RESTORING THE REPUBLIC - CAN WE RECOVER OUR COUNTRY? "TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION..."

I find the direction in which our country is being surreptitiously guided, while generally ignored by our citizens, to be absolutely incomprehensible! There is no acceptable explanation for subverting the Constitution, yet - on the whole - Americans are sitting on their hands as the United States of America is being converted into the Socialist States of America.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their life all over the world so that others may be free. Yet when our own freedoms are threatened, we sit idly by. The word you're probably looking for right now is either "incredulity" or "apathy". For many of us, the thought of the USA possibly becoming anything other than a Democratic Republic is absolutely "incredulous" - totally outside the realm of believability. Since we don't believe it could happen, we adopt an attitude of "apathy" toward the possibility even when an exercise in "connect the dots" tells us it IS happening - right here, right now.

What are these "dots" that we should be connecting?

Dot #1. A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator - a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system. Van Jones' meteoric rise was assisted by many different liberal-left foundations, including the Open Society Institute of George Soros, which helped finance his "Green for All" organization. Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama as the Green Jobs Czar. (A non-elected, non-vetted political appointment.)

Dot #2. Mark Lloyd, a left-wing radical who supports stifling our rights of free speech one small step at a time, has been appointed as the Communications "Diversity" Czar. Besides just wanting to "backdoor" a newer, more strict version of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was abandoned by the FCC about 25 years ago as "unconstitutional), Lloyd thinks we should "model our governance after Hugo Chavez" president/dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has forced the closure of all media opposed to his administration, effectively nationalizing Venezuelan television, radio and the press! How would Lloyd accomplish this destruction of the First Amendment? By taxing privately owned broadcast media stations at the rate of 100% of their annual operating costs, and then institute a fine, if the station is not meeting his definition of "diversity"! And how are the revenues from those fines used? They are given to PBS to support their radical left-wing agenda! Lloyd also espouses a "revolution in America". Apparently he has never heard that one should, "be careful of what you wish for - you may get it." And he may discover that the revolution he gets is not the revolution he desired.

Dot #3. Cass Sunstein, a radical left-wing Harvard Law professor, appointed to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is believed that these quotes are accurate:
On The First Amendment -
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.” (The most recent "prominent specialists" to support the Second Amendment was the 9th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of The United States.)

Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting. [Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

Free Speech - “A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”

Taxes
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …” (The singular answer to all the questions asked is a resounding "YES!")

This idiot's list, which looks like something taken directly from Mao-Tse Tung's "Little Red Book", goes on and on. Sunstein stands firmly against anything remotely resembling our Constitution and the Democratic Republic to which it gave birth! He emphasizes the "democratic" part, but fails to even recognize the republic aspect of our system of government, and that is what differentiates it from a strictly democratic form of government.

Dot #4. Obama has called for "a civilian army, equal in number and strength to that of our military". Excuse me?? Why do we need a "civilian army" when we have a standing military, and against whom are these civilians supposed to "defend" us? Or, are they not supposed to defend the citizens of our nation... just the administration? Perhaps Obama feels the need for this "civilian army" because all our military personnel have taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". It is the principles set forth in that document - above all else - that they have sworn to defend. Nowhere in the Constitution is the protection or defense of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government mentioned. The Constitution IS the establishment of the rules of governance of the free people of the United States.

This is just a sampling of the undermining of our nation by our own government. More than 90% of the so-called "Czars" (interesting choice of labels for somebody working within our government), are far-left radicals appointed by Obama to assist him in his elimination of the United States of America. In the immortal words of Pogo Possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The Democratic Republic of the United States of America can be rightfully restored. The accepted means would be by way of Congressional impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. If Obama is replaced, then all his Czars would have to go, along with any other appointments he may have made. Our country is not safe so long as avowed Communist/Marxist/Socialist left-wing radicals are in unelected power positions within our own government!

"How could they impeach Obama?", you may be wondering. If intentional violation of the Constitution, mismanagement of national resources, and gross fiscal irresponsibility don't qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", then I have no idea what might. Realistically however, with a lopsided Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the chances of impeachment proceedings being initiated are probably somewhere on the negative side of ZERO... unless there is an uproar from the public sector that Congress simply cannot ignore! You can be heard, but only if you speak loud and clear, in unison with a chorus of hundreds or thousands of voices. The question is... "Who will organize and lead that 'chorus'?" Will it be you... or will you wait for "George" to do it... and George doesn't?

May God save us from our own apathetic ignorance.

Left Wing "Fairness Doctrine" versus the First Amendment

The Obama administration’s new federal communications "diversity" director may try to regulate talk radio with a "backdoor" method akin to the Fairness Doctrine.

Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA) expressed his concerns because of a paper in which Mark Lloyd, the diversity director, alleged a “structural imbalance” in political talk radio and suggested increasing government involvement to regulate it. Lloyd co-authored the paper for the liberal Center for American Progress.

Grassley sent a letter Friday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voicing strong disagreement with the idea that government needs to regulate talk radio and arguing that a return to the Fairness Doctrine would end the diversity of views on the airwaves.

“Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market,” Grassley wrote. “I am concerned that, despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means."

“Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd,” Grassley wrote about the paper’s conclusion that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system."

First of all, in a free society that supposedly enjoys a Constitutional "freedom of speech", why is there a need for a "diversity director" in the Federal Communications Commission?

Secondly, in a "free market economy", why is there any need for the government to regulate what the electronic media chooses to air? Advertisers and listeners should be the determining factor in that. If there is no listener market for a program of type "C", the advertisers will soon withdraw, thereby ending further broadcasts of that type. And, if somebody wishes to air contradictory information to that presented on the type "C" program, it is not - nor should it be - the responsibility of broadcast corporation "C" to provide an unpaid venue for them to do so. Let them take their contradiction to PBS (broadcast corporation "LWL"), which is already sponsored by our tax dollars (and losing money hand-over-fist). Perhaps the "fair" thing to do would be to provide PBS with a short PSA at the end of the type "C" program to the effect of, "For the other side of the story, tune in to PBS, 870AM, at 3pm today". That should satisfy any need for "fairness" in a true free market economy.

Thirdly, Mark Lloyd's claim that "the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." is utter nonsense! "The Gap" exists - in spite of the efforts of liberals, spearheaded by George Soros' billions of dollars - because there are more listeners supporting advertisers on conservative radio than there are listeners supporting liberal radio! The conservatives are that "silent majority" we've been hearing about since the 1950s! Unfortunately for the liberals, that silence is slowly disappearing, and true mainstream Americans are beginning to be heard from.

The liberal definition of the word "fair" seems to be, "anything which goes the way we think it should", which is significantly different than the English dictionary definition of the word. Fair means "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards".

In August of 1987, the "Fairness Doctrine" was abolished by the FCC in a 4-0 vote.

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

“

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

”

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine. And now one of his appointees wants to reinstate it? Does the tail now wag the dog? Or, does this "it wasn't me", back-door action by an underling, provide Obama with the several degrees of deniability he so loves? According to Harry S. Truman, "The Buck Stops HERE". According to the Obama administration, George W. Bush is responsible for every evil and incompetent act since the crucifixion!

There is nothing "fair" about the "Fairness Doctrine", and there is even less fair about government intrusion into First Amendment issues! And that is precisely why the FCC also suggested that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

“

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

Perhaps, as Dick said, in Shakespeare's Henry VI - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (That's now a "two birds with one stone" deal, since 95% of our politicians are lawyers!)

I suppose I could be completely wrong about this... but that's just a supposition, and far removed from reality.