No more Free Internet?

From The Hill…it looks like they’re after the last bastion of free speech!

Blackburn: Net neutrality is ‘fairness doctrine for the Internet’

By Kim Hart - 10/20/09 12:07 PM ET

Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke against net neutrality regulations today at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance. Representing the songwriters, singers, actors, producers and other entertainers in Memphis and Nashville, she said the creative community does not want the federal government to interfere with how they are able to get content to consumers via the Internet.

“Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet,” she said. The creators “fully understand what the fairness doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. “They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available….We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue.”

When it comes to broadband expansion, she said, she wants to make sure “all individuals’ rights are respected and that we look at the freedom of all broadband participants.” She said Congress needs to make sure the groups receiving stimulus funds for broadband expansion are able to deploy reasonable and effective network management tools so they can be helpful in tracking down illegal activity.”

“We shouldn’t look at technology as how do we punish and impede, but how do we encourage innovation,” she said.  “That needs to be a key thought as we move forward… How do we encourage that innvoation and not impede it?”

An Excuse for A New Media Czar

Can you believe Dan Rather is asking President “I’ll only sit for interviews if they ask the right questions” Obama to look into fairness in the meda?  Is this guy even relevant?  He can’t even get a job on a mainline news outlet…and if you read this carefully, you’ll know why!

Published on Aspen Daily News Online (http://www.aspendailynews.com) Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news Writer:

Andrew Travers

Byline:

Aspen Daily News Staff WriterFormer CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press Tuesday night in an impassioned speech at the Aspen Institute.

“I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media,” the legendary newsman said.

Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.

At stake, he argued, is the very survival of American democracy.

“A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom,” Rather said in an interview yesterday afternoon. “This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press’ traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about.”

Rather, who has been a working reporter for more than six decades and currently hosts “Dan Rather Reports” on HDNet, pointed out that there are precedents for such national commissions, which have been used to help other at-risk industries.

Corporate and political influence on newsrooms, along with the conflation of news and entertainment, has created what Rather called “the dumbing down and sleazing up of what we see on the news.”

It has also thinned the amount of investigative and international journalism. The latter loss of correspondents covering America’s two foreign wars, Rather opined, is both a critical detriment to the nation and a disservice to our troops.

Tears welled in the lifelong reporter’s eyes as he discussed the dwindling number of war correspondents.

“I feel particularly strong about coverage of the wars,” he said, noting that covering the war in Afghanistan is his top priority on his HDNet program. “No apologies, both as a journalist and as a citizen I just can’t stand to leave those guys out there, fighting, dying, bleeding, getting torn up and say, ‘Look, it’s page 14 news.’ Or ‘Sorry, not on tonight’s newscast.’ It’s an example of the problem, that and not having the watchdogs.”

The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.

“If we do nothing more than stand back and hope that innovation alone will solve this crisis,” he said, “then our best-trained journalists will lose their jobs.”

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

---

---

MEDIA MATTERS

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

---

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama’s friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O’Leary, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech.” OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for the Net. These “sidewalks” would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

“Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires,” Thierer wrote.

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns.” He also acknowledged that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Perhaps Sunstein’s most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book “Nudge,” written with Richard Thaler, for a “Civility Check” for e-mails and other online communications.

“The modern world suffers from insufficient civility,” they wrote. “Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month.”

That’s where the “Civility Check” comes in.

“We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you’re about to send is angry and caution you, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?’” they wrote. “(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.’ With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!).”

Sunstein’s nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
• In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”
• In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
• In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

O’Leary disagrees.

“It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein,” he says. “Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.”

For media inquiries for Brad O’Leary, please send an e-mail here.

Worldnetdaily.com

Fairness Doctrine Alternative/ Broadcaster Freedom Act

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduces the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would allow Congress to take a stand against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, during a speech on the Senate floor.

What will be said of our history in 2012, or sooner?

This came in my mail, again from a friend who cares about this country as much as I do.  He is worried, I am worried, and obviously so is Pat Dollard (www.patdollard.com) Please read this and research for yourself while I try to smooth the hackles on my neck.

