|
Doug Schmitz It really wasn’t a coincidence that Joseph McCarthy and Ronald Reagan were exposing the Soviet threat right around the same time the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” emerged out of the dark shadows of Communist infiltration that lurked on Capitol Hill, in Tinseltown and U.S. newsrooms. With McCarthy in D.C. and The Gipper in Hollywood, the Left’s Communist Utopia was showing signs of cracks in its faulty foundation. That’s why McCarthy and Reagan – two of my favorite political heroes of the 20th Century – deserve tremendous credit for entering the political fray with conservative principles they wouldn’t rescind, and were willing to pay the ultimate price to defend.
But while McCarthy never got to see Reagan eventually win his 40-year battle over Communism when the Berlin Wall fell in 1987 – the same year Reagan abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” scam after nearly 30 years of enforcement – McCarthy would have certainly celebrated the ultimate fall of the Evil Empire. Even though the Left still carries that pre-Cold War mindset today – in the form of the sadistic revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” the late Wisconsin senator, who flushed out traitors from among us, still left an indelible mark on U.S. patriotism. Despite being vilified for creating an allegedly “anti-Communist hysteria,” McCarthy, like Reagan, still remains one of the greatest heroes of our democracy. But once the Left was being exposed in the late 1940s, they were only just beginning to unleash their toxic wrath – especially when they nearly destroyed McCarthy’s public and private life.
In the end, McCarthy’s brave outing of suspected Communists in the corridors of Congress, the back lots of Hollywood and at drafty anti-American rags like the New York Times, created heavy resistance from these minions on the Left to any kind of press liberty they still try to thwart today in all their utter derangement. Because if the Left’s media allies truly believed in the press freedoms they themselves richly enjoy, they wouldn’t be demanding the return of this so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Although Reagan had the great foresight to shelve this so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” the Left still searches to this very day for any destructive way possible to make it the law of the land.
For example, fast forward to Jan. 12, 2007, when, at the National Conference on Media Reform – a George Soros-financed inaugural gathering of leftist “reporters” plotting to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” DePaul University leftist journalism professor Laura Washington admitted that she feared the New Media. She not only condemned Fox News and Internet bloggers, she also told her not-so-captive audience – sadly comprised of young impressionable “reporters” – that they should keep reading the New York Times (ugh!) and other left-wing sources to supposedly get the real “news.”
But what actually strikes fear in Miss Washington is the reality that for the first time in media history, her and her fellow leftist colleagues’ opinionated reporting and daily history revisions are finally being confronted and challenged. Media leftists like Miss Washington want to enforce the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” because they loathe the New Media since it challenges their noxiously distorted notions of what really defines free speech and a free press in our free society – the only free media culture in the world.
As a result, the Left wants to use the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as a club to beat conservative talk radio hosts over the head. The Left wants to silence us because they can’t succeed in the talk radio arena since it’s the only media realm they don’t – and can’t – control. Ironically, leftists like Miss Washington criticized us for using talk radio to defeat the Amnesty Bill, yet they want to use talk radio to promote their leftist views that have already bombed (i.e., Air America, Jim Hightower and Mario Cuomo). The Left fails because their hedonistic ideologies are rooted in ignorance, defeat and dishonesty.
In an interesting sidenote, listed in Miss Washington’s biography is In These Times – a Stalinist magazine that defames America. She also lists her favorite authors and politicians: Leftist columnist and Bush-hater, Jim Hightower; devoted neo-Marxist, Bill Moyers; Democrat Socialist Bernie Sanders; anti-U.S. activist, Arundhati Roy, as well as leftist author, Garrison Keillor, leftist historian, Studs Terkel, leftist philosopher, Slavoj Zizek and left-wing blogger, Ana Marie Cox. Yet, she and her leftist media friends want to regulate free speech? What’s equally disconcerting is she’s a journalism professor!
In a June 15, 2006 In These Times book review for the anti-Bush hatchet job, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by left-wing writer Stephen Kinzer, Miss Washington alleged that Bush’s foreign policy was “dubious and flawed” and supposedly “evident to everyone in the world but us.” She also claimed that “Americans are anesthetized by rampant consumerism and ideological nonsense jacked up with a healthy dollop of jingoism.” Miss Washington trashed Bush, capitalism and conservatism, all in one shot, while denouncing her own country as nationalistic. Yet, she wants to “reform” the media by marginalizing its elements to fit her anti-U.S. worldview?
