"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the 'Fairness Doctrine' without actually calling it such."
-The American Spectator, February 16, 2009

According to this American Spectator article,

"Waxman [Congressman Henry Waxman] is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. ... Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

So there you have it folks, they’ve decide to knock out radio and internet at the same time.  Please folks, follow the links on my previous post and let our elected officials know that we want H.R. 226 and S. 34 to pass. 

Anyone older than about 25 can remember when AM radio was a joke, but not a funny one.  It was torturous.  There was nothing on worth listening to, except perhaps some “oldies”.  It was hardly even considered legitimate broadcasting.  But about 22 years ago, things began to change.

In 1988, a ground-breaking talk show flooded the AM airwaves.  Remember “Rush Rooms”?  Nearly every restaurant that served lunch had one.  For those too young to remember, those were dining rooms set aside for those who we now call “Ditto Heads”.  They played Rush Limbaugh in banquet rooms, and folks could ask to be seated there (if there was room) and listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio while they ate lunch.

A year earlier and Rush probably have never made it.  Why? Because the FCC had a rule, commonly known as “The Fairness Doctrine”.  It had been in place since 1949, but it was abandoned in 1987.  It was anything but fair.

Now let me just give you a brief explanation of the Fairness Doctrine.  In essence, it mandated that radio talk shows had to present both sides of an issue.  For example, if a radio station broadcasted a pastor who laid out the Biblical view of homosexuality, then the radio station also had to air a pro-homosexual viewpoint.  If they air a pro-life program, then they have to air a pro-choice program.  If you air a Christian sermon, you must air an atheist sermon.  If there is not opposing program available, the other cannot be aired.  If you air a conservative commentator, you must air a liberal as well.  Empirical evidence shows that no one wants to listen to the liberals.  If folks don’t listen, sponsors don’t advertise, if sponsors don’t advertise, stations go out of business.

A rule like this would effectively shut down Christian radio immediately and Conservative radio would quickly dwindle down to nothing.

Today, AM radio is booming business.  In 1990, 3 years after the rule was abandoned, there were 400 am radio stations that were devoted to the talk format (That number was surely smaller 3 years earlier.)  But thanks primarily to Rush Limbaugh, in 2006 that number had grown to 1400.

The vast majority of those talk shows are conservative.  I mention this only because as we all know, the mainstream media is vastly liberal.  So if one wants both sides, the only options are radio and internet. 

Liberals across the country are pushing to have the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” reinstated.  And even those who claim to be against it, such as President Obama, are all for the results of such a rule, they just don’t want to call it The Fairness Doctrine. 

Former President Bill Clinton said recently in an interview, when asked about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine,

“Well you either aught to have the Fairness Doctrine, or we aught to have more balance on the other side.  Because, essentially, there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let’s face it, you know Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he’s saying things that I think are ridiculous.”

That Big Money he’s talking about…that’s called the audience.  With our economy the way it is, why would they want to shut down a profitable business?  Very simply, because they have tried and failed to get a piece of that pie.  They have no one to offer, or at least not anyone that people want to listen to.  So if they can’t join ‘em, they’ll beat ‘em, with unconstitutional laws that selectively strip away First Amendment Rights.

It’s interesting that this Fairness Doctrine would not effect the television airways, just radio.  So this rule would effect only the conservative viewpoint.

So let me translate: “We need the Fairness Doctrine, or something like it to eliminate any public dissention of the leftist administration.  We control television and Hollywood, so now all we need to do is gain control of radio and internet.”  Radio is easier than internet, so they’re going after it first.

Now for the real scary part.  To bring back a rule like this would not take an act of Congress, nor would it take an Executive Order.  This can be accomplished by 3 of the 5 FCC board members.  That’s it, that’s all it takes.  If 3 out of 5 agree, it’s done.  UNLESS…. Legislation is passed to prevent it.  Now the good news:

H.R. 226 & S. 34: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of you political slant, every American should be opposed to blatant violations of our First Amendment Rights.  So I urge all of you to contact your elected officials and tell them to support H.R. 226 & S. 34. 

There are many ways to easily contact your elected officials, even if you don’t know who they are.  Here are a few ways, and these will help you find your officials.  Please do something…doing nothing is unthinkable.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

In addition, I also urge you to support the ACLJ and sign their petition to preserve free speech.

Why must the liberals always show us up with their demonstrations of compassion, tolerance and open-mindedness?  They are always making us look bad.  One of the more recent examples is Speech Professor John Matteson of Los Angeles Community College.

Yes, it seems the good professor gave his class an open speech assignment, if that’s not open-minded and tolerant, I don’t know what is.  The only problem was that he failed to mention beforehand that any Conservative or Christian speech would not be tolerated.

Jonathan Lopez stood up to give his speech, the subject was his faith…one aspect of his faith is regarding marriage.  Jonathan read from the dictionary, the definition of marriage.  But he was stopped short.

Professor Matteson called Jonathan a “Fascist B@stard” and then told the class that anyone who wanted to, could leave if they were offended.  Strangely enough, no one got up to leave.  When the ever tolerant and open-minded public employee realized that he was the only one offended, he simply dismissed the class. 

According to the Alliance Defense Fund After Proposition 8 (the marriage amendment) was passed on November 4th, Professor Matteson told his entire class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist b@stard.”

Jonathan later complained about the censorship, and Professor Matteson threatened to expel him.  But of course he didn’t stop there.  Professor Matteson refused to grade the speech, he simply wrote on the evaluation, “Ask God what your grade is.”

Well Jonathan, I’m no theologian, but based on what I know of God’s Word and this situation, I think it’s safe to say that God says you get an A.  You stood up for, and spoke the truth, even when you had to have known that you would be ridiculed and persecuted for doing so.  In my book, you definitely get an A, and I think God would agree.

As for the Professor, you get an F.  You are a public employee and you are supposed to be teaching students how to speak, NOT what to speak.  You should be fired from your job for sub-standard performance.  And as for your Anti-American behavior, well, fortunately we still live in a free country.  So you can spew your Anti-American hate speech outside, just not on the public’s dime.  

Regardless of whether you agree with Jonathan Lopez on the issue of marriage, we as citizens should be outraged that this kind of violation of our First Amendment is perpetrated by public employees.  I strongly urge everyone to call or write the College and express your anger at this kind of Anti-American behavior.

Contact info for the Los Angeles Community College