I Agree With.......Al Sharpton?!

Mark the date and time. It's 1:19pm CST on Monday March 22nd, the day after "Dependence" day. I was watching CSPAN last night when "reverend" Al was on Fox News, so I didn't see this until now (yes it's my late lunch hour). He is exactly right (see video below).

I have already had this same conversation with a friend today. This is our fault; we asked for it. By "our" and "we" I mean collectively as a country. It was all out there. There is no excuse for anyone not to have known exactly what Obama stood for; what camp he resides in. For those who seem to be so shocked by this revelation because A) the totality of news you get is by tuning into one of the major network evening news broadcasts for 30 minutes a couple of times a week, or B) you simply felt it was time for a black man to win the white house, or C) you got a chill up your leg when he spoke....you compromised 200+ years of blood, sweat and tears because of your shallow uninformed self interests.

The Most Dangerous Kind of Liar

Health Care Legislation - Besides all the back room deals and bribes, President Obama still couldn't get enough votes from his own party. How did he finally get the votes? He promised Bart Stupack he would issue an Executive Order which would circumvent all the pro-abortion language in the bill (which the dems claim isn't there).

Cap & Trade Legislation - The President never got the votes in congress to pass this socialist legislation, so he went around congress and issued an Executive Order charging the EPA to do it anyway.

Government Regulation of the Internet - Congress says no way. Obama issues an Executive Order charging the FCC to do it anyway.

The Debt Commission - The senate blocked it. Obama created the commission anyway by way of an Executive Order. He even had the nerve to say he would do it during the State of The Union Address.

Card Check? The President is still pushing that one through by any means even though congress has rejected it.

Where Do You Find These Angels?

It's Sundown in America

Honestly; does this sound like the America you want? Again, I appeal to common sense. Even if you do not believe in The one true God or any god, must you also take that right away from those who do? Yes, you have to take that right away because it is afforded all Americans in the US Constitution.

Following an ACLU lawsuit filed against Santa Rosa School district in Florida, Judge M. Casey Rodgers ruled to deny prayer in the counties schools. Evidently the school district decided to come to an agreement with the ACLU without fighting it, also called a consent decree. Trying to overturn the decree one of the teachers gave this testimony:

During testimony in December, Michelle Winkler broke down on the witness stand when describing how a coworker sought comfort from her after losing her two-year-old child. The two hid behind a closet door to pray because they feared the consent decree. Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified the order forces her to tell parents she cannot respond if they talk about church or their faith. She may not even respond to an email from a parent if it contains a Scripture verse or “God bless you.” Instead, the District requires her to open a separate email to respond rather than hit “reply,” in order to eliminate any trace of religious language.

Also:

• School employees are prohibited from “communication with a deity” when in their “official capacity.”
  
• They are considered to be in their “official capacity” even when not working – whenever they attend a “school event,” which includes events during the day, including breaks, after-school events on or off campus, and privately sponsored events on campus for students.
  
• Employees cannot bow their head or fold their hands and must prohibit others from praying, even in meetings such as Good News Clubs or privately sponsored baccalaureate services.

I mean come on! You may not believe in God, you may want to have all personal prayer banned from public school, but are you brave enough to say that this cannot happen because the US Constitution protects it?!

The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of Religion and the Constitution

In support of free speech I say you are entitled. Quoting the article on the Fox News website:

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

Now to exercise my free speech:

Yes, once again we hear from the imbeciles over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their name says it all. To think that you can rid any and all religious references, hints or appearances from life is so brainless. Not to mention this "right" to rid us from religion is not theirs! The first amendment clearly states that all citizens of the USA have the right to freedom of religion not a freedom from it. Why do they think they can force it out of lives? Oh yes, because of that silly idea of "separation of Church and state". Laughable; show me where that is in the constitution.

Those who have twisted that non-constitutional phrase into something that could or should possibly shape our society are fools. You incorrectly think it means that God should stay out of the government's business. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean, it doesn't apply because it is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution clearly states that the government must stay out of the business of how the people chose to exercise their religion. A stamp with Mother Theresa, or Moses, or Buddha or Muhammad or Jesus, I could care less. But no person or institution has the right to say no to it.

I do take exception to the Post Office having a regulation that says they won't honor individuals whose achievements are religious in nature. That is nothing more that a politically correct cop out and what fuels these complaints. I can protest that decision and do my best to convince them to reverse it. But, the Post Office can freely choose to display anything they want on their stamps and I have no right to force them to do anything, so long as the image doesn't violate any law.

