Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Unfairness Doctrine Revisited


An article published on World Net Daily brought an old issue back to the front burner. That article discusses the attitude of  Mark Lloyd, recently appointed “chief diversity officer”  for the Federal Communications Commission.  The article mentions Lloyd’s participation in the creation of  a report published by the Center for American Progress, which WND describes as “George Soros-funded”, indicating a left wing bias. Indeed, the Center describes itself as  “progressive”, which is a standard code word for Socialist.

The Center for American Progress report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” discusses the “Imbalance” in talk radio programming. Their attitude holds talk radio to be unfairly dominated by Conservative talk show hosts; they seed ways and means of increasing the number and proportion of Socialist talk show hosts and broadcast hours.

The authors assert that the “Fairness Doctrine” was not repealed.

First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989  a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. 11 The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again—thus it technically would not be considered repealed.12

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

License renewal previously required local engagement with the community—the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities.  Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,” a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated.

[Endnotes related to the quoted paragraphs.]

  1. See Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC.
  2. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

While the authors assert that they do not seek to reduce the number of Conservative talk shows, they seek to increase the number of Socialist talk shows. With a limited number of hours in the day and broadcast stations in each market area,  this is a zero sum game. Increasing the availability of one side must reduce the other unless some other programming option is reduced.

My position is that broadcast content should be determined by the market place, not by government fiat, either direct or filtered through semi captive advocacy groups.

The print media are dominated by the left wing. Broadcast television is dominated by the left wing. Cable television is dominated by the left wing. NPR is dominated by the left wing.  Conservative talk radio is the alternative information & opinion source for Conservatives who are fed up with the free flowing lies and dripping venom  offered up by the other media outlets.

The regional talk radio outlet tried Chuck Harder’s show, it was not popular. They replaced it with Jim Hightower, who was not popular. Michael Medved lasted a little longer, but was replaced. Larry King was not popular and was replaced.   Dr. Laura did not last long either. Likewise Bill O’Reiley.  Steve Malzburg is on taped delay Sunday nights.   Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity get three hours and Mark Levin  is cleanup hitter for two hours.

In a free market, we listeners get what we want in the long term.  Setting up minority groups to dictate what we can hear is an end run around the First Amendment.  The right to speak implies an equally important right to listen.

This poorly camouflaged attempt to shield President Obama and his allies in Congress from truthful criticism must not be allowed to succeed.  Send emails to your Representative & Senators demanding preservation of your right to listen!

August 17, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Free Speech & Why Not


I received an email titled “Properly Understanding The Times – Part 2” from Act! for America. If you haven’t joined yet, you can read the article by clicking the title above.

In the article, Guy Rodgers points out the risk inherent in tolerating relatively minor impositions against liberty. Islam’s demand for censorship though national & international imposition of its blasphemy law is one such imposition which threatens our freedom of expression.  He illustrates his point with mention of an Austrian M.P. recently prosecuted & convicted of “hate speech” and the pending prosecution of Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P.  He shows us that the issue is not novel, with a censorship anecdote  more than 200 years old.

Rodgers follows up by reproducing Andrew Bostom’s article: “Wilders’ Defense of Free Speech“. Dr. Bostom goes into some detail concerning the accuracy of Wilders’ citation of the Qur’an.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is pressing for censorship in the U.N. and its append ant bodies.  Recent resolutions by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council demand global imposition of Islam’s blasphemy laws. That demand is echoed in the Durban II Draft Document.

What consequences would ensue from criminalizing criticism of Nazism before and during the Second World War or Communism at the peak of the Cold War? Accurately identifying and characterizing our enemy is vitally necessary to preparing and executing defense against aggression.

In a representative republic, the electors need to be free to hold open and honest discussion of all facets of current officials, aspirants to high office and their legislative programs. The Democrat Party seeks, through re-imposition of the ‘fairness doctrine’, ‘ownership diversity’ and ‘community advisory boards’ to intimidate broadcasters so that Conservative talk radio hosts will be silenced.

In an article entitled “Why Freedom of Speech?” Baron Bodissey reminds me of a statement by President Barack Hussein Obama in his first international television interview.

Quoted, from msnbc out of context, emphasis added.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith — and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers — regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.

