couple commercials are not “serving the greater good?” I didn’t realize that the government owned the airwaves, and that is was up to the government to decide what best served our listening needs. I thought we did that when we turned on our radios.
This would only be the beginning. Surely the next target would be the internet, and sites like our own ARO. (You do know that the U.N. has been trying to take control of the internet, don’t you? Yes, the same U.N. that is head over heels in love with the U.S.) Free speech is essential to a free and open society. We can not restrict it.
Maybe the talk radio hosts should start saying they are journalists, hide behind the journalist veil and claim they are “objective.” (see below)

UPDATE: It seems that the veracity of the story is being questioned.  However, legislator are seriously considering bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine“: a regulation that required broadcaster “to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.”  That sounds innocuous, right?  Well, again, who decided what is fair and balanced?  Fox News?  The Senate?  A whole new regulatory arm of the FCC?

MSNBC has a list of reporters who gave to political campaigns. Of the 144 listed, 18 gave to Republicans/conservative causes. 126 gave to Democrats/liberal causes (2 gave to both). The so-called “mainstream media” has a liberal bias. Really? Maybe they should all disclose their biases when reporting on issues. The BBC has done it. Instead of pretending they are “objective” just tell the truth. I think this would give them more credibility, and would most likely drive them to make sure that everything is presented “fairly,” since they will obviously be under a lot more scrutiny.

The same problem exists in science. Scientists present their findings (and we accept them) as unbiased, objective. But the problem remains that they are people. And everyone has a unique perspective, and brings a measure of bias to everything (no matter how small). We are certainly not allowed to get away with saying we are objective. Try going up to a stranger on the street and telling them that you can be perfectly objective. What if someone told you that? Would you believe them? Why do certain professions get a free pass?

It would not take much: simply putting a paragraph or so on the web.  It would be unreasonable and unfortunate to have to do some sort of disclaimer during broadcasts or printed stories.  But making the information available to those who would find it useful would go a long way.  As pointed out above, disclosure would lead to more credibility.  And, it would provoke more scrutiny, and thus more thoroughness by those that we place so much trust in.  This would, in turn, lead to, hopefully, more understanding all around.

Ah technology… spreading information many have forgotten and some wish the rest of us would. This is a story about Al Gore blasting Bush on Iraq. But wait! This is about Bush Sr not staying in Iraq and finishing the job. Great irony eh?

On September 29th, 1992, Senator Gore (VP hopeful at the time) gave a speech blasting George Bush Sr. for “looking the other way” on Iraq and Saddam. Gore felt that the job needed to be finished due to:

• Iraq’s ties to terrorism
• Iraq’s mass use of poison gas
• Iraq’s ongoing development of chemical & biological missile weapons
• Iraq’s attempts to obtain nuclear weapon technology
• And Saddam’s blatant abuses of human rights

Gore scoffs at the ineffective potential of sanctions (though they strangely continued well past Bush Sr) and really makes a impassioned (for Gore) call for ousting Saddam and dealing with Iraq.

Read the full article »

As a public service to our readers we have summarized 10 flaws in the Amnesty bill that the Senate and President are hell bent on reviving in spite of the recent polling that shows only 20% of the public support it.

1. Illegals get “legal” status immediately. Enforcement to follow hopefully…
2. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the bill does not require (or fund) any additional agents, beds, or fences.
3. Background checks are not required. (Or feasible when we’re 3 months behind in passports)
4. Criminals are not exempted from amnesty. (Such an amendment was proposed but voted down by the Senate)
5. Despite claims, the new legals are not required to pay back income taxes.
6. The new legals and guest workers can both claim the earned income tax credit. (Don’t believe the claims that the new workers will reduce the tax burden)
7. The “enforcement triggers” do not require the US VISIT system (the check in & out tracking system created by Congress in ‘96 but never implemented) to be operational before commencing the guest worker program. Meaning the system to track people overstaying their Visas doesn’t need to exist before we start handing Visas out.
8. In-state tuition will be available to the new “legals” - just not to out-of-state citizens.
9. Affidavits from friends are considered acceptable evidence to establish you meet the amnesty criteria (for instance that you entered the country illegally before 1/1/07)
10. And my personal favorite is that illegal aliens with terrorist connections will not be barred from the amnesty if they show “good moral character”. (Uhm, yeah.)

You can now buy “abstract art” created by a dog. Only $350. If you watch this video you can see that the dog is obviously being forced to paint: he is not allowed to wait for creativity to strike him. Who would want to buy such forced, commercialized “art?” I mean, let him lose to create, don’t hold him back!

In all honesty, I myself went threw a phase where I thought myself an authentic consumer of artistic expressions. I went to all the art places, listened to the “artistic” music, watched the artistic movies, etc. You know the kind where everyone sits down and listen/watches and remarks on the genius of the artist, even though no one really understand what in the world is going on. I was especially susceptible to the movies.
I would rent movies that were supposed to be smart or edgy or some other blatherskite. I’d convince myself that it was good, that I “got it,” and that it was in some way speaking to my soul.

Like the movie Pi. If you ever want to feel like you’re really missing something, watch this movie. Or, if you want to impress your “intellectual” friends, buy it and put it out by the TV like you watch it every night while you sip your chamomile tea before going to bed. I have no idea what the movie was about: I only remember some strung out mathematician that found a brain on the subway steps, and a loud noise happened every time he poked it. I think the brain was supposed to be his. But, as for how it got onto the subway stairs, we are left to our imaginations (or acid trip).

Any how, I have since emerged from these doldrums, and am back to Clint Eastwood Westerns. (I’m just glad I got out of that phase before Brokeback Mountain came out…)

The CBS chief executive is surprised at the apparently rampant sexism in America. This is, of course, the only reason people are not watching Katie Couric. It has nothing to do with the fact that they took someone more known for cooking segments, and her bubbly personality, and put her in a role where she must remain stoic and overwhelmed with the gravity of this evening’s news. (Has anyone out there watched her? It is quite uncomfortable to behold, as it seems unnatural to see her behind that desk: one expects her to get up and go sit down on a couch and start talking about what Bobby Flay is out grillin’ on the barbie, and by the way, how’s the weather look in your neck of the woods?)

This theme is also turning into the latest sandbagging for the Democrats too. In other words, if Hillary isn’t elected, it’s because of sexism. And if Obama isn’t elected, it’s because of racism. No matter what, they’re golden: big story either way.

Except, they forget that the Democrats must first nominate one of them as their party’s candidate…

Your editor is waiting with bated breath to see which force is more pervasive in the Democrat party: sexism or racism?

ARO has diligently reported on the growing squirrel menace. Well, there are new reports of a deranged squirrel attacking three people in Germany. Luckily for the rest of us, it met its end at the hand of a 72 year old man. Experts say that its “behaviour could have been brought on by the mating season, or it could have been ill.”

Nah, I bet it was the 0.6 degree rise in the Earth’s temperature. Global Warming: infecting squirrels everywhere with “the fever.”

(Of course, there is still the question of whether this senior citizen will be charged with an animal rights violation…)