Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Shut Up, They Explained ; The left's regulatory war against free speech

Brian Anderson hit a home run with this editorial in the Wall Street Journal. I excepted it, but everyone should read the entire thing. It's scary as hell.

"""""""Shut Up, They Explained
The left's regulatory war against free speech.
Shut Up, They Explained
The left's regulatory war against free speech.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The rise of alternative media--political talk radio in the 1980s, cable news in the '90s, and the blogosphere in the new millennium--has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what's going on--and resist it."""""

Anderson then exposes the statists behind this movement. It should come as no surprise that fascists like George Soros lead the way. So is the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Ford Foundation(Nothing to do with Ford cars anymore). There's a reason why in my lobbying reform post that I pushed for full disclosure of these "non-political" foundations.

"""Mr. Treglia urged grantees to keep Pew's role hush-hush. "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort," he confided, "it'd be worthless. It'd be 20 million bucks thrown down the drain." At one point, late in the congressional debate over McCain-Feingold, "we had a scare," Mr. Treglia said. "George Will stumbled across a report we had done. . . . He started to reference the fact that Pew was playing a large role . . . [and] that it was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress. . . . The good news, from my perspective, was that journalists . . . just didn't care and nobody followed up." The hoaxers--a conspiracy of eight left-wing foundations, including George Soros's Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation--have actually spent $123 million trying to get other people's money out of politics since 1994, Mr. Sager reports--nearly 90% of the spending by the entire campaign-finance lobby over this period.""""

And now, John McCain and the rest of the anti-freedom statists are after the blogsphere.

"""""Campaign-finance reform now has the blogosphere in its crosshairs. When the Federal Election Commission wrote specific rules in 2002 to implement McCain-Feingold, it voted 4-2 to exempt the Web. After all, observed the majority of three Republicans and one Democrat (the agency divides its seats evenly between the two parties), Congress didn't list the Internet among the "public communications"--everything from television to roadside billboards--that the FEC should regulate. Further, "the Internet is virtually a limitless resource, where the speech of one person does not interfere with the speech of anyone else," reasoned Republican commissioner Michael Toner. "Whereas campaign finance regulation is meant to ensure that money in politics does not corrupt candidates or officeholders, or create the appearance thereof, such rationales cannot plausibly be applied to the Internet, where on-line activists can communicate about politics with millions of people at little or no cost."
But when the chief House architects of campaign-finance reform, joined bySens. McCain and Russ Feingold, sued--claiming that the Internet was one big "loophole" that allowed big money to keep on corrupting--a federal judge agreed, ordering the FEC to clamp down on Web politics. Then-commissioner Bradley Smith and the two other Republicans on the FEC couldn't persuade their Democratic colleagues to vote to appeal.

The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a "bizarre" rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the right, which has maintained its early advantage over the left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience--hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites--the blogosphere has enabled the right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times' editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise--and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its falsehood about President Bush's military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs and other sites swiftly debunked.""""""

Well, if McCain's buddy bureaucrats want to pick a fight with me after I kick his arse out of Michigan in 2008, I'll give them one. All the way to the Roberts/Alito Supreme Court.

The Fairness Doctrine is threatening to make a comeback as well. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) of New York makes this arrogant comment about too much freedom. The Fairness Doctrine regulated political speech.

Small wonder, then, that House Democrats proposed two bills in 2005 to bring the Fairness Doctrine back--and as a law, rather than a mere regulation. Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, who introduced the first of the two bills, says that right-ruled radio is a grave threat to American freedoms, "a waste of good broadcast time, and a waste of our airwaves." People "may hear whatever they please and whatever they choose," she tells PBS's Bill Moyers, in a statement as incoherent as it is illiberal. "And of course they have the right to turn it off. But that's not good enough either. The fact is that they need the responsibility of the people who are licensed to use our airwaves judiciously and responsibly to call them to account if they don't." In other words, people can't be trusted with freedom but need the supervision of a paternalist government.

Hanoi John Kerry also chimes in.

