Nutty Nancy Is On The Loose
We have little respect for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It is not personal dislike. It is professional dislike. This woman is a incompetent, partisan hack who wants to institute the worst policies for this nation. Whether it is floating the idea of suing OPEC, or supporting windfall profits taxes on oil companies, or doing virtually nothing over the two years the Democrats have controlled the House, her inane ideas have done nothing to help this nation. Now John Gizzi @ Human Events shows us her true colors:
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.
In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested. Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.
“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.
She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.
(Please be sure you scroll below this piece to see how she is urging a filibuster of the FISA reforms in the Senate.)
So in essence, Ms. Pelosi believes in curtailing the freedom of speech. I think it is safe to make that assumption, based on the exchange. The free market helped spawn talk radio as we know it today. And from that the alternative media was born, and continues to thrive today. But Madam Pelosi dislikes the fact that we do have the freedom to speak our minds on a variety of subjects.
The freedom of speech, as enumerated under the First Amendment, gives us the right to speak out on our government. This was one of the founding principles of this nation. The First Amendment is all about our rights when it comes to the government. We have the right to speak out against it, assemble in protest over its decisions, demand a redress of grievances, the press has unfettered rights to criticize the government, and religion enjoys non-interference from it. When it comes to speech, we all have a right to speak. But we do not have the right to be heard.
Anyone of us can listen to someone rail about this issue or that issue, but we do not have to stick around and continue listening if we do not wish to. Madam Pelosi dislikes the fact that we do choose to tune into talk radio, and that we receive information from talk radio that we would not otherwise know about. The media, after all, is severely falling short in its job of news reporting. So if talk radio is quashed, which is what will happen if the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, then what will be next? Blogs? Vlogs? Other commentators on the Internet?
She should also consider this: If she does reinstate it, what is to prevent the Supreme Court from striking it down because it directly violates our freedom of speech? She seems to forget that in 1984 Associate Justice William Brennan wrote, in FCC v. League of Women Voters that they would reexamine the Fairness Doctrine if it had "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech." No one can argue the contrary that the Fairness Doctrine would, indeed, curtail speech and not enhance it.
This is today's Democrat Party. They cannot compete in the realm of debate or with ideas. They seek only to curtail -- control, if you will -- the rights of the people of this nation.
Marcie
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.
In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested. Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.
“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.
She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.
(Please be sure you scroll below this piece to see how she is urging a filibuster of the FISA reforms in the Senate.)
So in essence, Ms. Pelosi believes in curtailing the freedom of speech. I think it is safe to make that assumption, based on the exchange. The free market helped spawn talk radio as we know it today. And from that the alternative media was born, and continues to thrive today. But Madam Pelosi dislikes the fact that we do have the freedom to speak our minds on a variety of subjects.
The freedom of speech, as enumerated under the First Amendment, gives us the right to speak out on our government. This was one of the founding principles of this nation. The First Amendment is all about our rights when it comes to the government. We have the right to speak out against it, assemble in protest over its decisions, demand a redress of grievances, the press has unfettered rights to criticize the government, and religion enjoys non-interference from it. When it comes to speech, we all have a right to speak. But we do not have the right to be heard.
Anyone of us can listen to someone rail about this issue or that issue, but we do not have to stick around and continue listening if we do not wish to. Madam Pelosi dislikes the fact that we do choose to tune into talk radio, and that we receive information from talk radio that we would not otherwise know about. The media, after all, is severely falling short in its job of news reporting. So if talk radio is quashed, which is what will happen if the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, then what will be next? Blogs? Vlogs? Other commentators on the Internet?
She should also consider this: If she does reinstate it, what is to prevent the Supreme Court from striking it down because it directly violates our freedom of speech? She seems to forget that in 1984 Associate Justice William Brennan wrote, in FCC v. League of Women Voters that they would reexamine the Fairness Doctrine if it had "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech." No one can argue the contrary that the Fairness Doctrine would, indeed, curtail speech and not enhance it.
This is today's Democrat Party. They cannot compete in the realm of debate or with ideas. They seek only to curtail -- control, if you will -- the rights of the people of this nation.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:41 PM
1 Comments:
I would be more worried if I were you about these two factors killing talk radio:
Most of it is on AM. And most of its listeners are over 55. It's a struggle getting younger people to listen to radio at all, much less AM.
By the way, there are two powerful disincentives to stations throwing in the towel on talk and going back to music -- music doesn't work on AM, which is why they started talk in the first place, and the record companies are about to get Congress to force radio stations to pay more royalties for their songs. That's going to cost radio stations more than hiring a boatload of liberals to balance things out would.
Talk radio will survive with or without a Fairness Doctrine. In fact, the first talk radio station (KABC) went on the air in 1960 -- 25 years before the doctrine was repealed. That station had conservatives like Joe Pyne and Ray Briem on for years. So there is nothing to fear here.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home