American Security, Team Obama-Style

The Obama Administration's halting oil and gas leasing in various parts of the country, and its obstructing plans for offshore drilling surely threaten our economic security and energy independence as few other things can. Add to this, Team Obama's reckless imposition of gargantuan and debilitating tax-and-spend programs on an already weakened economy, and you have a perfect recipe for an economic and security disaster. But, if the Obama ideologues have their way, more sinister developments are coming our way.

With 9/11 a faded memory, and in classic liberal fashion, the clueless Obama Administration is now poring over the Defense budget to see what funding can be diverted to bread-and-circuses and other socialist make-over programs.

Obama's well-practiced, snappy, but entirely unconvincing salutes while boarding the Presidential chopper nothwithstanding, his asking our vets to foot the bill for treatment of their combat injuries is but the latest example of the Administration's visceral hostility and cavalier attitude toward our military. Fortunately, the public outcry over this callousness caused the Administration to back off. But, if complacency is allowed to hold sway more threats to our military's well-being and our security are in the offing.

True to historical form, the liberal elites are myopically planning to cut and weaken our military and anti-terrorist capabilities, all in a single-minded effort to transform our once dynamic entrepreneurial Republic into a fetid, languid Euro-style socialist state. What is so patently obvious to even the least clear-eyed among us is the alarming reality that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Triumverate's shamelessly buying votes and paying off political supporters on the grandest of scales, all to ensure their political power, has taken absolute priority over our nation's security.

In a scant 60 days in power, a microcosm of what's to come, the Democratic machine is already pushing a 10% across-the-board cut in Defense Department expenditures. (Surprise. Surprise.) And then, of course, there's the usual idealistic gibberish about drastically reducing our strategic nuclear capability and, via kumbaya diplomacy, to enlist the agreement of Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and those inevitable nuclear club aspirants to do the same. (Now, where have we heard that sophomoric blather before?) But, disturbingly, while this is going on there appears to be no appreciation on the Administration's part for the need to properly maintain and modernize our already aging nuclear arsenal.

Erroneously labeling the ABM system as "unproven" and "experimental"--this despite many breathtakingly successful tests--the Administration is seriously talking about suspending or altogether scrapping the anti-ballistic missile defense program, the only reasonably reliable asset capable of protecting the homeland and our allies from rogue missile strikes. (Brilliant! A return to MAD or unilateral disarmament, anyone?)

Symptomatic of some serious chinks in its defensive thinking, the Admin has banned coercive/enhanced interrogation of terrorist suspects, labeling such barbaric techniques as "torture". (No fair yelling or turning out the lights, guys.) And in the Team Obama's painful penchant for political correctness, they've now even abandoned use of the highly inflammatory term "war on terror". (I guess if you don't say it, it will go away. Are we sure a George Orwell protege isn't now in charge of Team Obama's national security-speak! Just wondering.)

To blindly placate their far left minions, the Admin has announced the closure of GITMO within a year with no rational alternative plan for properly detaining the remaining hardcore terrorists there. (How about the South Lawn or the Rose Garden, Mr. Prez! Better yet, why not mix them with American inmates where swift justice will surely be meted out.)

As if their withering, albeit stealth, assault on the 2nd Amendment isn't enough, it was reported last week that the Admin was quietly shutting down a program which qualifies pilots to carry firearms in cockpits. The Administration vociferously denied report, saying only that the $2 million funding for the program had been inadvertently diverted. Reportedly, funding for the program has been restored. (God, how I wish I could trust them.)

Over the objections of NATO, the Admin has offered to reneg on our pledge, that's p-l-e-d-g-e, to set up an ABM system in the Czech Republic and Poland, two of our staunchest allies, to guard against the growing threat of an Iranian missile strike on Europe. (Better we bargain away our allies' security than risk the irritation of our Russian "friends", huh? Gee, could it be that Neville Chamberlain's inspirational bust has now quietly replaced Churchill's in the Oval Office? Wouldn't be surprised.)

Team Obama is also voicing its firm objections to developing the new generation F-22 Raptor fighter to replace our aging fighters. (Incidentally, the F-22 is the only aircraft that will be able to penetrate Iranian air defenses on the very, very ever-so remote off-chance that the need for such a penetration arises. Ahum.)

And despite China's recent interception of an orbiting satellite, the Admin is opposed to "weaponizing space". (Could it be that the Admin is unaware that we are all very heavily reliant upon satellites for our communications and defense; that maintaining our offensive and defensive edge in space should never be negotiable? )

Team Obama is also planning to eviscerate the development of new combat technologies/systems. (Great! I'm certain that'll be reassuring to our bleeding troops in the field.)