"""There has been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America's media with America's people," John Kerry told the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant after losing the 2004 presidential race. "We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning," he said, inaccurately. "But there's a . . . submedia that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information," he complained. "This all began, incidentally, when the Fairness Doctrine ended," Mr. Kerry maintained. "You would have had a dramatic change in the discussion in this country had we still had a Fairness Doctrine in the course of the last campaign."""

You mean Dan Rather the liar? Or Jayson Blair and Fox Butterfield of the NY Times?

These are scary times for supporters of Free Speech. It is under dire threat by the left and a few RINOS. The establishment left especially despises blogs, talk radio, and non-beltway filtered media. Consistantly anti-freedom, these are usually the same people who oppose the Second Amendment. As Anderson points out, George Soros's prints are on this. These people like McCain, Slaughter, Kerry, and others will continue to be pushing to destroy the first amendment until they are destroyed politically.

They all need to be taken out election time. Our nation's freedom depends on it.


Keith Richards said...

If we allow the government to pretend that the 1st amendment only applies to traditional print media it will be a BIG step in the effort to eliminate free speech in the U.S. It is curious to me that liberals are so eager reduce the umbrella of the 1st amendment when they are usually the first ones out the door screaming "Free speech! Free speech!" I guess that liberals only want free speech when it agrees with their own viewpoints.

Anonymous said...

This post is so screwed up I don’t know where to start. I didn’t know you could squeeze so much propaganda into one post.

“…has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets.” What a crock. Here we go again with the gop “liberal media” smear strategy. You’re right about a monopoly, and that’s one reason the media has shifted so far right. Only a few huge corporations own the media outlets. If you need any proof, pioneer CNN, who the smear merchants on the right like to call the Clinton News Network, just hired some right wing hate monger. They are all trying to look like faux news.

“..under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations.” I think the Republican Abermoff scandal is one reason the gop does not want campaign finance reform, and the Fairness Doctrine calls for the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to be “balanced and fair.” We know what the gop thinks of that phrase.

The hate you people spew over George Soros is so funny when you forget to mention Richard Mellon Scaife or Rupert murdoch.

I will never understand how you can call John McCain anti-freedom. Never mind that he’s a republican, but I think he’s someone moderates from both parties can live with. But anyone reasonable, fair and moderate on your side of the aisle is labeled a RINO. Unbelievable. McCain fought and sacrificed for his country. Its funny that so many republicans are hawks, but like the bushies, none of them ever put on a uniform, but they have the gall to call those of us who did traitors and anti-freedom. Disgusting.

“the blogosphere has enabled the right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream.” More right wing BS, and it’s simply not true. Despite almost 40 years of propaganda it’s still not true, but far too many people believe that lie.

“Well, if McCain's buddy bureaucrats want to pick a fight with me after I kick his arse out of Michigan in 2008, I'll give them one. All the way to the Roberts/Alito Supreme Court. “ I know how hateful the right can be, but I find it hard to believe a reputable columnist would actually write BS like that paragraph.

I fail to see the problem with the Fairness Doctrine. The public airwaves do not belong to TV and radio stations, they belong to the public. A perfect example is WJR that keeps adding more and more right-wing hate-wongers to their line-up, despite broadcasting out of one of the most liberal cities in the country in a state that has gone for a Democratic presidential candidate for the last four presidential elections. If you want to hear the hate and poison limpbaugh and hannity spew instead of real debate and truth that’s fine, but how about some balance, especially when there are more moderate and liberal talk show hosts available who are more talented, funnier and have higher ratings. WJRs stand makes no sense, either for ratings, revenue or fairness.

“Hanoi John Kerry also chimes in.” That’s funny. Why do you call him that? Was it because he was actually in Vietnam, as opposed to gwb, who as busy drinking and snorting coke with his frat buddies while Kerry was in Vietnam?

As far as calling Dan Rather a liar, the story of bush’s service –actually non-service – has never been debunked nor was the memo. As for Jason Blair? A liar, but the NY Times reported themselves and apologized. Have you ever seen bush admit one of his lies or admit a mistake? His lies and mistakes cost a lot of lives.

Keith Richards said...

