The Fairness Doctrine Is Next (Before or After Global Warming)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Blames Fairness Doctrine Abolishment for Conservatism Popularity

It looks like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is running for the office of chief censor. He absolutely hates the free flow of ideas and makes it plain in this Digital Journal article about his appearance on the same London, Ontario stage where ironically two days earlier Canadian university officials attempted to censor Ann Coulter.  Kennedy, upholding that same spirit of censorship, blames the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine for the rise of political views that don't fit into his liberal world vision:

Hero of the right, President Ronald Reagan, is no hero to Kennedy. "He had the gift of making people feel comfortable with their own prejudices."

Many of the problems of today, Kennedy traced back to actions taken by Reagan. Kennedy believes the American people are fed a media diet of right-wing propaganda, and it "all started in 1988 when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine said that the airwaves belong to the public. They were public-trust assets, like air and water, and broadcasters could be licensed to use them" but they must use them in the public interest and to advance democracy.

If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place, "You could not have a Fox News," he said, nor a Rush Limbaugh, for that matter. But the doctrine is gone and Fox and Limbaugh are here. Quoting Pew Research, Kennedy said, 30 percent of Americans now get their news from talk radio, which is 90 percent dominated by the right. Another large number of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News, which Kennedy clearly believed would be better named Faux News. 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/03/25/robert-f-kennedy-jr-blames-fairness-doctrine-abolishment-conservatism-#ixzz0jFo3vvQ0

Link:

Ed Schultz Mocked Us in 2008 for Warning About the 'Fairness' Doctrine's Return; Now Calls for its Return

Word of my efforts made its way to him.  And he sought me out and approached me so as to ridicule us for fighting the good fight.  He rigidly insisted that no Democrat - no one in fact - was seeking a return of the Censorship Doctrine.

"Who talks to Nancy Pelosi more - you or me?" he angrily asked.  I replied "Have you talked to Nancy Pelosi - ever?"  Because if he had, once, ever, he had done so more than me.  (And more's the pity for him.)

He responded "Well I just spoke to her, and no one wants to see (the alleged "Fairness" Doctrine) brought back."

I tried to persuade him that there were plans in the works but he remained, as always, impervious to facts.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2010/03/25/ed-schultz-mocked-us-2008-warning-about-fairness-doctrines-return-now-#ixzz0jFovZxIQ

IRS the Enforcer of the Health Tax and Regulation (Ahhh, They Have Guns)

Jason Mattera Confronts House Majority Leader Steny Hoye On Forcing People Into A Health-Care Bill

Steny Hoyer explains taxing Americans for lack of health insurance

Maddow vs. The Constitution

(Great catch from NewsBusters)

Here's Maddow describing one of the things she didn't like --

MADDOW: There were lots of people giving away copies of the Constitution, but in a thing that sort of bothers me, they couldn't resist adding their own documents to the Constitution. So you can get the Constitution, plus say, the mission statement of the anti-ACLU American Civil Rights Union. Or you can get the Constitution plus the mission statement of the Young America's Foundation. Or you can get the Constitution with a foreword by Ron Paul. Much as I love Ron Paul, I don't think you get to write a foreword to the Constitution.

 Actually you do, thanks to -- all together, in unison -- the Constitution.

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2010/02/20/rachel-maddow-miffed-constitution-allegedly-sullied-accompanying-conse

Marco Rubio Rocks CPAC! (3-Parts)

Justice Clarence Thomas Comes Out Swinging!

 

WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.

[...]

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907. 

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” 

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.” 

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process. 

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

...(read more)...

 (link out - below)

Charles Krauthammer on Supreme Court, Massachusetts, and Air America (the Conservative Trifecta)

Iran

Obama-ism

Jimmy Z - China, CO2 & Population Control Pt 1

Obama's America -- Criminalizing Dissent (Daily KOS and HotAir on Same Page)

The Minority Report has a great article title: Feinstein and Durbin Want to Kill Citizen Journalism. Blogs of Victory has great insight on this "liberal" hypocrisy in their post No Shield for YOU!!  Of course the Daily KOS is attacking these two liberal Democrats, something that you normally do not see.  When a topic that can bring HotAir and KOS together to fight this topic... it has to be really wrong!  the following is from The Daily KOS's post, Sens. Feinstein and Durbins attack on citizen journalism (Language Warning, they are liberals):

But those two troublemaking Dems, now identified as Sens. Feinstein (CA) and Durbin (IL), are back again,  ....

Basically, Feinstein and Durbin want to restrict shield law protections for those who are either salaried employees or contractors of big media. If not, it's basically fuck you.

This isn't a partisan issue, it's one between those who are so stuck in the past, that they can't fathom a more diverse and expansive media environment -- one that is no longer dominated by the NY Times and the TV networks.

