Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Gathering Threat to Freedom
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


House Speaker Pelosi is hinting at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and many of her liberal colleagues in Congress are doing the same in both chambers. Alleging the press isnt balanced, they say government should be making sure all viewpoints meaning the lefts are fairly represented. I agree the press isnt balanced, but Mrs. Pelosi has it backward; liberalism dominates the press, including the three major networks and most major newspapers.

Though originally the Fairness Doctrine did not require opposing time be equal, it came to be the standard. The concern at the time was the prevention of a single viewpoint from dominating the news and biasing the people.

By the 1980s, there were many radio and TV stations available. And many believed the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional in any event. So in 1987, Ronald Reagans Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine, opening every press outlet to freely decide what content to carry. The Democrat-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed the bill.

This led to the birth of talk radio.

The doctrines reinstatement would kill conservative talk radio. Radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck would have to create liberal shows of equal length. And when those shows fail to make money and the stations take a loss, their only option in cancelling those shows would be to cancel the conservative shows as well.

Free speech would lose. Americans would lose.

Religious freedom is also under assault. Center stage is Californias same-sex marriage policy imposed by an activist judiciary. Already activist groups are talking about going after the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Others discuss how they can sue business vendors who refuse to provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies or receptions. Still others are talking about making charities run by churches that oppose same-sex marriage ineligible to continue as non-profit organizations.

This line of thinking and liberal assault also is found in what Senator Barack Obama promises to do with faith-based initiatives. He says he would institute new regulations under which an organization cannot base hiring decisions on the applicants beliefs and still be eligible for aid. In other words, a Baptist homeless shelter could not refuse to hire an atheist for not believing Baptist or any religious articles of faith.

All these actions cut to the core of the First Amendment. In the 1970s, pop psychologists used the term micro-debilitating aggressions. It referred to the compounding of negative threats until the result was much worse than each threat taken on its own. The left is doing the same with its attack on our free speech and religious liberty.

Americans are touchy about their rights. Sometimes it seems many mistakenly think anything that is good from a job to good housing is a right owed us. These are rights many think government is obligated to provide.

In all the talk about rights, we often forget the more fundamental rights: the rights we have by virtue of our humanity, the rights we have against government, the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. We forget, in other words, both the moral basis of human rights and our responsibility to protect these rights.

The rights of free speech and religious liberty in the First Amendment of the Constitution reflect this notion of God given rights. It reflects them because these rights are not given from government but inherent in our humanity.

The First Amendment protects matters concerning freedom of conscience and belief. Its six clauses contain the very essence of liberty, the fixed North Star toward which our entire American system points.

The First Amendment freedom of conscience naturally divides into two parts. The clauses on free speech, a free press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government to allow us to express ourselves personally or through the press to speak about any issue. The clauses on the establishment of religion and free religious exercise protect our right to believe according to the dictates of our own conscience. These are the twin pillars of a society where hearts and heads are free.

Alarmingly they are under siege by the forces of statism. This year the left has launched a full assault on the First Amendment. The battle has been joined by opponents on the right and the outcome will shape the soul of our Republic.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Where There is a Will
free people will find a way.
The "Fairness" Doctrine may be re-enacted by the communist party but the people who love this country will never be silenced.
If the radio waves are controlled the internet can be used for streaming video or audio on a fee basis.
If all else fails it will be time for revolt!

As liberal as I am...
... I think the Fairness Doctrine is a bunch of hooey.

It's true that big media like radio costs money, and the monied interests have a stake in pushing the conservative viewpoint on the citizenry.

But,

A. We know that good and well. Rich and powerful media tycoons have a conservative bias? Tell me something I didn't know.

B. We have the internet to get all the perspectives (including a few facts here and there, much harder to find beneath the spin on both sides). Honestly, who is listening to radio for their primary information? Cavemen?

C. Conservative talk radio is entertaining.

If you want to really be fair, you have to give the Islamists time, the socialists time, the anarchists time, on and on forever.

Gov is not the answer
Accepting government money puts you under the thumb of people who have no morals, think hedonism, sodomy, abortion, blasphemy, and sexual pervertion are blessings that all of society must learn to enjoy.

Pelosi and Reid
These two are both such a couple of losers. Reid is giving senior moments a bad name. First he claimed the taxes in the US are voluntary and defended this notion ardently.