History Unfolding
By Pat Dollard I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

 

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?)

We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) – the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten.

And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative “losers” read it right now.

And promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker.. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant
media-did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years-a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency-it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

Let Them Eat, They Don’t Deserve My Cake

Here she is, Madam Ain’t Got a Clue what this Country is like Pelosi, along with “I got a feeling running down my leg” Matthews patting each other on the back.  Notice Matthews takes a shot at the 3 Republican turncoats, even though they voted for his side.  If he were indeed “fair and balanced” he would ask the Queen about her trip to the theatre after passing out the trash (latest stimulus) and about her 8 day trip to Rome which she was in a hurry to get to while the US is burning.  She’s taking some folks with her for a photo op with the Pope on her Speaker Plane.  No Clue, absolutely No clue.  I hope these people soon get what they deserve.  Even the libs should be getting queasy stomachs right now.  Can’t wait to hear her views on the “Fairness Doctrine”.  They’ll probably make Matthews the communications czar.  I guess that will give him a funny feeling in the seat of his pants!  Watch this if you dare, but make sure you’ve got a barf bucket close:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29168036#29168036

More Democrats Call for Censoring Talk Radio

I know we’ve posted a lot about the fairness doctrine, but I just had to post this one and comment along with it. Another thing, how will reinstating the fairness doctrine help the ailing economy by shutting down a lot of the small radio stations with the fairness doctine red tape?

Now Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, wants to muzzle “right-wing” talk radio. “I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio, Politico reports. The Democrat said he would have the now dormant doctrine attached to a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and TV ownership laws.

	Former president Bill Clinton recently added his voice to Democrat calls to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.

According to Hinchey, talk radio is unfair. In other words, due to market dynamics — what people listen to — there are few Democrats and “progressives” on the dial and it is up to the government to introduce “balance” through legislation.(Maybe that is for two reasons. 1.)  The majority of listeners don’t agree with Democrats. 2.) The Democratic arm of talk radio failed because it didn’t have enough listeners….Let’s not even mention that on the television dial they have all the mainstream media wrapped up. The only partially conservative tv is Fox news. Democrats in Washington don’t want a fair media, they want to dominate it completely.)

During the third National Media Reform Conference was held in Memphis, Tennessee, sponsored by the globalist George Soros foundation, Hinchey declared that “neo-fascist” and “neo-con” talk show hosts had helped create the national climate that led to the invasion of Iraq. (This is not true…all the mainstream media created that climate, including liberal CNN,MSNBC,CBS,ABC and Fox News. There were a few voices against the war, but you didn’t hear about them much and when you did they were called unAmerican and unpatriotic.) Hinchey neglected to mention that the corporate media, including the “liberal” New York Times, has also agitated in favor of an invasion of Iraq. It was a full-court press not limited to neocons and Bush supporters. In fact, the neocon operative Judith Miller was rewarded for her pro-invasion propaganda pieces published in the New York Times — last October, she was hired by Fox News.

Hinchey joins Democrat senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa who have called for “hearings” on talk radio. It should be noted that Stabenow’s husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several “liberal” radio talk groups.

Former president Bill Clinton recently added his voice to Democrat calls to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. During an interview with “liberal” talk show host Mario Solis-Marich, Clinton said the government should impose “more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions,” according to NewsBusters.

Now that Democrats are calling for the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine and “hearings” into talk radio, lib talk show radio hosts are emboldened. On February 10, former Air America radio talk show host Mike Malloy said the “real internal terrorists are the Republicans” and “Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He’s a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He’s a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn’t he arrested and sentenced for treason?”(They’ve got to be kidding, treason for exercising his free speech. Democrats are just as guilty as far as being more of a threat than any terrorist also.)

Democrats may eventually impose government control of the airwaves. However, such control will not significantly muzzle “terrorists” such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or multinational communications corporations. Instead, the Democrat censorship agenda will run smaller independent broadcasters out of business while the phony right-left noise machine will continue its propaganda campaign engineered to derail sincere opposition.

