Ms Pelosi also said she supported the efforts of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who has been very active behind the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep Slaughter had introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

The Democratic leadership knows that they can’t directly pass a “Fairness Doctrine” piece of legislation, so they will most likely try to slip it in under another name or attach it to some ‘must pass’ piece of legislation. Their support of the ‘Fairness Doctrine by any means’ strategy poses a direct threat to American citizens’ constitutonal right of Freedom of Speech.

The important questions for Americans to ask are: Why is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats against free speech for the American people? Why are they so determined to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? and why is the Democratic leadership refusing to bring a true piece of Freedom of Speech legislation, The Broadcaster Freedom Act HR-2905, to the floor for a vote?

I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if certain political views can’t compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air those views.

I am opposed to any resurrection of the “The Fairness Doctrine,” the 1940’s law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. The real issue here is not what you “are able to” see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to “choose” what to see or hear.

In the 1940’s and 50’s, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

I support the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR-2905), introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) which would prevent these first amendment restrictive regulations from returning. Representative Mike Pence introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 2008, two hundred Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are still needed. So far, not one single House Democrat has signed the petition to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

It should also be noted that two of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners have already indicated that they favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine. All that would be needed to reinstitute Fairness Doctrine regulations would be for the next President to appoint a third sympathetic commissioner. Then, the regulations could go back into effect without any vote at all and the constitutional Freedom of Speech rights and guarantees of all Americans would suffer another blow.

By not bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to limit the constitutional rights of Free Speech of those American citizens who happen to oppose her political views.

The constitutional right of Freedom of Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment, as I do, must oppose the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech.

By:
John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY’s 20th COngressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

Why do all these liberals soil themselves by associating with such a biased and unfair network? Wanna ’splain that? Why do liberal politicians like Schumer, Biden, Levin, Dingell, Rangel, and others deign to appear to be interviewed by those biased bastards at Fox? Why has the Congressional Black Caucus stuck with Fox, if FNC is a bastion of conservative racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic opinion?

And why does Brit Hume’s daily news program extensively cover the Bush administration’s problems and mis-steps? Why don’t they just ignore issues damaging to “their” side, as (say) the New York Times regularly does? Why does Hume run clips from Leno, Stewart, Letterman etc. lampooning the President?

Just askin’, is all…………

Note to commenters on the left disagreeing with your leftytideas does not constitute bias.

The rest of the media is in no way pro liberal as much as fox is pro republican or pro conservative. If anything they are all mostly somewhere in between to somewhere to the right.

There are a few exceptions nowadays (Keith Olbermann, Air America Radio), but the bulk of what we see is never unconditionally liberal, unlike fox news where it’s always the right wing talking points, with a few exceptions that prove the rule.

The reason you don’t go on Fox News for a debate is that nothing good can come out of it.

As for the comment made by Steph that if Democrats cannot go on fox news then how can we trust them to go fight our real enemies, you should appreciate the facts most Democrats are smart not to put themselves unnecessarily at risk.

So now you have the anamolous situation that the CBC, generally one of the most liberal of Dem caucusi, feeling FOX is a very fair venue being dissed by the candidates who are don’t have the moral spine to admit the obvious.

If you believe the government should not ever discriminate based on race, and oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

If you take Osama’s declarations of war seriously, and Zawarahi’s threats that every American, man or woman, is a target, then you are a fear/warmonger.

These people can no longer be reasoned with, they have quit.

Exactly one day after the plot do destroy JFK and take out the majority of Queens by (can you believe it?) Muslim terrorists, Edwards stands there in front of the cameras and claims that the “War of Terror” is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan and a farce, basically claiming like all the other Liberal whack-a-doos that there is no such thing as Islamic Terrorism or that they are continually seeking ways to destroy and kill us. Not one person pointed out how he seemed to not only be up to date as to incredibly current events, but to characterize what is going on as something less than what it truly is, and to ignore the fact that there really is a war with Islamic Aggressors, shows just how inappropriate any of the Democrats are to run this country, be the leader of the Free World and be Commander and Chief of the only Super Power left in the world. To ignore this is the biggest crime of the entire campaign.

