On Hannity's radio program, DeLay falsely claimed Obama supports "a bill to fingerprint every American in this country"
SUMMARY: On The Sean Hannity Show, Tom DeLay falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama is "in favor of a bill to fingerprint every American in this country and have a national fingerprint database." In fact, the bill to which DeLay was apparently referring would require employees of banks that apply for "licensing and registration as a State-licensed loan originator," as well as individuals who apply for licenses, to submit fingerprints to "to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any governmental agency or entity authorized to receive such information for a State and national criminal history background check."
On the June 9 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, Townhall.com columnist and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama is "in favor of a bill to fingerprint every American in this country and have a national fingerprint database." DeLay later misrepresented an anti-discrimination bill passed in Colorado, stating that the bill "would allow men to go into women's bathrooms. And if you were the owner of the bathroom and don't allow that to happen, you can go to jail for a year and get a fine. I mean, that is a dictatorial proletariat. That's not a criminal action, but they make it a criminal action. That's going on all across our country, and people better realize it."
Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, claimed in a post on HumanEvents.com that a bill Obama co-sponsored, the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, would "create[] a national fingerprint registry." In fact, that bill would not "fingerprint every American in this country," as DeLay claimed. Rather, it contains provisions requiring people who apply for "licensing and registration as a State-licensed loan originator" to submit fingerprints to "to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any governmental agency or entity authorized to receive such information for a State and national criminal history background check." The bill was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and co-sponsored by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
The Colorado legislature passed a bill to prohibit discrimination in numerous areas, including public accommodations, on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill defines "[s]exual orientation" as "a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof." Contrary to DeLay's claim, the bill does not allow men to use women's lavatories. According to a May 30 Associated Press article about the bill, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson released a statement saying, "Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence." The AP reported that in response, the bill's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Jennifer Veiga "called Dobson's comments offensive and said she was frustrated with his 'scare tactics.' " She also reportedly said that despite the existence of laws in numerous states enacting protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, opponents have been unable to point to any examples of people trying to take advantage of these laws in a manner not intended by the law.
From the June 9 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
DeLAY: Well, Sean, I was reading today that he is in favor of a bill to fingerprint every American in this country and have a national fingerprint database. And if you don't fingerprint yourself, you will be fined. I mean, if that is not --
HANNITY: That's pretty frightening.
DeLAY: -- straight out of the book of a dictatorial proletariat, where you're going to do something that's not a -- you won't do something that's a criminal act and go to jail for it? I mean, and I could go on and on and on.
HANNITY: Well, now, you see, you're going to be a "dictatorial proletariat." Are you saying that he'd be a dictator? You know people are going to be taking those comments out of context.
DeLAY: No, but I'm talking about the definition of dictatorial proletariat is using the government to penalize and punish people for behavior that you don't agree with. I mean, look at the criminalization of politics now. There's -- I mean, there was a bill passed in Colorado not too long ago, signed by the governor, that would allow men to go into women's bathrooms. And if you were the owner of the bathroom and don't allow that to happen, you can go to jail for a year and get a fine. I mean, that is a dictatorial proletariat. That's not a criminal action, but they make it a criminal action. That's going on all across our country, and people better realize it.
And to use an old wingnut excuse, if you ain't got nothing to hide, what's there to worry about?
And what the hell is with the Republican fascination with public rest rooms?
Your way of thinking is... well, so unthinking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102000248.html
But innocent until proven guilty.
Don't they already have Tom's prints on file in Texas?
Yes. And his mug shot, where he actually smiled for the camera - so that the mug shot could not be used against him for political purposes. (I think that was the same reason Jeff Christie smiled for HIS mug shot in Florida on "doctor shopping" charges. No word on whether he smiled for his mug shot when he was arrested with that male prostitute in Pittsburgh in the Early '70s....)
I can't wait until the day when we can finally watch Tom DeLay do the perp walk, with legs and hands shackled and wearing an orange jump suit......
Any indicted Re-puke-lican...
goes straight to Fixed News. And they get their own bathroom stall.
And they get their own bathroom stall.
And since her show was cancelled, E.D.Hill CLEANS those bathroom stalls.....
Tom DeLay, one of the slimiest political bastids in all of Texas history. Which is quite a distinction 'cause we've had (and still have) a boatload of them.
Sorry (she says sheepishly). :-0)
I personally had nothing to do with those crooked politicians from Texas. I didn't get here until 2006.....
Come on Tom. Do you own homework. It was a National Fingerprint Database for people who handle loans.
I'm still waiting for his fingerprints to get into a National database convicted criminals.
But hey... Max Weber, Karl Marx... who cares who said what, right?
DeLay's definition of a dictatorship of the proletariat is "using the government to penalize and punish people for behavior that you don't agree with"???
Isn't that what DeLay was doing all those years he was part of the GOP leadership?
Whether it's the insecticide or the alcohol, I don't know, but that Tom is one entertaining guy!
Who is in favor the voter ID nonsense, Tom? You or Barack? Why do you favor the voter ID, Tom? Is it because you disapprove of and seek to punish the political beliefs of the poor people who vote Democratic?
