|
Bob Lonsberry

On 1180 WHAM
weekdays 11am-2pm



 
Contacting Bob Lonsberry
Studio Phone: (585) 222-1180
Local Phone: (585) 279-5281
Phone Toll-Free: (800) 295-1180
Verizon: *1180
Email: lonsberry@wham1180.com
Bio
Bob Lonsberry is the father of six children.
 
A newsman for 25 years, he has won in excess of 80 journalism and broadcasting awards, including top Associated Press commentary awards in newspaper, radio and television -- the only person ever to do so.
 
He has been a newspaper reporter, columnist, photojournalist and editor, as well as a magazine writer and commentator on radio and television and a television reporter and manager. He is the author of "The Early Years," a collection of newspaper columns, as well as "A Various Language," a collection of essays, and "Baghdad Christmas" and "Hopiland Christmas," which are short novels.
 
He hosts a midday talk show in Rochester, New York, on 50,000-watt 1180 WHAM -- one of the highest-rated news/talk stations in America. He is also host of the morning show on 570-KNRS, the second-highest rated AM radio station in Utah.
 
He is also a commentator at NRAnews.com, a program of news and commentary on the Internet.
 
A veteran of the Army as a military journalist, Lonsberry is a former "Journalist of the Year" and is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Thomas Jefferson Award and the Keith L. Ware Award.
 
He was asked to write the first draft of the keynote address for the 1996 Republican National Convention.
Lonsberry is a Republican and life member of the National Rifle Association. He is an emergency medical technician, the holder of a pistol permit and a marathon runner.
 
He grew up in Canisteo, New York, is a college dropout and was once a missionary on and around the Indian reservations in the American Southwest. His oldest son recently returned from two years of similar missionary service in central Mexico.

Website Links
Lonsberry Photo Tour

Lonsberry's youngest son makes his YouTube debut!

One of Bob Lonsberry's producers, Bob Kern, wearing his favorite see-through mesh shirts to work!





And yes, it comes in black, too!




Rush Got How Much?
Thursday 07-03-2008 5:22am ET

Not bad for a kid from Cape Girardeau.

Rush Hudson Limbaugh III didn’t do so bad passing up the family predilection for law school.

Not bad at all.

The word leaked yesterday that Rush Limbaugh, one-half of the defining force in A.M. talk radio, has signed a contract for $400 million. He’ll be on the air for another eight years, and he’ll be rolling in dough for every second of it.

The richest man in broadcasting has made so much money he’s going to have to change his name to Oprah.

And I couldn’t be happier.

He deserves it.

By which I mean, for most of 20 years, Rush has been my radio friend. He’s the guy who’s with me in the truck on the drive home after work. He’s the guy whose passion and intelligence have entertained me and inspired me, and whose example prompted me to make a career change.

I’m a radio talk-show host because of Rush Limbaugh. His example – being a conservative, white, Christian guy in the media – showed me a way to make a living that had more of a future than the politically correct newspaper-columnist job I had before. His power – using a medium that reached people directly without a filter – showed me a way to connect with people in a way that would motivate them more than I could in the newspaper.

And Rush Limbaugh brought prosperity to a radio genre – A.M. talk – that allowed stations to afford local hosts like me.

There’s not a day that passes that I don’t realize that if there was no Rush Limbaugh, there would be no Bob Lonsberry – at least in terms of radio.

I’ve only met him once, and that was a quick, shy handshake, but I feel like he’s one of my oldest friends. And I think there are millions of others who feel the same way.

And we all love the fact that he daily gives the finger to the establishment that looks down on him and on us. Rush Limbaugh is the shadow president of the United States, elected each day by people who tune their radios to him.

For millions of Americans, Rush Limbaugh is their representative and their champion. The silent majority has found its voice, and it his him. Thoughts and ideas – the contraband of politically correct mind control – are his stock and trade. He says things other people think, but which society will not allow them to utter.

Talk radio, as defined by Rush Limbaugh, isn’t a bullhorn, it is a mirror – held up to reflect the America that truly is America. The most frustrating thing about Rush Limbaugh, in the view of the powerful Left, is that he is popular. He is not the exception, he is the norm. He is the best representation of work-a-day America in the national media.

They’d like to take him down, believing if he is gone the sheep will scatter. But they don’t realize that Rush doesn’t lead, he follows. He follows the traditions of our constitutional Republic and he follows the pulse of the American mainstream.