Do you believe the Constitution contains timeless truths; things that are true for all people, in all times? Not if you think like the stream of so called intellectuals that have come along over the ages. One sits in the White House now. In Mr. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" he states:

Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

Not me. Our founders laid down a blueprint for a government this world has never known before. It has provided it's citizens a standard of living far greater than any country has ever had in the history of the world. It must be interpreted today as the founders laid it out then. To stray away from it would mean to stray away from what and who we are as Americans.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!

The title of this article are the words famously stated by Patrick Henry and which is the motto of New Hampshire to this very day. Twenty years ago today the berlin wall finally fell. I posted a short video below that shows you the celebration of freedom and how dearly it is loved by all people everywhere! Watch it and then continue reading.




The fall of the Berlin wall was the culmination of years of cold war which pitted democracy against Marxist socialism. It was in a speech two years before the fall of the wall given by President Ronald Reagan where he demanded "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!" No matter what side of history you are on, everyone knew that if Communism is such a benefit to its people, why do you have to force people to participate in it? The answer: Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs and prison camps and, yes, even murder when needed.

Now switch gears to this past weekends successful vote in the House .




What are we becomming?

Kiss my Cheeks!

This kind of stuff makes me so mad I want to spit. Once again, it is a complete violation of the 1st amendment. I'll let you decide, but what right does the state have to make decisions like this? None; none whatsoever.

A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.

A JUDGE? Making the decision that a child needs to consider other worldviews??!! This is crap. It is obvious this judge is using the power of the bench to dissuade someone from being a Christian. This is becoming more and more common. Christians are easy targets, so screw the Constitution.

Read the story here from the Washington Times.

The judge's finding says the course load, except for the Bible study, is similar to what public students get and the mother’s home schooling has “more than kept up with the academic requirements of the [local] school system”. The child also takes supplemental public school classes in art, Spanish, theater and physical education and is involved in extracurricular sports such as gymnastics, horseback riding, softball and basketball. (emphasis mine).

I hope this goes to the Supreme Court.

Speaking With A Forked Tongue - "Free Abortions For Everyone"

Have you noticed the counter on the side bar of my blog. At the time of this posting it is nearing 45,000,000 abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Now the debate in our land is over the President's Heathcare Reform. Lots to worry about, but one of the many debated points on this legislation is whether the public option will include tax payer provided abortion services. The President claims it doesn't, but notice his double speak. In trying to promote his plan he spoke to a gathering of religious leaders, albeit, very liberal religious leaders.

In a late Wednesday conference call with several faith groups that supported his presidential bid, President Barack Obama claimed it is a “fabrication” and “distraction” to say abortion funding is included in the health care reform plans pending in Congress. He said it is false to suggest that the government-run health care plan he favors would result in “government funding of abortions,” and that this is “untrue.” - Associated Press

Notice the President said the government-run health care plan he favors wouldn't support government funding for abortions. Sure. He says that as if to say, I am not in favor of it, but if the version that comes to my desk has it in it... what? Will he sign it, or won't he sign it? What do you think?

First of all our government already uses our tax money to fund abortions both here and abroad. One of the first Presidential actions was to reverse the Mexico City Accord which in doing so now allows US funds to be used for abortions overseas. Our government already subsidizes Planned Parenthood the largest for profit abortion provider in the nation. So what do you think? Is the President telling the truth? Let's listen to Mr. Obama's own words and thanks to the group who put this together for providing explanations on screen to translate the double talk.



Did you hear how he also wants to force private insurers to provide abortion services just like the government plan will. This is just like his disdain for doctors who refuse to provide abortions or pharmacists who won't dispense "morning after" pills for reasons of conscience. He could care less.

A Culture of Death

The more I see the more disappointed I get. My ultimate faith is in Jesus, so while our wayward path is upsetting to me and causes me to stand up for the things of God, our continued decent into this culture of death does not cause me to want to give up.

People who say they are Christian yet do everything they can to support and promote abortion may be fooling themselves and some of the people, but not everyone and certainly not God. I've asked this before; if you call yourself "Christian", what do you think God's attitude toward abortion is? Does He like it?

