by George F. Will

Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such as the "fairness doctrine," should be repeated.  That Orwellian name was designed to disguise the doctrine's use as the government's instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of political commentary.

Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals.  If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional.  The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better.

Until the Reagan administration extinguished it, the doctrine required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air.  The government decided the meaning of the italicized words.

When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum.  In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a New York station owned by the Socialist Party was warned to show "due regard" for others' opinions, and the government blocked the Chicago Federation of Labor's attempted purchase of a station because all stations should serve "the general public."  In 1939, when Democrats ran Washington, the government conditioned renewal of one station's license on that station's promise to desist from anti-FDR editorials.

In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the fairness doctrine constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration's use of it, as one official described it: "Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." Richard Nixon emulated this practice.  In 1973, Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, a liberal, said the doctrine "has no place in our First Amendment regime" because it "enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio."

The court's 1969 ruling relied heavily on the scarcity rationale.  But Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer, in their book "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," note that today there are about 14,000 radio stations, twice as many as in 1969; 18.9 million subscribers to satellite radio, up 17 percent in 12 months; and that 86 percent of households with either cable or satellite television receive an average of 102 of the 500 available channels. Because daily newspapers are much more scarce than are radio and television choices, should there be a fairness doctrine for the New York Times?

The 1969 court dismissed as "speculative" the possibility that the fairness doctrine would cause broadcasters to "eliminate coverage of controversial issues."  But the proper worry was that the doctrine would continue to stifle the flowering of controversy.  A court that considers the doctrine today will note that whereas in 1980 there were fewer than 100 talk radio programs, today there are more than 1,500 news or talk radio stations.  Further subverting the "scarcity" rationale for government supervision of broadcast content, some liberals now say: The problem is not maldistribution of opinion and information but too much of both. Until recently, liberals fretted that the media were homogenizing America into blandness.  Now they say speech management by government is needed because of a different scarcity -- the public's attention, which supposedly is overloaded by today's information cornucopia.

And these worrywarts say the proliferation of radio, cable, satellite broadcasting and Internet choices allows people to choose their own universe of commentary, which takes us far from the good old days when everyone had the communitarian delight of gathering around the cozy campfire of the NBC-ABC-CBS oligopoly.  Being a liberal is exhausting when you must simultaneously argue for illiberal policies on the basis of dangerous scarcity and menacing abundance.

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine.  Having so sullied liberalism's name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.

by NewsMax.com

[Editor's Note: See "Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama, Against McCain, Palin." © 2008 Newsmax. ]

The mainstream media's support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.  Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin called the media's performance during the campaign simply "disgusting."

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."

He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time's political site "The Page," zeroed in on two New York Time's articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

"The story about Cindy McCain was vicious," Halperin said. "It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light.  It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."

Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama's presidential campaign.  "You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories.  He was new."

Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.  The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing.  McCain kept his promise to do so.

During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.

Columnist David Limbaugh noted: "Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations."

Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama's "obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage."

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias.  The Washington Post's ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.

by Shawn Steel

Movement conservatives are dominating Republican National Committee elections throughout the country, and this conservative resurgence might portend a much-needed philosophical realignment of the Republican Party's largest campaign and fundraising organization. In the past six months alone, roughly 25% of the RNC members have been replaced. Six states -- Alaska, California, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Utah -- saw complete turnovers of their delegations.

The RNC's re-organizational meeting on September 5 in Minneapolis will feature a new class of emerging conservative leaders who challenge both established Republican cultural stereotypes and the moderate Republican establishment. Three new committeewomen, all presidents of their states' chapters of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, were elected from Alaska, Iowa and Texas. Alaska's Debbie Joslin had a tough race but prevailed with the help of Ron Paul delegates. Kim Lehman of Iowa, a leader in National Right to Life, will fight to maintain the Republican pro-life platform. Out of Texas, Cathie Adams replaced her term-limited predecessor in a tough fight with a candidate from the more moderate Women's Federation. 

by Anonymous

If you drop a frog in boiling water he will leap right out. If you slowly heat the water he will be content until it's too late to get out. That is exactly how history works. It moves slowly and we sometimes never see any danger until it's too late.

Remember how suppressed workers were before unions came along? The unions leveled the playing field. Unfortunately, over a long period of time the pendulum swung too far. Slowly, businesses and factories closed and jobs left the country. We were comfortable and didn't see the change coming. We blamed everyone except ourselves for what happened. We weren't alert to how slow things change over time. World War II and the Korean War, demonstrated how powerful a united nation could be. Our nation and our families, were united. The father was the head of the family and the President was the head of the nation. Both were highly respected. We were content and happy.