While you were sleeping….

Change, all I hear is change…what the heck is the change?  Three articles to post for you, and I’ll save you some TUMS:

The only Change Obama has brought to DC is now the corruption is bigger and bolder.

 

The List

First president not to attend The Inaugural Medal of Honor Ball
5 exectutive orders the first week in office. Including
* -allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States.
* – Scrapping the Mexico City Policy that protected taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years. Obama will send hundreds of millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote abortions on a worldwide scale.
Insults China
First interview, with foreign news outlet- for Muslims
Talks about his muslim family
Picks fight with Limbaugh
Won’t take question from press
Allows to FDA approve first human embryonic stem cell safety trial (3 days after Pres. Bush left)
Excludes any compromise with GOP on Stimulus bill Massive pork in stimulus bill
5% of stimulus bill to actually go to infrastructure
Offers to negotiate directly with Iran
Puts 5 millionairs on his cabinet
Makes a tax cheat the Sec. of the Treasury
Bombs Pakistan
Argues with the Pope on abortion
Signed the SCHIP bill, that gives health care to illegals
Won’t allow a video of his retaking of the oath of office
Ordered the closure of Gitmo
Halts all pending Bush regulations

Second week:

Appoints extremist Samantha Powers to head foreign policy team
Secret nuke talks with Iran/Syria
Appoints tax cheat for commerce secretary
Illegal alien aunt, granted a “stay” of deportation Daschle the tax cheat/lobbiest proposed as secretary for health care
Nancy Killefer for candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for federal government fails to pay household help taxes …withdrawn
Obama brings the U.S. Census Bureau under White House jurisdiction under protest from Republican lawmakers
12 lobbyists (or more) appointed to high gov’t positions within the first 14 days of his administration (up to 17 by another source)
Administration demands defense cuts of 10% during wartime
Obama envoy George Mitchell tells Palistinians ” they believe can extract from Israel concessions reaching “much further” than during talks held under the previous administration
The European Union warns the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting Obama’s “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war Obama immediately backs down from policy
After stating her priority would be “mum-in-chief”, Michelle Obama goes on listening tour and then makes political speeches with her husband not yet one month in office…
George Mitchell resigns from a Saudi Lobbying firm, two weeks into his appointment as “Special Middle East Envoy”
Obama administration says it will cancel 77 drilling leases near Utah parks
Ogden, President Obama’s pick for deputy attorney general, used to represent Playboy
Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary of energy (not a climatologist) states: California’s farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming
Obama names “most fined” Washington State bureaucrat Ron Simms to the #2 position in HUD
Hilda Solis, Obama’s pick for labor secretary’s husband is found to be a tax cheat just before the confirmation vote
Directed military prosecutors to revoked charges pending against mastermind of USS Cole bombing: Al Nashiri
Adding insult to injury: speaks to families of USS Cole dead, after decision to free Al Nashiri- not before

Third week in office

Obama changes the setup of the National Security Councel by executive order
Shauna Daly, professional “dirt digger” hired as “White House councel research director”
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got free housing from House rep (D) Rosa DeLauro for 5 years . DeLauro is married to Stan Greenberg; a pollster (Quinlin Rosner Research) with lucrative contracts from both that representatives.

Stay tuned for more “change”

Senate support builds for ‘Fairness Doctrine’
Harkin accused of trying to ’squelch’ 1st Amendment

---

Posted: February 11, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern 

Sen. Tom Harkin with Senate President Harry Reid

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has become the second U.S. senator in a week to endorse a return to the ideas behind the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” a policy abandoned under President Reagan in 1987 as unnecessary and unconstitutional.

The policy, originally introduced in 1949, required that radio and television stations give equal time to conservative and liberal opinions on political issues under the threat of penalties or license revocation.

According to Politico.com, Harkin told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press, “We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.”

WND reported just days earlier when Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told Press, “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.”

Stabenow’s husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.

According to the show transcript, Harkin told Press:

“Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said ‘there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.’”

Press responded: “Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?”

“Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair – that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back,” Harkin said.

