Good News (For Now) for Freedom
July 27th 2007 14:18
Despite the Democrats' zeal to resurrect the so-called Fairness Doctrine, the FCC Chairman has no intention of caving in to their demands, according to this AP report. That's good news for freedom of speech for now, although as Bryan Preston points out, actual legislation is still needed to preserve the rights of talk radio hosts, their listeners and the American citizenry in general.
The push by Pelosi, Reid and their co-horts in Congress comes fresh on the heels of the well-deserved demise of the recent "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" debacle, brought about by talk radio and the blogosphere. In strark contrast to Congress, talk radio hosts and bloggers actually informed the public of the proposed bill's disasterous provisions, and encouraged disgruntled Americans to contact their lawmakers to make their displeasure known. Once informed, Americans flooded the phone lines, causing the Senate switchboard to crash, along with the bill.
Americans like me opposed the measure for several valid reasons. For one thing, we already have laws on the books - laws that, inexplicably after September 11 - our government refuses to enforce. Additionally, although Congress had approved funding to build a fence a year ago, to this day there hasn't been one step taken in that direction. So if our stalwart leaders couldn't live up to their words and actions then, what proof did ordinary tax-paying citizens and LEGAL immigrants have that they'd enforce this proposed new legislation?
Elite Republicans like Lindsey Graham (now known affectionately as "Senator Grahamnesty"), John McCain and - sorry to say -- President Bush, dismissed law-abiding Americans and legal citizens as "bigots" who "didn't want to do what's right for America," rather than engaging in real debate. Even conservative columnist Linda Chavez characterzied opponents of amnesty (let's call it for what it is) as "Mexican haters," thus resorting to the tried-and-true liberal game of tarring anyone who disagrees with them with labels including racists, xenophobes, homophobes and rednecks, depending upon the issue being debated.
Never mind that a majority of Hispanic-Americans opposed the bill. Never mind that the Mexican government has an obligation to their own people and ought to solve the rampant corruption in their own country that causes their citizens to flee. Of course, when illegal immigration to the USA yields untold millions of dollars back into Mexico with the blessing of American leaders, why should Mexican elites do anything to help the downtrodden in their society?
And why should the USA discriminate against law-abiding people in Eastern Europe, Africa, Korea and other places all over the world who are patiently waiting to come to America the right way?
Most importantly, though, the President's obstinence on this issue in the aftermath of the worst attack on American soil is both befuddling and ire-inducing. While Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists salivate over the possibility of inflicting more carnage via the USA's porous Mexican border (the Canadian border is also a problem for another post), our President is more concerned with rewarding people who have broken our laws with government largesse that ought to be reserved for American citizens and legal immigrants. You know, things like Social Security benefits that are already in peril of extinction. Too bad he gave up so easily on that fight.
Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff is apparently more worried about the cost of lettuce than he is about the potential cost of American lives as a result of another terrorist attack. Big business elites like The Wall Street Journal (and the aforementioned Republicans) only care about cheap labor, and the Democrats are laser-beam focused on gaining an extensive new voting block, which in turn, will serve their purpose of ever-increasing government intervention in the lives of everyday people.
Perhaps the biggest objection I had with this "Comprehensive" bill was the secrecy surrounding it. Knowing it would never fly with the American public, good ol' boys including Teddy Kennedy (ugh!), Trent Lott (oy!) and others circumvented the committee process, then refused to give Senators enough time to read its contents before voting.
Enter talk radio and the blogs. Thanks to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin, who publicized and analyzed the bill's provisions to their listeners and readers, democracy won. Once aware, Americans began to ask, " What's wrong with enforcing our borders first?" "Where's the consideration for those of us who respected the rule of law?" And then they expressed their displeasure by flooding the Senate phone lines. Even if inside the Beltway, elected leaders conveniently forgot that they serve at the will of the people, the people were more than willing to remind them.
Rather than take a hard look at the facts, Democrats and some Republicans condemned talk radio for "fear mongering" (i.e. information sharing about their lousy bill). Hence the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Since they can't compete in a free market (Air America died a pretty hard death after all), liberals now want to legislate thought. Thank God the FCC Chairman has refused to crumble. But I'm with Bryan; we need legislation to make sure the Fairness Doctrine is permanently laid to rest.