We were good at fighting a hot war but we were unprepared to fight a cold war with the communists in the 50's. They knew they couldn't change us quickly, but they didn't care. Their philosophy was to wait it out and capture the minds of our children. They loaded our colleges with many of their professors and waited. You know our Broadcasters and Newspapers are Socialist Left Leaning Liberals. Dont wonder why, just remember all those College educated Journalism Majors running these media outlets. That is why. It didn't take long to see the results.

The 60′'s ushered in the radicals, drug culture, student protesters, and the Vietnam War. The aim of the cold war was to divide and conquer. They divided our families and the nation. The secret to defeating a polite and respectful people is to scream. The louder and longer you scream the better your chance of winning. Radicals are masters at this form of attack. They know if you constantly scream and repeat a lie it will eventually become the truth.

The media and Hollywood, hammered us with hate America themes and stories. Our service men, and women, were jeered, cursed, and spit on. Even the people, who latter wanted to become their President, trashed them. We lost our first War in history. There was no hero's homecoming for our fighting men and women.

The Reverend King, who was raised in the old school, peacefully changed the race issue and united the people. When he died the new breed of Black leaders like the Jesse Jackson's, Lewis Farakon,'s Al Sharpton's, and Rev. Wright's put a lid on his efforts and turned racism into a money making machine.

Corporations were green-mailed by threats of protests, product boycotts, or endless lawsuits. Every issue, large or small, became a race issue. The public recoiled in fear of being called a racist. Their voices were silenced because one word could cost you a career, get you fired, or get you sued.

Our politicians buckled under to the pressure. The Florida legislature issued a formal apology for having slavery 200 years ago. They were thanked by being asked for compensation. There is no end in sight for this kind of nonsense. America didn't capture slaves and bring them to America. Their own people sold them to slave traders from several nations. This knowledge doesn't stop the screamers. History is what it is and you can't change it although the screamers continually try to re-write history as they want to see it (to try to prove their point that America is Evil). There have been many tragic events in history. You should acknowledge them and move on.

The Socialists and screamers divided our nation into two separate Americas. We now have African-Americans, Mexican Americans and Arab Americans, although Africa or these other places have nothing to do with being an American. You can be one or the other but not both. You are what you were born to be. You do not subordinate our country to any foreign nation. It's equivalent to flying the African flag above the Stars and Stripes.

This election year could be the turning point in our history because the frog theory has come into play. It's time to step back and look at how the country has slowly changed since the cold war started. Don't get caught up in all the hype.

George McGovern was the first Presidential candidate to test the waters with college students. The Clinton's played a big role in his campaign. It was the worst campaign ever run. He was crushed in the election.

Step two was to infiltrate all the information vehicles such as Broadcasters, Newspapers, Magazines, and Movies. They were quite successful at that.

Jimmy Carter was the first President to demonstrate the leadership skills of the far left. Weak military, high taxes, runaway inflation, 19% mortgage rates, and plain incompetence ended his career in Washington. Iran, a small country at the time, took American hostages and kicked sand in our face. By negotiating from weakness Carter could not get the hostages released.

The Carter years were followed by the Reagan years. The nation got a clear look at the difference between a weak nation and a strong nation. Everyone should know this difference. When Ronald Reagan took over the hostages were quickly released, taxes were lowered, inflation dropped, mortgage rates dropped, and the military was strengthened. Russia quickly waved the white flag and waited for another Democrat term.

Clinton took over Carters uncompleted social programs. He weakened the military and tried to pass large government programs. An Intern derailed his Presidency. While he was tied up with his personal problems his lawyers ran the country. He passed up three opportunities to take out Osama Bin Laden. This eventually cost us the loss of our Twin Towers, thousands of American lives, and got us involved in a war with Iraq. By the end of his term the left had captured a large share of the media and it flexed its muscle in 2000. The hate Bush campaign got off to a roaring start. The brainwashing theory of repeating the same story over and over again was launched.

There were endless stories about our evil nation and its President. Top-secret plans were leaked to the press and printed for the entire world to see. Hollywood cranked out documentaries about the evil Bush administration and our evil military. The groundwork was laid for the next election. The ACLU flooded the courts with lawsuits and the Democrat party became a law firm. Almost every incumbent, or his or her spouse, is a lawyer.

