"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
The Fairness Doctrine: What Really Happened on Capitol Hill
By Accuracy In Media: Cliff Kincaid (07/02/07)
Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly, a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC, warns that "Unless broadcasters take steps to voluntarily balance their programming, they can expect a return of fairness rules if Democrats keep control of Congress and win the White House next year."
The Rep. Mike Pence amendment, adopted by a vote of 309-115, was to the Financial Services Appropriations bill. It prohibits funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. But it only applies to fiscal year 2008 dollars and there is no plan by the current Republican-dominated FCC to re-impose the doctrine.
Pence himself points out that "Although my amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill passed, prohibiting any funding to the FCC for the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, should it be resurrected, we must keep in mind that it is only a one-year moratorium on funding. While I am pleased that 309 Members of Congress supported this short-term fix, it is my hope that they will continue to stand for freedom of speech by joining me in a long-term solution to the problem by passing the Broadcaster Freedom Act." (emphasis added).
On June 29, Pence introduced his long-term solution, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. This bill would prevent a future Democratic Administration from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. It has only 111 co-sponsors.
On the House floor, after Pence introduced and explained his amendment, Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano declared that "...I would just like to inform the gentleman that we will accept his amendment." Serrano voted for it.
In other words, Democrats were prepared to let it pass without debate or opposition.
But a debate ensued anyway.
The debate may have served a purpose if it raised awareness by the public about what Democrats have planned--and that more action to protect the First Amendment is urgently needed.
Democratic Rep. David Obey pointed out that "...the totally Republican-dominated commission is not going to resurrect that doctrine." Even Obey voted for the Pence amendment.
Rep. Diane Watson said that the Pence amendment was designed to "prevent spending on something that doesn't exist." Watson voted against it.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the debate over the Pence amendment was "a red herring" because the Bush Administration "would never reinstate" the Fairness Doctrine anyway. He said, "It's a debate about something that's not going to happen under this administration, but it may happen under a future administration." (emphasis added). Kucinich voted against the Pence amendment.
Rep. John D. Dingell called the Pence amendment "entirely unnecessary," noting that "I understand from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman's office that the FCC has no plans to even debate the issue, much less take action. In other words, there will be no action at the FCC on the Fairness Doctrine. It is therefore unclear why the gentleman--who must know this fact--is even offering the amendment." Dingell voted against it.
The critical matter, which Pence acknowledges, is a long-term solution. Unfortunately, the chances of a Democratic-controlled House and Senate passing Pence's Broadcasters Freedom Act are considered to be slim or none because it would tie the hands of a possible Democratic president who could appoint a Democratic FCC majority. And that majority could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Can a liberal-controlled Congress be forced to safeguard First Amendment rights by passing the Broadcaster Freedom Act? That is the tremendous challenge ahead. Conservatives should not be misled by erroneous media coverage into thinking that passage of the Pence amendment by an overwhelming margin solved the problem. It did not. It is symbolic and largely irrelevant.
Accuracy in Media has led opposition to the return of the Fairness Doctrine, covering a "media reform" conference where Democratic politicians and members of the FCC urged more media regulation. Our special report (PDF) examines the history of the Fairness Doctrine and how Democratic administrations use it to silence conservative media.
AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid points out that when a Democratic president appoints the chairman of the FCC, the Democrats will have a 3-2 majority. He explains, "Hillary Clinton's backers in the Media Matters group want the return of the Fairness Doctrine so they can enlist FCC bureaucrats in the effort to control and influence the content of conservative talk radio."
What is the current Republican-controlled FCC doing, if anything, to counter this threat?
Kincaid asks, "Where are the FCC studies making the case for freedom in broadcasting? By making the case that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed, and that it would interfere with free speech rights, the current FCC could make it difficult for a Democratic-dominated FCC to legally justify the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Such studies could prompt the courts to throw out any new Fairness Doctrine emanating from the agency.
"But FCC chairman Kevin Martin, a Bush appointee, doesn't seem too concerned. In a recent interview with John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, Martin was asked about 'talk of trying to re-institute the FCC's Fairness Doctrine' and whether he would support that. His reply was, 'No. The commission eliminated the doctrine in 1987. Doing so has made for a lot of opportunities in things like talk radio.'
"That was it. Martin decided not to challenge any of the Democratic proposals to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or to make a strong statement in favor of the First Amendment."
Cliff Kincaid
Balance of Piece
(Printer friendly version) Email: Accuracy In Media:
Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.
Send Feedback To Accuracy In Media
Site: http://aim.org/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
