'Hope and Change'

Schumer Stumps for One Party Rule...

2010 Election Calendar included with letter.

"It's going to take more than two years to undo the damage of the Bush administration," a letter to Democrats from Senator Charles E. Schumer dated July 31, 2009 direly begins. The letter urges Democrats to deliver President Obama a "filibuster proof" majority to "...overcome Republicans' repeated efforts to stand in the way of 'change' and 'progress.'"

Wow! Sound's like one party rule to me. Like it or not, these people seek to push unread legislation that would create massive changes in the way we live. All this from the people who promised to make government more open and accountable. How is nuking opposition 'reaching across the aisle?'

The letter goes on to explain how filibusters are 'negative.' "Because of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney are on the radio and TV day after day, taking nasty swipes at the Democratic Party and President Obama. They have no interest in bridging divides. They just want us to fail."

Amen! I sure don't want Canadian style Nationalized Healthcare. Nor do I want 'Cap and Trade' laws that will tax energy we need into unaffordble and destroy American competitive ability. A Democrat majority; would it have spared us Freddie Mac under Franklin Raines? I think not. Our founding fathers were wise to acknowledge human depravity by setting up a system of checks and balances. We dare not disarm them now.

To understand why many Americans are understandably skeptical of overreaching government control in their lives, one simply has to look at the flap surrounding The Death Book for Veterans [click to read] as mentioned in the WSJ by Jim Towey. Towey begins:

"If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Without checks and balances, what other 'choices' are we likely to lose control of?

Now add to this SWAC Girl's thoughts on The Ruling Class in America [click to read]! See you in Washington on the 12th!!!

Update: Other Voices:

The Ad ABC TV Banned [click to view].

Erika Lassen [click to read].

"During his acceptance speech, President Barack Obama said, "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."

"The disconnect between President Obama's acceptance speech and his current tone is remarkable. However, it is what I most assuredly can identify as "change." -- Erika Lassen

Michelle Malkin on 'One Party Rule' [click to read].

The 'Mob' Pelosi Loved [click to read].

The First Amendmend Does Not Apply to You! [click to read].

Stacking the Deck at Dean/Moran Town Hall [click to read].

We can't have those pesky rabble standing in the way of 'hope and change,' can we?

Time to Stop Blaming Bush? [click to read].

'Fairness' or Censorship?

The First Amendment and its Dismantlers

Rush Limbaugh Writes in the Wall Street Journal [click to read] about new efforts to silence differing opinions on the government licensed media. I Have Written Before About Why the 'Fairness' Doctrine Isnt! [click to read].

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -- Amendment I, US Constitution

It's clear that the founders of our Nation felt it necessary to explicitly protect public dialogue. It is also clear that certain public officials feel it necessary to squelch such dialogue. That is a dangerous precident. Here's a Petition Being Circulated by World Net Daily [click to sign] that addresses the 'Fairness' Doctrine. It's time to exercise this right or lose it for a long time...

ht/Lynn


Arts Building at Miller School of Albemarle.

Why the 'Fairness Doctrine' Isn't

This 1949 FCC Regulation Actually Stifled the Flow of Ideas

There is much talk these days about re-instating the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' which is an old FCC regulation that initially was created to keep the then few media outlets from presenting only one point of view. In 1949 there were not that many radio stations and the monopolization of them seemed a valid threat.

In fact, the doctrine was seldom invoked, but created a climate where radio stations generally avoided controversial content all together. Most stations simply built their market share around a particular music genre and their public discourse content seldom ventured beyond broadcasting political debates [where the presentation of opposing views is self-contained].

In 1987 the FCC declared the regulation unnecessary and stated that it no longer served any valid purpose. There were many more media choices and the spectre of monopolization was non-existant. Congress attempted to pass the 'Fairness Doctrine' into law, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed it.

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh at that time launched his then unique talk program. The format was a continual presentation and discussion of Conservative ideas. Limbaugh proved to be a master teacher, putting the thoughts of such illuminaries as William F. Buckly, Jr. into the language of the common man. Rush had a rare gift for making this discussion interesting. He presented vivid examples and punctuated the show with musical parodies by Paul Shanklin. He never did 'guest interviews' but bravely handed host duties to a parade of conservative heavyweights. Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Walter Williams and Tony Snow all took their turn in the 'Atilla the Hun Chair.' Audiences loved it. Today they have quite a few programs of this type and generally listen to several of them.

But Senator Charles Schumer has likened conservative talk radio to pornography and says that it is 'inconsistant' to want to limit pornography on the air and oppose re-instatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine,' which he desires to impose. Never mind that the left's idea of 'freedom of expression' embraces pornography as 'protected speech,' but cringes at the notion that some effective conervative might actually reach an audience in a free forum. Nancy Pelosi is on board for this legislation as well. Remember Senate Bill 1's 'Grassroots Provisions' in the 2006 Congress? This little provision would have used reporting requirements and huge fines to effectively silence conservative voices. It would have affected Dr. James Dobson who regularly presents analysis of public policy and its effect on the family and a host of independent bloggers. What's fascinating is that the 'Grassroots Provisions' were effectively opposed by the ACLU and Christian broadcasters!

As I said before, the old 'Fairness Doctrine' was actually almost never invoked. It had the chilling effect desired by simply standing in the way of stations ever actually presenting programming. A re-instated 'Fairness Doctrine' would allow for an onslaught of 'complaints' about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson and all the others. The FCC would then presumably demand that equal time be provided for what it deemed 'opposing views.' On the am dial, that would probably mean the requirement to air some liberal talk show even if there was no market for it. Eventually stations would probably give up popular conservative shows rather than let the FCC determine their programming. The Los Angeles Times says: "The threat to talk radio is clear. If the rule were reinstated, stations that carry Rush Limbaugh could be forced to broadcast commentaries favoring everything that Limbaugh derides, from greenhouse gas controls to same-sex marriage. With hundreds of provocative talk-show hosts on the air, federal regulators could soon be awash in demands for rebuttals. But the danger posed by the Fairness Doctrine is broader and more fundamental than an attack on a radio format. No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express them."

Christian Radio Stations would face an even graver threat. Using FCC complaints, homosexual groups or athiests could demand their 'rights' as presenters of an opposing point of view. Stations could be forced to air material that violated their own conscience or lose their license to broadcast. Faith-based radio could effectively be driven offshore.