VIDEO: Profoundly stupid or just plain malevolent?

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Time 2 Escape WIFLI for Friday, Jan 13, 2012

Today's post of my new WIFLI (An acronym for "When I Feel Like It" and pronounced like "Why-Fly") series is aimed toward some certain people: 1) People that don't like the truth to be told (Yes, you, Cass Sunstein!) and claim that the government must control speech; 2) People that think that it is wrong for Timmy Tebow to express his Christian beliefs; 3) People that are so enamored with Barack Obama that they see him as a world leader; AKA Messiah 4) People that fit in the ALL OF THE ABOVE category.

You see, I'm not going to allow the far left of the progressive Democrats to deny that their main goal is to silence people that want to tell you that the love of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior will do us much more good than depending on the government, much less, a global dictatorship. I'm not going to stay silent.

Could you imagine a world where people with an opinion are not allowed to say what they believe? Is that not what Cass Sunstein desires? And what about the uproar about the success of an NFL quarterback, a new star, that gives all the glory to Jesus Christ? Out loud, with a large TV audience watching?  Those currently in power really do not want that to be happening. But it is. They can't seem to stop it, other than their usual discrediting effort.

I invite you to tell me how I'm wrong, but I'm confident that you won't be able to. Obama's crowd has the motivation, and now they are cluelessly thinking that you and I shouldn't be allowed to talk about it and thus, actually think about it. It's not time for Big Brother, is it? Just fly like an eagle, and keep FREEDOM as your top priority.  I'm just sayin'....

*     *     *     *

The News Stories:

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
From WND ~ By Aaron Klein ~ Published January 12, 2012

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Cass Sunstein

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

The find comes after a report (See: Time 2 Escape WIFLI for Thursday, Jan 12, 2012) of a government document indicating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news sites such as the Huffington Post and Drudge Report.    READ MORE

*     *     *     *

Columnists and Their Commentaries:

Tebow, Chuck Norris, Playoffs & other adventures with the Broncos superstar
How Tim Tebow Messed Up My Plans & Forced Me to Preach on His Family’s Behalf
Via WND - From Oregon Faith Report
By Randy Alcorn (Eternal Perspectives Ministries) ~ January 12, 2012

I’ve never told any of this story publicly in the four years since it happened, but since I’m doing it, I may as well include something else. The previous spring we had been visiting our friends Chuck and Gena Norris, when Tim was asked in an interview to name someone he really admired. Tim’s answer was, “Chuck Norris.” Chuck really got a kick out of this. They’d never met or talked, but knowing we were going to this game, Chuck called me right then to see how it went. I said, “Well, I’m sitting here with Timmy right now.” Then I looked at Tebow and said, “Want to talk to Chuck Norris?”

The expression on his face was priceless. After seeing so many people in the previous hour blown away to meet Tim Tebow, it was fun to see Tim Tebow blown away to talk with Chuck Norris. “Mr. Norris, is this really you? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Glad to speak with you too, sir.” (BTW, Timmy called me sir, too, and he would call the janitor sir, and the respect would be just as genuine.)   READ MORE

We’re doomed! … and other left-wing tripe
Exclusive: Phil Elmore notes similarities between Nobel Prize, Doomsday Clock
From WND ~ By Phil Elmore ~ Published Wednesday, Jan 11, 2012

PHIL ELMORE

You’re doomed. You spend a lot of time doomed. If you’re somewhere between 30 and 40, movies like “The Day After” had you convinced you were going to be an ash silhouette before you graduated high school. Those of you in different demographics had other threats looming over you. In popular culture, these swords of Damocles all have in common the assertion that electing leftists and voting for left-wing policies can save you. This is what our televisions tell us, anyway.

The world remains a very bad place. Reuters reported earlier this week that the “symbolic Doomsday Clock calculated by a group of scientists was moved a minute closer to midnight on Tuesday, with the group citing inadequate progress on nuclear weapons reduction and climate change.” This announcement raises questions because leftists still control much of the free world, including the most important of Western political positions. That position is president of the United States.

