RUSHING TO GET IT BACKWARDS

RUSHING TO GET IT BACKWARDS

I thought some of you would like to hear the latest spew from the same old propaganda minister of talk radio. Rush Limbaugh sends out letters to Republicans and other conservatives that listen to him. I am sad to say, my mother WAS one of those right up until her death a few months ago. I am staying at her house since she passed and get to throw away all the propaganda material these people send out, although at times I can't help but read some of it to see how crazy the lies got this time. Well, today, once again, I received some drivel from them and I would have ignored it and put it in the recycle bin with the rest of the waste paper when the headline on the front of the letter caught my eye. It says, "... Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done..." And inside (I had to find out what he was up to this time) was more drivel. So, I read on. It starts out as usual, "...Dear Fellow American, I've sent you this letter and "SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!" petition because Barack Obama and his liberal allies are looking to silence their few remaining critics in the media.
And your "SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!" petition may be the only way to stop them.
Please take just one moment of your time to sign it and mail it back to me today in the enclosed RAPID REPLY ENVELOPE. ..."
First of all, I can't remember the last time I ever heard of liberals being the ones who were condoning censorship. I will let you know who the real perpetrators of the Fairness Doctrine were. In an attempt to allow free speech for everyone the Fairness Doctrine was as follows:
(Quote from Wikipedia)
"...The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.

In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine. It warned that "should future experience indicate that the doctrine of "voluntary compliance" is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated...."

So, not only did the Fairness Doctrine say NOTHING about censorship, it wasn't proposed by liberals. It was proposed by conservatives that hadn't had the chance to be heard on what they called the liberal media. Let me tell you what happened later: 1) A supreme court decision ruled that during a law suit against the act was not considered valid since the act was still considered constitutional. The court statement was: "... Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment that prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can face a theoretically unlimited number of competitors. ..."
Do you see how convoluted the whole situation is by now? It merely stated that freedom of speech must be upheld by The News Media as a whole. Now, later on there were more and more opponents to this act but guess who upheld them and threatened to veto any act of congress that opposed this act? They were, in order:
"In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by a famous liberal (HA!) named President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when another famous liberal, President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. Do you see where this is going?

The fairness act was supported by the Republicans to make sure they got the last word on the radio, press, and other media and now Mr. Limbaugh in his attempt to act like he knows something is making an ass of himself by saying this:
"...As you know, there are only a handful of cable news and radio options for those of us who were interested in finding out the facts" (I am laughing here) "...about Barack Obama's political agenda."
I don't have enough time to think up and write them all down, including Hannity, O'Reilly, Both Chris's and the entire Fox News Staff.
He went on to say: "...Meanwhile Barack Obama has the network of "big-wigs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and all of Hollywood firmly in his back pocket. Unfortunately, it looks like the few unbiased news outlets that are left may soon be gone. You see, Barack Obama's leftist allies in Congress are promising to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine".
If you've heard of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", then you know there's nothing fair about it. Why? Because it gives the federal government the power to decide which radio shows, TV programs and possibly even websites you can and can't read or listen to. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid call it a "legislative fix" for talk radio shows and television programs that are "too conservative". In short, it's a blatant attempt to silence the few voices of dissent in an overwhelmingly liberal news industry. ..." Now, is it just me, or does this guy sound like he is playing the victim of his own B.S.? In fact, upon investigation, we find out the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 so we know damned well when the Republicans introduced this that they had poor Rush Limbaugh and the other million or so "handful of" conservatives in 2009 in mind to put an end to them a mere 60 years later. (Yeah, yah think?)
I would go on but it goes on for ever. The point is, at the end of all this baloney, he asks for a donation to help save the world and of not less than 25 dollars and not more than one thousand to an "unlimited blank amount" on his supposed petition that he isn't sending to congress. He doesn't even give people the chance to decide how much or what to say (which I guess is good for conservatives) and he has it addressed to someone named Jeff Mazzella, President. Mr. Mazzella is mentioned on the letter to his attention at the Center For Individual Freedom. I picture the millions of dittoheads writing their checks and sending into the center so they can be granted, by Rush Limbaugh and his scam organization, the freedom to be an individual, like so many lemmings running over a cliff. Is anyone as distracted as I am from this deliberate political manipulation for money in the name of individual freedom? I am going mail this copy to the White House and see if they want to donate. I guess you get what you pay for.
Oh, and did I forget to mention? This is the report from Fox News; the news source that the Rightwing conservatives like Limbaugh claim to be so connected with. It states that the White House told them a while back that Barack Obama opposes the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.