And if he got $400 million out of the big radio company, more power to him.

Of course, it’s important to note that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others of that rank are the tiniest tip of the radio pay scale. The rest of us aren’t flying in private jets. In fact, with this new contract and signing bonus, I would – at my current wage – have to work 4,000 years to make what Rush will in the next eight years.

And I work two jobs. He’s on three hours a day; I’m on seven.

And the money to pay Rush and the others at the top will come out of the hide of those of us at the bottom. There are only so many dollars in radio and, in some regards, it is a shrinking industry sensitive to flutters in the economy.

And then there’s the Fairness Doctrine – the other half of the defining force in A.M. radio. Ronald Reagan threw out the evil mandate, which is nothing more than an oppressive guarantee that the First Amendment protection of free speech and free press won’t ever apply to broadcasting. When the Fairness Doctrine went away, and real opinion was allowed, Rush Limbaugh exploded.

But the fact that conservative views have flourished and liberal views have been rejected has turned Democrat politicians against talk radio. Democrats in the House of Representatives have legislation ready that would bring back the doctrine and bring an end to opinion radio. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it, and so – it seems – is Barack Obama.

So Rush Limbaugh is a $400 million gamble that the Fairness Doctrine will stay dead or that people will be happy with Rush talking about his cats and his golf for three hours a day.

But here’s my prediction: This is going to work out. Betting on Rush Limbaugh has proven successful every time it’s been tried.

And I’m glad.

Because my concerns are small and specific. I want Rush to keep coming out of the radio in my truck as I drive home from work. When the politicians are screwing us over and I need to get pumped up about what this country really stands for, I want him to be there.

And if it cost a radio company $400 million to keep him there for eight more years, I’m grateful somebody’s going to pony up the dollars.

Rush is my friend. Me and a few million others. And if my friend hit it big, I say, "Good for him."

Criticism Of McCain Goes Too Far
Tuesday 07-01-2008 5:22am ET

Wesley Clark isn’t worthy to wipe up the blood in John McCain’s cell.

And yet this ambitious little Obama lackey has so whored himself to a shot at the vice presidency that he’s willing to mock another warrior’s service.

And not just any warrior.

But a genuine, bona fide American hero.

You may not want to vote for John McCain, but you can’t disrespect him. At least not his military service. That’s beyond the pale. That’s not what honorable or decent people do.

You don’t mock the shedding of a man’s blood. You don’t ridicule his torture at the hands of a savage enemy. You don’t diminish his service in uniform.

It simply is not done.

And yet this Barack Obama surrogate, on one of the Sunday talk shows, did exactly that.

And those sort of things don’t happen by accident. The Obama campaign is one of the best-run and most-disciplined presidential runs in memory. It doesn’t make false steps and it doesn’t do anything without thinking it through and measuring it for effect and benefit.

So this wasn’t an accident.

The campaign will say it is. It will imply that Wesley Clark got carried away. That he was speaking for himself. That Barack Obama doesn’t feel that way. That he disavows what Wesley Clark said.

Only it has been a wink-and-a-nod disavowal. Obama gets the benefit of hitting his opponent below the belt without actually having to get his hands dirty.

A man with eight years in the Illinois legislature, in his first term in the Senate, whose biggest achievement seems to have been protesting for more welfare for a neighborhood he didn’t live in, that man doesn’t have the right to send his water boy to throw stones at another man’s life.

Again, it doesn’t matter whether you support McCain or Obama. You can respect someone’s service to the country without wanting to vote for him. It’s not some Freudian thing where whoever has the longest resume gets the job. People can consider a candidate’s life experience or not, as they choose.

But you don’t desecrate the service of a man’s life because you’re trying to cover for your own candidate’s inadequacies in that regard.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you’re not selling experience – because he doesn’t have it. You’re selling something else. There’s nothing wrong with that. Different candidates have different strengths, and you accentuate your candidate’s strength. That’s valid.

But it’s not valid to commit the arson of character assassination. If Obama is going to do politics differently, he ought to start soon, because so far he’s doing it exactly the way it’s always been done.

Only more savagely.

Because this nation reveres men who have served as John McCain has served.

He was born in a Navy family, in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was stationed. The son of a four-star admiral who was the son of a four-star admiral, he didn’t have a hometown or longtime childhood friends. He, like countless other military brats, was dragged from post to post, paying a price – like all members of military families – for his father’s service.