Remember when Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (before he had a chance actually to do anything to earn it)? This act has much in common with the proclamations of those moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock. Both the prize and the clock are political symbols. Their only import is in their function as barometers of leftist opinion.   READ MORE

*     *     *     *

From the Blogs:

Before you complain
From The Daily Motivator ~ By Ralph Marston ~ Thursday, January 12, 2012

Whenever you complain about something negative in your world, you reinforce your connection with that negativity. Your complaint can actually focus your energy toward perpetuating and empowering whatever you’re complaining about.

A much better strategy is to come up with a positive alternative, and then to act on it. Instead of merely reinforcing what is wrong, you have an opportunity to change the situation for the better.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

The relentless effort to control the news ~ By Henry Lamb

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Henry on this subject. Barack Obama and his minions desperately desire to find a way to silence their critics. One way to do that, as Henry points out, would be to control the "news market" as a public good, and the government is now exploring that option. If they were able to provide subsidies to the press to keep them in business, the government, and low-lifes like regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, can then regulate the press - which may even include the internet - in ways that gives me the chills. Just sayin'...

The real problem being addressed by this administration and academic doublespeak is this: "The media are producing more information to a broader audience about ideas that are not supportive of our progressive-Marxist philosophy, and we have to find a way to stop it."

This administration and congressional majority have already demonstrated their commitment to expand government control over the market and over the lives of the people. Control over the flow of information is essential, if they are to be successful. Control over the flow of information is a critical step in the construction of a dictatorial regime. The only way to prevent it is to replace the Democratic majority in Congress with people who honor the Constitution, instead of trying to find ways to ignore it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Constitution is quite clear: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. …" This treasured principle of freedom is unknown in most of the world and greatly compromised in many nations. Canada, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Ireland, Slovenia, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Australia and France all provide subsidies to the press ranging from $7 billion to $35 billion per year.

The Obama administration, and some in Congress, are looking for ways that government might exert more control over free speech, and particularly over the press.

Since 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the Federal Communications Commission, every Democratic majority in Congress has tried to restore it. Through its power to license broadcast stations, the FCC, through the Fairness Doctrine, gave the federal government the power to force radio and television stations to air content that countered opinions and points of view the government didn't like. The sad result of the Fairness Doctrine was a chilling effect on all controversial opinions. Broadcasters simply chose to avoid controversial programming that might invoke an FCC-required Fairness Doctrine response.

A more sophisticated effort is now under way to give government control of the information available to the public.

"News" is what newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet deliver to the public. "News," it is argued, is what provides the information needed for a free people to make intelligent public-policy decisions. Therefore, "news" is a public good, in much the same way the national defense and highways are public goods. Consider the reasoning of University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney in a paper prepared for a Federal Trade Commission workshop:

The starting point for exiting this dead-end street is the recognition that journalism is best understood as increasingly having the attributes of a public good, not a private good. It is like military defense, physical infrastructure, education, public health and basic research in that regard. It is something society requires, and people want, but the market cannot generate in sufficient quantity or quality. It requires government leadership to exist. There may be an important role for the private sector, but with public goods the government plays quarterback, or the game never starts.

If it is appropriate for government to pay for national defense and highways, then it must be equally appropriate for government to pay for "news." This is the logic that prevails in Europe and is being advanced here.

The argument is reinforced by the fact that the Internet is having a devastating effect on the news-gathering capability of both newspapers and television. Plummeting advertising revenues have forced dramatic newsroom layoffs across all media. The Obama administration and some members of Congress are looking for ways government can save the republic by assuring that there is an abundance of the right kind of news available to the public.

The Federal Trade Commission, for example, is holding the third in a series of workshops on "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The event will be held June 15 at the National Press Club. In preparation for the day-long event, the FTC released a 47-page "Discussion Draft" that provides a variety of ideas about how the government may insure the continuation of a healthy news media.

Cass Sunstein,
Regulatory Czar

Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also published a lengthy argument for government involvement in the news media. Some of the ideas he advances are quite consistent with those offered by the FTC.

