Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times

SAN DIEGO — Dec. 28, 2010 —Well, it finally happened: After years of anticipation and speculation, the FCC voted 3-2 to start regulating the Internet. A new rule known as “net neutrality” will now keep broadband companies from stifling internet traffic.

?Some are asking the question: Was this already a problem or did the FCC use the anticipation of a possible problem as an excuse to get its foot through the door? Will this be the beginning of Big Brother breathing down the Internet’s back?

Perhaps we can find some answers by looking at previous discussions Obama and his people had regarding Internet regulation and its twin brother in the broadcast industry, the Fairness Doctrine.

True, Obama’s “Internet Czar,” Susan Crawford has long since resigned, but let’s not forget what Crawford stood for inasmuch as Obama himself appointed her. Crawford (who has ties to both ACORN and the One Web Day Project) says about the internet: “We should do a better job as a nation of making sure fast, affordable broadband is as ubiquitous as electricity, water, snail mail or any other public utility.”

By an amazing coincidence, One Web Day Project lists Free Press as a participating organization. Free Press was founded by self-professed Marxist, Robert McChensey. McChensey recently said over a website called, Socialist Project: “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.”

Concurrently, Obama’s other Czar, Mark Lloyd, wants FCC regulations for “more diversity” on the radio. It’s time to start connecting the dots, people. Once the government runs the Internet, they will complain that we do not have enough diversity over the World Wide Web just as we hear too much conservative chit chat over the airwaves.

Now, honestly, can you think of anything, and I mean ANYTHING more diverse than the internet right now? Politics run the gambit of blogs like TownHall.com, to MoveOn.org. On the web, you can find every conceivable opinion about religion, film, culture, sports, fishing, boating, sex, kitchen patterns, pets, or even 17th Century British embroidery! And we need more diversity?

Perhaps that’s only code for “Diversity which respects different people groups,” which is code for “We must not offend certain people,” which is code for, “It will be against the law to say anything that is not Politically Correct, or more accurately, put, anything Obama does not want us to say.”

Maybe the man doesn’t care about sensitivity or combating offensive words so much as he cares about power. The major newspapers do not seem to be enough. Every television news network (except Fox) is not enough. PBS is not enough. We seem to have a president who does not want to be criticized anywhere at all, period! That’s it! And if he has to flush out the last bastion of free speech like a bloodhound on a fox hunt, well, saddle up, Czars! Obama’s proposed laws are designed around diversity the way submarines were designed to explore creeks.

This leads to our paralell concern, the Fairness Doctrine. First, we will examine the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine. Then I will provide a mountain of evidence that Obama is bent on finding a way to use it.

The Fairness Doctrine sounds good on paper but has a very sinister agenda behind it. The stated idea: For every hour of conservative programming on Talk Radio, there must be an equal hour of liberal radio. Many fellow Conservatives are being taken in by this enticing phraseology. After all, what is wrong with equal time? Doesn’t that just promote healthy debate and independent thought? Yes, I know. It sounds great! But don’t be fooled. This is a Trojan Horse. As the old saying goes, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” The Fairness Doctrine does not mean that for every hour of Hannity, there will be an hour of Colmes. That may be how they package the idea. That may be how they sell the idea. But that is not the real idea.

Here are a few questions we must ask ourselves: Why is it that Talk Radio has been conspicuously singled out? How come the powers-that-be are not concerned about mandating equal time on the secular university? Can you just imagine that? Try to picture such a rule: For every liberal professor there must also be a conservative one. For every classroom lecture with a Pro-Choice agenda, there must be a guest speaker brought in to offer a Pro-Life perspective. For every history book slamming America, there must be another book in the curriculum that praises America. For every negative comment about Christianity, an apologist should be allowed to defend the Bible both morally and intellectually. For every pro-homosexuality speech, somebody must be allowed to express reservations about same-sex marriage. Dream on. There is no expressed desire by congress or the president to change the fabric of our universities. Neither are they asking for “fair and balanced” reporting/editorial from The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or PBS. Why? Because liberals do not see themselves as liberal. They see themselves as the “good old, moderate, sensible, mainstream view that any clear thinking person should have.” In their minds, there is only a problem with the “extreme right.” There is no such thing as an “extreme left.” That’s why they go after Talk Radio. They just can’t handle one corner of the media which doesn’t belong to them.

