Like a cheap steak, we are being tenderized. We should prepare ourselves for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be taken off the liberal life support system. Bad liberal ideas, (Are there any GOOD liberal ideas?) once they are rejected by the rest of us, are not cremated, they are moth balled and they are left in Howard Deans basement awaiting the opportunity for a politically beneficial resurrection.A “Fairness Doctrine?” Fairness implies equality, and this “fairness doctrine” would be “equally” applied…to conservatives alone. The liberals love to “Jedi mind trick” you with their discriminatory governmental mandates. By naming their censorship “fairness”, they have again applied basic “liberal definition inversion.” Words used by liberals become their literal antithesis when applied by liberals. That is how “fairness” becomes “discrimination”, get it? There will be a quiz on this later…The target of this doctrine will be the voice of America, talk radio. The liberal Kamikaze strike team has been scrambled and they have received their attack plan from the Arkansas double wide, known as the Clinton library and for good measure, these blitzkriegs are nothing more than repeat performances. As Jerome Howard once said, “If at first you don’t succeed, keep on sucking ‘till you do succeed.”
Geraldo Sandoval and the San Francisco “Board of Supervisors” have targeted Michael Savage. Savage also has the cross to bear of living in the city by the Gay, or as he calls it, “San Fran-sicko.” The first Savage salvo was blocked by Supervisor Ed Jew, who, for his inability or refusal to properly enforce liberal sharia law, was unceremoniously heaved into the bay wearing liberal concrete hip waders. An appropriate socialist lemming was then quickly appointed. Mysteriously, Sandoval’s resolution then went through 10-0. This brings to mind the liberal Equal Rights Amendment “take-overs” that the nation suffered through between 1979 and 1982. This also reminds us of the “pregnant chad” fiasco of 2000 but a “pregnant chad” in San Francisco is just the typical citizen who is “transitioning genders,” with an “invitro-experimento” sapling soon to be born under the liberal astrological sign of Pyrex.
Sandoval called Ed Jew, the lone dissenter, someone who resorts to “rigid formalism” when Sandoval himself suffers under his own “formal rigid-ism.” This “formal rigid-ism” is the reflexive liberal inflexibility that seeks to censor those who have the audacity to disagree with their communistic dictums and fiats. Contrary opinion is what offends the left. Don your brown shirt, put on your jackboots and get in line.
Sandoval goes into the liberal “four corner stall” by saying Savage’s constitutionally protected comments “vilify Latino Americans”, and “leads to the beating of Muslim Americans..” THAT is liberal inclusiveness at its finest. What “hurts” one minority splinter group must be ATTACHED to as many others as possible for maximum effect. Sandoval conveniently forgets to add that this is all about ILLEGAL aliens. The left has been allowed to speak without consequences for so long that the truth is as foreign to them as shampoo or deodorant.
Rush Limbaugh is taking rounds across his bow from the left over comments made in relation to convicted confidence trickster turned liberal John Kerry understudy, Jesse McBeth. If Jesse’s career as an aspiring “Winter Soldier” fizzles out, he could arrange for one of the “San Francisco gender transition overhauls.” McBeth could effortlessly convert to Beth McJesse and receive a front row seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
This series of attacks on the First Amendment are not only meant to revive the Fairness Doctrine, they are also undisguised warning shots prior to the election cycle of 2008. Hillary Clinton (Saddlebagus Maximus.) and the group she helped create, (her words.) Media Matters, are just doing stretching exercises prior to the presidential marathon.
So why should we care about the “Fairness Doctrine”? We should be prepared because the liberals will heave this stinking mackerel upon the floor of congress if they feel they have inflicted enough damage to conservative talk radio and if the unsuspecting public isn’t looking.
It would appear that the point of this is to censor constitutionally protected free speech and to eliminate dissent. The “Doctrine” also demands “equal time,” thus removing the free market from talk radio. The most annoying component of the free market in radio, for the liberal propagandists, are the pesky little details known as “ratings.” The obvious lack of these is the first thing that comes to mind when playing the “word association game” relative to the wildly successful “Scare Amerika” liberal agitprop radio station. It is not only the intellectual speciousness of the liberal “argument” that precipitates liberal radio’s abject failures, it is their inability to even entertain the perpetually sullen and humorless gathering of rodentia that are the liberals themselves.
The demand for “equal time” would be a disaster from the liberal’s point of view. The liberal “War on America” has been much more successful when they have reverted to stealth as their primary weapon of subversion. Forcing their machinations onto the public would inadvertently shine the light of truth upon their blatant Bolshevism.
If the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t DEMAND that listeners “tune in” to the liberal propagandists forcibly placed on the air in the spirit of “fairness”, how is that different than the free market weeding out these undesirables through their miserable ratings? No one listens to the Socialists now so why can’t we just allow “Radio Darwinism” to run its course unimpeded? If the left can’t even provide a palatable product that the liberals themselves would like to consume, why must their incompetence and ineptitude be “protected”? To ask the question is to answer it.
Is it merely access to the airwaves the obfuscators want (which they already have by the ton on both radio and television.) or is it their desire to subdue those who disagree with the liberal mullahs? Since no one will be listening, is that still considered “equal time” in their jaundiced eyes?
In other words, if a liberal radio channel falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound?
So the words of Savage and Limbaugh are worthy of governmental censure but the words of Mahar, Franken and Olbermann are all acceptable. Shouldn’t the right of free speech be applied “equally” to everyone?
The left just does not have the courage to admit that they seek to eliminate contrary thought and expression and then re-title it as “The Fairness Doctrine.” The left seeks to negatively “label’ adversarial commentary in order to successfully suppress it.
The left should welcome diverse “free” speech and they should counter conservative criticism with the power of ideas, but that would require the liberals to develop “ideas,” thus explaining their enthusiasm for censorship.
If the liberals succeed in silencing their dissenters, the only option available will be the Anti American screed of the politically protected socialists whose comments will never be available for scrutiny.
That sounds “fair”, doesn’t it?