The Democrats, Liberal Power Seekers, Socialists and screamers now have the perfect candidate because they can squash criticism by playing the race card. If you don't like Obama, or criticize him, you are a racist. They can hide his inexperience and background by turning him into a rock star and singing 'change and hope'. They don't tell us what kind of change, or how it will be done, only that you should hope for the best. By keeping the hype going they don't have to put anything of substance on the table. They also believe they can control Obama because Obama will do what they want.

The only thing we really know about Obama is that his wife has never been proud to be an American. They want us to believe that his liberal college professors, Rev. Pfleger, his ties to radicals Bill Ayer and Lewis Farakon, and listening to the Rev. Wright's hate talks for 20 years, has had no influence on his thinking. If they didn't influence his thinking, then who did? He wasn't in business and didn't see fit to serve his country. These people launched his political career and their organizations received earmarks in return for their campaign donations and political help. They must have had some influence. Rev. Wright's church received over $15 million. That's only one small local church. Think on a national scale.

The Change being promoted is a change back to the Carter years. It started in 2006 when the 'lawyer party' took over. There have been endless lawsuits and investigations in retaliation for the Clinton years. It keeps the lawyers busy but does nothing for the economy. The economy has been in a downward spiral since they took over.

Returning to the Carter years of high taxes, high inflation, and a weak military is not the change that is good for America. We cannot cower to a bunch of crazies whose only goal in life is to kill us.

The old sage's (those of over 50 years of age) MUST play a big role in this election. Our young people simply don't know what the older Americans know. The advantage of our aging is the knowledge we've accumulated. We know what United States means. We know what the seldom-heard word 'Respect' means. We know how wonderful freedom and independence is. You know the difference between a strong and a weak nation; and we know what it takes to keep it strong. We know history because we have lived it.

Although the old guard is dying off, and getting too tired to fight, we have to muster one more charge. If we don't, our children, and grandchildren, will never know the joy and freedom that is the bedrock of our country. The heat is slowly being turned up and the water is getting hot.

The old frogs better start jumping before it's too late.

by Mass Resistance

The list of radical hardcore homosexual activist organizations in Massachusetts is staggering. They include: Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Boston Alliance for Gay and Lesbian Youth (BAGLY), Theater Offensive, Institute for Gender Education, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC), and Bisexual Resource Center. All of these groups focus their energy on destabilizing society's institutions through homosexual activism and have been funded by homosexual activist, Tim Gill.

Gill is the homosexual Colorado multi-millionaire who spends his time using his huge fortune to defeat state and local pro-family legislators around the country, and fund organizations that destabilize social institutions by relentlessly pushing homosexuality and transgenderism. On June 15 the hardcore homosexual national magazine The Advocate {Warning: This is a homosexual site - Ed.} reported how Tim Gill, with Guerriero's help, is gearing up to send more money into Massachusetts and other states as reported by Americans for Truth. "Essentially, Guerriero and Smith want to ...work in virtual anonymity -- developing a hit list of the community’s worst enemies...and doing whatever has to be done to get the next hate-crimes bill passed or constitutional amendment killed at the state level. These were the good guys..forced to use the same brass-knuckle tactics pioneered by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. And who better to take the weapons Rove and Gingrich deployed against LGBT people -- and train them back on conservatives -- than a couple guys who came up through the GOP ranks?"

Massachusetts has become a prime focus for Gill's millions since he hired Patrick Guerriero to coordinate his operations. Guerriero has deep political roots in Massachusetts. You may recall that Acting Gov. Jane Swift asked Guerriero to run for Lt. Governor as her running mate. He had been a Mass. state rep and mayor of Melrose. He later was head of the national Log Cabin Republicans, and became one of the major homosexual political operatives in America.
 
On June 14, the Governor of Massachusetts disgraced himself and insulted the entire state.  He participated in the Boston "Gay Pride" parade, an event so degrading that most people avoid it, and the first one thinks of is the mental health of the people involved.  We're talking about the Boston "Gay Pride Parade", of course. Governor Deval Patrick and his family marched in a public "parade" that included contingents of sado-masochists, male dancers on floats simulating homosexual sex acts, transvestites and cross-dressers, and general sick behavior. Parade details here:

Governor's Gay March When Mitt Romney became Governor, he appointed Guerriero to be on his transition team where he helped populate the Romney administration with homosexual activists.