What part of "Shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …" do these people not understand?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

From WorldNetDaily

Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions By Aaron Klein Posted: January 14, 2010 ~ 12:30 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing." Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories. In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?" "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories." In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups." Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity." READ FULL STORY >

'Rushed' to the hospital ~ By Kathy Shaidle

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Kathy Shaidle Posted: January 02, 2010 ~ 11:36 am Eastern © 2010 This column was going to be fairly low key. The days between Christmas and New Years are the no man's land of conservative talk radio – a week of substitute hosts and "best of's" as most of the stars take a break. Then late Wednesday night, news spread that Rush Limbaugh had been hospitalized in Hawaii, suffering from chest pains. Immediately, the blogs and Twitter were abuzz. I set up a special search column on TweetDeck, using the hashtag #rushlimbaugh. After about ten minutes, I had to close it down. The calls for prayers and the "get well soon" messages and comments were interspersed with hateful "death wishes" and nasty jokes from leftists. Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney reprinted some of these messages at his blog, censoring a few of them out of necessity. Not surprisingly, someone at the unreliable and mostly liberal megasite Wikipedia even edited Limbaugh's entry to pronounce him dead! Some of the fans' responses to the hatred were extraordinary. One commenter said: "Rush is irreplaceable. If he needs a heart transplant, he can have mine." Another noted on Twitter: "So Rush Limbaugh can't say he wants Obama to fail but liberals can say they want Rush Limbaugh to die?" My favorite: "The same people who want Rush to die want to run our health care!" Ed Morrissey at HotAir remembered an email he'd received from Limbaugh during a personal crisis; it offered an insight into the "real" Rush and made for touching reading. The next day – when the searches for "Rush Limbaugh" reached the "volcanic" level at Google Trends – the irony of the situation hit me. Who do millions of us turn to when there's bad news? Rush Limbaugh. But who do we turn to if Rush isn't around, because Rush is the "bad news"? In this case, few of the other "big names" were scheduled to be on the air either. Bill Bennett was, however, and he offered his best wishes to Rush on his radio show, and at the National Review's blog, The Corner. He was joined by regular Rush Limbaugh substitute host, Mark Steyn, who wrote:

Rush took a rotting, abandoned hulk – AM radio – and reinvented it as a new conservative medium. Critics such as our former colleague David Frum miss the larger point: It's not just about his opinions on this or that policy issue or candidate, but about a strategic savvy few other folks on our side of the aisle can demonstrate. I owe him a lot personally, and I hope he rests up for whatever time he needs and then comes back and sticks it to the naysayers till mid-century.

Dr. Walter E. Williams sat in for Rush on Thursday afternoon and offered listeners a brief update on Limbaugh's condition:

"Rush is in good and stable condition, comfortable – as comfortable as one can be in a hospital while on vacation – and he's in good hands."

Then came New Years Day and good news: Rush was released from hospital. At a televised press conference, he explained that a battery of tests showed no sign of coronary disease, and a heart attack was ruled out as the cause of his chest pains (FREE video). (You can also the video below this story.) While the origin of his discomfort remains a mystery, Rush was certain of one thing: "I don't think there's one thing wrong with the American health care system." Rush also posted a special message to his fans at his web site, thanking them for their "prayers and good thoughts" – and promising to return to the "Golden EIB Microphone" mid-week. There was some other news in the world of talk radio, of course, although none so dramatic. READ FULL STORY >

January 01, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Speaks to Reporters in Hawaii About His Chest Pains

Video provided by mghoft

Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors

From WorldNetDaily

Cites websites for 'absurd' reports of Obama's ties to Ayers By Aaron Klein Posted: November 23, 2009 ~ 3:23 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily TEL AVIV – Websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors," argued Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar. In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers. He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations." Ayers became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment. READ FULL STORY >

FCC not only agency seeking media regulation

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief Sunstein drew up 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine' Posted: October 23, 2009 ~ 11:07 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily The Federal Communications Commission's unanimous support yesterday for a rule that would open the door to government regulation of the Internet has raised the concern of free speech advocates, but there are other members of the Obama administration who support similar measures. The president's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves. Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation. Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and little scrutiny. In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air 'diversity' ads

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief argues media must not have final say in selection of commercials Posted: September 24, 2009 ~ 12:50 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily JERUSALEM – The U.S. government should have the right to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that foster a "diversity" of views, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome," wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution." In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein cites hypothetical examples of private groups or individuals attempting to buy advertising time in the broadcast media to promote a certain view only to have their ads rejected by a private media company. "It is fully plausible that the refusal (of the media company), backed up by the law, violates the First Amendment, at least if other outlets are unavailable or far less effective," Sunstein posits in a radical interpretation of the Constitution. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