His statements prompted an immediate response from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a co-sponsor of the Broadcasters Freedom Act, which would keep the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine.”

“It is incredible that in today’s modern media age, where information is easily accessible in so many different forms, Tom Harkin wants to squelch your First Amendment rights in favor of Chinese-style censorship,” King said.

“Does Rush Limbaugh intimidate Senator Harkin so much that he wants to ration free speech? Allowing the government, run by liberals, to control broadcast journalism and determine what on-air content is and is not ‘fair’ will stifle our free speech and hurt our free flow of information,” he said.

Michael Calderone at Politico reported Press told him he’s hoping for congressional hearings on the “accountability” for radio stations, and “whether stations are honoring the language in their public licenses.”

Contributors to the Politico forum were incensed:

• “Liberal talk radio can’t pay their way. Companies will not sponsor programs that have no listeners.”
• “Memo to liberal: Get your own radio audience. Is anything more pathetic then (sic) passing a law forcing people to listen to your crap?”
• “Seems like it’s time for a new Cabinet post – Minister of Truth! War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength Obama is the Messiah.”
• “No one is ’shutting down’ liberal talk radio. They are going out of business because advertisers do not want to spend money on shows that no one listens to.”
• “There are plenty of opportunities for liberal talk. Is it conservative talk’s fault that no one listens to their drivel?”

L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said Harkin can be added “to an ever growing laundry list of liberal censors that seek to silence free speech by shutting down conservative talk radio.”

“There are some liberals in the media that insist the fear of a return of the Censorship Doctrine is an imaginary one that exists only in the heads of paranoid conservatives. Meanwhile, one liberal leader after another publicly states his or her intent to bring it back,” he said.

Stabenow had said: “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.”

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year “to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable,” Stabenow replied: “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

Meanwhile, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders.

But other Democrats in the Senate and House – and even a few Republicans – have made no secret of their support for such legislation.

“For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,” Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. “I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC’s Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, “I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back.”

Last June, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Yes,” Pelosi answered.

And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the “Fairness Doctrine” and will work on bringing it back.

“It should and will affect everyone,” Eshoo pledged.

Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has said, “Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

But the debate heated up again recently when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged “Fairness Doctrine” label.

“That’s just Marketing 101,” McDowell explained. “If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand.”

Sign the petition here.

Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office

---

Posted: February 10, 2009
9:09 pm Eastern 

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama’s birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a “natural born” citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a “natural born” citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president.”

The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn’t so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.

“Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution,” she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.

However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama’s birthplace, they were refused.

“The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama,” Apuzzo told WND.

More specifically, those who doubted McCain’s eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.

That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.

“What I’m arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients’ due process under the 5th Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution],” Apuzzo said.

Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.

Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over “sufficient documents” to verify his “natural born” status, Apuzzo said.

“We’re not a monarchy,” Apuzzo said, “People have a right to know.”

He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.

He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.

“Before that, everything really was premature,” he said. “He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position.”

He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.

“Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution,” Apuzzo said.

Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama’s birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

“There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien,” the lawsuit said. “Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama’s birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father.”

The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan in the ’80s, as well as conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

Apuzzo told WND the biggest reason to investigate further is the fact that Obama has refused to allow public release of a signed “vault” copy of his original birth certificate.

Several of the legal cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.

Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.

Several of the cases still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.

“I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States,” Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

“Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified,” Berg’s statement continued.

While Obama’s campaign team called the cases garbage, here is a partial listing and status update for several of the cases:

• Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
• In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Liberty & Sovereignty

Got this from Carl, who has been sending me a lot on this since the several states started talking about invoking the 10th amendment.  Maybe our states don’t want to be spoon fed Obama like the masses of left wingers who put him in Washington.  How about those of us who want to adhere to the litmus of the Constitution, or are we destined to fall by the wayside while the Obamanation ruins the First Amendment and keeps going?  This is an excellent article from Neal Ross and I am happy to repost it for you:

A Few Thoughts On Liberty And Sovereignty

Neal Ross

8 Feb 09

In 1922, D. H. Lawrence wrote, “Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.“