Apparently, Miss Washington feels free to emote about her loathing of Bush and the U.S., but is admittedly fearful of conservative talk radio. While she feels compelled to trash Bush, she’s also enjoying her freedom to push her views – as distorted as they are. She wants to fully invoke her free speech and press privileges, but she doesn’t want us to enjoy those same freedoms. Only an oppressed mindset like Miss Washington’s, bent on implementing a totalitarian dictatorship over the First Amendment, would want to squash these God-given liberties, which is the hallmark of the freedoms the Left bitterly despises us for invoking. They are the very same freedoms the Left is now using to try to strip away from those of us on the Right – and their primary target is Rush Limbaugh. That’s what’s actually behind the Left’s push for the return of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
In essence, Rush Limbaugh pioneered the New Media revolution that has eventually created the very fruits of democracy from the First Amendment: Matt Drudge, Fox News, Newsmax.com, CNSNews.com and the tens of thousands of Internet blog sites. “When Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than NPR, or Tom Clancy sells more books than Noam Chomsky, or Motor Trend gets more subscribers than Mother Jones, liberals want to convince us (or themselves, perhaps) that it’s all because of some catastrophic market failure or a grand corporate conspiracy to dumb down the masses,” wrote Adam D. Thierer of Frontpagemag.com (April 17, 2007). “In reality, it’s just the result of consumer choice,” Thierer continued. “All the opinions that the Left’s media critics favor are now readily available to us via multiple platforms. But that’s not good enough, it seems: they won’t rest until all of us are watching, reading, and listening to the content that they prefer.” In effect, the Left wants to censor our conservative views, yet cravenly enforce their leftist demagoguery as mainstream. But when Rush resuscitated the dying AM radio dial nearly 20 years ago, he did the very opposite of what the Left had expected: He filled a key niche market that wasn’t being served fairly in the media and the vacuum created by of decades of Cold War ideology. Yet, even when McCarthy and Reagan began their courageous battle against these evil forces that waged war in the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting, they weren’t alone: Before Rush, there were William F. Buckley and the National Review, William Kristol and the Weekly Standard, and R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. and The American Spectator – as well as David Horowitz, a former Communist who’s become one of the greatest conservative thinkers of our time – to pave the way. Moreover, when Rush commenced his battle against the evil forces of six decades of monolithic, leftist media domination by Cold War Communists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, CNN and the New York Times, he wasn’t alone either. Like most of us, I had been a conservative long before I started listening to Rush in 1988. He never had to twist my arm or talk me into anything; Rush just simply confirmed everything I had always believed as a conservative: The greatness of America; faith in God through the Lord Jesus Christ; the strength and valor of our U.S. military, and national security; protecting the unborn; capitalism and free enterprise; tax cuts, etc. While Rush and other top conservative leaders simply affirm our convictions, leftists are the ones who have to forcefully browbeat the public into buying into their perverted views, which explains the abject failure of Air America. While Rush supplied a need that was sorely lacking in the media, Air America had absolutely no demand because there already were leftist voices in the media supplying that for them. Rush’s success was consumer-driven; Air America’s failure was the result of rich, angry leftists who weren’t able to compete in the free marketplace of ideas. They wanted to be able to do talk radio without possessing the moral and intellectual credentials necessary to master current events the way Rush has been uniquely gifted to do for three hours, five days a week. Rush’s format is driven by the American spirit; Air America’s format was birthed out of and driven by the Left’s hatred for Bush, Republicans, conservatism, capitalism and free speech; it was just another log being thrown on the fire of the Left’s unquenchable fury. What’s more, when Reagan broke the stranglehold of unconstitutional, government regulation via the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, Rush eventually helped usher in the advent of the New Media with his show’s debut in 1988. Genuinely objective journalism then stepped out of the shadows of Communist ideology and was brought into the light of day with the emergence of Fox News and the Internet, which is virtual democracy in action. For the first time in nearly 60 years the Democrats were now being exposed as the real denizens of the culture of corruption that had been hidden in the Left’s mad obsession with McCarthy, Watergate and Iran Contra. Once Rush, Fox News, Matt Drudge and the Internet bloggers (who eventually brought down the arrogant Dan Rather) emerged, the Left had nowhere to hide – and were finally being held accountable. But that’s exactly why the Left’s Stalinist move to subvert our First Amendment freedoms is at the very heart of their rogue support for the “Fairness Doctrine.” By eliminating opposition, they seek to quell competition – despite the Left being completely incapable of performing such cerebral gymnastics. After all, true intellectually honest debate requires both sides to participate. At the same time, today’s “reporters” can’t even report the news in a straightforward manner without first looking through the narrow prism of their anti-Bush, anti-conservative and anti-Republican angst that controls them.