He wants you 'hatemongers' silenced ~ By Phil Elmore

From WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: September 03, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 When Declan McCullagh's piece in CNET News sounded the dire warning, "Bill would give president emergency control of Internet," it wasn't a surprise to readers of Technocracy. Back in April, we warned you of Obama's incipient Internet Tyranny, and since then these pages have several times sounded the clarion call concerning Barack Hussein Obama's leftist totalitarianism. The Obama administration grows more brazen with each passing day, and the radical leftists, racists and Marxists with whom Obama surrounds himself no longer feel they must hide their ideologies. The administration that urged citizens to inform on their fellow Americans for thought crimes, for daring to question Obama's attempt to nationalize the health-care industry (while lying to you about the cost, about the impact on your health-care choices and about Obama's own intentions for the plan), has continued its inexorable march toward an American police state, grinning broadly into the television cameras while gesturing sharply for the apprehension and public shaming of all who would question Obama's might. Our brittle, oversensitive president cannot abide criticism, you see; a clown face on a posted bill or on a T-shirt sets him and his supporters to grinding their teeth over imagined racism, while his minions dream up ever more "code words" to place on the contraindicated speech lists. Every word and deed taken by the administration is an attempt both to strengthen its breathtaking power grabs and to silence any opposition to those actions, shutting down its critics directly or condemning those critics in the court of public opinion. If you can wrongly redefine your political opposition as racist, as terrorists, as dangerous, why, you can easily marginalize any and all dissent – and then crush it with naked force while claiming you're merely keeping the populace safe. This is the drive behind redefining all of Obama's opponents as domestic terrorists, and this is why any left standing are declared to be racist hatemongers who simply don't like Obama because he happens to be black. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN (if you dare!)]

Free speech plan booted by House committee

'The last thing we want is a government takeover of the airwaves' By Bob Unruh Posted: July 15, 2009 11:40 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily An amendment proposed to the Financial Services Appropriation Bill that would have protected free speech by preventing the Federal Communications Commission from restoring the so-called Fairness Doctrine regulations to U.S. airwaves has been rejected by members of a U.S. House committee. "Unfortunately, Democrats on the Rules Committee decided that the freedom of speech, though enshrined in the Constitution, is not a right they were willing to afford their colleagues in the House," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who along with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., sponsored the plan. "I am profoundly disappointed," Pence said. The Rules Committee voted 8-4 along party lines to reject the amendment that would have halted any proposals by the FCC that would restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan. Pence explained in a website statement that the First Amendment "is not a partisan issue; the preservation of constitutional freedoms should be the paramount duty of every elected representative and should take precedence over partisan gamesmanship or heavy-handedness." He said what made the decision by majority Democrats both disappointing and baffling was that more than 300 members of the House already have expressed support for broadcast freedom. "Today, the interests of the American people and the interests of this august institution were not served," Pence said. "Every time a vote concerning the freedom of a people, abroad or here at home, has come to the floor of the People's House, freedom has always won; yet tonight freedom was blocked from getting even a chance to be voted on." [CONTINUE READING]

Scary times for free speech ~ By Joseph Farah

There's a real war against free speech in America. That war is being waged on many fronts, orchestrated by government, cheered by brain-dead ideological zealots and fought in the gutter with mud-slinging intimidation tactics. What are those people afraid of? Debate, dissenting opinions, reasoned discussion, and most of all, the fear of the truth. read more | digg story

31 horsemen of talk radio's apocalypse? ~ By Drew Zahn

FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission: The Federal Communications Commission has announced the roster of a new advisory committee on "diversity" in communications, a move many critics have warned would mark the beginning of government regulation of talk radio and a reinstallation of the "Fairness Doctrine" by another name. read more | digg story

Obama's war on free speech ~ By Joseph Farah

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are intent on nationalizing media in the U.S. They want to create "community advisory boards" of community activists to monitor the content of talk-radio programs, give billions to public broadcasting networks, and give bailouts of failing newspapers perceived as essential propaganda tools for the party. read more | digg story

