The very definition of MARXISTS

As Jim Quinn pointed out yesterday, this stupid "Bolshevik Bitch" doesn't even know that we have a republic form of government.  She thinks we have a democracy.

If democrats actually:

1.) Knew the pledge of allegiance

2.) Would dare recite the pledge of allegiance

3.) Had allegiance with America

There would be fewer of them around, if any at all.

...silence them.

No one "owns" the airwaves. The government "licenses" them so that broadcasters won't either try to use the same or very-near-by frequencies or try to jam the broadcast frequencies of rivals. The government is NOT supposed to regulate content--aside from violations of decency standard--as that would be a violation of our right to freedom of speech.

I wonder how the left will feel about the Fairness Doctrine when they find out that their NPR will have to give equal time to the likes of Rush or Sean Hannity? 

That brings up a question. Who decided what is conservative or liberal talk? Some talk radio could be considered moderate. But both sides may complain that it is slated toward the other side. So who decideds what side the talk falls on and then decideds what to balance it out with.  Bad governance.

 Let the market decide what it wants to hear.

We see clearly in these statements what the liberals actually think of the 1st Amendment.   They are public enemies.

Let's see. The liberals totally dominate:

Newspapers
News magazines
Broadcast news
School campuses and classrooms
Hollywood
Public Television (taxpayer funded)
Public Radio (taxpayer funded)

And the ONE THING that they don't dominate, commercial talk radio, they want to make "fair".

I guess the concept of "quitting while you're ahead" is totally lost on these morons. They won't be happy until every single source of information exactly conforms to their way of "thinking".

I have some friends and plenty of colleagues who claim they are Democrats but are actually socialists or communists.

I challenge them to start their own community and share their property and their income with others in the community. Isn't that what they want? Since, in theory, the United States is a free country they should have complete freedom to buy up a large farm or farms and carve out there own little world and share what they produce with others who willingly subscribe to that type of community.

After all, it's been done before in the United States. Robert Owen had New Harmony in Indiana, and Thomas Hughes started a socialist colony at Rugby, Tennessee. Here in Kentucky, not too far from where I live, a religious group lives in what is actually a communist community.

The truth is that socialism cannot survive along side of freedom and free markets. Those two things lure the productive away from those communities. The other truth is that socialist crave power; therefore, they must supress any source that counters them.

The mis-named Fairness Doctrine is their way of paving the road for themselves. They can't have any icky discussions of conservatism, and they cannot have conservatives criticizing their enlightened policies and compassionate legislation.

I wouldn't buy into any AM radio stations at this point, especially when BHO (The Metrosexual-in-Chief) is elected in November.

I heard Mike Pence this morning, once again, talking about all of this...for all the good it will do...

...thank goodness for him and others who will not give up.

We sure have to get out and vote for our conservative congress-critters in Nov. all of this is very worrisome.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

I don't think I have ever seen such an arrogant leader in the national government before. She quite literally wants to be empress of America. The left is constantly projecting when they throw rocks at the Republicans. The constant wailing about the loss of civil rights, etc. is just them revealing their agenda. Scary.

"Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

All I can say is, I will join in any class-action lawsuit against the FCC if the Unfairness Doctrine is reimposed.

I think if they really want to be "Fair" that this should extend to television stations so that conservative views could be heard "equally" with most of the liberal nuts in the MSM.  I mean, it is the "fair" thing to do, isn't it?  Anyone want to bet that this idea won't even be considered?

Hay Nancy, read the Constitution before you make an asinine suggestion like the imposition of the “Fairness Doctrine,” will ya?

Article 4, Section 2 of the US Constitution stats that: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

If the Citizens of the State of California, for example, can enjoy the privilege of printing, broadcasting, posting, and/or issuing statements of opinion in any media like Newsprint, Television, Opinion Polls, and the like without government mandates and/or restrictions as to forced 'equality' of offering opposing opinions and/or rebuttals, then the Citizens of every state shall the same rights and privileges in broadcast radio shows like Rush's show. The Constitution does not allow for you, or anyone else for that matter, to grant immunities from federal regulations of public communications like Newsprint Op/Ed’s while imposing regulations on another form of public communications like AM Radio. Your “Fairness Doctrine” does just that, it grants immunity of some forms of public communications by private Citizens from the regulations that are imposed upon other forms of public communications by, once again, private Citizens. That’s a clear violation of the US Constitution.

The Fist Amendment of the US Constitution also states that: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

According to the Constitution, nether you, nor anyone else, can impost restrictions on the privileges of the right to express private or public opinions without debate or rebuttal no matter how much you like to think otherwise, nor can you impose "fairness" standards on some citizens like Rush without imposing those same restriction on ALL Americans equally. The type of media doesn’t matter, as it is the types of content you’re trying to regulate for some Citizens but not others and that is a clear violation of the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Hopefully this obsolete, dangerous, and thoroughly undemocratic sham will never be implemented again but if it is, does anyone doubt that the SCOTUS would strike it down as unconstitutional?

I can't remember when or where I heard this, but I recall some constitutional law expert (i.e., a liberal law school professor) providing a gloomy forecast for the Fairness Doctrine before the current court. He believed that not only would the 4 current conservative judges vote against it, but also Kennedy, Breyer, and maybe even Ginsburg would join them.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I think The Speaker of the House should at least be required to have a functioning brain. 

I almost fell off the sofa last night when I heard Alan Colmes argue vehemently against the reinstatement of the Fairness doctrine.

If THAT doesn't give Her Speakerness a clue, I don't know what will.

Pelosi:  "Alex, I'd like to buy a clue for $400, please". 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive