Posted on 07/02/2007 1:42:41 PM PDT by rface
USNewswire/ -- In a column and special report, Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid says that liberal plans to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are still on track, and that Democrats intend to push for the measure by linking conservative talk radio to "hate crimes."
In the column, "The Fairness Doctrine is Not Dead," Kincaid says that people have been misled into thinking that the Congress has stopped the Fairness Doctrine because the House adopted a Rep. Mike Pence amendment prohibiting funding for it. Even if the measure were to pass the Senate, it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic President and Congress from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, Kincaid points out. He notes that the Pence amendment only applies to 2008 dollars for the Federal Communications Commission but that there was never any chance of the FCC under President Bush bringing it back anyway.
The real legislation solution, the Broadcasters Freedom Act, also introduced by Pence, has only 111 co-sponsors, Kincaid points out. Kincaid says that, "without a massive public outpouring in favor of the First Amendment, comparable to the opposition to the immigration bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act will die. And that means that, with a Democrat in the White House, the Fairness Doctrine, as well as limits on conservative ownership of media properties, will be passed into law."
Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit http://www.aim.org/.
To arrange an interview with AIM editor Cliff Kincaid, contact Sarah Schaerr
Norton at (202) 364-4401 ext. 107 or sarah.schaerr@aim.org.
Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click appropriate link. Cliff Kincaid http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=60942 Accuracy in Media
CONTACT: Sarah Schaerr Norton, +1-202-364-4401 ext. 107, Sarah.Schaerr@aim.org
Web site: http://www.aim.org/
sorry for the screwed-up title to this thread.......
with a Democrat in the White House, the Fairness Doctrine, as well as limits on conservative ownership of media properties, will be passed into lawI believe this is true. This time the RATS will play for keeps. If they get their grubby paws on the keys to the kingdom, they'll institutionalize massive censorship and massive voter fraud to make sure they never lose again.
Bush has largely wrecked his own presidency, but all conservatives should applaud him if he follows through with a veto of the Hate Crimes bill. We already see speech being criminalized in Europe, so its likely just a matter of time before it arrives here. But we should hold out as long as we can.
This is the elites vengeance against the everyman for the immigration debacle.
Of course. The dems are the modern reincarnation of stalin, and will do everything that they can to suppress dissent.
Well, hopefully events will play out so that President Hillary or another Dem. is not going to be the president to sign this type of legislation. Let’s work to defeat such a Dem.
Let's go on the offensive. Make this a huge headache for the DBM.
What...over one issue (immigration)? I saw this posted on here a few days ago...you might find it interesting:
“For a while now, and really, since shortly after the 2004 election, I have gotten emails from folks who say, “Bush forgot that you have to dance with the one that brung you.” They’ve been sending me that message for so long, on so many different issues, that I suspect Bush feels a little like a girl who is invited to a fancy ball - and proves to be excellent company for most of the night, despite being hated by many of the guests – but manages to fall out of step, at which point she is abandoned on the dance floor and told to find her own way home.
Betrayal is such a strong word; did he betray you, really?
—Did he protect us from the reach & province of the International Criminal Court? Yes.
—Did he keep us from the Kyoto mess that is currently tying up Europe? Yes.
—Did he create a workable alternative to Kyoto that other countries have embraced? Yes. Bet you didn’t know that!
—Have US Carbon Emissions decreased on his watch, without Kyoto? Yes.
—Did he submit a comprehensive energy plan that got killed by a weak congress? Yes.
—Has he lowered the deficit ahead of schedule in time of war? Yes. Even the NYTimes admits it!
—Did he cut taxes? Twice? Yes. And yes.
—Did he try to get the cuts made permanent? Yes. Congress dropped that ball.
—Did he stop government funding of EMBRYONIC stem cell research? Yes.
—Has he kept the promises he made as he held a dead cop’s shield before the Joint Houses? Yes.
—Did he go after the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan barely a month after 9/11? Yes.
—Has he been unflagging in his efforts to subdue terrorism, worldwide? Yes.
—Has be been the consistent voice for human liberty around the globe? Yes.
—After some serious missteps, is the surge working? Yes.
—Has he been a staunch friend to Israel, the only stable democracy in a frantic region? Yes.
—Did he end the farce of world-wide Arafat admiration? Yes
—Did he remove Saddam Hussein, whose state supported terrorists, from power? Yes.
—Did he invade Iraq at a time when the whole world believed Saddam had and “would use” WMD? Yes.
—Did he bring a much-maligned coalition with him? Yes. Some are still there.
—Did he liberate 50,000 people in keeping with the ideals of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act? Yes.
—Has he inspired the Iraqi people to finally believe enough in freedom to fight AlQaeda with us? YES!
—Has he figured out that a free and engaged Middle East makes America safer? Yes.
—Has he kept you safe since 9/11? So safe that you’ve almost forgotten to fear? Yes.
—Did he remove “the wall” between the CIA and the FBI? Yes.
—Did he go to the UN before invading Iraq? Yes.
—Did he tell the UN that the US would never ask permission to defend herself? Yes.
—Didd he inspire Libya to surrender it’s WMD without firing a shot? Yes.
—Did he appoint excellent SCOTUS and Federal Judges to the bench? Yes.
—Did he implement the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program? Yes.