Next he repeatedly stated that global warming is making us all sick.

If GWB had this kind of mental lapse the MSM would be calling him an idiot not fit for office but a Dem serving in the second most powerful position in this country, not a peep!

....
Free speech for me but not for thee.....

Would the communist democrats consider a "fairness doctrine" in academia where public funds are used, on public tv, etc? Of course not, they're only concerned with silencing Conservatives, not "fairness." Liberals tried their claw in radio and the public rejected it. But whenever liberals lose they have to change the rules.

Liberals are cockroaches.

Bush is a fascist?
Hate speech and hate crimes courtesy of the democrat party. Call someone the wrong thing and time can be added to your sentence.

Fairness doctrine courtesy of the democrat party.

Notice how burning the flag or putting a crucifix in urine are not hate crimes only expression of free speech. Thanks for the clarity.

Who owns the airwaves?
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

If it was really fair
NPR, and the three networks would have to put Rush Limbaugh or other conservatives on the air. Why not?

Why do the Democrats think that only talk radio is unfair?

Hey Aelemay,
Check out TH's very own Tony Blankley on NPR Friday afternoon and evenings - Left, Right and Center.

They treat him fairly, give him even time. They don't even call him names!

Great article, but
This milquetoast argument against the Fairness Doctrine is really beneath a lot of good writers and speakers. "Due to profits concerns, the radio stations will have to drop all of the shows because the liberals will be so unpopular."

I am so appalled by this disgusting, whimpy commentary.

The truth is that if the government ever enforces political speech, and every comment must be "balanced by equal time," the lawsuits and legal harassment will be so overwhelming, that political speech in America will become a gaping invitation to be sued.

The government micromanagement and prohibitive court costs would make a conservative speaker "as nervous as a June bug in a hen house," --with even less chance of survival.

*******

Nancy Pelosi:
What do you call a conservative talk show host in a tie?

Obama:
I don't know, what?

Nancy Pelosi:
The defendant.





Fairness Doctrine
... it scares the hell out of me. When will the real Republicans finally stand up and hold their noses and make sure that McCain is elected President. Too many are for "lets lose because he is not what we want..". He is not all I wanted either, he was last on my list actually, but last on the list in the Repbublican camp sure beats the first on the list in the other camp. Wake up out there... Obama and the democratic stampede to control both houses of congress has to be stopped...

paranoidmystic...
.....so Tony B. is on NPR Fridays for a few hours and who is on NPR the other 6 days and 20 some hours???


Take away Freedoms
and impose nanny laws. That way they can tell you what to say, think and do and you have no recourse.
And if you EVER cross them: they will find out about that off-color joke or that sexist little ditty you sang in grade school to *PROVE* you are racist, sexist and by extension also a homophobe bigot.

fraidy cats
what in he-- are you conserervatives so afraid of. i am not an advocate of the fairness doctrine , unless things in our media get much worse than they are, but i do advocate passing it as soon as posible.
the reasonsa are you can get it passed under special circumstance which would take it right to the suprem court befor implementation for a ruling on its constitutionality. it wouldnt be definitive but it would give you a very good idea of what they are thinking. this would settle that part of it almost immediately.becaue the above is hard to do. pass it, immediately get an injunction against ita implementation as has been done many times, then take it to the supreme court to find out if it is contitutional./ if as all of you believe ( and me) that it is as unconstitutional as it can get the ruling from the court will decide it once and for all
for all who say that neither of these wil do it t me suggest that next term it is at least 50-50 that the dems will have enough in both houses to pass the thing anyway, in which case youll have to take one of the two alternatived mentioned above . might as well get it over with.before obama has a chance to appoint any new and theoreticaly more liberal judges. hate to be on your side for strategic planning but ill make up for it

Time to Wake Up and Go to School
In the immortal words of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Go ahead Libs, you are about one more anti-constitutional sucker punch away from awakening the vast majority of freedom loving Americans. You better hope you are just voted out of office and not out of the country!

Should be called 'Kill AM radio' act
With pod casts, internet 'radio', Sirius, etc, killing AM talk will kill AM stations.

