Fairness Doctrine Watch: A preemptive strike

Looks like DeMint may be our star on the horizon for 2012. It takes guts to go out on the limb like that with so many spinelsss RINOs in the party.

bttt

Amen to that!

This has about a snowballs chance in hell.

Amen to that!

Shouldn’t the Fairness Doctrine, if they want to try to reinstitute it, have to be passed by Congress? The only other way it can be legal is if the President signs an executive order putting it back in.

Otherwise the Fairness Doctrine really is not legal.

Shouldn’t the Fairness Doctrine, if they want to try to reinstitute it, have to be passed by Congress? The only other way it can be legal is if the President signs an executive order putting it back in.

Otherwise the Fairness Doctrine really is not legal.

Unfortunately, as in many other cases, congress created a regulatory body (the FCC) and gave it many of their own powers and responsibilities, so that they wouldn't have to own up to the bad things that are done in their names. Congress gave the FCC the power to regulate broadcasters: End of story. All it takes is an FCC ruling.

You have to admit though, it's really amazing at just how Orwellian many of the dems "plans" seem to be... Who could have known that a plan to shut down dissent on the airwaves, to mute conservative talk, would ever be called the "fairness doctrine."

Mark

If they really want to preempt pending legislation, how about a Freedom of Choice of Firearms Act to stop the Assault Weapons and Ammunition ban that is rapidly coming our way!

“Congress gave the FCC the power to regulate broadcasters: End of story. All it takes is an FCC ruling.”

Only congress may write legislation. Congress can’t legally give law-making power to unelected bureaucrats, no more than obama can transfer his war-making powers to Bill Ayers. That the courts and congress allow this travesty proves their tyranny and incompetence to hold public office. Unelected bureaucrats writing law is one the chief features of a dictatorship - legislation without voter representation.

I’m not arguing with you. Simply pointing out that we no longer live under a representative republic. Today we are ruled by a criminal fascist syndicate engaged in theft of our property and liberty. There is no rule of law, only law by men at their whim.

We are one step away from complete anarchy.

Republican Leaders Announce Bill to Ban Fairness Doctrine

Laws are meaningless to Democrats. When the electorate is as stupid as this country has become, no law is going to stop a bunch of communist when they are standing at the doorstep of completing their mission.

In a related development, Democrat leaders announced the Legislative Freedom Initiative, which will free the legislature from ever considering anything advocated by Conservatives.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rerun of “Lou Grant”.

Since the “Devil cannot abide scorn” - it’s our best weapon.

Democrats (and their supporters) need to be constantly harangued with:

“the reason that you support this kind of fascist regulation is that you are intellectually unable to logically defend your ideology”

Another photogenic Republican. Jim DeMint seems to be willing to speak his mind and speak the truth. Honesty and Integrity are important facets of Character.

Talking about “The Fairness Doctrine” is designed to keep you busy focusing on that while BO and his ‘RAT friends accomplish their mission through the back door.

Republicans doing dog and pony shows that they think will impress the base will no longer work. They can stop talking about “the fairness doctrine” and tell America what the plans really are (ALSO for how BO plans to back-door a draft: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2064866/posts?page=39#39 ):

November 17, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html
Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio
By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.

Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky’s beliefs and methods.

“Alinsky jujitsu” as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

Team Obama and the “localism” weapon

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.” Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”

FCC complaints as politics by other means

Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station’s license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.

There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry’s war record:

Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company’s willingness to respect “localism,” a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.

One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:

But what isn’t done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates’ FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. ... [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.
More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a “fill in the blanks” official FCC complaint form which begins “Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting.”

Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments

These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:

[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. ...
To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.

The “community advisory board as permanent complaint department” model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:

[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. ... [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. ...

By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York...[emphasis in original].

Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask “right wing hatchet man” Stanley Kurtz.

For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.

Can localism be stopped?

FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.

However, Kevin Martin’s determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, “a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one.”

This scare tactic — agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow — is having an impact.

What broadcasters need to do: speak up now

Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals.

If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.

The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism

While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.

Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html at November 17, 2008 - 04:23:15 AM EST

bttt

Well it looks to me like the Crats are scared to do anything without RINO covering fire.

bttt

From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

End Deceptive Voting Practices: President Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
__________________________________________

So... he will provide harsh penalties to those who both engage in voter fraud AND provide misinformed voters with accurate and full information so they can vote?

Or is this just the fairness doctrine? McCain Feingold on steroids?