Archive for the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Category

“Websites that must be banned!” per the Obamatrons

February 23, 2009

It’s out there. They are still furthering their cause for Dear Leader, the Messiah, The ONE, His Royal Obamaness and aren’t even a little bashful about it. A friend just forwarded this to me:  The Obama Forum (Claiming to be ” Grassroots in Action” and “Forum for the Supporters of President Obama”, where they are calling for Banned Websites (plus a whole host of other things–see below). How do I get on that list? Maybe this post will do it. It would be like getting on Olbermanniac’s, “Worst Person in the WORLD!”

Their Posted Sponsors: Brady Campaign       Nation Of Islam        Stop Child Support       Anti-Defamation League       

Here’s their starting list (talk about Big Brutha!) for Banned Websites: http://ronpaulforums.com
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://wikipedia.org
http://jbs.org
http://mises.org/
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/
http://www.infowars.com
http://infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

Here are some of their Posts:

OBAMA NATION WATCH ~ Keeping an eye on our enemies (693 Viewing)  Use this forum to report traitors, dissenter’s and others who are a danger to the Obama Nation.

Gun Control & Consfication (113 Viewing)  President Obama’s Plan For America. Yes We Can!

Slave Reparations (18 Viewing)  Talk About Obama’s Slave Reparations Plan.

President Obama’s Spread The Wealth Stratagy (6 Viewing)  Higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, job creation for minorities … Hope For A Better America

Who needs Free Speech or the Fairness Doctrine when you have these folks around? So, thanks to Shannon (I think) for forwarding and alerting me.

Again, “Hey, Obamatrons, I want to be on your banned list! Please!”

Advertisements

“I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak”

February 21, 2009

Kathy Shaidle has taken a stand and I stand with her. We cannot continue to be “cowards”, as our fabulous new and first Black U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has accused, labeled and is correct in or on any terms any longer . We must stand for our rights of Free Speech and beliefs. Here’s her argument from RWN:

I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak

My enemies are belligerent Muslims — from now on I’m calling them “brown supremicists” — and the radical left. Both are unfortunately being enabled by our liberal elite Establishment.

It should go without saying, therefore, that I refuse to allow my enemies to control the way I speak.

Because if they control the way I speak, they will win. And I plan to win. Competitiveness and success being foreign concepts to many liberals, I don’t expect them to comprehend that.

A note, therefore, to my enemies…

You believe in the existence of a strange creature called “group rights.” I do not accept the existence of said animal.

It follows that you also accept the notion of “group libel.” Obviously, I reject that notion also.

I refuse to accept the faddish notion that only certain groups are allowed to use certain “offensive” words when describing themselves.

I refuse to adopt the fad of writing “not all Muslims” whenever I speak about Islam.

During WW2, we spoke of “the Germans” and “the Japanese”.

No “not all” to be seen.

It was understood by normal, sane, patriotic and intelligent ordinary people that not every single solitary German was a Nazi. Even before we learned the story of Oskar Schindler and other “righteous gentiles,” U.S. citizens spoke of “good Germans” whose existence they were certain of. There were indeed angry Americans who beat up their German neighbors.

Interestingly, there was no similar backlash against Muslims after 9/11.

We knew there were “good Japanese” too — at least on our shores. Despite real (as opposed to imaginary persecution), Japanese Americans volunteered to serve their adopted country and became the most decorated unit, not just during WW2, but in the entire history of the US armed forces.

(Alas, a similar parallel does not exist in our current conflict for some reason.)

It was common knowledge that, yes, the Germans had invented all kinds of wonderful things and created lovely music and so forth, in a (real) glorious past (as opposed to the sometimes imaginary glorious past frequently cited by Muslim apologists.)

Likewise the Japanese.

However, at that particular moment in time, the Japanese were mutilating American G.I.s and running slave brothels, while the Germans were embarked on a mission to wipe out Europes Jews and other “undesirables.”

In response, Dr. Suess and Chuck Jones made some nasty cartoons, as every college kid knows.

(Oh, and we actually killed our enemies back in those days, instead of interrogating them in Laz-E-Boy chairs and feeding them 3000 calorie a day halal meals.)

But as far as your average leftist/Muslim apologist/Canadian MP is concerned, those cartoons of Dr. Suess are worse than the Rape of Nanking. (Something few university students learn about, because, hey, those cartoons are so much cooler to bash.)

I reject the twisted notion, now taken for granted by the Establishment, that, say, publishing mean cartoons is a worse crime than using rude words to described those who murdered priests, nuns and their fellow Muslims in the name of those cartoons.

I reject the twisted notion that calling looters “looters” is “racist.”