A recent MSNBC study about the political leanings of those working in the mainstream media – as reflected in their campaign contributions in 2004 – indicated that a whopping 125 out of 144 reporters surveyed said they contributed to Democrat and left-wing political groups, compared to only 17 reporters who said they gave to the GOP in 2004, with 2 reporters giving contributions to both the Republican and Democrat parties.
Brent Bozell, director of the Media research Center in a June 21, 2007 statement about the study, said:
“The people controlling the content of the news and feeding it to the public are mostly ardent liberals who are spinning their stories with one hand and writing checks for the DNC and Moveon.org with the other hand. It is a liberal media culture and they cannot be trusted to give Americans a fair presentation of news and the issues…
(Bozell later called for full disclosure of all monies given by journalists to any political party.) Obviously, there’s an “imbalance,” but it’s not with those of us on the Right.
While this so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is specifically aimed at dismantling conservative talk radio, the Left also wants to use it as a club to bludgeon Fox News, Matt Drudge, the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, and news sites like Newsmax.com and CNSNews.com – especially Fox News, my favorite news channel which is the only one offering both the Right and the Left side, and the only one employing more liberals than conservatives.
“The organized left-wing campaign against Fox News, in order to keep Democratic presidential candidates out of any debates sponsored or co-sponsored by the channel, is a taste of what is to come,” wrote Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (April 10, 2007) about Johns Edwards and other leftist Democrats who had wimped out of debates hosted by Fox News – the only network that represents everything the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” was allegedly going to remedy: The representation of opposing views (i.e., Sean Hannity—conservative; Neil Cavuto—conservative; Brian Kilmeade—conservative; Bill Hemmer—conservative; Alan Colmes—liberal; Geraldo Rivera—liberal; Greta Van Susteren—liberal; Bill O’Reilly—not-so-conservative, etc.).
According to the unconstitutionally inane “Fairness Doctrine” – a ridiculous edict fathered by Cold War Communists who were completely unwilling and incapable of engaging in intellectually honest discourse – the Left unsurprisingly contradicts itself. While they are determined to silence us and won’t give us equal time, they are in complete control of the newsprint and the airwaves. For example, they own ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, Newsweek, TIME, the New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Newsday, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Denver Post, Miami Herald, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer-Press, Chicago Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star, etc. (I could go on, but you get the point.)
Although the Left owns, operates and greatly influences these leftist media outlets, Democrats still whine and complain that they aren’t being heard. Despite pro-Democrat propaganda outlets like CNN, the New York Times and NPR giving them free access to slander and malign the GOP, it’s still not enough for them. But, again, the only reason the Left wants to control talk radio – even though they keep failing miserably at it – is because it’s the only market where they can’t succeed and continue to flounder. Never mind that there are those leftist media outlets who have risked their reputations to get the Democrats’ message out – and their readership and ratings have suffered because of it.
Specifically, take the New York Times (if you’re not lining the bird cage with it), or the chronically anti-U.S. CNN (if you’re not mistaking it for al-Jazeera). They both have leaned so far to the Left it’s ridiculous. Then the Times wonders why its subscription and circulation numbers have seriously dropped, while CNN questions why its ratings have plummeted to an all-time low, next to the pathetically disastrous MSNBC. (That’s why they are both slandering Fox News: They can’t duplicate its success.) Even when the Times’ only conservative columnist, David Brooks, does write something, he usually wimps out on many substantive issues and eventually buckles under the extreme weight of his employer’s leftist ideology; the conservative voice is rarely found in the Times.
