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.

"Prescription for America" - Infomercial or Propaganda?

ABC will air the special from the White House during prime time on June 24. "Prescription for America," to be moderated by ABC News' Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, will originate from the East Room and will feature the president explaining his plans for reforming the nation's health care system. Officials with the network claim they will air opposing views, that the audience that will offer up questions for the president during the program will be made up of Americans "who have divergent opinions" in the debate on national health care.

I will be surprised if any of several things happens at this ABC-Obama love fest:
1. "Officials with the network claim they will air opposing views" - that will be the first surprise, considering they have already refused to broadcast opposing views! ABC rejected an alternative health care ad submitted for airing during the prime time special on Wednesday.
2. If the audience "offers up questions for the president during the program", the audience will undoubtedly consist of nothing but Obama Democrats and Obama-sympathetic media (is there any other kind?), and the questions will be previously approved by Obama staffers to insure the president isn't caught with his teleprompters down.
3. The only "divergence of opinion" will probably be discussing how many billions of our tax dollars to throw away on this Marxist health care debacle.

A sales pitch is a sales pitch - no matter what the salesman may choose to call it. In this case it is relatively simple to understand:

BUY MY IDEA... and since it is MY IDEA,
there is no plausible reason to even offer possible alternatives,
much less discuss them.
I AM "THE ONE"!

For those of you who voted for him, we're ALL about to get what you deserve! NMP!

2010 U.S. Census - Head Count or Potential Body Count?

There is significant consternation among the population over the upcoming, outrageously intrusive, US Government Census. The Census is required - by our Constitution - to be conducted every 10 years.

Today, the controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code. There is a lot of census data collected in the United States today, such as economic figures, sales and production figures, and agricultural statistics. Still, the head count is the only part of the census that is called for by the Constitution. The code for the enumeration can be found in 13 USC 141. In this code, the census is directed to be taken in 1980 and every ten years thereafter, and that the count is to be taken on April 1. The returns must be completed within nine months for use in apportionment of representatives. The code also specifies a mid-decade census be taken in 1985 and every ten years thereafter. This count need not be a head count (sampling may be used) though the data cannot be used for apportionment.

Why does the government need to know how many bathrooms I have, or what my total household income is in order to apportion representatives? Are they planning on stopping in to take a dump if they're in the neighborhood? Or, are they planning on hitting me up for a bailout loan? Apportionment of representatives is based upon population - nothing else! Given similar population numbers, the wealthy districts get the same number of representatives as the less-than-wealthy districts, and the government agents have no reasonable excuse for doing anything more than counting heads... unless there is a hidden agenda.

From the U.S. Census Bureau web site:( http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about_2010_census/index.html )

""About 2010 Census

What
Count
The census is a count of everyone residing in the United States: in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.

Who
Everyone
All residents of the United States must be counted. This includes people of all ages, races, ethnic groups, citizens and non-citizens.

When
Every 10 years
Every 10 years, and the next census occurs in 2010. Census questionnaires will be mailed or delivered to every household in the United States in March 2010. The questions ask you to provide information that is accurate for your household as of April 1, 2010.

The Census Bureau must count everyone and submit state population totals to the U.S. President by December 31, 2010.

The first Census was conducted in 1790 and has been carried out every 10 years since then.

Where
Everywhere in the U.S.
The census counts everyone residing in the United States: in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.

People should be counted where they live and sleep most of the year.

Why
The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandates a headcount of everyone residing in the United States. The population totals determine each state’s Congressional representation. The numbers also affect funding in your community and help inform decision makers about how your community is changing. More info…

How
The Census Bureau will mail or deliver questionnaires to your house in March 2010. We will mail a second form to households that do not respond to the initial questionnaire.

Households that still do not respond will be called or visited by a Census worker. (Census workers can be identified by a census badge and bag.)""

There is a fine for failure to participate in the census - $100. There is a larger fine of "up to" $500 for providing false information. The only good news I am aware of is that they will not be using the "long form" - which was the most intrusive - for this census.

As for me, if approached by a representative of the Census Bureau, I will choose to provide nothing more than how many. Anything beyond that will be answered "Not required by the U.S. Constitution" - which is not "false information", inasmuch as the Constitution only mandates "an enumeration", which simply means how many and nothing more. Consider it to be my personal protest against Government intrusion into the lives of the citizens.

Enough is too much!

I could be totally wrong about the over-insinuation of government into our daily lives and our personal, private information... but I don't think so. Let's ALL take a stand against government intrusion!

Census Workers Marking GPS Coordinates of U.S. Homes

I have seen that headline - or one very similar - in several different places over the last few months, but I do not personally know it to be a fact. However, I do believe I may have actually seen a census worker with a hand-held GPS in front of my house a few weeks ago. I can find no other plausible explanation for his actions.

This 'older man' was afoot, holding an object which appeared to be an electronic device (approx 5"x7") in his hands. He paused in front of the house, looked down at the device in his hands and then approached the front door (I can observe the front yard from my computer room window). I was waiting for a knock at the door... which never came. A few seconds later I saw him walking away from the house back into the street, putting an end to this 'close encounter of the weird kind.' The government's excuse for conducting such a census is, "GPS technology allows us to reduce the amount of time spent by census workers in locating addresses while increasing productivity. Most importantly, by adding a GPS coordinate to each housing unit, the Census Bureau is able to ensure that residents are counted in the right location. This is important as the data are used to apportion congressional representation and used to draw redistricting lines.”

Here are a few of the problems I have with anybody GPS'ing my domicile:
1. First and foremost, it seems unnecesarily intrusive. Why does the government need to know the exact coordinates of any individual's living quarters? It smacks of the groundwork for the fabled "Black Ops" - black helicopters and SUV's showing up, and citizens being spirited off in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. But, there's no real proof of "Black Ops" against the citizens of the USA... yet. The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse—a harmless-looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the Census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States Government tries to convince you that it does.

2. Given that our national security is significantly less-than-bulletproof, at both our physical borders and the 'borders' of our ostensibly secure government computer systems, to what use could this GPS information be put by those who bear us ill will? I can envision a scenario wherein a foreign power hacks into the appropriate government database and retrieves every bit of data needed to pinpoint heavily populated areas as well as the locations of critical utilities. (The only reason I didn't include the locations of sateside military installations in that scenario is that the rest of the hostile/envious world already knows precisely where those bases are located.)

Our government has already overstepped the bounds of the charter of the U.S. Census Bureau, by using them to gather information beyond a simple headcount. Questions like "Do you have running water in your household?", "Do you have insurance?", questions about educational level, number and kinds of disabilities , etc., have no place in the "census". Census is defined thusly:
1: a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2: a usually complete enumeration of a population ; specifically : a periodic governmental enumeration of population
3: count, tally

It was designed as a system of "how many"... not a system of "how much"!

Can we afford to forget the scenes of smart bombs and tomahawk missiles, guided by GPS coordinates, going through the windows and doors of buildings during the invasion of Iraq? "That could never happen here.", you say? Ask the Native Americans what they think about that. And do a little research on the "Bonus Army", Washington D.C., 1932 while you're at it - wherein a cavalry charge was led against WWI military veterans by our own 'heroes', General Douglas McArthur and Major George S. Patton.

As Government grows larger, I am reminded of the words of Thomas Paine, who said, ""Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." and Daniel Webster's quote, "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." And, although often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the only verifiable attribution for "The best government is that which governs least." is to Henry David Thoreau. They all make sense to me!

I could be wrong about this... I suppose... perhaps... maybe... or maybe not!