If you are represented by one of the senators on the committee, please give them a call and ask them to oppose this measure. Again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue, so calling your Republican senator (for once) might actually make a difference. Committee members are:

Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Chuck Schumer (New York -- he's kosher on this)
Dick Durbin (Illinois)
Ben Cardin (Maryland)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Ted Kaufman (Delaware)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania -- also kosher)
Al Franken (Minnesota)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Jon Kyl (Arizona)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)

Note -- this isn't about me. I'm a salaried writer. This amendment wouldn't exclude me. This is about most of you, and countless bloggers and writers who do their own brand of journalism because they believe in their cause, not just because it's a gig.

Feinstein and Durbin want to relegate you to second-class status in favor of the old media dinosaurs bleeding themselves dry. This is unconscionable. Protect the act of journalism, not people who fit the government's definition of "journalist".

Again, that is a left-leaning (almost as far left as you can get) blog calling us to arms.

 (HotAir h/t, Shot in the Dark import)

Democrats: Criminalizing Dissent
By Mitch Berg

Democrats Diane Feinstein and Dick “Turban” Durbin – who have long been the Dems’ official trial-balloon-floaters for assaults on free speech like the “Fairness Doctrine” – are proposing an amendment to a Senate bill (S.448) clarifying the press shield law.

And it’s aimed squarely at citizen journalists like you and I.  Via RWN, here’s the amendment text, with some emphases added:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN )
Viz:
In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:
[a "journalist" is shielded if he/she] (iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In other words, you need to be an employee of a news business.  All of us hobby hacks in our pajamas in our basements are out in the cold.

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

This would seem to be aimed at the likes of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles – provided they’re not employed by a Major News Outlet, of course.

Leaving aside the obvious indication that this is the Democrats’ way of circling their wagons around ACORN – this is a fascinating look into the authoritarianism of the Democrat party at work.

The conservative blogosphere is dominated by independents who cover their fields of expertise, whatever they are (this blog: music, financial planning, wine, tomatos and Minnesota politics) for the pure, unadulterated love of the game.  From Power Line (which covers all they survey) to Speed Gibson (who patrols the ramparts of northwest-suburban education), we mostly do it because we want to, money be damned.

The left, on the other hand, has built up a network of “business” entities and non-profits, from the pseudo-newspaper-y “MNPost” to the not-very-covert propagandists at the “Center for Independent Media” (parent of the Minnesoros “Indepdendent”), at exquisite cost; one might now presume that this money was spent to get ahead of the legislative curve that the Feinstein/Durbin proposal represents, as a further attempt to shut down independent, non-government-vetted thought in this country.

This is Obama’s America.

American Universities Becoming 1984'ish (Indoctrinate U Attached)

(Hot Air import)

Katherine Kersten wonders when dissent became so unpatriotic — and when universities began demanding ideological purity as a prerequisite to attaining a degree.  The University of Minnesota will apparently demand that its education graduates, the future teachers of Minnesota, confess to their own bigotry if they believe in the American dream of equal opportunity as a means to cleanse the Minnesota education system of cultural biases.  It sounds like a page out of communist show trials:

The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U’s flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” contributes to the poor academic performance of the state’s minority students. Last spring, it charged the task group with coming up with recommendations to change this. In January, planners will review the recommendations and decide how to proceed.

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the “overarching framework” for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

The first step toward “cultural competence,” says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”

It sounds as though they “earn points” for obsequiously affirming the political biases of the university’s education professors. What’s the point of all these confessions?

[...(read more)...]

Reason TV's Nanny of the Month for October 2009

Pauline Howe Visited by Police for Hate Crimes (Peacefully Proteting a Gay Parade In a Letter)

Debate: Is America Great or Imperialistic? (28 min)

"Does Obama Believe In Human Rights?" Seems Liek A Fair Question Considering His Record (radicalism on display)

First Obama seems to back Iran's theocratic regime that kills or tortures its citizenry for such things as merely being gay, not wearing the proper clothing, fighting for woman's rights, and the like. Then the Honduras government legally removed its president via their congress, his party, and their constitution. Obama's administration also backed other government entities than Columbia, and seem to support Venezuela. Here is more from the "does Obama believe in human rights" category. This story comes from Gateway Pundit... he does a bang-up job.

White House to Meet With Killer Military Regime in Burma

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Jim Hoft

Bret Stevens asked the question in The Wall Street Journal yesterday,
“Does Obama believed in human rights?”
…After nine months on the job we have our answer.

In 2007 thousands of democracy activists in Burma (or Myanmar) rose up and protested against the brutal junta in control their country.

