The left talks about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine because they indict right of center talk as being more prolific in the airwaves. They claim their message of hope and change has been drowned out by the likes of El Rushbo, Levin, Liddy, Hewitt, Medved, and others.

Forget that they apprarently just had a huge electoral “mandate” in the House, Senate, Oval Office and several state legislatures. Forget that the Air America owner and former funnyman is now a United States Senator.  Forget the blatant inequity of leftist blogs in the sphere.

We apparently can’t hear the leftist viewpoint without imposing restrictions on the public airwaves. They want to bring “fairness” back to the broadcast media space. And if you are against the Fairness Doctrine, you must be against “fair” and you are probably a big, meanie, conservative fascist!

But the Fairness Doctrine is vastly different than what the leftists are telling us they want. Let’s dissect the issue in a common-sense, conservative manner. The Fairness Doctrine was an inane legal obligation for the FCC to ensure that important issues were being presented to the public in a “fair, honest, and equitable” manner.  Broadcasters were able to pretty much decide how opposing positions could be allowed. I leave the comments section open on my posts, and if someone disagrees they can post an opposing idea. That pretty much meets the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine in most cases. It is stupid policy – and not very enforceable.

Is this what the leftists say they want? Hardly. Leftists want you to provide “equal time” to opposing opinion. So, let’s say you listen to a 3-hour conservative broadcast on a particular station. That station would be obliged to present a 3-hour leftist broadcast.  Fair?  Not to station owners and not to advertisers – the people who pay for the air time in hopes that a targetted audio will by their products or services.

But let me ask you a couple of questions: Christian News/Talk stations – will we tell them they have to devote half of their programming to Pagan or Atheist programming? Fair?

There is too much conservative talk radio and I don’t want to listen to it, so someone should subsidize leftist political talk. I have a right not to be offended. Fair?

Political talk is supposed to be the most protected form of speech according to our constitution – do we just ignore the 1st Amendment or repeal it? Fair?

The proponents of this policy understand full well that equal time would mean broadcasters would go to music programming to keep their advertisers, rather than risk their licenses and livelihoods.  The goal is to remove ANY information from getting to Americans from other than approved sources – like the mainstream media. Fair?

The first thing I suggest is to stop calling what these leftists are pushing a Fairness Doctrine. It doesn’t resemble the original idea (which was a legal train wreck anyway) – What they are proposing is a Silence Doctrine.

I am trying to figure out how the MSM can possibly say “Lawmakers Agree on $789 Billion Stimulus”.

The only thing lawmakers have agreed on is that something must be done. No one knows exactly what must be done. The Treasury Secretary, President Obama, and  Congressional Democrats have been unable to explain the mechanics of how this spending will help the economy. To top it all off, they can’t explain how we can double the national debt to get ourselves out of economic trouble.  In short, they can’t even agree whether this is a solution.

Let’s also make sure who we are talking about doing all of this agreeing. Only 3 Republicans out of the 219 in congress “agree” that this spending is the right path to take.  Without those three, the Democrats would have to spend a little more time paring it down – removing some of the social agendas and pork being passed off as economic stimulus.

So, let’s make sure everyone understands exactly which lawmakers agree here. I don’t want Republicans getting blamed 4 years from now that “you voted for this too.” #tcot

We are going to borrow $780 billion and spend it in order to get out of financial trouble.

$300 billion of this spending has nothing to do with growing the economy; nothing to do with job creation.

The jobs this spending is expected to create at their best estimate (4 million jobs) will come in around $200,000 per job. At their worst (1.1 million jobs), about $600,000 per job created.

After we pay interest on this spending, it will have cost us more than $1 Trillion.

President Obama and the Democratic Party-controlled congress will have spent in 2 months more money than has been spent on the entire Iraq war.

Do you want a chance to fight this bill? Here is what you can do:

Call Senator Specter’s office – even if you do not live in Pennsylvania. The number is:  (202) 224-4254

Ask the nice staff person who answers if they can tell you what the maximum contribution amount is for Senator Specter’s upcoming re-election (2010).

Inform the nice staff person to let the Senator know that is exactly the amount you intend to donate to his primary race opponent.

If you cannot get through on the phone. Click here.

Let Senator Specter know you intend to support his primary race opponent with your money. At least in this way you have had a say on what your money is being spent on and by whom.

Tomorrow, America will change irrevokably as President Elect Barack H. Obama becomes President of the United States of America. Whether any change of the American political landscape occurs after January 20th or not, America is consistently proving that our Declaration of Independence is relevant today as written by our forefathers, and the Constitution is relevant when wise Americans remembered that God is the granter of rights to all his children, and government can only limit the rights He has bestowed upon us.

I wrote the rest of this note a year ago. To me, there is no better way to describe my feelings about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an agent of change in America. He wasn’t perfect by any means, but Dr. King did something all Americans should be thankful for.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a still new minister in the Montgomery area, when asked to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association and lead the black community of Montgomery in a boycott of city buses. Blacks were not able to sit closer than the 5th row and were required to give up their seats to white persons.

During the 381 day boycott, Dr. King’s house was destroyed by fire, he was physically attacked, and he spent 2 weeks in jail for hindering the smooth operation of a bus. However, Dr. King’s leadership, his ability to galvanize the community into sending a message against apartheid in Alabama, was the catalyst for a district court ruling that Alabama’s bus laws were unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision and Alabama was forced to change the laws.

This boycott was the birth of a civil rights leader – some might say the defining moment of Martin Luther King Jr’s life. I don’t know about that. My opinion is his life as a civil rights leader was defined well before that – perhaps by his grandfather. In any case, the rest of Dr. King’s life would be one of perseverance and resistance to continued apartheid in the United States.

Some people indict Dr. King because of the people in history who influenced his political beliefs. To my way of thinking, right or wrong, Dr. King was embracing ideas that ran counter to the system he saw as the foundation for apartheid in America. He wasn’t a communist – that was too God-less. He wasn’t a capitalist – but only Dr. King knows why. We can only guess whether or not he sometimes felt a certain sort of democratic socialism was the answer to apartheid. History corrects that notion without a lot of “what-ifs” and, while I can only guess, I believe Dr. King would recognize that.

Others invoke Dr. King’s name. But, I have not seen anyone who does so and does Dr. King justice. These days, our so-called civil rights leaders don’t resist apartheid; they try to reverse its direction. They don’t fight for equality, but preference. Rather than fight for inclusion, they fight for exclusivity. They don’t look for fairness for the poor, but handouts. Most of these people are not civil rights leaders; more like influence loan-sharks.

To me, the most cogent evidence in the difference between Dr. King and contemporary “civil rights leaders” is simply this: When Dr King was autopsied, he was said to have the body of a 60 year old. He was 39. Compare that to all of the blabbermouths out there invoking his name – how are they looking compared to their age? What do they persevere?

In order to properly honor the ideals of true equality of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, we should all fight to preserve the goals of them. His legacy is not the words he spoke, it’s what we – all of us – do with them.

Please leave comments to amplify your answers, as this poll is related to some research I am conducting for my book. Thank you in advance for participating!

 Loading ...