What the liberal mindset never seems to grasp is that there is an inescapable correlation between effective diplomacy and our maintaining a dominant cutting-edge military capability. (Remember President Reagan's spending the USSR into oblivion?) For America to achieve success in any of its well-meaning, if not altogether misguided, diplomatic forays requires a comprehensive military capability second to none. Stubbornly ignoring the lessons of history in this regard serves only to increase our vulnerability and to render our diplomatic efforts null and void. (Surely, that's not their aim. Is it?)

But, not to worry. After the next attack, the surviving liberals will restore full funding for our anti-terrorist and other defense programs. (At least, I think that will be the case.) Oh, sure, some of us and our friends won't be around to see the pendulum briefly swing back to a 9/12 level of sanity, but, hey, ya' can't live forever. Get over it.

In any event, hold your dear ones close, folks. We are in for a wild ride over the next 3 years, 10 months. Our way of life and, yes, our very lives are on the block. And if Americans of all political persuasions don't remain vigilant and fully committed to pushing back to stop Team Obama's shortsightedness, incompetence and gross mismanagement of our resources and military strength, our Republic is all but doomed.

SCOTUS-POTUS Update

With so many suits being filed around the country, I have reluctantly left the issue of Obama's presidential eligibility on the far recesses of the proverbial back burner.

However, I couldn't let an irresponsible AP story regarding the issue which appeared in today's D&C go unchallenged. Given the seriousness of the matter, the article bordered on the trite and simple-minded. Sadly, 99% of the D&C readership will likely never know that they've been misguided.

Under the headline "Judge assails cases denying Obama's citizenship", AP reporter Nedra Pickler deftly managed to mischaracterize the issue and to mislead readers.

First, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson denied one suit (singular), that being Hollister vs Soetoro. Gotta' watch how they word those headlines. Harmless embellishment, I'm sure.

Second, the Judge's sarcasm nothwithstanding, the evidenciary merits of the claim itself were NOT reviewed, only the usual procedural questions regarding legal standing, harm done and appropriate remedies. Of course, a cursory reading of the AP article would lead one to quickly believe that the ineligibility evidence was reviewed and rendered "foolish" and/or "frivolous". Not so.

Third--and what might not be known to Ms. Pickler--it has only recently been learned that a Court cannot enforce Constitutional eligibility requirements as set forth in Art 2, Section 1 of the Constitution since, quite amazingly, there is nothing codified that allows the Court to render a judgement on the merits of POTUS ineligibility claims. Talk about a legal quandary, huh? So, in effect, what this case illustrates is that this Judge adopted the prevailing view that the electoral process itself properly vets candidates since, as said, there is simply no law which requires such vetting be done for a presidential candidate. Re-read that sentence. Let it sink in. Absent a legal mechanism requiring presidential candidates to substantiate their eligibility, their election alone determines their eligibility. Not a court. So, in that sense the Judge was correct in denying the case. Pretty stunning, huh?

Of course, had the numerous suits already filed not gone forward, this abyssmal legal loophole would never have fully come to light. Again, the Courts have no jurisdiction in these matters. Thus, the judicial stone walls experienced by all the cases to date is now better understood. Well, better we learn later than not at all.

Which raises another disturbing truth: absent Court jurisdiction in such matters, Barack Obama is not obligated to furnish documentation to substantiate his eligibility--even if ordered by a court to do so! If that isn't a sobering realization, nothing is. In fact, Obama's legal team has successfully argued that very position, i.e. the Court has no jurisdiction. Now, that IS scary!

Fourth, the AP article erroneously asserted that disclaimers regarding Obama's eligibility have been debunked by virtue of Obama's campaign having "posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its website." God help us all. Urban legends don't die easily, do they. So much for journalistic acumen and integrity. Had the writer researched this item--and the cynic in me tells me she most likely had but ignored her own research--she would have easily determined that only his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), not his Birth Certificate, was posted. ( I won't bore you again by explaining why the COLB is insufficient evidence of live birth in the USA. Interested readers may refer to my previous posts on the "natural born citizenship" tests.)

