liberal

President-elect Obama is expected to appoint democratic lawyer Henry Rivera, to lead his FCC transition team. Rivera served on the FCC from 1981 to 1985, and is a proponent of the “Fairness Doctrine” that was repealed in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for 40 years and was the federal government’s attempt to regulate fairness into the broadcasting industry and

“… imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.”

Throughout the years, the Fairness Doctrine has been used by various administrations to harass political opponents on the radio. Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that

“Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

And that’s why the Democrats want to bring the Fairness Doctrine back now. With 100 million listeners in 50 million households, news and talk radio plays an important role in the American society. Conservative talk radio dominates the commercial radio airwaves with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity and Bill O’Reilly, while Liberal radio, like the failed Air America can’t generate enough capital to stay in business. The Left-wingers in Congress can’t stand this and would like nothing more than to hide behind their regulation cloak to force conservative talk radio out-of-business. Why are they afraid? Look at the amount of money Obama was throwing into his election campaign, compared to the public financing cap held by McCain. Yet McCain ran a neck-and-neck race practically throughout the race, and had it not been for the Wall Street meltdown, he may have actually won! This is due in large part to conservative talk radio because the majority of television media overwhelmingly favored Obama.

It is believed that Rivera will lead the push to revive the Fairness Doctrine to prevent Obama critics from having a voice during his tenure as President. The President limiting free speech? It certainly fits a pattern of behavior he displayed during his election campaign. ATI-News President Brad O’Leary, who examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race concluded,

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign. His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

Make no mistake, the Fairness Doctrine is a tool used by politicians to silence opposing views, particularly conservative views. It was repealed by the FCC because it “had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” In 2007, Senator John McCain introduced legislation to protect talk radio and warned,

“The Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered.”

Remember, there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine! Don’t be fooled by this sham no matter what form it takes. The Democrats in Congress, and our new President, will likely veil the doctrine’s new iteration in fresh language, using a different terminology and justification, like tying it to pornography, but don’t be fooled. Our country was founded on political dissent, so don’t sacrifice the First Amendment to political expediency!

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.