Most of America still is under the belief that we are a free and independent people, they couldn’t be more wrong. Their ignorance of how our system of government was designed to function, has allowed this fraud to be perpetrated upon the people by those who have been elected to safeguard our freedom and liberty. What makes it more sad is that the people, for the most part, are as apathetic as they are ignorant, they just don’t have the desire to learn the truth. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.“

The words liberty and freedom are tossed around so much that they have lost their meaning. Liberty is defined as, “The quality of state of being free: the power to do as one pleases.” Freedom is defined as, “The quality of state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.“

Thomas Jefferson once gave us his definition of liberty, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.“

If we were truly free, why do we need to register our vehicles every year just so that we have the privilege of driving to and fro? Why do we need to obtain a hunting or fishing license just to partake of the bounty that God has given us for meat? Why do we need a permit to add to or remodel our homes? Why do we need a permit to peaceably assemble to protest the actions of our government?

We are not free, as there are constraints placed upon almost everything we do. When our founders got together and drafted our Constitution, our freedom and liberty were the guiding factors in establishing our system of government. What they came up with was a finely crafted system that delegated certain powers to the federal government, and left the rest up to the states, or to the people, as stated in the tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.“

The tenth amendment clearly states that whatever powers not delegated to the government are left to the states, or the people, but it also has a sister amendment that many seem to have forgotten, or ignored. The night amendment to the Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” What that means is that, just because the Constitution does not specifically state a right, that does not mean we do not still retain it.

I don’t know if all of you have ever tinkered with mechanical objects, but when I worked in power plants there was an old saying we used to have, “Don’t mess with it if it is working fine.” That saying should apply to our Constitution as well. It was designed to grant the government the limited powers to manage our country, while leaving the states to manage themselves. The Congress was established to give the states a certain say in Congress by way of the two Senators chosen by the state legislatures, and giving the people their say by their elected members of the House of Representatives.

This simple plan made sure that the states were equal partners in all legislation passed by the federal government, as their Senators had the best interest of the state in mind. That all changed with the seventeenth amendment which gave the people the power to choose their Senators, stripping the state of its equal say in Congress.  (Most of us who are children of the Constitution do not believe the 17th was ever ratified.)

The Federal government has, over time, become the master of all. Laws have been passed that infringe upon our liberties. Laws have been passed that make the states subservient to the federal government. Laws have been passed that the authority to do so are nowhere to be found within the Constitution.

In the Minority Report, 1956, H. L. Mencken wrote, “Most people want security in this world, not liberty.” In other words, we would rather be taken care of, than to maintain our liberty, and be responsible for our own success or failure. For along with liberty comes the daunting word, responsibility. Or, as Pearl Buck once said, “We need to restore the full meaning of that old word, duty. It is the other side of rights.” I feel that people fear that more than anything else, the responsibility for your own actions. Erica Jong said it best, “Take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame.“

People have allowed their government to infringe upon their rights and liberties because they feel safer with the government in charge. However, as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.“

There is an inherent trait among people, however, that our government seems to have neglected to consider, that people will only be pushed around for so long before they begin to push back. Could our government have reached the point now that people are beginning to push back?

There are a certain number of states, among them being, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and even Hawaii, have filed, or are considering filing, resolutions declaring their sovereignty from the Federal Government, as defined in the tenth amendment.

From the Washington state resolution, we read, “NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve: That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States…“

Are these states taking the first baby steps towards returning to the concept of a limited federal government, or is this all for show? Only time will tell. Will the states protect and defend their citizens when the Federal Government comes after them for violating its laws? Will the states protect their citizens if they refuse to pay their federal income taxes? More importantly, will the states stop accepting federal funds, which continue to put them in the awkward position of caving in to federal demands, just to keep the cash coming in? These are all things that time will tell. One can be hopeful that the states have finally had enough of the monster that lives in D.C.