The highlighted expression indicates to this writer that President Obama  is in sympathy with the OIC campaign of censorship. It raises severe doubts concerning his supposed withdrawal from the preparations for the U.N. Racism Conference because objections to proposed censorship were cited as one reason for pulling out.  The remainder of the excerpt would give the impression that Islam is, as President George W. Bush described it, a ‘religion of peace’. In actual fact, it is a war cult. For documented proof of that fatal fact, download and read Know Thine Enemy.chm.

By reading the U.N. resolutions linked above, you can discover how the O.I.C. couches its demands in terms of ‘respect’ for sanctities and association of Islam with terrorism & violence.  By reading the appropriate sections of Shari’ah, you can discover the law they intend to impose. These quotes are from Umdat as-Salik, Book O.  [Enter the reference letter & numbers in the search engine in the frame surrounding the text image to locate the text for further exploration. ]

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam…
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Those are acts of apostasy, punishable by death, prescribed in this statement.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Dhimmis, conquered Jews,Christians & Zoroastrians submitted under a ‘treaty of protection’ suffer a similar imposition.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

O11.11

When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

O9.14

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the enormity of that has not sunk in, re-read the portions I emphasized until it does. A dhimmi may be killed for criticizing Islam. Like it or not, that is Islamic law, which the O.I.C & President Obama seek to impose upon us. Respect is given where respect is due; not to a war cult.  If you don’t understand that Islam is a war cult, read O9.1 through  O10.3.

March 4, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, Politics, United Nations | , , , | 2 Comments

UnFairness Doctrine: Temporary Setback


“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]

“Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]

From News Max comes word that Senator Jim DeMint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act passed the Senate 87-11 as an amendment to an unrelated bill giving a voting representative to Washington D.C. Senator Dick Durbin’s Ownership Diversity amendment also passed 57-41.

The Socialists seek to squelch dissent, to silence dissenting voices by imposing economic penalties, denial of licensing, “local advisory” boards or restrictions on broadcast station ownership.

If they can restore “equal time” requirements, forcing broadcast stations to waste air time on left wing radio shows that can not draw and retain audience share, the loss in revenue will force broadcasters to drop the more popular conservative shows.

If they can set limits on how many stations a corporation can own, and issue more licenses to “minority owners” who are presumed to be more Socialistic in their outlook, they hope to reduce the number of stations carrying the more popular conservative shows.

If they can force broadcasters to institute “local advisory” boards, stacked with left wingers, who will whine & caterwaul about airing conservative opinions, they will have another excuse to deny licenses to those broadcasters.

In every case, the objective is to penalize broadcasters who provide what we want to hear. The Socialists want to assure a monopoly for their agenda driven house organs which print and broadcast their propaganda on their schedule without asking critical questions to expose their incompetence & corruption.

In a Representative Republic, an informed electorate is necessary to ensure competence and fiduciary trust. In the long run, an informed electorate is necessary to assure the preservation of liberty and prosperity. The Socialists want a one sided debate; a monologue, not a Dialogue. Competent electors will recognize the fact that “just us” is not justice.

There is nothing fair about the so called Fairness Doctrine; it is the acme of unfairness. When broadcasters operate in a free market, listeners vote with their tuners. They seek out the stations and programs they want and ignore the rest. Broadcasters sink or swim by adjusting their programming according to consumer demand. Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin & Stabenow seek to defeat the market so as to cement their party in power forever.

Far from fairness, theirs is an Unfairness Doctrine; an unconstitutional imposition of censorship. In their Orwellian lexicon, fairness is anything that benefits them and disadvantages their critics and electoral opponents.

In their campaign to squelch dissent, they rely on a shibboleth which, if carefully examined, reveals their dishonesty & corruption. “Public Airwaves” is their favorite. When it comes to radio, there is no such thing. Radio is not dependent on air, it would work just as well in a vacuum. It works by modulating electromagnetic radiation: “radio waves” with with sound. The waves are locally generated, on demand, by oscillators, modulated and amplified, all with privately owned electronic equipment and powered by electricity which the broadcasters pay for. There is no public resource involved.

The FCC allocates frequencies and sets power limits to assure that broadcast stations do not interfere with or jam each other’s signals. There is absolutely no rational basis for the unconstitutional censorship which the Socialists seek to impose upon their critics. The Socialists have a near total monopoly in the daily& monthly print media and in broadcast & cable television. A.M. radio is the one market they do not control, and they seek to monopolize it.