Kevins - WJR, like all radio stations, is in business to make money. I know that is a dirty word with you libs, but that is how the world really works. And the bottom line is this: to make money, you have to play shows that the public wants to listen to.

WJR is just responding to market demands. Rush Limbaugh has the highest rated show in the history of talk radio. Other Conservative hosts also have highly rated shows. When Liberal shows go on the air nobody listens to them. A good example of this is Air America. Believe me, if a liberal ever comes up with a talk radio show that people want to listen to, radio stations will be lining up out the door to get get it for their stations. Want more liberal talk radio? Put on a show that gets good ratings.

So the question you need to be asking is "Why is there so much market demand for conservative shows, but very little market demand for liberal shows?" Think about that for a while.

One other point - I've listened to Rush whenever possible for about 15 years now. Rush is not a hate monger. Rush is not a racist. You have obviously never listened to his show and just believe what everyone else is telling you.

The only thing Rush does that is even disrespectful is to play parodies of liberals. This is a lot like what comedians do. His parodies are funny, though, because they usually have a lot of truth in them. Paradies are like that; they have to be truthful to be funny. Conservatives don't hate anyone. We discuss ideas.

To give you an example, I don't like your your ideas, because they are silly and wrong. Much of your writing is difficult to read because you don't use facts or logic to construct your arguments. But I don't hate you. Why should I hate you, or anyone else, just because we disagree about politics? I have many good friends and relatives that are liberals. I argue politics with them all the time, but we get along just great otherwise. I don't understand why liberals keep pushing this idea that conservatives are supposed to be full of hate. Hate is a very strong word, and I think that you should be more careful about how you use it.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I don’t really condider myslf a libneral, but franly; it doesn’t bother me to be called libneral. In fact, I’m proud because liberals have made many people’s lives better with things like Social Security and Medicaid.

I have no problem with WJR, or anyone else making money.
I have no facts to dispute limpbaugh has the “highest rated show in the history of talk radio,” but neither do you have any facts to support that ridiculous claim. Al Franken’s show has beaten him in many markets, and I believe he would beat him in this area too.
“When Liberal shows go on the air nobody listens to them.” Wrong. Air America has grown from one or two radio stations to more than 85 in just a short two years. True, more conservatives listen to talk radio; after all, they have to get their talking points somewhere, but that is changing.

I know Air America and the Al Franken show would do gang busters if they were given a chance here. People jump through hoops now to try and get the show. Just think if they had easier access. There is no way that a liberal radio talk show host like Ed Schultz or Al Franken would not do well in one of the most liberal cities in America in the heart of a blue state. WJR knows they can make money, but something is much more important to them. I called and complained about their lack of common sense balance, and they told me Mitch Albom was the liberal balance. Are you joking? When hanity or limpbaugh talk about the new Lions coach then I’ll buy that BS.

Limpbaugh sure as hell is a hate monger and a racist, not to mention a criminal. I have listened to his show. Hell, I even read his first book. That’s wasted time I can never get back. Have you ever listened to Al Franken? I can stand listing to limbaugh’s lies and spin for about an hour before I get ill. I remember when I moved back to Michigan in 1994, and listened to the hate coming from the radio from people like limpbaugh against President Clinton and the government in general. The supercharged atmosphere they created was one reason for the Oklahoma City bombing.

There’s nothing fumy about limbaugh. If you want to hear lies and spin it’s a great show. His huge ego is what blows me away even more than his blatant lies. If you want true humor listen to Al Franken’s show. How many times has limpbaugh been to Iraq to entrain the troops like Franken has? How about none.

“We discuss ideas.” What a crock. Here’s your example of discussing ideas. “I don't like your ideas, because they are silly and wrong. Much of your writing is difficult to read because you don't use facts or logic to construct your arguments.” Really, what facts and logic do you use?

If you don’t understand where the left get the idea conservatives are hate-filled, I suggest you watch an episode of hannity and colmes or bill o'reily or listen to limpbaugh.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to listen to anyone to understand the GOP hate poor people, they believe it to be a character flaw and those with poor health are throw aways. It's sick how they view immigrants as slave laborers. It is a huge joke how they call themselves moral. GOP means Greed over people, every time.