It’s Time To Act Again.

The Marxists in the administration and the Obazoids over at the FCC have decided that you are far to dangerous to be allowed free and uncensored access to the internet. Obama’s bud Hugo did it, so why can’t he?

Jim DeMint

Aside from the fact that a federal judge has ruled that the FCC et al had vastly overreached in its previous attempt at control of cable TV channels, the FCC has no federal mandate to regulate the internet or any portion thereof.

It’s plainly an assault on the First Amendment. This cannot stand. We need to throw our support behind SC Republican Senator Jim DeMint in battling this outrage and getting it repealed.

Another huge thorn are the RINOs who sold us down the river on the START treaty. It might be time to point out that Russia (or the old Soviet Union) never honored a treaty. But then, that little fact never seems to bother the air heads in the State Department.

This treaty addresses a cold war that no longer exists. It limits our ability to respond to a rapidly changing geo-political situation in which the middle east becomes the focus in a new and different sort of contest, with a sort of winner-takes-all rulebook. The many enemies of this country would all love to be able to strike at us.

A treaty which limits our ability to defend against any threat from any direction or source is a treaty which we cannot afford to be in. The Republicans who voted for this damaging treaty should be challenged and removed from office.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Bankruptcy of the media reform agenda

Two stories emerged this week that demonstrate the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the media reform agenda. It is just another attempt to gain power for the left.

A Huffington Post writer argued that Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch's media empire should be broken up by the FCC and the DOJ's anti-trust division:

The Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation's political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media.

But ... Nancy Pelosi argues that the New York Times should be exempted from anti-trust laws.

The Left's New Fairness Doctrine Strategy

Michael Gerson seems to think the Fairness Doctrine is a real threat.  Steve Benen correctly calls BS on this...

He's warning Obama not to embrace a policy that he already opposes, and which Democrats have no apparent interest in pursuing.

Indeed, the timing of Gerson's column makes it look especially foolish -- today, the LA Times ran a detailed piece explaining that no one is seriously pushing the Fairness Doctrine, it has no realistic chance of passing, and "right-wing radio" is sounding a "false alarm."

The LA Times is correct.  The Left knows the Fairness Doctrine is a political loser.  It's dead.  The Center for American Progress has even said there is "no need to return to the Fairness Doctrine."   While it's mentioned now and then, there's just no chance the specific Fairness Doctrine regulation itself is coming back.  However, that's quite different from saying the Democrats are not still trying to achieve the same goals as the Fairness Doctrine.  They are.

The Center for American Progress says the Fairness Doctrine would not "address the gap between conservative and progressive talk ".  That's important.  They're not dismissing the underelying goals of government-managed fairness and opinion egalitarianism.  They're simply saying this is not the way to do it.

The roadmap to the Fairness Doctrine is laid out quite clearly in a 2007 Center For American Progress/Free Press report, entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."  In that report, they lay out how they can bring about the Fairness Doctrine through other means. 

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Now, pay attention to the Center for American Progress recommendation on FCC policy for the Obama administration. 

There has been an unprecedented increase in media concentration over the past decade, which has reduced the number and quality of local voices and elevated commercial interests at the expense of the public interest. The new president and the Federal Communications Commission should restore the primacy of the public interest standard and our national commitment to diverse voices and diversity of ownership. The FCC should also prioritize including all of our rapidly diversifying population in the mainstream of the technological revolution so that women and members of minority and immigrant communities are not just consumers of technology, but also owners, producers, and creators of content, applications, and facilities.

The Left has not abandoned their desire to use government to shape the landscape of political speech.  Their policy remains an "opinion diversity mandate".  But instead of approaching as an "equal time" mandate, they are trying to implement the ends of the Fairness Doctrine through an “equal access” mandate.

The Fairness Doctrine is dead.  Long live the Fairness Doctrine.


The Republican establishment protects itself

Promoted - a Republican insider frets about leadership.

Today's Examiner editorializes about a proposed ruling from the Bush White House's FCC regarding freedom of the airwaves. It's everything we fear the new Obama administration will do. Except it's coming from a Republican.

George W. Bush has not done much to help the Republican Party. His abysmal approval ratings are a big part of why we suffered so badly in congressional districts last Tuesday. Even in solid Republican districts, his approval ratings are in the 20s or 30s and it's been reported that the the right track/wrong track numbers in these districts are in the teens or even single digits. This administration from the beginning has refused to work with Republicans in congress or at the state level. In short, they've been arrogant bullies to their own people.

Now, let's look at the internal politicking taking place with the Republican leadership race for NRCC Chair. I don't have a dog in this fight. It would seem there certainly are areas where Tom Cole can improve. But will Pete Sessions be a better NRCC Chair? Don't know. Fundraising will be extremely difficult this next cycle (fewer members raising few dollars), as will candidate recruitment (who would want to run for congress when it's going to be tough raising money?) - the two big issues Sessions says he will improve if elected NRCC Chair. Fine. Good luck to whoever ends up in that job next year.

What bothers me most about the Chairman's race is that Boehner and the WHITE HOUSE (i.e., Barry Jackson, the guy who replaced Karl Rove last year) are running the campaign to elect Sessions as NRCC Chair.

Boehner, who refuses to accept any responsibility for losing more than 50 - FIFTY - House seats between 2006 to 2008, wants his own guy at the NRCC. So he's making phone calls to Members and putting the heat on them to vote for Sessions. And his partner in all of this is Jackson, who still has the weight of the White House behind him.

How exactly is this party going to move forward if everyone in leadership is hand-picked by Boehner and the Bush White House? How is that progress?

There won't be one single person in leadership who is independent of Boehner. Aside from the NRCC chairman's race, none of the seats is being contested. Boehner cleared the field and selected his own people.

And what will this yield? What should we expect from a leadership team hand picked by the same people who, as noted in today's Examiner piece, think so little of Republicans and our freedoms that they would allow the FCC to regulate the airwaves with community activists (what's to stop ACORN members will sit on the advisory boards)?

I'm at my wit's end.

Syndicate content