When the Left does give us print space or air time, we’re taken out of context more often than not. That’s a fact – and a reality. So if there is a supposed “imbalance” as Democrat Diane Feinstein claimed there was in talk radio, it lies exclusively with those on the Left who want the government to silence us into submission to them. Yet, imagine if the GOP even attempted to do the very same thing to Democrats and their kook fringe groups that they take their orders from every day. There would be riots in the streets. Since the Left is demanding equal time from us, they should be welcoming it in return as well.
But therein lies the problem: The Left is where you’ll always find propaganda in the form of lies, distortions and fabrications. For those of us on the Right, however, the truth always prevails and always wins out in the end. And that’s exactly what the Left despises – and why they so desperately want to stop us from being heard. Because the Left relies completely on lies to get their message out, any dissenting voices that would expose them have to be silenced, lest they be found out for the frauds they really are. (It’s definitely no coincidence that Democrats and their kook fringe demanding the return of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” so close to the 2008 election.)
Recall in 2004 when Sinclair Communications promoted the film, Stolen Valor? The film was about the nearly 300 Swift Boat Veterans who came forth after nearly 40 years of silence to set the record straight about John Kerry’s slanderous comments against them and his traitorous behavior after he skipped out on doing any real service time in Vietnam. Kerry and his henchmen demanded that Sinclair not only edit the film, Kerry also filed a lawsuit against the publisher of the book, Unfit for Command. Despite the film and the book being thoroughly resourced and researched with facts and figures to back up everything, Kerry and the Democrats still screamed and hollered – even though Sinclair drastically edited their documentary and only distributed it to select markets.
But when Dan Rather knowingly and purposely libeled and slandered President Bush with patently bogus National Guard memos that were likely manufactured by Kerry campaign operatives, these same Democrats remained silent. Or, how about when leftist propagandist Michael Moore maligned Bush with lies, fabrications and distortions in his hit piece, Fahrenheit 911? Bush never once demanded that Moore edit the film – and he never asked Rather to resign. The White House never once demanded mea culpas from either of them. But every time the Left does this to us, we rarely ask for retractions. Even when we expose the Left’s blatant lies and distortions, they respond with Stalinist demands for censorship and cessation of our free speech and press privileges.
Thus, the other reason the Left fails in talk radio: Besides their intellectual dishonesty, they don’t listen to the market; they don’t know what listeners want; and they don’t care about discussing anything other than their uncontrollable rage toward Bush. The Left is too arrogant, too narrow-minded and too busy talking down to everyone else to care about rationally discussing any other opposing view, which is why they can’t debate them. While Rush Limbaugh has had advertisers running to him, the Left’s talk has to be heavily-financed by leftist billionaires and front groups, or beg and plead with naďve advertisers to help keep them afloat as they try to dig themselves out of bankruptcy.
Hence, the predictable nose drive that the asinine nut jobs at Air America have taken, both financially and intellectually. But their downfall wasn’t so much financial as it was intellectual, which doomed Air America from the start. They were intellectually bankrupt long before they went belly up because they tried to copy Rush Limbaugh and failed. They are absolutely incapable of competing in the free marketplace of ideas because they sorely lack the intelligence, skill, humor, honesty and character required to compete, which is exactly why Rush remains on the air. He’s successful because of his convictions, which makes him accountable first to himself, then to us as listeners. When he does mess up, he owns up. But the Left has to be goaded into being remotely honest (i.e., Jayson Blair and Dan Rather, who are one in the same). Even then, like Rather refusing to admit to his serial errors, the Left won’t fully admit to any wrongdoing.
Even though Rush does present opposing views, the Left still wants to destroy him because they have found it impossible to compete with him.