I want to be the guy
who owns the pitchfork concession in DC, it won't be long before there is going to be a march on that swamp the likes of which could never be imagined.
A fundamental tenet of dems is, the more dependant on gov't we are, the less likely we are to throw it out and start over..Social Security is a prime example.

There has to be a critical mass for this to occur, for the framers it was a 1 cent tax on tea, what do you think those patriots would say about us accepting 5 dollar gas and all this other crap thanks to a bunch of elite slobs who think they know best?

Time to clean house folks.

Ken
The vetoing of the Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan did not lead to talk radio.As a young person, who visited America in the late 70's, I experienced talk radio in Miami.Is there no end to the "Lies" that you will tell.You are better than that.I "Hope"...

Go ahead..
Bring back the (UN) fairness crap. Then conservatives will DEMAND equal time on all MSM papers tv's and everywhere else. That would just make K. Olberdouche and Chris Matthews day on MSNBC now wouldn't it. If they get equal time then WE get equal time EVERYWHERE. They better be careful what they ask for. We could DEMAND equal time in the NY Slimes. Maybe this could be fun.

killer
Ken's point wasn't that it "led" to Talk Radio. Read between the lines and understand that it led to the incredible market success of Talk Radio. It led to the version of Talk Radio that someone like Ken has come to appreciate: a place where conservative viewpoints can be aired and listened to, and with resultant market success. Sure, Talk Radio existed, but it wasn't until the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine that it really had any semblance of the market success it has today.

UncleB
While the scenario you paint would be a welcome one, unfortunately the Fairness Doctrine only applied to radio. I am certain that the Dems, in trying to bring it back, would only apply it to radio.

Also, you know the NY Slimes would find a way around it, likely putting their liberal BS on the A1 page, and relegating the "equal time and space" to the back of other sections.

They can't stand ANY competition!!
As previously noted the LibTards control ALL of the broadcast networks, 90% of print media and at least 99% of Hollyweird.

The fact that one guy with way over 6 HUNDRED affiliated radio stations and a dozen more talk hosts in the last ten years have joined the fray terrifies them. If not for Talk Radio, and not just the 800 lb. gorilla, John Kerry would have been elected AFTER 8 freedom killing years of Algore. The GOP Revolution (which the lib media killed after 4 years of nonstop ankle biting) and Contract with America would never have happened.

We'd have at least two more pointy-headed liberal super-activists "justices" on the Court and we'd be kow towing to the U.N. for permission to defend ourselves.

Talk Radio represents FREEDOM and liberal HATE freedom because then folks may not pick THEIR bolshevik solutions.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Take a long walk on short pier ...
Talk about the Democrats (Dumbocrats) making politicians look bad! Such lies and nastiness all the time. I do not even want to be in the same place with them or city! Their stinch gags me! Last I read Congress has a 9% favorable rating. The Dumbocrats took over in 2006 and now Congress is thought of as worse than lawyers & used car salesmen! Ha! Talk about irony!

Nuc E
Oh yea the slimeballs would TRY to bury conservatives in an abyss. But, then the lawsuits could start. Rush Limbaugh could be the Jessie Jackson of talk radio. Demanding EQUALITY. The twit Pelosi could me made to be sorry for what she and deadman walkin reid started

MMaddox
I think you have the right idea. REVOLT!!
Liberals on the ground with the pitchfork handles sticking up in the air.

Reid
CAG CA, maybe Al Gore is what made Reid so sick. He made and makes me puke.

By the way, the Gore clan has a big bunch in Chickasaw County, Houston, Mississippi. Great bunch of people. Not one I met thought like Al. There has been a Doctor Gore in Houston for decades all from the same family. they are good citizens.

None of them I ever met was as nutty as Al.

Bubba



Nuc
Are you "Stupid"?I must read between the lines and decipher what this "Fool" is saying.When he plainly states the previously referenced statement.His intent was to misconstrue the truth, in such a way as to extract conditions, that should not exist.This type of betrayal cannot be taken lightly.I don't know about you,but I don't like to be PLAYED!

FD just more Liberal Hypocrisy
Most of the time, the loony Left dismisses Rush as "just an entertainer", so how is it that he is so dangerous as to require limiting First Ammendment rights? I don't hear anyone demanding equal time to protect us from Oprah or American Idol.

paranoidmystic
You're back for more?