—Did he immediately move to freeze assets and make terror funding more difficult? Yes.
—Did he reform Medicare? Yes.
—Did he reform Social Security to give you more power over your money? He tried. See Congress.
—Did he manage an economy thru recession, terror attack & war w/ consistent gains for over ten quarters? Yes.
—Has he kept unemployment between 5.5% and 4.4% for an impressive period? Yes.
—Does he say what he means and mean what he says? Yes.
—Did he try to address immigration last year, when the houses in his party? Yes.
—Does he support the second amendment? Yes.
—Does he support school vouchers and school choice? Yes.
—Did he sign the ban on Partial Birth Abortion? Yes. It went to court, but he signed it.
—Did he reverse Clinton’s intent to kill Reagan’s pro-life Mexico policy? Yes.
—Did he support the Defense of Marriage Act? Yes. That used to be vitally important to you.
—Did he expand the roles of faith-based organizations in social programs? Yes.
—Did he prosecute the white-collar criminals like Ken Lay who ran riot through the ‘90’s? Yes.
—Has he handled himself with enormous courage, dignity and grace in the face of world/media/hate? YES
—Is he a man with a creed before he’s anything else? Yes.
—Did he establish Health Savings accounts? Yes.
—Did he have the Border Patrol installing monitoring devices along the borders? Yes.
—Has he made mistakes? Yes. Some undeniable beauts.
—Has he been an imperfect president? Yes.
—Has he spent too much? Probably.
—Has he given you most of what you’ve wanted? Actually, looking at the list…yes!
—Has he dared to disagree with anyone to keep his principles, even you? Yes.
Has he really been your Judas? Has he really betrayed you?
Did he ever question your patriotism, or tell you you were a bad person? No, actually, he didn’t. Go read his remarks in context, instead of looking at one sentence blared at you by the very media you distrust. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that in this immigration controversy there are (sadly) some who are using fear to move their agenda, and there are some (only some, but they hurt us all) who reveal bigotry in their rants. You needn’t be offended if you can remember that there are those “somes” in every group; conservatives have no corner of perfection. You actually do have a choice as to how you receive what you hear, see and read, just as you have a choice as to how you receive a good, that is, with “open” or “closed” heart.
http://theanchoressonline.com/page/2/
They always play for keeps. We don't. Republicans had Congress and the Presidency for 6 years. Remember "defund the left?" It didn't happen. Wouldn't be sporting, perhaps? Too much effort?
Republicans had Congress and the Presidency for 6 years.Well, Bush chose to spend all his political capital in Iraq. I supported that war, and still do, but maybe, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, maybe it would have been better to keep the overflights and enforcing the no-fly zone, and use 9/11 as the excuse needed to build a strong border fence. I think his popularity would have soared, in that case, instead of plummeted. But he believed in the war, believes in the war, as did I. As do I. But war has a price.
Maybe the dems should go talk to John Kerry, Ran Rather or Harriet Myers... bloggers will fight back.
Maybe the dems should go talk to John Kerry, Dan Rather or Harriet Myers... bloggers will fight back.
bump for publicity
“The dems are the modern reincarnation of stalin, and will do everything that they can to suppress dissent.”
Worse! They are the evil spawn of the marriage of convenience between Stalin and Roosevelt, with an unhealthy dose o’ learnin’ in the ways of coercion and corruption from Uncle Lyndon. Never forget that the origins of the “fairness doctrine” were formulated and enacted during the late 1940’s while FDR was (and unfortunately still is) reverred and while LBJ was beginning his rise to power in the Senate.
The only thing LBJ underestimated was the devotion of the press to throw one of their own overboard to further “the cause”.
Now, what did Ron Paul mean by that? Did he mean that US foreign policy has been bad, and that terrorists are rightfully riled up over it? That appears to be how many have interpreted his remarks. But perhaps he just meant that, although US foreign policy may have been reasonable, it nevertheless has caused terrorists to wrongfully be offended. If that's what he meant (and I don't pretend to know,) then there is an analogy between his remakrs and yours: namely, that even policies that are reasonable (or even excellent) on the their merits alone, may not be wise in a larger, strategic context.
If I sounded like Ron Paul, then I should be shot. In fact, I’ll shoot myself.
I do not mean to sound like that jerk. 9/11 was NOT our fault and anything I said that might be construed as that is NOT what I meant to say.
And when I talked about the war, I meant tactically, not strategically. Strategically we’re right to be there, pinning those bastards down the best way we can. The only question is, what’s the best way. And I think I did mention hindsight, which is always so easy to have.
Anyway, thanks for making me slap myself and see reason. Wow. I sounded like Ron Paul. Shoot me, somebody. Really. I’m serious.
Bush could have used 9/11 to get rid of illegal immigration, deport the illegals, cut down on government waste to pay for the war, maybe even reform entitlements to pay for the war. But that would have been a great and a good President. Not Bush.
You need to review what the FBI Phoenix memos revealed. They were given good information and they purposefully ignored it.
The terrorists attacks were a result.
Hey, it’s a fact. If I fell asleep on guard duty and my troops were killed, would I be innocent?
Bush could have used 9/11 to get rid of illegal immigration, deport the illegals, cut down on government waste to pay for the war, maybe even reform entitlements to pay for the war. But that would have been a great and a good President. Not Bush.So sad. So true.
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.