This issue is about content: they seek to stop speech which criticizes them, which questions their intentions, methods, policies, connections and effects. They don’t want us to hear the truth about their associations and policies. They would muzzle the guard dog and silence the canary in the coal mine.

Make no mistake, freedom of expression is necessary to facilitate full and complete debate of all sides of vital public issues. That is why the first Amendment protects it.

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. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html] [Emphasis added.]

Conservative talk radio is simply speech, translated into amplified radio frequency energy, amplified. & broadcast. Nothing in that process should remove it from the umbrella of first amendment protection. The fact that the Socialists seek unconstitutionally to censor it should prove to you that the Socialists are unworthy and unqualified to lead & legislate and should be removed from office at the next election.

The same forces seeking to censor talk radio also seek to censor the Internet. If they made conservative newspaper columns and editorials illegal, their violation of the Constititution would be immediately recognized as such. The only difference between news print and the Internet is the means of transmission and reproduction. Much of the content is transmitted both ways. Make no mistake, they’ll outlaw this blog if they can get away with it, just as they seek to outlaw Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues & competitors.

While the Broadcaster Freedom Act has intrinsic merit, it will, in the long run, have little effect because it can be repealed by a simple majority vote. The Constitution is our only real protection; it must be rigorously enforced. Once the Socialists pack the Supreme Court, we will lose our last line of defense.

Now is the time, while we still have our voices; while we can still say, hear, write and read the truth without penalty, to make maximal use of our Constitutional rights. Rise up and raise Hell! This blog post is placed in the public domain; copy it, cross post it, paste it into an email and broadcast it. Go to http://www.congress.org, enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Send an email to President Barack Hussein Obama, your Representative & Senators. Tell them you are wise to their corrupt power grab and will not tolerate it. Tell them that you will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for anyone who supports or implements unconstitutional censorship. Exhort your Rep. to sign the Broadcaster Freedom Act Discharge Petition. Include a link to this blog post by copying and pasting this html code: <a href=”https://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/unfairness-doctrine-temporary-setback/”>Unfairness Doctrine.</a>

Sign and support these on line petitions; exhort everyone you can influence to sign them.

Bear in mind these words of wisdom:

  • “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” [http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]
  • “I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.”
    By: Woodrow Wilson
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.”
    By: Harry S. Truman
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
    By: Theodore Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.”
    By: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.”
    By: Colin Powell
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is tonic in the things that men do not love to hear; and there is damnation in the things that wicked men love to hear. Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease, and bring new elements of health. And where free speech is stopped miasma is bred, and death comes fast.”
    By: Henry Ward Beecher
    Free Speech Quotes
  • Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.William Orville Douglas [http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/free_speech_t001.htm]

February 26, 2009 Posted by | Fred Thompson, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , , | 7 Comments

Unfairness Doctrine


Michael Calderone, at Politico, posted a transcript of a Bill Press interview with Senator Debbie stabenow.

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

  • accountability
  • transparency
  • responsible
  • standards

Meaning what, exactly?  How do those terms apply to Rush Limbaugh, Sean  Hannity and other talk radio hosts?  The core issue is subject  & content. Mainstream talk radio discusses politics, economics, morality, sports & entertainment.  It presents a mixture of  fact and opinion in an entertaining format designed to attract and retain audience share.  Without an audience, they would be out of business. Most attempts at building Liberal national talk show networks have failed because they were not sufficiently entertaining to attract and hold an audience.

Liberals are offended by exposure of their hypocrisy, conflicts of interest, scandals and policies. Conservative talk radio contributed to the defeat of amnesty for illegal aliens and is contributing to a significant reduction in the popularity of the “Economic Stimulus” scam.

It has been said that the antidote to offensive speech is rebuttal.  But free expression implies the right to choose what we listen to. Nobody can forbid us to listen, neither can they compel us to listen. The Liberals seek to monopolize the debate by erecting artificial barrios to Conservative broadcasters.

Issues such as the “Economic Stimulus” scam which threatens to saddle the next generation with insurmountable debt without real short term economic benefit and the “National Health Care” scam which threatens to make medical treatment a rare commodity, subject to rationing, need to be carefully examined for both intended & unintended consequences and hidden costs. They should be subject to open debate, not rammed through in a hurry, unexamined, as urgent business.