President Obama's answer to Pastor Rick Warren when asked about if abortion was wrong, answered that the answer was above his paygrade. Rick Warren's followup should have been something like, if it's above your paygrade then that means there is a 50/50 chance you believe in God's eyes abortion is wrong. Then why err on the side of death? Disappointingly the Pastor didn't go anywhere with that

I continue to point out that what counts is ones "walk" not just their talk that tells where a person stands. Mr. Obama has never once voted for any form of restriction to abortion. His record:

• Has voted for legalizing the late term procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion"
• Is in favor of embryonic stem cell research
• Re-instituted funding for abortions in other countries (The Mexico City Accord)
• Promises to pass the Freedom of Choice Act which will in effect remove all States laws that restrict abortions such as parental notifications, late term, etc.
• Is against allowing doctors, nurses and pharmacists from not performing abortions or distributing oral contraceptives due to conscience.
• Looks to his massive health care overhaul bill to further expand the practise of abortion throughout our land

A few more tidbits to chew on:

• In a recent interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg candidly shared: “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
• Hillary Clinton was recently given an award by Planned Parenthood (The largest for profit company in the abortion industry), in which Mrs. Clinton stated during her acceptance “The 20th-century reproductive-rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.” In a 1921 article, Sanger explained: “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

Did you catch that! One of our Supreme Court justices said that when she voted in favor of Roe v. Wade, she thought she was voting for a way to reduce the amount of undesirables in our society. Don't believe me? Here is the article in the New York Times Magazine. Where was the outrage! And Mrs. Clinton is not ever phased by glorifying Margaret Sanger who, like Justice Ginsberg, is in favor of Eugenics. I am going on the record to say that our President is in the same camp, as is the speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who's a professing Catholic) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (who states he is pro-life).

Their walk doesn't equal their talk. Their yes means no, and their no means yes.

Religion and the First Amendment

I'm yelling at the TV again. On this mornings news they are talking about an atheist group who has filed a law suit to keep an engraving of the words In God We Trust off of the entrance to the new Washington DC Capitol Visitors Center. The news casters talked about how they think this type of thing is ridiculous, which I am glad to hear. They also interviewed people on the street whose opinion varied; some for and some against.

The issue I have are the reasons people gave for wanting or not wanting it there. Some of the reasons given were 1) It's our national motto, 2) It's on our money, 3) America's history was clearly built on Judeo-Christian principles. All ok reasons, but none authoritative.

It's funny that the name of the Atheist group that has filed this law suit, along with other law suits seeking to ban the word God from the pledge of allegiance and banning the national day of prayer, is called The Freedom From Religion Foundation, emphasis on the word From.

I yelled at the TV asking someone to please quote the first amendment to our US Constitution!!! The first amendment guarantees us freedom OF religion, not freedom from it. What is wrong with this country? I've written about this in my post I Want Freedom Of Religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The news station I was watching had a visit by Holywood actor David Arquette. He was on the show to raise awareness in battling hunger in America; nice. The show's host asked him what he thought about the law suit and he said "It doesn't matter to him. He'd be ok with it saying "In Rainbows We Trust".

Dear God, Don't Let Us Divorce You.

As the systematic removal of God from our schools carries on, have the results been better schools or a worsening of the violence and death?

Now our country's military seems to be following in the same footsteps and I fear what the outcome will be on the battlefield and eventually in our own back yard.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video directly, but click here for the full story.

The Logic Cop Says It's a Human Baby

Back when the Presidential campaign was in full swing, both Barak Obama and John McCain took part in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. During that forum candidate Obama was asked “When does a baby get human rights?” His answer was:

Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

What does pay grade have to do with the facts?

President Obama stated during his speech at Notre Dame

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.

He is right; this controversy should not be shoved aside. It is a life-and-death matter and someone is wrong about it. That is something everyone should think about, one side of this debate is wrong; but who?

Think about the logic pro-abortionists use to justify their position. That life doesn't start until the fetus is "viable". Early on it is just a mass of cells, not a human. They also hide behind the more socially acceptable title of "pro-choice", rather than calling them selves exactly what they are "pro-death". After all death is the opposite of life, so pro-death is a more accurate description.
I've stated very clearly in the past that if you consider yourself "pro-choice", you are in the same camp as a pro-abortionist, so lets start the debate there. If you are pro-choice, what are you choosing between? You are choosing between eliminating something or keeping something.

The next question is, eliminate what? Is this “thing” an inert globule of organic matter? Or is it a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus? These latter terms are employed to describe different stages of gestational development. But do they define whether the “it” is human or non-human? It must be one or the other. This is like using the words “baby,” “child,” “teen,” “adult,” and “senior.” Do these expressions refer to humans or non-humans?

Let’s think about this issue from a coldly logical vantage point. Upon what core issues can all sides agree? (1) When a male sperm and a female egg unite, something happens. Something is henceforth there. (2) That something either is living or non-living. Is there a third option? Clearly it is living. It takes nourishment and receives oxygen. It exhibits movement. It undergoes cell replication. This is undeniable. (3) This living thing either is human or non-human. DNA analysis will clearly identify it as human; 100% of the time, no matter the ideology of the scientist. If it were identified as non-human, say it were determined to be an avocado or a duck, then it may be eliminated at any time, at any stage, and for any purpose. We take the lives of plants and animals, to be used for a higher good, without hesitation. The assumption of civilized society always has been, however, that human life constitutes an entirely different category. Therefore by logical examination this "thing" that is being taken is a living human and one must agree that abortion can only be described as an action that is the taking of a human life.

The President clearly believes and supports the theory that the lives of pre-born infants are subject to the choices of society’s democratic process. He obviously chooses not to believe that a living human being is purposefully killed in the abortion procedure. Since this is the case, why does he call for us to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?

There is something wrong with this logic and I hope you understand it.

Somebody Explain This To Me

This is one I'll definitely follow, but I do not understand why it even happens. The city has no grounds for this, but I'll bet they will continue to pursue it no matter how much tax payer money is wasted on a defense or how much embarrassment it causes. Elitist, egotistical, loons.

Couple Ordered To Stop Holding Bible Study At Home Without Permit

How did this employee of San Diego county even know about the bible study. Not that it matters, but there is more here than meets the eye.

You cannot tell me Christianity is being targeted for extinction. What is this country becoming?

I've Got A Funny Feeling (Funny-Bad)

It's been building for awhile and it looks like it's coming together. Ultra liberal congress, super-liberal President, soon to be liberal supreme court, and right around the corner legislating "Hate speech".

I'll be keeping an eye on a few things, but most importantly whether or not S.909 and HR1913 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes congress. The ambiguous wording of this bill would allow for special prosecution of people who commit crimes that are

..motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Ttribal hate crime laws.

This means that someone convicted of a crime against a person who is considered a member of a special "protected" group of people will receive a stiffer penalty than if the same crime is committed against a person who is NOT in that group of specially protected people. Who are some other these specially protected groups of people? Some 30 groups of sexually perverse people! Read the list right here.

On the ACLU website you'll find this as the opening of their information concerning hate speech:

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States.

I just happen to read an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that described a meeting in Fort Worth where the motives of American Muslims was being discussed. The article started with:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

I'm getting a real bad feeling about this. Anyone who "feels" like what I say is hateful can sue me or have me arrested? What if the preacher at Church speaks out against homosexuality? What if I write on my blog that I think Asians can't drive worth a crap, all Italians are crooks, women are notorious liars or all Jews are money grubbers. I don't really think that, but I'm making a point. Is not my speech free under the first amendment?

Again, the first amendment provides me the freedom OF speech, NOT freedom FROM IT. The first amendment provides me with freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM IT.

I don't think we'll have these freedoms for much longer. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.

Case in point, I've written a little about the fall out from Miss California simply stating her opinion on same sex marriage. The liberals and the gay-lesbian community are tearing her apart and doing everything they can to destroy her reputation. In the very near future they will have laws on their side to prosecute!

I could go on and on. I read another article today that described how over 30 colleges and universities in the US have adopted same room co-ed living arrangements and the reason for this is "to create a more welcoming atmosphere for transgender and homosexual students". Don't believe me? Here is the article and you can read many more just like it with a simple web-search.

(Updated) Free Speech. It Comes At A Cost

I was shocked to read this morning that one of the Miss America pageant contestants was asked a politically charged question during the pageant. The normally politics-free pageant was asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger:

Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answered:

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

I am going to be curious to see how this plays out. Many think her answer may have cost her the crown, as she was awarded first runner up. My initial research shows that she was the only one asked that question.

Personally I think her answer is reasonable. I am not going to call her a hate monger or publish her address on a web site so that those who might disagree with her will terrorize her. But let's wait and see what the gay and lesbian activists do.

After Prop 8 passed in California, the gay lesbian activists did just what I mentioned. Using access to public records they obtained a list of people who donated money to pre-prop 8 causes. They then created a web site that showed a google map with the addresses overlaid onto the map. This way the so-called "people of tolerance" could (and have) terrorize those that supported prop 8. Hypocrites!

We are free to say what we want, but it always comes at a cost when hypocrites are involved.

Read the entire article and you'll also be able to see some of the reaction from those in attendance and a reply by the pageant's director. It's chock full of secular relativism (aka comedy gold).

Update: Perez Hilton, the judge that asked the question went on his video blog this morning. First, watch the actual event from last night and pay attention to the crowds response:





***Content Warning****

Here is the judges response on his video blog. Real classy. This is what I am talking about. The left's idea of free speach, "Believe what I believe otherwise SHUT UP".

Side Note: Did you hear the contestant get boo'd? I heard much more applause than I did a booing. Selective hearing.

I Want Freedom of Religion!!

How far we've drifted. I know society progresses, but our founding fathers would not even recognize our nation in it's current state. Doesn't that say something about the direction we're headed? I know that not everyone believes the same thing, but our nation was setup to allow open and free expression of our beliefs. If you choose not to believe, then fine, just don't impede my right to freedom OF religion. The loud minority has succeeded and is continuing to succeed in erasing any public expression of religion and we've allowed them to succeed based on a lie; separation of church and state. Where in the constitution is that found?

"To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there." Benjamin Franklin 1787 speaking to Europeans thinking of relocating to America.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay, 1797, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington.

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament." Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington, Farewell Address.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion. Let's elect people who will return us to this original condition.

They Have To Be Stopped...And I have To Stop Them

I don't get it. This fallacy that suggests there is a separation between Church ans state and that this idea is actually law; where did that come from? Do you know there is no such thing mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I understand that to mean:

1. Our country will not establish a state sanctioned official religion. This stems from persecution found in Great Britain back in the day. The Church of England was the official church of that country and if you weren't a member you were persecuted. We believe in freedom!
2. The government WILL NOT PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE of RELIGION. In other words, unless your religion involves breaking the law the government will stay out of your business.
3. All citizens have the right to free speech. If you don't like what I have to say, tough. Then say something back that I don't like. So long as I don't say something that breaks the law e.g. defamation or slander, I can say whatever I want.
   

OK. With that in mind why are Christians being told to stop talking publicly about God? Especially in school! Where does this come from?

Read the article by clicking here and make sure you scroll down and look at the before and after pictures of the posters. Also, remember that the phrase "In God We Trust" is...our...national... motto.

The Fairness Doctrine: President Obama's Decision

I was glad to read yesterday that the President is against the Fairness Doctrine. But, I'm still skeptical. Why? First, it was not a quote directly from the President, or by his press secretary, his chief of staff or any other high ranking official in the white hose. Rather it was reported to come from an unnamed white house spokesperson. After all, it is the President who says that he supports the traditional definition of marriage of being a union between one man and one woman, yet supported California's Prop 8. He also says he is a follower of Jesus Christ and honors all life, but is the most pro-abortion liberal ever. So excuse me if I am not impressed by this news.

The Wall Street Journal had a good Op-Ed piece called Mr. President, Keep The Airwaves Free, written by Rush Limbaugh. I am not a Rush listener, but I do agree with most of his views when I come across them. It's worth a read.

The Fairnes Doctrine: Who Are We Becomming?

One of my favorites, Megyn Kelly, provides a sound argument against the "fairness"......

The argument for this is so weak, so unintelligible, and so un-American. Yes, everyone is entitled to state their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions pro-American!

The Fairness Doctrine: Trampling the Constitution

I am speechless after reading this in the online version of The American Spectator and I continue to be baffled by this:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is moving forward with discussing ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine”. Waxman is also interested in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

They say it’s all about “diversity in media”? Listen, if I don’t like what a radio or TV show is talking about, I don’t have to listen. If a website is “heavily trafficked” do they link to other sites that present alternate views?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

Now they are talking about having media advisory boards that “watch” what the media outlets do and if they don’t think it conforms to their ideas of so-called “fairness” they can prevent license renewals! News agencies that don’t conform will be penalized by the inability to stay in business. All controlled by what one group of elitist people think!! This is communism!!