The Show US Presidents -- Then and Now -- Don't Want You to Hear

The Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | February 13, 2009 | Rush Limbaugh

[Delacon]

 

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

 

                                SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

 

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

[Delacon]

ping

[FlingWingFlyer]

I wonder if it’s time for the GOP to draft a “fairness doctrine” for our schools, colleges and universities. That would work for me.

[glorgau]

...because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows,

And what would he call the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ?

[Darkwolf377]

And what would he call the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ?

The fair, open, unbiased press.

Bill Clinton is an utter ass. He is a complete fool who looks silly now that his wife is in a position in power and he is reduced to reminding everyone he was president, you know, and everyone loved him back then.

[JimSEA]

After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants --

A lot of would be despots have had this same reaction to public criticism. Successful tyrants have followed the models of Mao and Stalin. Putin is happily going on his merry way assassinating his verbal opponents and the respectable, honest press. We have precious little of that kind of press here. However if things are done the "Chicago Way". Rush could end up like Putin's opponents.

No, I don't think I am being hysterical or engaged in fear mongering. I wasn't at all optimistic about this administration but it is turning out much worse than even my gloomy expectations.

[feedback doctor]

Bttt

[goodnesswins]

GOOD idea!

[pawdoggie]

The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups: 1. Radio talk show hosts (to boost their ratings); 2. Democrats to send radio talk show hosts and their listeners off on a different tangent so that they’ll have less time to devote to the other failings of the Obama Administration.

[Delacon]

“The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups: 1. Radio talk show hosts (to boost their ratings); 2. Democrats to send radio talk show hosts and their listeners off on a different tangent so that they’ll have less time to devote to the other failings of the Obama Administration.”

Nonsense. 1. Talk radio hosts don’t need a red herring to boost their ratings. They have the failings Obama. Hey cart, get back in front of the horse. 2. Assuming that we listeners and the talk radio hosts we elevate in the market place of ideas are so easily distracted, is quite an insult. Dont you worry yourself about us biting off more than we can chew. We can fight the attack on the freedom of speech by the lefies AND all their other power grabs at the same time. Just watch us.

[Rastus]

The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups

It is, but not in the way you mean. The Dems are pushing the FD knowing full well it won't be implemented. Obama and the FCC are saying they're not interested in reviving it--a statement Obama made throughout his candidacy. The plan is to let it go down in defeat so everyone relaxes, and then Obama and the FCC will implement localism rules that will be de facto implementation of the FD without the stigma attached.

[caseinpoint]

You may be right in the sense that the attack may not come in the guise of the Fairness Doctrine but instead from “local control” rules with community organizers sitting as super-regulators of local radio station programming. Most commentary I have seen give nlittle credence to the idea of the Fairness Doctrine as it originally existed being enacted but the same effect may be achieved via other means like local control.

One of the problems I think we have is people have gotten turned around in their ideas of rights in this country. Instead of believing that God-given inalienable rights are ceded to the government for purposes of common defense and good, people now seem to believe that government is the source of all rights: “Government giveth and Government taketh away. Blessed be the name of Government.” This is the result of pushing all kinds of affirmative rights never contemplated by the limiting language of the Constitution and its amendments, like abortion, welfare, amnesty, gun control, and so on. So a lot of people believe that our rights exist by the beneficence of Government and Government ought to have the right to limit those rights. It is no longer seen as an encroachment but rather like parents withdrawing privileges the kids have abused.

Which makes it really difficult to argue Government needs to justify its incursion rather than the other way around. It is typical, for example, for politicians to argue that Government “can’t afford” tax breaks, that religions ought to earn their exemptions, that limited airwaves means Government gets to call the shots, and that citizens (and states) ought to have only those rights that Government deigns to give them.

[blueplum]

watch out Rush - the last time Clinton declared someone the ‘most dangerous broadcaster in america’ that person and his dog were erased.

[Delacon]

“It is, but not in the way you mean. The Dems are pushing the FD knowing full well it won’t be implemented. Obama and the FCC are saying they’re not interested in reviving it—a statement Obama made throughout his candidacy. The plan is to let it go down in defeat so everyone relaxes, and then Obama and the FCC will implement localism rules that will be de facto implementation of the FD without the stigma attached.”

Well said. But you should have added that by threatening to try and reimpose the negatively viewed fairness doctrine, dems are hoping that people will happily accept the warm and fuzzy “compromise” of “localism in broadcasting” and “diversity in broadcasting” initiatives. All the while achieving the same end which is a shutdown of any political talk on radio. Its not so much a red herring but a trojan horse.

[pawdoggie]

One of the problems I think we have is people have gotten turned around in their ideas of rights in this country.

True, but I don't think it has as much to do with the perceived source of a given "right", as it has to do with a misunderstanding of the term "inalienable right", and how much harm our political class has done by defining everything from a grant for soldiers to attend college "the G.I. Bill of Rights" to the "right" of airline passengers not to sit on the tarmac for more than thirty minutes without disembarking. We have totally conflated the concepts of rights, privileges, charity, tolerance and license, to the detriment of all rights, and the elevation of fad and fancy to "inalienability".

But that wasn't quite my point; I was reading the article and imagining Emmanuel, Carville, Begala and Stephanopoulos at their morning tete a tete laughing about the fact that they had once again managed to divert the attention of the very people who might be opposing them on more weighty matters with a few well-placed comments about the "Fairness Doctrine".

[Seven plus One]

I agree.

[Seven plus One]

Bush was in office when that happened.

[caseinpoint]

Quite right. Rights have been devalued into common currency where they used to be priceless. And you might be right about the Administration quite happy to see people distracted by the Fairness Doctrine while nefarious deeds are afoot. Sometimes I believe the Administration is terribly inept; other times I marvel at their tactics and hubris. I don’t know which impression is more frightening to me.

[pawdoggie]

Nonsense. 1. Talk radio hosts don’t need a red herring to boost their ratings. They have the failings Obama. Hey cart, get back in front of the horse. 2. Assuming that we listeners and the talk radio hosts we elevate in the market place of ideas are so easily distracted, is quite an insult. Dont you worry yourself about us biting off more than we can chew.

Actually, the Left should have realized a long time ago what a blessing talk radio is for them. If there were no talk radio, there'd be a lot more P.O.ed Howard Jarvis type revolts in the streets. If there were no talk radio, there would most likely be a terrestrial channel with morally uplifiting programming and conservative news and views (e.g. a product-improved version of both Fox TV and FNC melded together), and "the folks" respond better to both words and pictures than to words alone (no matter how eloquently spoken). If there were no talk radio, there might actually be more pressure (via sponsors threatened by consumer boycotts of their products) on the MSM networks to reform their news operations (both nationally and locally). Talk radio is a great place to vent, but when none of the hosts wants to leave the studio long enough to rally the troops and lead the battle, it can be like the "echo chamber" its Left-Wing opponents have (for different reasons) called it.

[Delacon]

place