“Nothing has worked too successfully for liberal political talkers. Rush, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, among others, are as dominant as ever,” wrote the National Review editors (June 25, 2007). “The only thing that has changed is that liberals now seem less interested in challenging conservative talk radio in the marketplace than in strangling it with government regulation. And that presents a much greater threat than another misguided attempt to find the liberal Limbaugh.” By desperately pushing for the return of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” the Left is looking to seize control of conservative talk radio because it’s the only media they don’t own – and cannot even effectively compete in – due primarily to their intellectual bankruptcy and blatant dishonesty in the free marketplace of ideas. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is the Left’s attempt to regulate free speech and free press simply because they cannot control the message. After all, the Left’s views, by their very nature, cannot tolerate or stand up to the slightest bit of criticism or rational discussion. Yet, they expect us to just keep quiet when we’re falsely accused of wrongdoing; they want it both ways. They want free speech rights reserved only for them, while we’re supposed to shut up and not defend our First Amendment rights as conservatives.
But that’s exactly why they want to completely monopolize, regulate and ultimately criminalize conservative viewpoints: They are absolutely unable to freely and honestly debate against them. But, ironically, how can the Left possibly know what they are talking about if they aren’t even willing to engage in intellectually honest conversation with those in whom they disagree? Therefore, they have to try to dominate the political arena without any serious challenge or competition through meaningless and arbitrary pieces of bogus FCC legislation like the falsely-labeled “Fairness Doctrine.”
Under Communist dictatorships, the media have been and still are state-owned and operated. By controlling the ebb and flow of information, Stalinist despots also control what citizens know, and ultimately to a large degree, what they think. While we enjoy a free and open press that the Left thinks is only reserved for them, there are still remnants like Miss Washington and Moyers in our media culture whose sole aim is to control the press through idiotic decrees like the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
Like totalitarian dictators, today’s leftist propagandists who are entrenched in U.S. newsrooms and journalism schools still want to regulate the free speech and press rights of the New Media because they sorely lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to allow us to be heard. When the New York Times’ Walter Duranty promulgated for Stalin by lying about the atrocities, or when the Times’ Herbert Matthews lied to protect Fidel Castro, they set a precedent for today’s leftist hacks. For 12 years, CNN lied to protect Saddam Hussein – and they’re still lying to the American public. Ironically, the Left desperately wants them to believe that the New Media are the ones lying to them.
By acting in such a Stalinist way, the Left is actually resembling the very despotic dictators they defend: Saddam Hussein controlled the Iraqi press for over 30 years and killed his critics; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad owns the Iranian media; Fidel Castro has his Communist thugs running Cuba’s state-owned television; Daniel Ortega has his Marxist henchmen controlling the Nicaraguan media; and Hugo Chavez just shut down Venezuela’s only independent news station, which sparked violent protests in the streets. It’s no surprise that CNN still has a propaganda bureau in three of these four rogue states.
In short, nearly 60 years after the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” was created, the Left now wants it back because they despise free enterprise and free thought, while displaying their psychotic distain for criticism (i.e., wimpy John Edwards sending out his wife to do his dirty work because he’s not man enough to face his critics, whether they be in the form of Ann Coulter or Fox News). Through the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” the Left would balkanize conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages, and any other New Media outlet that doesn’t exclusively kowtow to their anti-U.S. agenda.
By breaking up talk radio and Fox News – which Howard Dean has proposed to do – and requiring us to bow to their demands, the Left doesn’t have to be held accountable for their lies and distortions because they will have an automatic shield law protecting them from any responsible retractions or mea culpas that would be expected from them.
But how would the Left react if they were required to present conservative viewpoints?
What about MSNBC’s nutcase Keith Olbermann, whose five-nights-a-week tirades and meltdowns against the Bush administration – and the free passes he gives to his fellow leftists – go completely unchecked, and his false charges unchallenged? How would Olbermann react if he had to invite conservatives on his fake news show alongside his usual band of leftist brothers who promulgate with him without verification or confirmation? How would the New York Times editors respond if they were forced to hire an even numbers of conservative columnists to balance out their leftist columnists, or had to hire conservative reporters, or what if the Times’ rookie or veteran reporters were required to present both sides of a story, whether it’s on the style page or the sports page?