For the most part, nobody is considering the Fairness Doctrine for newspaper or television. One possible exception is Fox News. Ironically, the only TV network that actually does give both sides is the only one Democrats want to start regulating. The code word for Fox News is “cable news.” The broadcast news networks are of no concern to them and when they say “cable,” somehow MSNBC is seldom brought up as an example. That’s probably because Chris Matthews was being objective and unbiased when he described a chill up his leg every time Obama spoke. So, yes, there is a little concern for television, but primarily the discussion is centered around radio.

Question: Have liberal views been forbidden on Talk Radio? If so, how do you explain NPR? That frequency is as liberal as Joseph Stalin walking his Husky on a crisp, Siberian morning and it’s paid for partially by your tax dollars. How interesting! The one radio network that should have opinion from both sides (because it certainly collects mandatory taxes from both sides) is left alone.(Left being the operative word.) If I were Lt. Colombo, I would find this just a little bit suspicious. Where is Colombo when we need him? “Excuse me, Sir. One more question: I almost forgot. If you are really concerned about the public hearing both sides, how come our publicly run station doesn’t show both sides? Just wondering. Say, that’s a nice pair of shoes you have on. Do you know where I could find a pair like that?”

Not that liberal radio hasn’t made a bold venture into the private sector as well. Remember Air America? It went belly up because nobody was listening. And that is the big elephant in the room which Congress doesn’t want to mention. If radio stations are instructed to give literally half their time to programs that bomb in the ratings, they will simply change format. Radio is a business and stations will do what they must do to stay in business. Once the FCC starts to regulate opinion, some manager will say to himself, “Forget Talk Radio, let’s just return to music. How about those golden oldies?”

Actually, music can serve as a great example here. Supposing the government mandated equal music along with equal talk. “For every hour of Classical, there must be a subsequent hour of Heavy Metal.” Stations don’t work that way. That’s because managers are smart enough to know that a kid who wants Heavy Metal or Rap isn’t going to sit through Toccata and Fugue in D Minor by Bach. Radio stations offer one kind of music, knowing that alternative stations feature other kinds of merry melodies. They do the same with talk stations, understanding that the only Fairness Doctrine necessary is our ability to change the channel if we do not like what we hear.

Make no mistake: This maneuver is not about fairness. It is about putting Talk Radio out of business. It is about suppression of free speech. It is about a government that does not want you to hear both sides.

Now before I continue, yes I am aware that Obama publicly stated that he is against the Fairness Doctrine but remember, this man is a genius at communication, unlike his far less subtle congress. People like Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durban and John Kerry have all voiced enthusiastic support for the Fairness Doctrine. A Republican bill that would outlaw its return, met stiff resistance under the Democratic congress.

As for Obama himself, true he says he is against it, but let’s face facts: Obama is an expert at saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.

-Obama says he has no desire to take over banks.

-Obama says he has no desire to take over the auto industry.

-Obama says he has no desire to grow government.

I don’t know how he makes these comments with a straight face, but he does. Oh yes, and Obama does not call himself a Socialist: He believes we should take money from the rich and redistribute it. He believes we should have the power to tell banks what kinds of loans to give out and what to pay their CEO’s. And he believes we have the right to tell car companies what kinds of smog free automobiles to make, but no, he is not a Socialist. The only evidence that Obama is not a Socialist is that he chooses not to call himself one. That’s it! Even Newsweek finally printed a magazine cover with the headline: “We Are All Socialists Now.”

So Obama also says he’s against the Fairness Doctrine. Whew! What a relief! Here is how the distaste was officially worded in a statement from the Obama campaign in June of 2008: “Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday. “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.That is why Senator Obama supports media ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.” Hmm…Media ownership caps, network neutrality, opening up the media to diverse viewpoints…It’s already open to diverse viewpoints.

But the conservative viewpoints have more listeners and liberals are absolutely livid over this, despite the fact that PBS is all liberal. It seems that whenever the government does get involved with broadcasting, it is conservatives who are not treated with “fairness.” The only way government can open radio up even more to diversity is to legally insist on more time for other viewpoints. Otherwise, what exactly do we mean by “open it up to more viewpoints?” In any event, it sounds like a lot of control over the media to me. In fact, it doesn’t sound much different than the Fairness Doctrine. But don’t worry. It won’t be the Fairness Doctrine because Obama won’t call it the Fairness Doctrine.

The Federal Communications Commission also has a loosely defined rule called “localism,” which requires stations to “serve the interests of their local communities in order to hold onto their broadcast licenses.” Obama, (who recently put in his own FCC chairman, (Julius Genachowski), now has a chance to define localism his own way. For a hint of his future definition, look to the past: On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jessie Jackson’s Operation Push. This says something about his “localism enthusiasm.” One month later, Obama wrote a letter to Chairman Martin stating, “The commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism.”

At this point we must remember again Obama ‘s FCC appointment, Mark Lloyd “Chief Diversity Officer.” See? He doesn’t believe in the Fairness Doctrine. He just believes the FCC needs a Chief Diversity Officer. Lloyd has a history as a Democrat activist. He is known for his creative strategies to censor conservative media under the guise of “local accountability.” In 2007 he co-wrote a report calling for the restoration of local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations and fines for commercial radio station owners if their stations didn’t air enough “progressive” content. Such fines would be distributed to liberal competitors with lower ratings and only a handful of listeners. In Lloyd’s own words: “Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules.” In a blog post, LCCR (Leadership Conference of Civil Rights) sponsored by George Soros, hailed the appointment of Lloyd, saying he would “help the FCC to develop communications policy that will increase media diversity and address the needs of low-income people, women, minorities, people with disabilities.” The LCCR and Lloyd have managed to avoid terms like “Fairness Doctrine.” But in point of fact they stand behind every inch of what that suppressive idea is all about. “We call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules,” he wrote in an article on CAP’s website, titled Forget the Fairness Doctrine.

But wait! There’s more. The brief excerpt below is from The American Spectator (2-16-09)

“Senior FCCstaff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such. Waxman has also shown interest in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. ‘It’s all about diversity in media,’ says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. ‘Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.'”

Meanwhile, it is not altogether impossible that Obama will switch gears and just call this thing a Fairness Doctrine anyway. When Chris Wallace interviewed David Axelrod (top adviser to President Obama) about the Fairness Doctrine, he dodged the question, saying it would be “worked out between Obama and the new FCC President.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has also been asked about it twice, maneuvering around the questions like a man walking through a mine field.

Remember also:

-The Obama campaign tried to shut down Milt Rosenburg’s radio show highlighting Stanley Kurtz as he talked about Obama connections with self confessed terrorist, Bill Ayers.

-Within a week of his televised question from Joe the Plummer, poor Joe was audited by the IRS (Amazing coincidence).

-Obama has also gone out of his way to tell people they should stop listening to programs like Rush Limbaugh so that we can “come together in unity.”

-And during the health care debate, Obama claimed it was a “Right-Wing Conspiracy” pillaging his health care proposals. If he were to pay attention to the polls, he would have to literally accuse over half the country of such a conspiracy. I’m sorry. There is nothing, absolutely nothing about this man which suggests to me that he embraces free speech. But I’ll grant you one thing: Chances are, the new Fairness Doctrine will not be called the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, our new FCC regulation is using the word “neutrality.” Sounds a little like the word, fairness, doesn’t it?

Share this on