Media liberal biased? Have you ever watched TV? There is one national network that is not liberal biased, Fox News. I can name many that are and if you include local and public channels like PBS, well its about 10:1 liberal.

Rush got 7% of the voters in Indiana to vote across party lines for Hillary. So...about 1/15th of the voters, plus, not all his listeners participated in operation chaos, so Id say about 1/10 voters or better listen to Rush alone. Is that cavemen? You talking about 10 million people who listen to one show! Then Medved, Prager, Hewitt, Hannity, etc etc. Im thinking around 20 million Americans listen to talk radio for news.

The fairness doctrine is about controlling the news. If we allow this to happen, soon it will be government controlled news, which, is a Marxist attribute.
#6 in the 10 planks:
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

killer
we dont give a damn what you like or dont like

Fairness Doctrine was never useful
and in fact was unconstitutional (violating Freedom of Speech AND Press Freedom at the same time).

It belongs in the dustbin!

Consequences of the Fairness Doctrine
1. The doctrine doesn't apply to print media or satellite broadcasts - only the Federally regulated public airways. The NY Times et al, cable networks and satellite radio are not affected.

2. The broadcast networks, both television and radio will be required to provide content balance, i.e. the predominantly liberal television networks will add conservative views, the predominantly conservative radio stations will add liberal content. As a result, network management, not wishing to give voice to views they disagree with, will tone down their predominant content. The result will be broadcasts that are boring milquetoast and fail to explore cutting-edge issues.

3. The net result is that broadcast ratings, both television and radio will fall dramatically.

4. The more enterprising and talented voices will gravitate to satellite radio where ratings will boom.

My advice: invest in satellite radio stock before November.

Mark Of The Beast ---
So let me get this right. When mark or anti-First Amendment law of the pro-gay rights "rights" are fully instituted on businesses and religious activities, any organization's members and business owners and employees won't be able to be in business (buy or sell)?

If the Fairness Doctrine is OK
. . . then it should be a concept that is applicable to the print media as well as television. The a--holes on the left might actually like the same kind of slippery slope they propose for talk radio on. Why, who's to say that there would not be a proliferation of TV programs such as Glenn Beck? Can't have that, you know. And what about the New York Times? They are in such bad financial shape that Rush Limbaugh could/should buy them out---and then you know what would happen. That could be dangerous. Of course, the next step is the Internet. Think about Rush Limbaugh saying screw it, I will just sell online subscriptions. If 50% of his listeners paid just $10 a year for a subscription---and we would---he would more than double his income.

We do not need "political unity" on issues of policy. We do not "compromising" politicians who lead by consensus and by "splitting the difference" between two opposing views. We need debate. When one side prevails, they have their way---and if they fail, they pay the price at the polls. It's a free marketplace of ideas. Odd, isn't it, that liberals have never been able to revoke the Law of Supply and Demand, whether in the world of economics or political discourse (ala talk radio). On one level, you have to give them credit for persistence. On another, you have to recall the old saw about insanity being the repetition of the same action with the expectation of having a different outcome.



We need a political discourse that

If the Fairness Doctrine is OK
. . . then it should be a concept that is applicable to the print media as well as television. The a--holes on the left might actually like the same kind of slippery slope they propose for talk radio on. Why, who's to say that there would not be a proliferation of TV programs such as Glenn Beck? Can't have that, you know. And what about the New York Times? They are in such bad financial shape that Rush Limbaugh could/should buy them out---and then you know what would happen. That could be dangerous. Of course, the next step is the Internet. Think about Rush Limbaugh saying screw it, I will just sell online subscriptions. If 50% of his listeners paid just $10 a year for a subscription---and we would---he would more than double his income.

We do not need "political unity" on issues of policy. We do not "compromising" politicians who lead by consensus and by "splitting the difference" between two opposing views. We need debate. When one side prevails, they have their way---and if they fail, they pay the price at the polls. It's a free marketplace of ideas. Odd, isn't it, that liberals have never been able to revoke the Law of Supply and Demand, whether in the world of economics or political discourse (ala talk radio). On one level, you have to give them credit for persistence. On another, you have to recall the old saw about insanity being the repetition of the same action with the expectation of having a different outcome.

Don't Worry, Be Happy
First off, just relax. It isn't going to happen. They are just yanking your chain to see you squirm. The Doctrine was based in a different reality, where access to media expression was limited. Now, media access is ubiquitous, i.e. democratic. It simply won't happen.