Thousands of Buddhist monks marched in the Hledan area of Rangoon back in September 2007. The monks led massive democracy protests against the violent junta. But the protests didn’t last long. The military regime cracked down on the activists killing and imprisoning several thousand men and women for demanding freedom. (BBC)

The regime slaughtered the democracy protesters. They gunned them down in the streets.

This is raw footage of the execution of Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai by the Burmese junta on September 27, 2007.

This coming week the Obama Administration will send a delegation to meet with the killer regime in Burma.
The Age reported:

The United States is preparing to send a rare mission to Burma but warns that its bid to engage the military junta after decades of hostility will be “slow and painful.”

Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said a team would head to Burma to follow up on talks last month in New York, which marked the highest-level US contact with the regime in nearly a decade.

But in testimony Wednesday before a House of Representatives committee, Campbell cautioned: “We expect engagement with Burma to be a long, slow, painful and step-by-step process.”

A Burma official on Thursday confirmed the “fact-finding” trip would take place next week. But the official gave no further details, saying the visit was still in the planning stages.

Campbell did not specify who would take part in the trip. Another senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Campbell hoped to go himself but it would depend on whether the junta gives him access to the opposition.

FCC Wants to Regulate the Internet

White House Tries To Bar Fox News from Interviewing Pay Czar (Plus, Charles Krauthammer)

(HotAir h/t)

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too. And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

Also,

• NYT: Obama whined about Fox News at off-the-record briefing with lefty pundits

Is this a joke?

Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation…

Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight with Fox was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.

White House officials acknowledged that Fox News did come up at that meeting, although not, they said, as a central topic. A number of issues had been added to the White House’s list of grievances by then, including the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more heavily anti-administration commentary at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Penn Jillette Gets Yelled At By One of His Boyhood Idols for Going On the Glenn Beck Show

(HotAir h/t)

Language Warning

Penn Jillette:

• I sat on TV, while my hero Tommy Smothers yelled in my face how pissed off he was at me for appearing on Glenn Beck. It broke my heart. When Penn Jillette has an opinion it's a safe bet he won't hold back. Upload your own reaction and get the rants rolling! Tune in each week for new insight and agitation.

What Constitutes a Radical? Most of the Media Does Not Know

I wanted to post this video of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell tells Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that she wouldn’t characterize George Soros as leftwing. Which begs the question, “Who is leftwing then , Andrea?” I am building a bit on this idea of "who is left-wing then?" asked by (and a h/t to) Gateway Pundit. I hope that the video documentarie[s] below will halp the average guy answer this question. Who on the opposite side of the political spectrum is left-wing, or even a radical? Who funds these left-wing organizations? Are there Marxist ties (a fair question)? Take your time if you have not seen Beck's Revolutionary Tree. See what has the White House worried and is the underlying reason for attacking FOX News.

Glenn Beck Radical Revolutionary Tree (Part 1)

Glenn Beck Radical Revolutionary Tree (Part 2)

Horowitz & Beck (Part 1)

Horowitz & Beck (Part 2)

More from Gateway Pundit:

A leading scholar on communist China was shocked to hear that Obama’s White House Communications Directory Anita Dunn is a huge fan of mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung. Anita Dunn praised Mao Tse-Tung in a recent speech to high school graduates.

The communist leader killed over 65 million individuals during his reign of terror.
CNSNews reported:

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people, and she explained why his philosophy was important for achieving personal and political goals.

When questioned last week after a video of her speech surfaced, however, Dunn said she was using “irony” in reference to Mao. A leading expert on China told CNSNews.com that Dunn’s remarks were “pathetic,” given the human rights atrocities committed under Mao’s reign.

As first shown on Fox News Channel’s “Glenn Beck” show on Thursday, Oct. 15, in the video Dunn told graduating high school students that Mao and Mother Teresa, the Catholic nun known for aiding the poor, were examples of people who did not give up, and did their own thing to make a difference in the world…

Policies implemented under Mao Tse Tung, including the civil war, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and persecution in Tibet, among other policies, led to death of an estimated 65 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press), which is considered by scholars as one of the best sources on communist atrocities.

Mao also outlawed religion and sent at least 2.5 million people to “re-education camps,” called “laogai,” which were similar to the slave-labor camps in the Gulag of the Soviet Union. An estimated 1,000 laogai reportedly are still in operation today.

While Dunn now says she was using “irony” when she called Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, an expert on Mao’s three-decade rule in China thinks the remarks she made in May 2009 to the students were “pathetic.”

William Ratliff, an expert on China with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said he found Dunn’s comments astonishing regardless of her larger point, and wondered whether Dunn is aware of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, or if Dunn was trying to look at Mao’s positive accomplishments.