SO, I think we can all safely say that neither the courts nor the Supreme Court will likely deign to nullify or otherwise abrogate any presidential election outcome. No matter what. No sense tempting tumult by overruling the electorate. Thus, to have any hope of success at this stage it appears that the POTUS eligibility suits must emanate from the States to have any legal standing and that a) SCOTUS will eventually need to review the issue and b) Congress will need to fashion a law specifying procedures for candidates to substantiate their eligibility BEFORE an election actually occurs. Very likely none of this has any real hope of happening until well AFTER Obama's out of office, if even then.

So, it appears that pending proper remedies we none of us have any recourse but to allow what may be a Usurper-in-Chief to occupy the White House now and in the future. Again, it appears that the only evidenciary test of a person's eligibility appears to be his or her election alone. A rather alarming gap in the rule of law, I'd say. But, perhaps there is a constiutional remedy afterall.

Lesson now learned, and enter Quo Warranto.

One particular suit which you should keep your eye on is Kerchner vs Obama in Jew Jersey which alleges that Congress failed to properly determine Obama's POTUS qualifications. What makes this case of special interest is the incorporation of the principle of Quo Warranto, one of the oldest rights in common law and recognized by the Founding Fathers.

Very briefly, a writ of Quo Warranto, which circumvents the court system, seeks to prevent a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what may have already occurred. In effect, a QW action enjoins either the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to ascertain a public office holder's eligibility to hold that office after the fact. Short of impeachment, the Quo Warranto statute, which was authorized by Congress, now clearly appears to be the only Constitutional means of removing a possibly ineligible president from office.

It is my understanding that attorneys Donofrio and Apuzzi have already provided a legal brief regarding Quo Warranto to both Atty Gen. Holder and the D.C. District Attorney which, it is hoped, will compel one or the other to institute a Quo Warranto action which would lead to the removal of the current president should the evidence warrant such removal.

Of course, in the interest of the common good Mr. Obama could voluntarily provide evidence which would substantiate his eligibility once and for all; but, for reasons unknown to me, he and his legal team refuse to do so. Very disturbing, indeed.

Given these revelations, I have some catching up to do. Will carefully study developments and report back to you. Intensely compelling stuff. I hope it is of some interest to you as well.

Legislative Update: Broadcast Freedom Act

As the D.C. Voting Rights Act (S 160/H.R. 157) winds its way through the congressional maze, I have been carefully monitoring its status.

Very briefly, it is my understanding that on the House side, Rep. Mike Pence's efforts to introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act both as an amendment to the Omnibus Bill and as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 226) were unsuccessful.

However, on the Senate side, the D.C. Voting Rights Act (S 160), inclusive of Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment which prohibits the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine in any shape or form, handily passed 87-11! (Note: the Senator's amendment appears as Section 10 of S 160. Sen. Durbin's obstructionist amendment which is also included in S 160 seeks to "encourage the FCC" to "promote diverse media ownership". And in the words of Sen. DeMint's spokesperson with whom I spoke on Tuesday, Durbin's amendment is "so watered down as to have no real effect". In other words, even if both amendments were to remain intact throughout the legislative process, Durbin's amendment would not nullify Sen. DeMint's amendment.)

Yesterday, Rep. Pence's spokesperson advised me that the D.C Voting Rights Act (S 160/H.R. 157) is currently in Senate-House conference and will likely reach the House floor for a vote in the coming weeks. He opined that in view the 87-11 vote in the Senate, prospects for passage of the Senate's version of the Act in the House "would seem to be favorable"; but, of course, he too was careful not to characterize it's passage as in any way a slam dunk. The disturbing truth is that at some point in the byzantine legislative process, Section 10 of the Act might well be stripped from the Act altogether. But, that remains to be seen.

So, while the fight isn't over yet, there is some reason for at least a modicum of hope. Will keep my eye on developments and report back.

Broadcast Freedom Act Breathes New Life: Fairness Doctrine May Finally Be Doomed

I suppose we can take some comfort from the White House's recent announcement that the Prez has no interest in resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine (FD).

However, we should carefully recall that in June of last year he espoused that same position while simultaneously underscoring his support for "opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible"--words which might clearly suggest his support for imposing a facsimile of that odious doctrine.

Understanding that in politics words are cheap and often intentionally ambiguous, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) believes that now is the time for everyone in Congress to publicly vote their conscience on this seminal issue. By calling for an up-or-down vote on the Broadcast Freedom Act 2009 (BFA). it is his hope that the Fairness Doctrine will finally, and deservedly, be consigned to the proverbial "ashbin of history."