The “public airwaves” shibboleth needs to be exposed. “Airwaves” are a fantasy concept.  Acoustic transmission of sound operates through waves in the air. Radio does not require air, it operates by electromagnetic radiation, which is privately generated, by each broadcast station. Government’s involvement should be limited to allocation of frequency ranges and setting power limits to prevent interference between transmitters. In an open free market, driven by consumer demand, there is no need for content control.

The Liberals seek to outlaw effective opposition to their power grabbing schemes and lock themselves in power for the long term.  Their “fairness doctrine” is not about fairness, it is about excluding their opponents from the debate.

In a free and open market, without government interference, the listeners will decide what they want to hear and broadcasters will either provide it or lose market share & advertising revenue and change format / content or go out of business. In a closed, regulated market, listeners will either accept the government approved drivel or turn off the radio.  Without full and open debate, the Liberals will be able to impose their fascist plans without effective opposition.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

If that is not what you want, now is the time for you to get organized and make your voice heard.  Let Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Stabenow & Chuck Schumer know that their current course will lead them out of office in the next election cycle.

There is another factor to consider: conflict of interest. Senator Stabenow is married to a man involved in a major Liberal talk radio failure.

Athans, co-founder and former CEO of Democracy Radio, is an interesting figure who may stand to benefit if the federal government mandates the sale or breakup of media properties. Athans, who also served as an official of the liberal Air America radio network, is the husband of Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow. He developed and produced the liberal Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller radio shows. [Cliff Kincaid – The Liberal Plan to Take Over Talk Radio]

Do you want the voices of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other Conservatives to be available on the radio?  Now is the time to take action, before power mad Liberals railroad censorship through the Congress & FCC.  Sign and promote  the MRC’s petition in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

This subject is hot, on the back burner right now, ready to be brought forward at any time.  Yesterday at 5:21 p.m., someone in the office of the Sargent at Arms of the United States Senate viewed snooper.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/broadcaster-freedom-act/.  Please act without delay. Sign the petition linked above. Then go to http://congress.org, enter your zip code and click the Federal Officials link. Tell your Representative & Senators that you want the Broadcaster Freedom Act passed and enacted into law immediately. Tell them that your next vote will depend on how they vote on this bill.

February 6, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , | 2 Comments

Prevent Censorship!


The Media Resource Center and allied organizations are seeking endorsement of their petition  to Congress in opposition to the the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and similar censorship plans proposed to silence Conservative talk radio.  Reid, Pelosi, Schumer & their ilk are eager to silence voices of reason & common sense such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Mark Levin.

Whether they act through direct legislation, FCC rules & regulations; the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ or ‘Local Advisory Councils’,  they will move to censor Conservative voices unless we make it known to them that their careers will be severely impaired as  a direct consequence of their support for censorship schemes.

Click this link to sign the petition: http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?u=14303&PID=18788745.

Here is the text of the petition:

I am signing this petition to urge members of Congress and government officials to reject any and all efforts to censor, limit, or restrain the right of conservatives to participate freely in the marketplace of ideas through the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or other similar efforts.

Additionally, I am joining with other American citizens who want their individual Free Speech Rights defended and protected from government intrusion! Our great nation was built upon free and open discourse, and to remain a great nation this ideal must be protected and preserved at all costs.

Please note that I will be watching closely and taking action when necessary to directly combat the liberal bias of the media.

It won’t hurt to copy the text of the petition and paste it into an email to your Representative and Senators. You can send those three emails very easily at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ .

Either we rise up and raise Hell now or in the next election cycle, the only loud voices heard will belong to the Socialists and their media allies; our side will be entirely silenced.

Do you need more information? The MRC has links in their left sidebar. Do you need more arguments? You’ll find them here: Shibboleth: ‘Public Airwaves’ and here:  The Fairness Doctrine. See also: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio and Fairness Doctrine Me Arse! .

The Unfairness Doctrine does not have a monopoly on censorship.  At the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is attempting to ram through the latest version of their Combating Defamation of Religions Resolution.  The proposed resolution, expected to come up for a vote between December 18 & 22, calls for national and international laws to censor criticism of Islam. Here is my latest post about the resolution: Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised.

Only 53,209 have signed the ACLJ petition against the UN Defamation Resolution. Now is the time for you to add your endorsement! Why not send an email to your Representative & Senators demanding withholding of foreign aid & MFN status from any and all nations voting for the resolution or abstaining?  No guts, no liberties!

December 10, 2008 Posted by | Politics, United Nations | , , | 2 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: