So what name will the new version of "fairness" operate under? Diversity. Or "diversity of ownership", if you prefer. Posted on 03/05/2009 8:50:40 AM PST by Drew McKissick
It's become quite clear now what Obama and the Democrat's strategy was (and is) on the Fairness Doctrine - turn down the volume and deny that's what you really want, while you work to repackage it under a new name.
The "New" Fairness Doctrine?
So what name will the new version of "fairness" operate under? Diversity. Or "diversity of ownership", if you prefer.
Just last week, the Senate passed an amendment sponsored by SC Senator Jim DeMint that would prohibit the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, while at the same time approving an amendment by IL Democrat Dick Durbin that would instruct the FCC to promote policies that foster more "minority ownership" in broadcasting. (Of course the House hasn't weighed in on this yet)
So what does that really mean? It means the Dems are looking for ways to move broadcast licenses from the companies that currently have them (and maybe air shows like Rush Limbaugh) to new and/or minority owned companies.
In other words, political set-asides by way of racial set-asides.
Meanwhile, Obama has nominated his new FCC head who will likely be driving this train.
You also have to keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine was a creation of the FCC...not Congress. Which means, baring an act of Congress - signed by Obama - banning the Fairness Doctrine (and pigs fly), the FCC could bring it back at any time.
Stay alert.
The point is, don't let the smooth talk from the Obama crowd get you off the ramparts on this one. The result that they want (less conservative talk) is clear. How they will go about it is just a matter of how they think they can be successful.
And right now, it looks like "diversity" is the name of the game.
***
Take Action: Click here and join the campaign to stop the Fairness Doctrine and defend free speech and the free market of ideas on our airwaves.
There is also a lack of diversity in ballroom dancing. So what?
There is a distinct lack of diversity in profession basketball and football players. I think that the NBA and NFL ought to be forced to have and play only a team that equally represents all races.
The point is, they want less political competition, like the good socialists they are, period. Obama will play the black "opperssion", Affirmative Action gimmick for all its worth. Unfortunately, to the peculiarly timid white population, it's currently worth more than our own freedom is.
In any case, the socialists are not stupid adversaries, they know that in order to subdue the last remnants of freedom fighters they must target our leadership. Our (supposedly) political leadership in the Republican party has already surrendered to the PC god, so they are now targeting our real leaders, the radio talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Ingrham, etc, private citizens all. Looks a whole lot like Barak Obolshevik is taking control of America and single-handedly reshaping it to his own image. Didn't Hitler and Stalin rise to power during harsh economic times? Didn't they use economic hardships to manipulate the people and implement their facism/communism? As did Musolini and others. Obama is well read in Communism and facism, it would seem. What's even worse is that Obolshivek is animated by the same kind of hatred that Adolf Hitler was. They both hate/d a particular race of people and sought revenge, as they fell in love with their own power.
What's the name of the “team” that plays against the Harlem Globetrotters? That's about what a diverse NBA team would play like. And diverse radio will sound like a bunch of amateurs. Equality of Opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome. They gerrymandered congressional districts and we got Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee. Who we going to get with a gerrymandered radio station? Al Sharpton? Jeremiah Wright? You can bet they don't have Armstrong Williams in mind.
That list was by no means meant to be exhaustive nor should it be regarded to be exclusive. For example, if one selects based on race, must that individual be a pure example of that race or is mongrelization permitted? If religion is to be considered, does it trump race? For example, if the object is to secure diversity by awarding ownership to Irishmen, is it okay to include Protestant Irish or must they be Catholic? Please no comments about black Irish. It one awards ownership on the basis of religion, what about those who are apostate? Can ownership of the station be challenged because of canonical declension? Should these groups be rewarded according to their number? So would Chinese receive more stations than bushmen? According to their number in the local area? So African-Americans in Chicago would receive more stations than Australian bushman? According to the numbers as they should be if the ideal of diversity were obtained? So Muslims receive more stations than Baptists.
These are questions which perplexed me because the language which I have read in the popular press about this diversity does not offer one any guidance toward answering these questions. I am sure, however, that our government will enable very wise people to make these decisions for us. I suggest that these groups of people making these decisions be called "People's Diversity Soviets."
So, this means CNN will have to hire Repub reporters? And anchors? And sell shares to Repub owners? Right?
Right.
Diversity= Quota count
In my new and improved USA, gerrymandering will be outlawed and senators will be senators of equally sized areas of land, regardless of population.
All elected officials will be term limited and politicians will be able to accept any amount of money from anyone or any organization or company and ALL donations must be publicized online. However, they will be barred from introducing legislation that favors that company or organization, having someone else introduce it, voting on that legislation or attempting to influence any other legislator to vote for it.
Tax increases will require a 2/3 vote but tax cuts will require only a simple majority.
The size of the government will be constitutionally prevented from growing more than population increase plus inflation.
Federal supreme court judges are to be appointed for a period of 10 years and then must leave the bench, but may serve for an additional 10 years if they are willing to move to a lower court.
There will be a bill of “no rights”.
Also, an income tax will be constitutionally prohibited and the article that contains this provision will be exempted from the amendment process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.