Wow... I didn't know all American citizens are "employees of banks that apply for "licensing and registration as a State-licensed loan originator," as well as individuals who apply for licenses." Well, shoot, what country am I a citizen of???
Nice going, Dee-Lay. Can't tell the truth, cancha? Oh well... at least you display your side's #1 trait true to form.
Whoops!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/hannity-the-mccain-surrogate/I mean, look at the criminalization of politics now.
LOL
Enron- paid lobbyist helped DeLay write "economic stimulus" bill that would have resulted in $254 million tax rebate to Enron, when Enron paid no taxes past four years. Newsweek 2-4-02DeLay's wife works for lobbying firm paid $200,000 by Enron. USA Today, 1-24-02
DeLay investigating judges' backgrounds to attempt impeachment for bad "attitudes. Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), 6-14-98 DeLay Blames Gun Disasters on the Teaching of Evolution and Working Mothers Who Take Birth Control Pills. THE NATION, 11-15-99DeLay threatening to retaliate against a trade group that hired a Democrat as its top lobbyist.
DeLay for pressured a Michigan Republican, Representative Nick Smith, to change his vote on an important health care bill.
DeLay sent federal officials to look for Texas state legislators when they fled to Oklahoma to avoid a contentious vote on the redistricting plan.
Greetings MMfA'ers:
Sorry for the length of the following: I just sent this to my congressperson after hearing Hannity today.
..."I am listening to a re-broadcast, from earlier today, of the Sean Hannity show. This "Great American" is pushing his listeners to pressure their representatives to support the so-called "Broadcast Freedom Bill", which would place a permanent moratorium on reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
I respectfully request that you do not support the Broadcast Freedom Bill, but that you do support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. I have listened and paid attention to right-wing talk radio since the early 1990's and am in awe of the political power garnered by the republican party from spewing misinformation, invective, hate, and rage over the radio waves for all these years, without any repercussions. The right wing claims that they have earned a rightful claim to the radio waves by earning market share, and they scoff at fledgling left-wing radio shows, claiming those shows are supported by fat-cat lefties and would otherwise not survive.
But the righties are not telling the truth: they are not sponsored by willing advertisers. Their main sponsor is McGruff the Crime Dog, at least here in ***. They fill their other ad time with promos, commercials for sister-radio stations and PSA traffic reports on I-nnn traffic. No, these right wing shows are mainly supported by a few fat-cat republicans, as are many right wing think tanks. The control of American airwaves should not be a prize in a struggle of American billionairs.
Please don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with republicans having access to air their views to the nation, but I think it is only fair to give equal access to the airwaves to those with other views. At this very moment, Sean Hannity is refusing to permit an Obama supporter to state his support over the airwaves, but rather is insisting that the caller instead answer some narrowly and negatively-framed question about how can the caller support Obama in light of Obama's known acquaintance with Bill Ayers (this caller is too smart to answer). Oops, Hannity just hung up on the caller, who never did knuckle under. In the interim, the Republican audience members are being coached by Hannity and Mark Levin (on earlier) to phone their congress-people to proclaim the Fairness Doctrine as Unfair. I hope you will consider that these radio pundits speak out of self-interest, and that they are terrified to see their long-term captive medium finally restored to the center.
Please support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine,
Sincerely, yada yada
Quite passionate...congratulations on your effort.
But it is woefully short of facts and you could have just as easily and effectively stopped after you asked your congressman to support the Fairness Doctrine...and skipped the yada yada about the evil "righties".
Respectfully, I am not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.
It's not a fairness issue over content, it's an ownership issue brought on by the Telecom Act of 1996. This is what gave people like Lowry Mays the ability buy up hundreds of radio stations. This is what made the massive radio conglomerates that saturate markets with Flush Drugbaugh and his ilk a reality. This is what gave them the ability to buy up the FCC licenses, flank the markets, disregard progressive talent, and control the message.
As several progressive talkers including Ed Schultz believe, the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer. A repeal of the Telecom Act and more local ownership of licenses is what we need.
I believe given equal access to radio markets, lib talkers will compete and succeed.
I believe given equal access to radio markets, lib talkers will compete and succeed.
I think that's the case as well. Since the consolidation took place, programming decisions are being made in corporate boardrooms for hundreds of srtations at a time, rather than locally to satisfy the needs of the listeners.
For example, I used to live in Pueblo, CO - a heavily Democratic city in Southern Colorado. But with Clear Channel owning all the radio stations, the only talkers you could hear there were Jeff Christie, Sean Hannity, and Michael Reagan. If conditions were right during the day, you could barely pick up the Air America station up in Denver - that was your only alternate choice.
Jeff Christie? I've never heard of him. Who is he and what's his story? ;)
"Jeff Christie" is the name Rush Liimbaugh was using when he was working as a DJ in Pittsburgh in the '70s. He was fired following his arrest in the company of a male prostitute in an area known for homosexual activity. It's one part of his past that "The Great American Truth Detector" has never told his dittohead listeners about.
I refer to Rush as "Jeff Christie" to remind MMFA readers about this part of his past. And since either he or someone who works for him monitors MMFA, I figure they see it every time I call him "Jeff Christie".