'Broadcast my radio show or you're unfair' - Roger Hedgecock

By Roger Hedgecock March 16, 2009 Last Friday, I was invited by Radio and Records to speak at a talk radio seminar on a panel discussing the "Fairness Doctrine." As one of the panelists (Rep. Mike Pence) said, "I didn't know what I was getting into here. All I heard was I was going to L.A. for some R&R!" By the end of our session, it was very clear that free market capitalism is under attack, not only at the macro level by the Obama administration, but at the industry level (in this case, the radio industry) as well. Moderated by the effervescent Rita Crosby, four of us on the panel (Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Mike Pence, R-Ind., legendary talk programmer Brian Jennings and myself) stood up for competition and giving the listening public the programming content of their choice. Three other panel members (Thom Hartmann, Air America; Stephanie Miller, Dial Global; and Paul "Woody" Woodhull, Media Syndication Services) thought the FCC should require station ownership to be "diverse" and should require talk stations to carry liberal/progressive talk shows. The two congressmen led off detailing their efforts in Congress to ban the liberal/progressive censorship effort known as the "Fairness Doctrine." They noted the many Democrat representatives who had publicly championed the reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" specifically to muzzle critics in conservative talk radio. I followed with more facts. Of 4,789 AM radio stations in the U.S., about 2,000 of them program some kind of talk, whether political, health, car repair, gardening, relationships, etc. These stations, together with satellite services, cable radio, the Internet, and now even iPod radio give the consumer limitless choices and eliminate the original reason for the "Fairness Doctrine" – that a few station owners could monopolize political discussion. I quoted the Durbin Amendment (SA 591) to the D.C. voting bill (S. 160) that orders the FCC to require "diversity" in station ownership and "localism" – two code words for censoring conservative talk radio and a back-door method of reimposing the "Fairness Doctrine." I detailed President Obama's history of advocating the use of the FCC to regulate which views are heard on the radio. I took the audience through the "stimulus" package (noting that the desk on which Obama signed it was the same desk where Clinton got his package stimulated) which provides $2 billion for "community groups" to help fund "community advisory committees" for every talk station so that conservative talk hosts become subject to a barrage of FCC complaints. [Continue reading]

digg story

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free - By Rush Limbaugh

By RUSH LIMBAUGH Dear President Obama: I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band? You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous. As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police. [Continue reading]

digg story, submitted by Pepper1024

Savage goes on offense in 'Fairness Doctrine' battle

Regulations 'nothing more than a desire to silence political opposition' Talk radio icon Michael Savage is joining forces with a Michigan-based civil rights advocacy organization to protect free speech by fighting the return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." "A regulation of speech motivated by nothing more than a desire to silence political opposition on controversial issues of public interest is the purest example of a law abridging the freedom of speech," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. "Such action is the hallmark of totalitarian governments, not a free society," he said. [Continue reading]

digg story, submitted by Temlakos

'Fairness Doctrine' … say what? - By Pat Boone

If again enacted, the so-called "fairness doctrine" would throttle the speech of some to give unrestricted prominence to others. Its actual purpose is to silence opposition and resistance to the philosophies and intents of a liberal faction in our society – and even to classify some biblical pronouncements and doctrines as "hate speech." read more | digg story

A primer on efforts to kill free speech - By Joseph Farah

Do we still cherish and value the rights of free speech and free press today? Does the Constitution mean what it says in the First Amendment? Do you want to live in a land in which the government serves as the policeman over what can be said and what can't be said, what represents truth and what doesn't, or who is being "fair" and who is not? read more | digg story

Making talk radio 'fair and balanced' - By Bill Press

In the interest of fairness, I'm blogging (and digging) this moron's column. He says, "Station owners complain they can't get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk, but that's nonsense." Nonsense? He later says that progressives could succeed in talk radio with a "level playing field," regulated by the government, of course, and that is the key. read more | digg story

Bill (abridging the free) Press - By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah tells us what he thinks about Bill Press' radio interview last week with Sen. Stabenow, D-MI, in which he practically begs her to hold hearings on the reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine:" "Bill Press is an enemy of the uniquely American ideal of a free press – uninhibited by the long, strong and coercive arm of government."

read more | digg story