That wondering aloud why millions of people no longer seem willing or able to fend for or better themselves is “racist.”

That making factual observations about the world around me, based on the evidence of my senses and my lived experience, is “racist.”

I believe it is my right to reject these twisted notions.

Sadly, many of those people running my country disagree.

If rejecting the language of appeasement during this conflict makes me a “racist, white supremacist whatever-the-word-is-this-week”, I will wear those appellations and others with pride.

“Racist” is the new “commie.”

I will continue to express my views, not only about belligerent, disloyal Muslims, but about everything that constitutes a threat to national security, be it the welfare state, radical ecology, the division of society into various arbitrary “victim” “communities, or official multiculturalism, “tolerance” and “diversity”.

(I also support the right to any other person, left or right, to post annoying, rude, ill-informed, provocative writing on their blog. That they don’t often extend me the same courtesy is unfortunate but I’m powerless to do much about that.)

This stance has, and will, cost me dearly. However, to do anything less would violate my conscience.

Those who dislike what they read at this blog are free to make their first visit here their last.

Let’s see how long I am free to keep writing it.

(Crossposted from FiveFeetOfFury, where Kathy Shaidle has been blogging for nine years. Her new book is The Tyranny of Nice: how Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights — and why it matters to Americans.

Somewhere along the line, what HRO and the LEFT have to understand is that we may have lost the last battle, but we have not lost the war and we refuse to give up.  We still have our voice and we must use it. Being PC will not achieve anything, in fact, it is why we’re where we’re at today–we didn’t stop the pussyfooting around and allowed the LEFT to make “cowards” of us–they stopped our voice, but things are such that it is the time to shout back, NO, we won’t let you put words in our mouths and we are not done fighting for ourselves and our country as our Fore Fathers’ saw this country in their hearts.

Who Needs Fairness, We Have a “Doctrine”

February 20, 2009

It’s coming…we all know that the Dems and the Left hate the fact that Conservative Talk Radio is successful, that Progressive Talk Radio “generally” fails (Air America and Pacifica Radio in bankruptcy), more than likely because all they do is rant and rave and have no content past their hate of George W. Bush. Oh, but wait, President Bush is NO longer President, so what is there to talk about now? How about George W. Bush, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, all day every day, non-stop–STILL!

So, certain Democrats like Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow kicked up debate in recent weeks by calling for a return to those standards, after Sen. Chuck Schumer and David Axelrod have made dire demands and threats about it’s return. New York Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, even Bubba Clinton has weighed in that we either need the Censorship Doctrine or something that adds balance. Then there is Bill Press whining that he doesn’t make enough money because he’s BORING and loses stations, therefor it’s the Evil Conservative Talk Machine keeping he and his message of goodness of the One down, silenced because of corporate greed–in other words, be successful and bring in ad money!

The ONE has advised his followers as well us infidels (Republicans and Conservatives) to NOT listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, they’ll only propagandize us into unbelieving in Change and Change for Change Sake, to obstruct the true and good teachings of His Royal Obamaness (HRO), the One who knows what’s better for Americans, even tho 47% of voters did not vote for him and the policies we knew he would bring.

Well, Rush is not particularly interested in going quietly into the long goodnight of Censorship Doctrine Hell, he is willing to point out the OTHER back-door avenues that HRO has to get around the “Fairness” Doctrine, since he continues to say he will not support or further the cause of the outspoken Demon-crats.

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band? [my emphasis]

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not “funding” or “big money,” as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You’ve said you’re against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you’ve not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a “scarce” resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as “fairness” and “balance”? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Comrades, we are well on our way to a Socialist State, any censorship of Free Speech anywhere will be the last nail in the collective coffin.

 UPDATE: Here’s the Link to The Heritage Foundation’s Roy Cooper’s Article– Fairness Doctrine Confusion  & Jim Meyers’  DeMint to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine on Newsmax

UPDATE II: McQ @ RWN (RightWingNews.com) has a post,  Dissent and Hate Speech, that seques into this discussion. The part of distinct interest starts about halfway down…

Eugene Volokh has a very interesting post up about a UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center study titled Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio.

It’s a fascinating post which demonstrates how hard certain groups are working another angle aimed at talk-radio (and read the comments, where commenters take the study’s assertions aparat). Hate-speech is a lever that various groups on the left have been trying to enable for years. From the study, here’s their definition of hate speech:

Types of Hate Speech 

We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including “simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading”], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors (table 1).    Then the examples: [go to link on title above]

UPDATE III: Annnd, the Prowler from the American Spectator covers the current go-behind-the public mechanations:  In All Fairness 

DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such. 

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”   [Read the rest at Title Link above]