Reportedly, Rep. Waxman, House Energy & Commerce Committee, undeterred by the Prez's assurance, has been strategizing with FCC Acting Dir. Copps on ways to implement a facsimile of the Fairness Doctrine. Knowing this, and understandably concerned about a "stealth" or end-run attack on the broadcast industry, on January 6th Sen. DeMint and 29 Republican co-sponsors submitted the Broadcast Freedom Act 2009 (S.34) to committee. On the House side, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced the same bill (HR 226), co-sponsored by 177 Republicans and one courageous Democrat (Mr. Altmire, D-PA) for consideration.

Understanding that the BFA might well fail to get through Democrat-dominated committees, last week the BFA was offered up as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act (which would grant congressional voting representation to D.C. residents). Though this act is running up against stiff GOP opposition, it is strongly supported by Democrats who, of course, welcome the prospect of an additional voting member within their ranks.

And since the BFA has scant chance of reaching the floor on its own merits, attaching it to the Voting Rights Act may, in fact, be the only way the BFA will ever see the light of day. So, let's hope for timely passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act , a bill, by the way, with which I, for one, have no particular objections at all.

To recap: the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA) ensures that without act of Congress the Fairness Doctrine cannot be in any way reinstated by the Federal Communications Committee FCC). In short, it would "prevent the FCC from reinstating any form of the Fairness Doctrine which would suppress free speech by enabling government to monitor political views and deciding what constitutes fair political discourse on the airwaves." Specifically, the BFA amends Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding the following unambiguous Section 303A:

"Nothwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe any rules, policies, doctrines, standards or other requirements, the Commission [FCC] shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the 'Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine obligations of Broadcast Licenses, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985)."

Within the next 90 days, the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2009 is expected to come up for a vote in both the Senate and the House. With its successful passage, so goes the infamous Fairness Doctrine which, hopefully, may never again be anything more than a disturbing footnote in American Constitutional History. Well, we can hope that will be the case.

Fairness Doctrine Update for Hardcore Skeptics

Unpleasant truths are very often denied or carefully avoided. It's a human phenomenon. And when it comes to the ideological arena, a truth is often altogether rejected by those who may find that truth discomforting or at odds with their partisan view of reality. That's just the way it is.

And on the issue of whether or not liberals support the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine (FD), or a facsimile thereof, skeptics abound among our liberal partisan friends. But, for the disbelievers, here's more substantiation, more truth for their thoughtful and objective consideration.

During a 2/15 intervciew with Chris Wallace/FOX News, David Axelrod was asked if he could "rule out reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine". True to cryptic form, Axelrod responded this way: "I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC (Federal Communications Communication), and the president, to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now."

His response clearly depreciates the certitude of Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz, when, in June 2008, Ortiz flatly contended that "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

To further add to my suspicions regarding the true position of this administration and the liberal elite on this subject, during a 2/13 interview with Michael Savage, a conservative talk radio host, Jerry Brown, Attorney General of California, opined that "a little [government] control wouldn't hurt anybody." When Savage countered that the FD is intended to shut down conservative talk radio, Brown gratuitously labelled Savage as "paranoid", but failed to intellectually dispute Savage's assertion. So much for rational discourse.

When one adds to these exchanges the public support for the FD's reimpositon by Democratic Senators Stabenow, Harkin, Sanders, Durbin, Kerry, Bingaman, Schumer and Representatives Slaughter, Hinchey, Eschoo and Pelosi, among many others, is it any wonder that my humble, groundless, fear-mongering, paranoid guess is that the Fairness Doctrine is definitely on course for reimposition--in one form or another, that is--when and if the Democrats can get away with it? And, of course, the White House's reluctance to express an unambiguous position on the issue justifiably confirms my growing suspicions.

And let's not forget that former Prez Clinton has now joined the growing list of Fairness Doctrine proponents. During a recent interview, he stated that the U.S. "ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side." No equivocator he.

Simply put, legislating or otherwise federally directing "fairness" (socialist code for uniformity and control) is tyranny. To expect government control of the airwaves to positively affect broadcast freedom is nothing short of oxymoronic. In a republic, a Fairness Doctrine is very much akin to censorship, a disservice to every citizen of every political persuasion. What's worse is that the republic for which we stand would be effectively undermined.