Me, I am somewhat pessimistic. I am of the mind to agree with Einstein, who said, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe”

Too many people today just don’t care to find out how our government was supposed to work. Their ignorance gives credence to what Thomas Paine once said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”

However, let us not forget the words of George Mason, “In all our associations; in all our agreements let us never lose sight of this fundamental maxim – that all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people.“

Until we see whether the states will back their words with action, I leave you with the words of Goethe, who said, “None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.“

It appears that you just can’t fix stupid.

New ‘Fairness Doctrine’ seen as threat to Christian radio

Well here we go again. Since the “fairness doctrine” (which is anything but fair) was lifted in 1987, conservative talk radio and TV and grown out of nothing. In 1974 the US Supreme Court ruled in “Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tomillo”  “that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate” In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC’s action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress. FCC officials found that the doctrine “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance,” and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles.Liberal mainstream media has always dominated the airwaves until the years after the end of the “fairness doctrine”. Now we conservatives truly have outlets to listen to that have for the most part our values and standards. As a matter of fact the conservatives have practically taken over the talk radio airwaves and when the liberals try their hand at it, i.e. Air America Radio Network, they fall on their face. So now after getting their butts kicked for several years and losing, they want to change the rules again.  Just goes to show you that the majority of Americans still lean toward conservative views. So now the Democrats think that must change in order to get their viewpoints and logic into the conservative talk radio and maybe even Christian radio programs by force so we will hear it and not turn it off as we can now. To me this is another example of why the federal government doesn’t need to be the ones issuing licenses thru the FCC for radio or TV…it needs to be each individual state and get back to states rights. The federal government is far overreaching and needs to be reigned in somehow. The first 10 amendments of the Constitution restricted the Federal Government NOT the States….notice it starts with CONGRESS not the States:

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.

Targeting Religious Broadcasters

Democratic plans to revive government censorship of the radio and TV airways will strike hardest at religious broadcasters who stand in the way of a liberal social revolution.

Christian broadcasters tell HUMAN EVENTS they will be targeted once President Obama’s appointees gain control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this year.

“The Left Wing, I think, will immediately start filing complaints, and it will in short order shut Christian broadcasting down,” says Warren Kelley, president of “Point of View,” the first Christian talk show to go on the air via satellite 37 years ago. “I think it will so limit what they say that, in essence, they will cease to be Christian broadcasters.”
A number of prominent congressional Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, want the FCC to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Until its abolishment by President Ronald Reagan, the doctrine gave the five-member FCC the right to demand that broadcasters present contrasting views or risk losing their broadcast license.

What is even more troubling to Christian talk show hosts is a left-wing movement to use regulatory boards like the FCC to cancel broadcast licenses and to stamp out free speech altogether. Such government power is already being exerted in Europe and Canada, where those at the microphone cannot criticize Islam or homosexuality without risking a blackout.

“Our founders believed the most important liberty was religious liberty,” says Frank Pastore, whom some have dubbed the “Christian Rush Limbaugh” for his daily radio talk show in Los Angeles. “They enshrined that belief in the First Amendment. And now that religious liberty is threatened. We need to just look at Canada and Europe and see what liberals have in mind. I don’t want to be France. I don’t want to be Canada. I want to continue to be America.”

Says Bruce Fein, the FCC general counsel during the Reagan administration, “The whole purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to force contrasting views even if it violates the broadcaster’s scruples. The overall objective is to try to make it sufficiently expensive, so it isn’t worth it so I’ll say nothing at all. The alternative is not to have more views but to have fewer.”

History tells Pastore and his colleagues they have has good reason to be concerned. Religious broadcasters were the most targeted during the Kennedy-Johnson administration. In perhaps the most infamous case — the FCC crackdown on Christian fundamentalist Carl McIntire and his radio station, WXUR — the commission leveled a series of complaints for McIntire not presenting “contrasting views.” Finally, it refused to renew his license. McIntire, big on Christian values and anti-communism, was off the air in 1973.

Perhaps coincidentally, Christian broadcasting has grown since the Fairness Doctrine went away, producing some of the great conservative voices. Men like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson became a major pillar within the Republican Party. Their flocks help elect a Republican Congress in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2000.

