Death by Talk Radio: the Amnesty Bill

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 30 June 2007 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

Subject of self-evident interest to y'all. Hope my take on it is of interest.

John / Billybob

[Man50D]

Now is not the time to let up. We need to pressure our politicians to enforce the existing immigration laws including deporting illegal aliens, building the fence and prosecuting businesses who do business with illegal aliens. The link below is a ping list to pay attention for other questionable legislation being considered in Congress.

Keeping Track Of The Congress Critters

[Ken522]

Thank you for your insight, Congressman Billybob ;-D

[dennisw]

Did you get on with Joyce Kaufman in S Florida? WFTL? I know I heard you there or somewhere else in the last two weeks

[SAJ]

Good commentary, John. The key concept, of course, is ‘’market demand’’, which is simultaneously unfamiliar and anathema to people like Podesta (Soros, too, I daresay).

[P-40]

The FCC can, with the stroke of a pen, reinstall the Fairness Doctrine to replace the Free Speech Doctrine.

But then someone would need to enforce it...and that is when the fun would begin.

To those that want the 'fairness' doctrine, be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

[Enterprise]

"Hope my take on it is of interest."

The overwhelming majority of what you post here is of interest. Thank you.

[rellimpank]

--good one --

--as for senators, I always keep in mind a quote I saw in a George F. Will column---"people who can strut while sitting down"---

[claudiustg]

You know it. I know it. :^)

[Enterprise]

---"people who can strut while sitting down"---

Also known as a "pompous ass."

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, I did. Enjoyable time talking with her.

John

[Earthdweller]

[NonValueAdded]

You nailed it, sir!

[rbg81]

George Voinovich, R-Oh., actually said he felt “intimidated” by citizen reactions engendered by talk radio.

This is a good thing. The high and mighty should feel intimidated when they mess with the will of the people. The political class would probably love to return to the 1950s, when information was dispersed from a few, highly-controlled sources. Them days are gone forever.

[Nuc1]

Always interesting CBB. Thanks!

[pabianice]

There is a real, but not immediate, risk to talk radio. If someone is elected President who thinks talk radio should be controlled, that President can appoint a majority on the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC can, with the stroke of a pen, reinstall the Fairness Doctrine to replace the Free Speech Doctrine. And if so, only the Supreme Court can likely save talk radio from being told what to broadcast. But those are stories for another day.

The House just added to a bill the prohibition of the government funding enforcement of a "fairness doctrine." How would a Dem FCC enforce it without any money?

[Wuli]

Thanks John, for your sharing your personal knowledge on the current First Amendment situation vis-a-vis the “Fairness Doctrine”.

I will repeat for you, and the others on this particular thread, what I have said on another thread on this same issue.

We, conservatives, should have a dual track approach when we argue against the “Fairness Doctrine”. We should always be against it on principle, period.

Then, when placed into the position of what we would say IF it were re-imposed, we should say that liberals must realize that we would insist on things like:

“An hour immediately following George Stephanopolous on ABC on Sunday morning with an hour hosted by Rush Limbaugh”;

“prime-time nightly news on ABC, CBS and NBC split into two half-hour programs each where personalities like Laura Ingraham, Tony Snow and Neil Cavuto AND THEIR OWN PRODUCERS AND EDITORS present the second half of the show”;

“PBS mandated to hire a raft of conservative producers and directors whose role is to insure either true “balance” in all presentations or true equal time, in all cases, for the conservative point of view”;

etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

We can also remind the liberals that in almost every situation, given just the personalities I have mentioned, the “fairness” inclusion of “conservative” personalities in the venues I have mentioned will not be able to be argued as a revenue loss for the companies operating on the “public airwaves”, because most of the personalities I have mentioned already have established followings that are far greater than those who are the networks’ public faces on their news and opinion shows.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are assuming that the House bar to Equal Time again will somehow pass through the Senate. It probably will not survive the Senate, making the overwhelming House vote this week merely a vote for show, not legislation.

John / Billybob

[Christian4Bush]

BillyBob bump