Remembering the Troops on Thanksgiving.

I know that most of the readers of this blog do not need a reminder, but please remember the brave men and women of our armed forces in your prayers on Thanksgiving Day.

The 'Fairness Doctrine', 'Localism', and 'Ownership Diversity'

Tyranny begins with the silencing of dissenting voices. To this end many on the Left are calling for the reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine'.




Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Fox News,

"Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television or radio.... The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.... That's not consistent."

Obama campaign statement on the 'Fairness Doctrine', August 2008,

"He [Obama] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Dianne Feinstein complained to Fox News’ Chris Wallace,

“In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”

"Well, I'm looking at it (reviving the 'Fairness Doctrine'), as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Bill Moyers interview with Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on PBS. Read it here.

Lou Dobbs interview with Dennis Kacinich on CNN. See it here.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) radio interview. Hear it here.

Enacted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the 'Fairness Doctrine' required broadcasters to present all sides on political issues equally. The only fairness associated with the 'Fairness Doctrine' was that it silenced political speech altogether. Broadcasters simply avoided topics which would fall under the FCC equal time rules. One blogger compares the 'Fairness Doctrine' to the 1765 Stamp Act. It is an interesting comparison.

In 1987, President Reagan rescinded the 'Fairness Doctrine' Since then, political speech on talk radio has flourished. Conservatives have dominated it. Conservative talk radio has 50 million listeners, with Rush Limbaugh taking the lions share of the ratings with 20 million listeners. Liberal talkers have had a tough time competing in the talk radio medium. Their show have trouble selling advertising for by virtue of the fact that talk radio listeners do not want to hear their shrill voices spewing negative, often anti-American, diatribes.

As far as the Left is concerned, conservative domination of the airwaves is a violation of the First Amendment. In the Liberal mind, the First Amendment not only guarantees them the right to express their opinion, it also guarantees them the right to be heard. As always, the Left is looking to the government to level the playing field. It is not enough that there is equal opportunity, there must be equal results.

While Obama has claimed that he will not be seeking a reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine', he is very much in favor of expanding upon an FCC rule known as 'localism'. Under this rule radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. More on this from American Thinker.

Obama has chosen as as his transition chief John Podesta. Podesta is president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a socialist think tank. Cap is in favor of expanding the concept of 'localism' and promoting 'ownership diversity' to solve what it believes are inequities in radio broadcasting. In a June 21, 2007 report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, CAP complained of "the absence of localism in American radio markets" and recommends that to ensure that local radio stations fulfill their obligations to meet the needs of the communities which they serve, the FCC needs to exercise greater control over local broadcast licencing and the fining of radio stations who continue to air conservative talkers who are perceived to be out of step with local needs. The report also recommends that the money generated by the fines be used to support liberal dominated , taxpayer funded public broadcasting. It gets worse. Since conservative talk radio does not reflect the diverse interests of the communities which they serve, the report also recommends handing over media properties to selected minority control. One wonders how this might be accomplished. Through Stalin-esque seizure of private property? For more, go here.

Many on the Left dismiss the concerns of conservative talk show hosts as far fetched paranoia, others are in complete denial, and the mainstream press is wallowing in self imposed ignorance.

FEC 'Looks The Other Way', Right At McCain

Allegations that the Obama campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions, possibly as much as 200 million dollars, have been circulating around the blogsphere for some time. The possibility of a substantial number of illegal contributions to the Obama campaign is extremely likely since the Obama web site was not using an Address Verification System (AVS) to screen donations. This would allow fraudulent donations from fictitious and possibly foreign sources. All such donations are illegal. Much of these discrepancies were detailed by Neil Munro at the National Journal.

Despite a formal complaint to the Federal Election Committee (FEC) from the RNC regarding the Obama campaign's fundraising practices, Politico is reporting that an investigation of the Obama campaign by the FEC is unlikely. The Obama campaign collected more than $600 million from at least 3.1 million donors under federal regulations which bars individuals from donating more than $2,300 to a single campaign. There is evidence that the Obama campaign facilitated and accepted fraudulent donations from sources both domestic and foreign, and that the amount of money that the campaign received which falls under the category of 'questionable' is between 150 and 200 million dollars. And yet it is unlikely that the FEC will be investigating.

But that is not the full extent of the outrageous content of this story. The FEC will be investigating the McCain campaign by virtue of the fact that he kept his promise to accept public financing, where as, Obama did not. Proving the old saying 'that no good deed goes unpunished.'

Comrade Obama on the Redistribution of Wealth

That Obama is a socialist is a question that many have been asking since 'Joe the Plumber ' asked Comrade Obama if he was going to be taxing his business at a greater rate. Now more evidence of Obama's redistributionist ideology has been revealed in the form of a radio interview on Chicago's WBEZ FM from 2001.