I agree with your sentiments but here's a different take on the Fairness Doctrine:
http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2008/06/12/talk-radios-last-stand/#comments
(and love the play by play on Hannity's nonsense---gotta keep an eye/ear on the scoundrel)
ANNES106442:
Very good, you know, and so do a lot of us. I wish to add a little, and refer to a few KEY WORDS in the matter:
Public Airwaves
FCC
FCC License
FCC Regulations
We're talking about a Publicly owned, Publicly controlled, Regulated Public resource here: we are not talking about private property or private capital, like in the case of a publisher and their privately owned press: no part of the broadcast spectrum of the Public Airwaves is private property: broadcasters who use the Public Airwaves, are using a Public resource, by way of a License from the FCC... and as such, their use of that Public property is Regulated.
Again, were we to be talking about a publisher and their privately owned press, we would not be talking about a License, and the Regulatory requirements of that License.
Publishers have a First Amendment right to do what they do, and to do it unregulated by our Government: you and I also have this right, to freely publish and speak.
Do you and I have any right to broadcast on the Public Airwaves? We do not!
We would require an FCC License to do so (a License so precious and rare, that you and I have no chance whatsoever of getting one). Broadcasting on the Public Airwaves is a privilege (a limited nearly exclusive privilege), it is not a right that you and I or anyone has... no person has a right to use a Public resource, outside of possessing a License or Permit to do so, and adhering to all the Regulations thereof: no more than anyone has a right to drill for oil on Federal lands, or mine precious metals or log timber or graze on Public lands, unless by way of a License or Permit, and the adherence to any and all Regulations thereof. It's the same thing.
As for the Fairness Doctrine: as you know, for more than forty years it was the Regulatory policy of the FCC, that if a broadcaster used an FCC License to broadcast their political opinions (again, on a limited Public resource), that they were to allow for "equal time" regarding the political issue they were advancing on the Public Airwaves. Also, were those same broadcasters to air personal attacks in using our Public Airwaves (our’s, not their’s), then they were to allow for "reply time" to those who had been personally attacked on our Public Airwaves, by way of an FCC License. But under Reagan's FCC, the Fairness Doctrine was unilaterally repealed (without Congressional advise and consent): that was an act of de-regulation: without the consent of our agents in Congress, the Public Airwaves were de-regulated, and those FCC Licensees were then able to use our Public Airwaves for their own private political purposes...
...and that's why we're in this mess we're in, where we need MMFA and others to monitor an out of control Public Airwaves being used to corrupt our Democratic processes toward the private political objectives of FCC License holders... and I say that's not a fair use of a Public resource, and not why we License those broadcasters to use the Public Airwaves.
As far as an example of an FCC License holder broadcasting their own personal political agenda: there are thousands to cite, but you yourself have already done that: sean hannity's "lobbying" for the Broadcaster Freedom Act, by way of an FCC License using the Public Airwaves, a thing you and I can't likewise do... and where you read the word "Freedom" in that Act, what of course that means is "De-Regulation": the Broadcaster De-Regulation Act... that's what hannity was "lobbying" for, using our Public Airwaves.
It’s all common sense: it’s no infringement of anyone’s rights either: hannity and you and I and every American, has a right to speak and to publish (and to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, as you have done by writing your Congressperson): This is the First Amendment, and you and I and sean hannity have every freedom under it…
…and the Fairness Doctrine of Regulating our Public Airwaves infringes no American’s right whatsoever:
Because the fact of the matter is, that no American has any right to use any Public resource, the Public Airwaves included, in any unregulated manner.
Or why else would an FCC License be required?
A License you and I don’t have, and don’t have any chance at all of ever getting.
Or why else would an FCC License be required?
The main reason FCC licenses are required for radio stations is to prevent them from interfering with each other. Back in the early days of commercial radio, you would have several stations trying to broadcast on the same frequency. Congress passed the Radio Act in 1927 to restore ordeer to the airwaved; it established the Federal Radio Commission, which became the FCC in 1934.
fingerprinting everyone in the country when they're in favor of letting the president eavesdrop on every phone call in the country? And "using the government to penalize and punish people for behavior that you don't agree with?" We're not the ones who want abortion and gay marriage to be illegal. "The criminalization of politics?" Which party was it that impeached a president over sex? I'm lost at this point. The only consistency I can find is that Republican bigwigs will say anything they think might stick to bash Democrats.
I know a lot of government employees are fingerprinted. I suggest this practice should be extended to government contractors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stmDid you know that under McCain's proposed Secure America Now Act that all healthy American male citizens under the age of 45 will immediately be drafted into our armed forces and a full scale invasion and occupation of the entire Middle East will begin on July 7, 2009?
It's true, I read it on the internet, shortly after I posted it on the internet.
I turned 46 last month, at which time I realized the error of my ways, registered Republican, and now wholeheartedly support the troops(meaning I support haphazard invasions of other countries that put other peoples lives in danger)
Ever see the movie "Liar, Liar" with Jim Carrey? He loses the ability to lie. I wish that all politicians and journalists -- including pundits -- were suddenly stricken with this curse.