The push by Pelosi, Reid and their co-horts in Congress comes fresh on the heels of the well-deserved demise of the recent "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" debacle, brought about by talk radio and the blogosphere. In strark contrast to Congress, talk radio hosts and bloggers actually informed the public of the proposed bill's disasterous provisions, and encouraged disgruntled Americans to contact their lawmakers to make their displeasure known. Once informed, Americans flooded the phone lines, causing the Senate switchboard to crash, along with the bill.
Americans like me opposed the measure for several valid reasons. For one thing, we already have laws on the books - laws that, inexplicably after September 11 - our government refuses to enforce. Additionally, although Congress had approved funding to build a fence a year ago, to this day there hasn't been one step taken in that direction. So if our stalwart leaders couldn't live up to their words and actions then, what proof did ordinary tax-paying citizens and LEGAL immigrants have that they'd enforce this proposed new legislation?
Elite Republicans like Lindsey Graham (now known affectionately as "Senator Grahamnesty"), John McCain and - sorry to say -- President Bush, dismissed law-abiding Americans and legal citizens as "bigots" who "didn't want to do what's right for America," rather than engaging in real debate. Even conservative columnist Linda Chavez characterzied opponents of amnesty (let's call it for what it is) as "Mexican haters," thus resorting to the tried-and-true liberal game of tarring anyone who disagrees with them with labels including racists, xenophobes, homophobes and rednecks, depending upon the issue being debated.
Never mind that a majority of Hispanic-Americans opposed the bill. Never mind that the Mexican government has an obligation to their own people and ought to solve the rampant corruption in their own country that causes their citizens to flee. Of course, when illegal immigration to the USA yields untold millions of dollars back into Mexico with the blessing of American leaders, why should Mexican elites do anything to help the downtrodden in their society?
And why should the USA discriminate against law-abiding people in Eastern Europe, Africa, Korea and other places all over the world who are patiently waiting to come to America the right way?
Most importantly, though, the President's obstinence on this issue in the aftermath of the worst attack on American soil is both befuddling and ire-inducing. While Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists salivate over the possibility of inflicting more carnage via the USA's porous Mexican border (the Canadian border is also a problem for another post), our President is more concerned with rewarding people who have broken our laws with government largesse that ought to be reserved for American citizens and legal immigrants. You know, things like Social Security benefits that are already in peril of extinction. Too bad he gave up so easily on that fight.
Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff is apparently more worried about the cost of lettuce than he is about the potential cost of American lives as a result of another terrorist attack. Big business elites like The Wall Street Journal (and the aforementioned Republicans) only care about cheap labor, and the Democrats are laser-beam focused on gaining an extensive new voting block, which in turn, will serve their purpose of ever-increasing government intervention in the lives of everyday people.
Perhaps the biggest objection I had with this "Comprehensive" bill was the secrecy surrounding it. Knowing it would never fly with the American public, good ol' boys including Teddy Kennedy (ugh!), Trent Lott (oy!) and others circumvented the committee process, then refused to give Senators enough time to read its contents before voting.
Enter talk radio and the blogs. Thanks to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin, who publicized and analyzed the bill's provisions to their listeners and readers, democracy won. Once aware, Americans began to ask, " What's wrong with enforcing our borders first?" "Where's the consideration for those of us who respected the rule of law?" And then they expressed their displeasure by flooding the Senate phone lines. Even if inside the Beltway, elected leaders conveniently forgot that they serve at the will of the people, the people were more than willing to remind them.
Rather than take a hard look at the facts, Democrats and some Republicans condemned talk radio for "fear mongering" (i.e. information sharing about their lousy bill). Hence the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Since they can't compete in a free market (Air America died a pretty hard death after all), liberals now want to legislate thought. Thank God the FCC Chairman has refused to crumble. But I'm with Bryan; we need legislation to make sure the Fairness Doctrine is permanently laid to rest.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Really Long Link
Comment by Daria
Freedom Bright