Amazingly, Bill Press, liberal talk radio host, recently said this: "Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine--and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere." Huh? And just how does government regulation and control of the free market of ideas encourage competition? Duh. To add to this inanity, in a subsequent telephone interview with POLITICO.COM, Press contradicted himself by saying that while he thinks it's important to raise the issue, he personally thinks that resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine "makes about as much sense as bringing back black-and-white television." Whew! To say the least, the cerebral gymnastics are dizzying. Are these people so blindly ideological that they are unaware of what they're saying moment to moment? Or do they embrace the truth only when they're caught. Perhaps a crash course in Logic--and a quick re-reading of the Bill of Rights for good measure--would assist them out of their intellectual malaise on the subject. Geez.

Owing to our vigilance and timely protestations, I suspect the doctrine's reimposition is necessarily on the back burner--for now, that is. But, you can be sure that many liberals are quietly fashioning some sort of suppressive policy to ram through when and if the time is ripe. Like a wily fox stalking its prey, they hunger for control and uniformity. Thus, I think we can safely bet they won't give up the fight easily. Only our continued vigilance and determined opposition will safeguard our hard-won freedoms of speech and the press.

("Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson)

(" The firmness with which the people have withstood the abuses of the press, the discernment they have manifested between truth and falsehood, show that they may safely be trusted to hear everything true and false and to form a correct judgement between them." Thomas Jefferson)

Yet Another Lib Joins the Attack on Broadcast Freedom

Further to my previous post on this unsettling issue, this:

In pursuit of the Obama White House's stated objective (see their website) to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media" and to "clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the national spectrum," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has joined Sen. Stebanow (D-MI) in publicly advocating for reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine".

During a interview with Bill Press, Sen. Harkin said "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." And in a earlier interview with Press, Sen. Stebanow, whose husband had been VP for Air America, a failed left-leaning network, stated that "it is absolutely time to pass a standard," and that "whether it's called the Fairness Doctrine or something else, I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves."

In reaction to these developments, Rep. King (R-IA), a co-sponsor of the Broadcaters Freedom Act, which I described in my July 2008 post, asked if "Rush Limbaugh [so] intimidates Sen. Harkin that he wants to ration free speech?" Rep. King went on to voice his concern that allowing a liberal-dominated government to dictate what is "fair" in broadcast journalism "will stifle free speech and hurt our free flow of information." And that, of course, is precisely the liberals' goal.

Thus, the growing list of liberals who have publicly voiced their determination to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine clearly suggests that conservative fears of censorship in the broadcast media are not in the least unfounded or far-fetched.

What is acutely concerning here is that Democrats, either stealthily or openly, are intent upon imposing their "fairness" standards on the conservative-dominated broadcast media but NOT on the newspaper media which is already dominated by them.

Next, of course, will be suppression of free speech on the internet. In their arrogant and self-serving pursuit of socialist conformity, the liberals' will spare no effort to harness all media outlets in the months and years to come.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes & ears on the upcoming Telecommunications & Internet Broadcasting Subcommittee hearings. You may be sure that the progressive assault on our liberties will continue unabated and increasingly brazen.

Looming "Fairness Doctrine" Remains a Threat to Our Liberty

If one can't win fairly, then the less principled among us will try rigging the game.

And so it is with the egregiously misnamed "fairness doctrine" which liberals are attempting to re-impose on the broadcasting industry.

Underscoring that this fear is not baseless, the current FCC Chairman, Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term expires in June, recently warned that the Democrats will adopt a "stealthier approach" to re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine (FD). By disguising it with another name, e.g. "localism", "diversity", "local broadcasting advisory boards", the Dems hope to effectively shut down conservative talk radio. All in the interest of "leveling the playing field," of course.

Aside from the usual suspects, Sens. Bingaman, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein & Boxer, and Reps. Pelosi and our own when-will-she-just-go-away Rep. Slaughter, last week Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) asserted that the liberal- dominated Telecommunications & Internet Subcommittee will soon hold hearings on the issue--all in the lofty interest of ensuring broacaster "accountability and responsibility," liberal code for suppression of free speech when apoplied to the other side of the aisle.

As we all know, Sen. Schumer recently equated conservative talk radio to pornograpy. And for Lousie Slaughter who, during my tete-a-tete with her on November 11th, denied that Schumer had drawn any such comparison at all, here's the Schumer quote, Louise: "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can't say 'government hands off' in one area of a commercial enterprise, but 'you're allowed to intervene' in another. That's not consistent."

On January 7th, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the leading champion of broadcast freedom, warned that "the FD is at complete odds with the constitution." (As if that has any real relevance these days in D.C.) Frustrated, Sen. DeMint voiced his concern that "some of the most powerful among the Democratic leadership have openly advocated re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine," and urgently called for the "vigorous defense of freedom of the press." (If you're counting on those in the D.C. circuit, Jim, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

Am I a witless conspiracist or shameless fear-mongerer? I don't think so.