Their association, the National Religious Broadcasters, meets in Nashville’s Opryland this weekend for an annual convention, just as Democrats in Congress mull how to bring back a doctrine that would stifle the family values message.

The convention features a panel of lawyers and broadcasters discussing possible threats from the new Obama administration.

“Will hate crimes and the Fairness Doctrine now threaten the broadcasting landscape?” the convention program states. “Where can you expect attacks on your religious programming content. What is the prospect for religious liberties in America.?”

One panel speaker is the host of “Janet Parshall’s America,” a daily popular show on the Salem Radio Network. Some congressional Democrats have talked of specifically targeting Salem and its 95 radio stations by challenging its license renewals. In all, there are over 2,000 Christian radio stations in America and 100 TV stations.

“What we want to do is tell the message of Jesus,” Parshalls tells HUMAN EVENTS. “What the Fairness Doctrine would have us do is give equal time to Buddha, Allah and [scientologist] L. Ron Hubbard.”

Indeed, the issues the conventioneers tackle especially rankle the Left. Christian broadcasters oppose same-sex marriage, abortion, rampant illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, strict teaching of evolution and the liberal secular movement. They promote marriage, home schooling, prayer in school and homosexual-to-heterosexual conversion.

“These are things that would make religious broadcasters prime targets,” Fein said.

When voters in California last November approved Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and woman, religious broadcasters may have made the difference.

“We were a large mouth piece that kept the base informed,” Pastore says.

The party holding the White House enjoys a 3-2 commission majority, meaning the Obama FCC merely has to draw up a new Fairness Doctrine and vote to institute it.

The Dallas-based “Point of View” is an example of a talk show that uses the Christian world view to discuss public policy issues. A second category of Christian broadcasting is the pastor who goes on the air to preach the Gospel.

For both, the Fairness Doctrine “is going to have a chilling affect,” Kelley tells HUMAN EVENTS.

The process would work this way: a Muslim group such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or a homosexual rights group such as the American Civil Liberties Union would file a complaint with the FCC because, for example, “Point of View” did not provide a contrasting view.

This would spur a formal FCC investigation involving the 370 radio stations who relay the show to an estimated two million listeners. The commission would be empowered to force the station to present pro-gay rights programing or lose its license. Some stations might opt to cancel the show to avoid the controversy — and the legal expense.

“For the teaching ministry in today’s culture I think they will be dramatically affected,” Kelley says. “If you have a pastor who talks of salvation through Jesus, then Muslim clerics will want equal time and to force Christian broadcasters to provide time to competing world views and religions.”

“If ‘Point of View’ does a program that deals with the problems of homosexuality, then any station that carries us would be forced to give air time to homosexuals, and I think that most broadcasters, rather than being forced into that situation, would restrict their broadcasters in the content they would put on the air.”

Pastore has doubts the Democrats and Obama will be so blatant. He believes a Democratic-controlled FCC will turn to the concept of “localism” to hamstring Christian broadcasters and deny license renewals.

“We are going to take back the airways and give it back to local ownership,” is the way the Left will begin the movement, Pastore says.

Under Pastore’s scenario, liberal groups will organize against certain broadcasters under the premise that the public airways should devote more time to local issues of importance. They then file complaints against radio stations across the country. The FCC interprets these complaints as a public outcry and establishes rules requiring stations to devote more time to pressing local issues. The end result: talk show hosts such as Pastore must relinquish air time.

“Lets get a Christian host saying something that a gay listener is offended by,” explains Pastore. “Just say that’s wrong. He complaints. You have rally cry on the Left. this will set up the case for localism. Barack comes on and says, ‘I can hear the voices of the people.’”

Parshalls believes the FCC itself will set up panels across the country to monitor talk shows and report to Washington that station X if violating “localism” and needs new ownership.

“So you dilute, dilute, dilute the message of the Gospel until there is no Gospel message left,” Parshalls says. “What they want to do is have us sell all kinds of good [but] we believe them to be false except the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Read at Human events.com

NRB sees Multiple Threats for Broadcasters; ACLJ Promotes Broadcaster Freedom Act