In addition, how would the Times respond if they were required to publish retractions to every misleading detail and misquoted source in every single story they’ve ever printed? How would CNN react if they had to report every story without their daily unbalanced and unfair swipes at the Bush administration, and were required to hire conservatives other than their only one, Glenn Beck? How would PBS, NPR, and especially Bill Moyers, like it if they had to relinquish the millions of dollars in federal subsidies and George Soros-funded front groups and accept corporate advertisers who refuse to support their leftist propaganda? What if Moyers, Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer or Nina Totenberg had to actually invite us conservatives on their programs to present a balanced viewpoint?
How would the media leftist relics at “60 Minutes” react if they were required to work with correspondents with conservative views? How would Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, Leslie Stahl or Steve Pelley respond to having to work with us conservatives? How would any of these limousine liberals and leftists in the pompously elite media – who cringe at the very mention of Fox News and the New York Post – react? How would Howard Stern respond if he were being completely censored – even on satellite radio?
The answer is: None of them would like it at all. In fact, they would be foaming at the mouth – much like they already do against those they hate, of which is namely us. While former MSNBC big mouth Don Imus was way out of line in his blatantly racist comments, leftists in his own camp were the first ones to throw him under the bus. In a lot of ways, the Left gets away with all kinds of unimaginable things. If the Left isn’t worshipping the Earth via the hoax of global warming, or murdering unborn babies, they’re railing against the very First Amendments rights they freely enjoy. Now, they want to dismantle the one First Amendment oasis that has revolutionized the media by trying to impose an archaic and unconstitutional decree that flies in the face of everything the First Amendment represents; it would unravel the very fabric of our democracy.
With all the media alternatives available, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is essentially obsolete. In fact, in a July 11, 2007 news conference on Capitol Hill, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. said because of the Internet, broadband technology and satellite radio, Americans have more choices and more access to information than ever before, thus, “bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, and it’s certainly not fair.” Coleman said the archaic “doctrine” is unnecessary because of the “multiplicity of voices in the marketplace…talk radio has flourished due to free market ideas” and Americans could “simply change the dial or turn the radio off. But we don’t want government in the business of censoring or monitoring and applying a standard that is basically unfair.” David Rehr, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, said in a statement on the same day that bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” “would stifle the growth of diverse views and, in effect, make free speech less free.” “Today, there are over 13,000 radio stations, more than 1,700 TV stations, nine broadcast TV networks, hundreds of cable and satellite channels, scores of mobile media devices and an infinite number of Internet sites that cater to every political persuasion and ideology,” he said. “Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, unwarranted and unconstitutional.” In the end, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” opposes everything the Constitution and the First Amendment were meant to protect, which includes the free speech and press rights of all – not just a chosen few who don’t want to enter into healthy debates with those of whom they disagree. If anything, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would shut off all serious and intellectually honest debate, which is what leftist Democrats like John Edwards want. Because when there’s no accountability commanded, there’s no responsibility demanded. It amounts to nothing more than censorship, which the Left decries that we do to them. They want to dominate the message without any contestation.
It’s ironic because wimpy, gutless presidential wannabes like Edwards constantly hurl false accusations at President Bush with very little, if any, White House rebuttal – and virtually zero corrections from the leftist media. Yet, rich girly men like Edwards – and Kerry for that matter – don’t want to be criticized or challenged about anything they say or do – unless, of course, you’re whiny leftist Democrats like Edwards and Kerry.
Ultimately, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is a dirty, under-handed, manipulative, Stalinist screed that the Left hopes to shove through Congress to strong-arm us conservatives into silence and censor the free speech rights of those of us on the Right. Because it was fathered by Cold War Communism, this rape of our First Amendment freedoms may now have put our press liberties in jeopardy, if the Left gets their way.
Simply put, because the Left cannot and will not compete, let alone, debate, in the free marketplace of ideas, this is their only resort. But why would we expect anything different? The Left wants to give more freedoms to terrorists than to their victims.
With the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” the Left is desperately trying to siphon off any kind of serious challenge to their anti-American, leftist agendas that even spineless, limp-wristed RINOs like Trent Lott (who claimed that conservative talk radio was supposedly “running America”) seem all too willing to allow.
Copyright © 2007 by Doug Schmitz. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © MichNews.com. All Rights Reserved.
|