In late 2007 an aide to Speaker Pelosi stated that "conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it." And when asked by a reporter how she felt about the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would ban reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, Comrade Pelosi curtly responded that "the caucus is not interested in the ban." (Very much akin to "let them eat cake.") On another occasion, when asked if she supported the FD's reimposition, she said "Yes!" No equivocation there, I'd say. And no fear-mongering here.

And forever adept at speaking out of both sides of his lawyerly mouth, through his press secretary in June 2008, BHO took this position: "[I} consider this debate to be a distraction Obama code for disturbingly on point) from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." And to Republican leaders recently, this: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." An opening salvo? Very likely. Ensuring that all media outlets are in lockstep with our socialist overseers in Washington is, I fear, considered essential if the socialist makeover via tighter state control over our lives is to be successful.

But, a little historical background.

Authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, the "Fairness Doctrine" was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949 to encourage the broadcasting of contrasting viewpoints on "vitally important controversial issues." Its net effect was to discourage broadcasters from covering any controversial issues at all, thus avoiding running afoul of the FCC and having to deal with aggrieved listeners altogether. Ultimately, FD virtually shut down talk radio for many years.

In 1985, the FCC reported that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, and that it might actuallly have a "chilling effect" and be in violation of the 1st Amendment as well. In a 1987 case, Meredith vs FCC,the courts declared that enforcement of the doctrine mandated by Congress and the FCC did not need to be continued. Subsequently, the FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. (Note: the courts have not rendered a decision as to the FD's constitutionality. That will likely be our battle for another time.)

When the FD was eliminated, it opened up the airwaves for all commercially viable viewpoints. Result: conservatie talk radio which proved to be more appealing and, therefore, commercially more profitable, fluorished while its liberal talk radio competitors, e.g. Air America, limped along on life support.

Knowing that resurrecting the FD to overtly shut down conservative talk radio would unleash a torrent of First Amendment suits which he would likely lose, indications are that a Pres. Obama, in league with Pelosi and Reid, will try to circumvent the constitutional issue by advancing a sneakier strategy to achieve the same end.

Enter "localism", a vaguely defined FCC rule which requires stations "to serve the interests of their local communities by covering local issues and providing an outlet for local voices as a condition of keeping their broadcasting licenses."

Crafting a bill which more restrictively defines and enforces "localism", and co-sponsored by local reps please-go-away Slaughter (NY-28) and Major Owens (NY-11), Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is now considering re-introducing the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) some of whose key provisions are as follows:

1. A broadcast company, e.g. Clear Channel, cannot own stations that reach more than 35% of American households.

2. A company may own no more than 5% of all AM and FM stations.

3. Companies cannot own a cable and broadcast station in the same market

4. Bi-annually, the FCC would need to report to Congress on how the commission's regs on media ownership have promoted and protected localism, competition, diversity of voices/ownership, children's programing, etc.

5. Would require radio statiosn to file bi-annual reports to FCC on how they are serving the community and to hold at least semi-annual local public hearings to determine if the broadcast needs of their local audience have been met.

So, Obama's Politburo, aka Ministry of Propaganda, will arrogantly tinker with and re-define free speech and freedom of the press. Incredible! (Revolution, anyone?)

A more restrictive definition of "localism" by an FCC dominated by an Obama-appointed chairperson would mean that broadcasters would need to look beyond crass commercial interests by reaching out to "leaders in the civic, religious and non-profit sectors who serve the needs of minority groups that are poorly served by the broadcasting industry." The intent, of course, is to threaten licensing revocation by the FCC if "local diversity of content" isn't achieved by broadcasters. This might well mean, for example, that a Christian radio station will be effectively saddled with a local Muslim-dominated "advisory board" demanding equal time and getting it, or losing its license to the advisory group altogether.The possible scenarios across the country are fightening.

So, while overt re-imposition of the deceptively named FD may not be politically feasible at this time--and many liberals like Bingaman and Schumer go suspiciously at length to underscore that point--if we fail to remain vigilant a surreptitious resurrection of FD under a different guise is all too probable. Make no mistake: "Localism" and "Fairness Doctrine" are one and the same. We all need to carefully watch developments on this front and to push back accordingly.

Reportedly, even Air America is opposed to the FD's reimposition. Interesting.

("Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element." Rosa Luxemburg)

("It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." Thomas Jefferson, 1803)