The Unfairness Doctrine

We heard the first rumblings from Senator Feinstein as she discussed bringing back the inappropriately named Fairness Doctrine and now Democrats are stepping up one after the other to jump on the bandwagon. The latest are John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) and Dick Durbin who both believe we need the Fairness Doctrine to bring back balance to talk radio.

To Democrats, it is just unimaginable that Conservatives fill the airwaves with their talk shows while those shows featuring Liberals flounder and fade away. The Democrats believe that their message is not getting out because Conservative radio is distorting the truth. What Democrats are really saying is that they do not want you to have a choice in what you listen to and they will force people in the private sector to give opposing views the chance to air.

The Democrats believe this is fair but what it really is is an extension of their Socialist ways. They are, in essence, redistributing the opinions expressed on radio. They are not really any different than Hugo Chavez who seized control of radio stations in his Socialist “paradise.” Democrats love to redistribute things, especially things they do not own or do not like. They take our money from us in the form of taxes and they spread it around to the “have nots” in society. B. Hussein Obama has nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks requested and this is just from ONE person. He wants to take 400 million of your hard earned dollars and use them on things you will probably never see or use. The Democrats also want to take away air time from Conservatives and spread it among the Liberals so they can go on the air and whine for a while about the injustice of it all.

This week the Senate voted to move the immigration amnesty bill along and the Democrats used a few maneuvers to limit Republican debate on the bill. The Democrats are also requiring votes on amendments to the bill without them being read thus denying Republicans the chance to oppose amendments. The Democrats are not being very fair about giving Republicans equal time with regard to this legislation. Perhaps we need a fairness doctrine for Congress that says they have to allow the other side the opportunity to express an opposing view. That won’t happen because Democrats do not care about fairness. All they care about is remaining in power and redistributing our wealth.

What Democrats want is unfair and it is not American. They want to stymie free speech in violation of the First Amendment. They want to force people to listen to things that they do not want to listen to. They are using the airwaves to force their propaganda on us and they expect us to love it because, after all, who does not like “fairness.”

If Democrats really gave a damn about fairness they would also require this of television and the print media. They do not require it for these media because those entities are favorable to Democrats. Therein lies the rub; the idea of fairness only applies when the Democrats want a better break. When the odds are in their favor, all is peachy keen.

With this BS to look forward to and the possibility of Congress giving away our country, we might need another revolution. We fought for freedom from a tyrannical government and that government was great compared to the one we have now. The next revolution though, will come at the ballot box.

The Democrats hope to silence Conservative talk radio. What most of America wants is for the politicians to be quiet for a change…

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “The Unfairness Doctrine”

  1. Billy Joe says:

    Hi BD,

    One thing I have never understood about conservatives… The mass media is increasinly in the hands of a few very large corporations (GE, Westinghouse, News Corp, ABC/Disney).

    If you think the media is liberal, why wouldn’t you want to break up these traitorous, liberal enterprises thru anti-trust laws? Anti-trust laws were created specifically to address the deleterious affects of market consolidation and to fight monopolistic and oligopolistic behavior.

  2. Jo says:

    Straight up front — this is an attack on Rush period. They haven’t been able to get him off the air yet and this is the only way they can see to do it. Great post.

  3. Big Dog says:

    I don’t have to think the media are Liberal, they donate 9-1 to Democrats and in a survey 77% said they had Liberal philosophies (aligned with the Liberals).

    A monopoly is when one company owns everything (root word mono). You cited yourself that the media are owned by several companies so that would not constitute a monopoly.

    Interestingly, we have only one monopolies commission and there is no competition for services provided by government which makes things like Social Security monopolistic (in addition to Socialistic). Government does nothing efficiently and yet they do not allow private sector intervention. Why do you suppose that is.

    In addition, the post was about the Fairness Doctrine which is not fair. It is not government’s place to tell us what we have to listen to or to tell radio stations what they have to air. I see light though, if they enforce this all real Americans should demand equal time IN ENGLISH on Spanish speaking stations…

  4. […] [Discuss this article with the Big Dog…] Share Article Senator Feinstein, Fairness Doctrine, Democrats, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Conservatives, Socialist, B. Hussein Obama, immigration, denying Republicans    Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]

  5. Jo's Cafe says:

    The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine ……

    Socialist Agenda #1245
    ……

  6. Billy Joe says:

    Government does nothing well? Should we privatize libraries and the police and fire departments, too?

    Anti-trust laws can be applied to oligopolies, as well.

    I also put a post up on my blog about US Special Ops forces painting mosques, providing health care to Muslims and drilling water wells for them. I thought Muslims only understood force? Why would the US be trying to win their hearts and minds if Muslims are animals? Please drop by and leave a comment explaining this contradiction. If you can explain it, that is.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Libraries might run well but they are inefficient and cost much more money than a private sector could run it for. The police and fire departments have a lot of good people but they run over budget and there are many, many problems. As a former firefighter, I am a bit familiar with how they run. As a man who reads the news, I am well aware of the problems in law enforcement. Most of the individuals are great, the bureaucracy is the problem. Most private medical companies (like ambulance and flight medic) run more efficiently than an equivalent government service. Their existence depends on it.

    If the government went in and started breaking up news corporations that would give a lot of people ammo over First Amendment rights though I imagine they would only apply to the very liberal groups that were effected.

    Our troops have been providing medical care for the Muslims since we have been there. It is in our doctrine and I think it is part of Geneva. Matter of fact, the medics in my old unit told me that they treated more Iraqis than our guys and that is the word I get from all around. The Muslims only understand force but that does not mean we are animals in return. We do not shoot and kill innocent people and we treat the wounded. You can still effect the common person and even more importantly our image around the world is improved by doing the right thing.

    You just don’t seem to get it but then again I guess you have to actually know about these things and have been at least associated with them to understand.

    It is kind of pathetic how you keep asking people to come comment at your site. It is like you are begging to be noticed. But why would you think I would come to your place and comment when I can address it here?

    Is it lonely over there at creaking dim wits?