In addition to this video are the following quotes from an August 20, 2008 New York Times magazine interview;

“If you talk to Warren, he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument. But, he said: “I do think that what the argument may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. And I also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that what you do will help determine outcomes.”

While the main stream media is is gushing over Obama, wondering if America is finally ready for a black President, many Americans are now wondering if we are blindly about to let our doom in by the front door by electing a Marxist to that office.

Biased Media Suppressing News

Anyone who has been following up on Obama's radical associations has heard of Rashid Khalidi. When a Jewish voter in Florida asked Obama about his association with the Jew hating Khalidi, Obama explained away any concerns in this way;

"You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

Obama continued, "To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

Sean Hannity has repeatedly detailed Obama's relationship with Khalidi as exemplified by the video below.



The left wing media has chosen the role of apologists for Obama's radical associations from William Ayers to Khalidi. Now we have learned that the media is in the business of suppressing news on behalf of Barack Obama. The Gateway Pundit has reported that the LA Times is in possession of a video in which Obama praises the anti-Semitic Khalidi and admits to having a close relationship with Khalidi which included frequently dining with Khalidi and his wife in their home.

Colin Powell Joins Wesley Clark

Colin Powell has had an illustrious career. He was the United States 65th Secretary of State and the first Black American to hold that office. He served as National Security Advisor (1987-1989) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). He served his country with distinction in the US Army (1958-1993) and retired with the rank of General.

While Colin Powell is a Republican, he has not shown himself to be a conservative over the years that he has been in the public spotlight. Conservatives have come to expect less than conservative opinions and endorsements from him. However, many conservatives were taken by surprise yesterday when Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President on Meet the Press. I count myself among them. I certainly did not expect Powell, given his history of dedication to his country to endorse a radical socialist to the office of the President of the United States.

On the subject of whether or not Obama is a socialist, Powell had this to say;

I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis, the [McCain] campaign said, “We’re going to go negative,” and they announced it, “We’re going to go negative and attack [Obama's] character through Bill Ayers.” Now I guess the message this week is, “We’re going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have.”
Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

It is odd for a man who has served his country through the cold war to seemingly be unable to recognize the difference between socialist redistribution of wealth and the raising of revenue. It is equally odd that Powell, who served as National Security Advisor, cannot recognize a socialist politician and an enemy of the US Constitution. I am not going to spend a great deal of effort to try and second guess Powell's motives, but I have every intention of taking issue with his actions. My opinion is likely not to be received well, and I am prepared to take the heat for it.

Every US soldier takes an oath when he enlists, it reads;

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.

I respect and appreciate Gen. Powell's service to our country but, America's enemies do not exist only beyond our borders. Many of America's enemies claim to be patriotic Americans. For what ever reason, Powell has failed to recognize that fact. The socialists in our political system are domestic enemies of our Constitution. They make no secret of their intention to change it, and they have made every effort to subvert it. Yesterday, Gen. Colin Powell joined ranks with Gen. Wesley Clark in capitulating to, and lending aid to, the domestic enemies of our Constitution.

African American Voters, Listen Up

The following videos are part of a video blog series. I do not know the gentleman's name but he can be found at youtube.com under machosauceproduction. He has some important political insights which should be of particular interest to the black community.

African Americans need to ask themselves a few questions;

-Who or what is really to blame for the sad state of black education in America? Read this.

-Is it really a racial issue that the prison population in the U.S. is up to 70% black? Read this and this.

-Which political party stands to gain the most, politically, from the status quo of race relations in the U.S. remaining unchanged? Read this.

-Democrats pushed banks into making more home loans to those with low and moderate
incomes, mostly through Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Read this and this. They defended Fannie and Freddy when Republicans started sounding the warning bells in 2004. Watch this and this. Now, those who purchased homes under these programs, many of whom are African Americans, find that their homes are worth less than the principle remaining on their mortgages. Since many of these homeowners got their loans with no money down, and therefore, had no skin in the game, are walking away from these mortgages. With the economy collapsing and it looks as though every American will be paying a huge price for it, of what benefit has any of this been for the black community? Misery may love company, but is this the type of equality that the black community hoped for when they voted for Democrats?

-In America, the land of opportunity, liberal Democrats tell African Americans that their success or failure depends upon who wins elections. That is insulting enough, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats, by positioning themselves as the saviors of the black community, have a vested political interest in maintaining the status quo. As long as black students are under educated, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as black unemployment exceeds the national average, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as crime in America's inner city communities remains high, the Democrats have the black vote. As long as Democrats can convince African Americans that racism is at the heart of all these problems, the Democrats have the black vote. Why would the Democrats, as a party, want any of these things to change?

These are questions which every voter, not just those in the African American community, should seriously be considering.