John McCain was fated to go to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. The two previous John McCains were graduates and while most kids get to chase their own dreams, he had a family tradition to uphold.

A tradition he followed through a complete career in the United States Navy. Yes, he was board the Oriskany when it burned. Yes, he went to Vietnam. Yes, he was shot down. Yes, he was mangled in the crash of his jet and, yes, he was tortured. Yes, he is handicapped to this day by his war wounds and as a result of the torture.

Yes, he came back on active duty and finished his Navy career, retiring as a captain.

He did his duty. He did what his country asked him.

And to have some snot-nose political wannabe say that John McCain "rode" a jet, and commanded a squadron in "peacetime," as if to minimize what he has done and how he has served is immoral and dishonorable.

And it is supremely offensive and disrespectful.

Not just to John McCain, but to all who have served in the Armed Forces.

According to Wesley Clark, peacetime service isn’t really service. That must come as news to those whose tours of duty didn’t fall during a time of war.

And if Wesley Clark ridicules fighter pilots, what does he think about the mechanics who maintained the jets those pilots "rode?" What does he think about the military clerks and cooks and supply sergeants? What does he think about them?

If John McCain’s service is a trifling which can be mocked and discounted, then so can the service of the countless veterans who look up to him.

There is a warrior ethos which says you never leave a man behind. It means that American fighting men always back one another up. They are always faithful to one another and they can always count on one another.

Wesley Clark has violated that ethic.

He has walked on another man’s flag.

And that says more about him and his presidential candidate than it does about John McCain.

Will NY Gun Laws Abide By 2nd Amendment?
Friday 06-27-2008 5:21am ET

What will Bob Duffy do?

The mayor of Rochester, who says he believes in the right to own guns, will he ask City Council to bring local laws into accord with the Constitution?

What will Bob Duffy do?

Will he follow a ruling of the Supreme Court, or will he cater to the unconstitutional leanings of his new Democrat friends? Will Rochester continue to lead the liberal parade, or will it follow the law?

This has been coming since 1993.

That's when Rochester jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon of the day and outlawed assault rifles, pistol-grip shotguns, and private gun transactions, did everything it could to put every city gun store out of business and declared that guns in homes had to be locked up or locked away.

Intended to make the city safer, the years since the anti-gun laws took effect have seen Rochester become the state's murder capital. It was one more liberal idea that did nothing but make the government more powerful and the people less free.

And violate the Constitution.

Many of us said so at the time, and 15 years later the Supreme Court agrees.

Because Rochester's gun law is unconstitutional.

The city hasn't admitted that, and says it needs to review and investigate, but I can save them the lawyer fees.

The majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller specifically addresses an aspect of the Washington gun laws – mandatory trigger locks – that is found in the Rochester gun laws.

And the Supreme Court said they had to go.

Rochester city law requires that firearms in the home, unless they are immediately at hand of the owner, must have either a trigger lock on them or be locked up in some sort of safe or cabinet. Every Rochester gun must be under lock and key in the home.

And that's unconstitutional.

Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, saw self-defense as a prime reason behind the Second Amendment. He was right, if self-defense includes the defense of individual liberty from tyrannical government. He said Americans have the right to defend themselves in their homes with firearms.

And he said that requiring locks on guns limited the right of self-defense by making it too difficult to use a firearm to protect one's home and family. Practically speaking, you can't ask the average home invader to wait for you to find the key to your trigger lock.

Therefore, he reasoned, mandatory trigger locks are unconstitutional.

And Rochester needs to do something about that.

Rochester law contains a provision that is specifically unconstitutional.

The question is: Will Bob Duffy and City Council change that, or will they wait for a lawsuit to force them to change it? Will they abide by the law or will they play politics?

And how will other levels of New York government respond to this ruling?

If self-defense is a basic purpose of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court sees this as primarily achieved by handguns, what of county judges who put "hunting and target practice only" restrictions on New York pistol permits?

Is that practice constitutional?

And what of New York's antagonistic pistol-permit process itself? In a state where it can take six months to a year to get the permit necessary to buy the handgun the Supreme Court says citizens have a right to own, isn't it obvious that the state is imposing an undue burden on that right?

Is the current license process constitutional?

It sure doesn't seem like it.

The question is: Will New York, with one of the most liberal state governments in America, change its laws and practices to abide by the constitution?

Or will gun owners have to take it to court?

And a final question: Is there any chance at all that the ACLU will help citizens secure their rights under the Second Amendment?