“Other than the addition of unconstitutional provisions, how does your energy policy differ from that which Bush has been trying to get you to vote for the past six years?”

That one would be more fun to watch than “What do you hate most about America?”

I don’t think its Fox that the democrats are afraid of. I think it is the netroots. Participating in the Fox debates would be voluntarily stepping on one of the myriad landmines the netroots have buried on the path to the democratic presidential nomination.

No wonder the top 3 ran away from the Fox News debate which is sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Fox would assure that each candidate got a fair chance to speak, quite unlike the CNN debate. The Fox debate is still scheduled to take place, and America will finally get a chance to hear from the rest of the field sans the top 3. This makes the Congressional Black Caucus happy, and it should make democrat Americans happy as well.

Are you really that ignorant? Dan Rather also made similar claims about Fox News and was called on it by Bill Orielly. Dan told Bill that he had proof and said he would come on the Factor and verify his allegations. Well its been several months and a no show for Rather. (no suprise there) I am actually suprised that Mr. Rather just didn’t manufacture some evidence as he has proven willing to do.

DAN RATHER, ANCHOR, HDNET: “I think it’s fair to say, Bill, in fact I know it is, that FOX News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know, that they have their “talking points,” in which somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House. And they can say well, we don’t always take those talking points, but I think it’s pretty clear that they had wished the election had gone another way.”

Bill Oreilly : “Well, Mr. Rather’s assertions are nonsense, untrue, seriously dopey. I’ve been here from the beginning, and have never seen a White House “talking points.” — And I don’t know anyone else who’s seen one either.

I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.

So we called Dan Rather to ask for some “documentation.” He’s on the road, but said he’d come on “The Factor” next week to explain. Can’t wait.

As you may remember, I defended Rather in the Bush National Guard debacle. I said Rather did not intentionally put on a bogus story. He just didn’t check it out, he was too anxious for the story to be true.

Now many of you criticized me for that defense, but I’m a fact-based guy. And there’s no evidence Dan Rather fabricated anything. It was sloppy reporting that did him in.

But now the fabrication word is in play again. If Dan Rather has evidence of White House dictums coming to FOX News employees, he needs to display that evidence. We are awaiting his appearance. We’ll let you know when it is.”

Well, it’s been 5 months, ans still no documentation to back-up Rather’s accusations.

Just because we lean a certain way, ideologically, doesn’t mean we can’t vote for the best person regardless of their party affiliation. If a Dem answered the hard questions in a way that I could live with, I’d vote Dem. If not, well then, I guess I’ll just keep voting right. If they keep pandering to their base…which isn’t as large as they think since I’m hearing a lot of Dems are changing parties (the moderates and centrists of their party)… they’re going to lose.

I, for one, could care less as the only concern I have is: What’s best for the United States? Can us average citizens put politcal parties aside and think about that most important consideration? Political parties aren’t for us, but for the politicians. I won’t pander to them and I certainly don’t want them pandering to me but I do want them doing what’s best for this nation I love. So far, I haven’t heard that from either party.

socialism didn’t work in Russia - why on earth is Hilly Sinton trying to cram it down our throats now?????? ”

Because no matter how many times it fails, there’s always someone who comes along thinking they can do it better. They’re usually narcissist in the extreme but that’s beside the point.

If the Dems are afraid of Fox, how can they be trusted to face our “real” enemies when the chips are down? They can’t….but nobody wants to talk about that. At least not on CNNMSNBCCBSABC anyway. Sheesh….what a bunch of clowns. ”

Good point but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer. I think they spent too much time on the sit and spins when they were children.

“Fox is a not a legitimate news organization. They are a propaganda front. They should not be credentialed for news, period. Fox lies.”

And your evidence is….what? Important safety tip: you’ll get a lot more respect if you provide some backup to your assertions instead of assuming that “they’re all so self-evident and don’t need to be supported.” Stringing together half-baked, agit-prop, bumper sticker slogans with chewing gum and chicken wire–surprise!–do not automatically guarantee your claims are either a) correct or b) coherent.

Then again, maybe it’s just your “inner secret policeman” talking–Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro couldn’t have submitted a better post than yours.

During the election cycle, they will demand to be on Fox News with it’s much larger audience. At least Fox won’t ask them what they don’t like about America.