On the other hand, I get a huge kick out of an industry that openly claims that it can't exist if it has to be fair. That's a powerful statement.


The biggest threat to freedom?

The Democrat(ick) Party!!!

Price of tea in China

Is determined by the market, not what some clown in government decides is "fair"
This doctrine is targeting just one source of information, talk radio.
The democrats cannot compete in the market and find that "unfair"
Talk Radio is a free market already.
Any law made to hand the power to government imbeciles to decide what is "fair" is a LIE of the highest degree of BS.
They do not like others rights of freedom of speech cause they are all little control freaks.




TALK is speech, there is no way the US Congress can Legally make any law concerning speech.
They make themselves the criminals by the attempt to do so.


Jack 10:01 AM EST

On the other hand, I get a huge kick out of an industry that openly claims that it can't exist if it has to be fair. That's a powerful statement

Any person who proposes
That Congress over throw the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment is a Seditionist.
He is a criminal who has no respect for Law.
He deserves no respect and to be charged with Treason.

The 1st Amendment is the LAW.
The Law says Congress shall make no law, concerning speech.

That means what it says

Law, nor government gives liberty
Everyone in America is free to start his own talk radio program.
After all, this is a nation that any person can hope to become President, or said he can.

So in that same spirit of liberty, to promote ones ideas as electable and be President, he also has an open ended path, a wide open door to be on the radio and say whatever he wants to say only limited by decency.

The people are free now to listen or not listen.
The day any government official thinks he has the right to force me to listen to ideas I believe is pure crap, I will support a rebellion like we have not seen here since 1776


The law under a tyrant is nothing but the will of a tyrant, and is lawfully opposed by the Spirit of Liberty that only comes from God and our Creator.
The basis of America is the recognition of this eternal truth

UncleB
Is Florida still apart of "US"?I thought sure by now it would Cuba's.You have my LOWEST regards!!!

talent scout
Do you RERALLY think the libs will let a little thing like the constitution and 1st amendment stand their way of socialistic/Marxist radio.
Would be fun to see Rush and Olberdouche in a Hannity and Colmbs type program.
Just imagining. NOT wanting. Olberdouche would soak his microphone with spittle when Rush would Pi** him off. I'm grinnin just thinking about it.

killer
I have many fine friends in Georgia so I won't disrepect it. I do disrepect a few of Georgia's "inhabitants" however.

It was his "upbringing"!!!!
Bubba,

Algore was raised by staff and nannies in a very plush hotel suite in Foggy Bottom. He was NEVER encouraged to think for himself from the time he was born. Daddy Gore took care of every little thing. He failed EVERY program he ever entered in higher education INCLUDING Divinity School!!!

Then he went into 'Nam (choke, barf) and Daddy Gore made sure he got "a typewriter job" away from any real danger AND six G.I.s to keep his precious keester safe at all times.

He was, is, and ALWAYS WILL BE A NATIONAL JOKE!!!!! The ONLY reason he share the Nobel Prize was because NOBODY every heard of any of the others who got it. That plus the Nobel panel now has a stated goal of using the prize to poke Republican presidents in the eye.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Just a Question
Why is the world always ending for you guys? In this thread, you are predicting revolution based on a law that will never be passed, and wouldb't make it through any judicial review. In another thread its an Iranian missile boat preparing an EMP attack. In anotehr thread its suitcase nukes. In another thread the invasion of Hispanics. In another thread the media are destroying the country. In another thread gays are going to convert your children.

Do you'all hear voices?


"Liberal" talk radio?
From having worked in radio for several years, I know that the Democratic liberals want the "Fairness Doctrine" because liberal talk radio cannot find enough consistent sponsorship to support itself. This is the same fallacy of logic behind NPR. They need the government funding because they are unable to be competitive in the marketplace.

here is the problem
i am not advocating for the fairness doctrine but we need an objective fact based source to discuss some of the issues that divide americans.

one thing that bothers me is that some conservatives who rail about liberal bias in the media will accept anything they are told in the conservative media without ever acknowledging or understanding that the conservative media is just as biased.

what is happening, it seems to me, is that both the left and right seek out media that simply reinforces their pre-concieved ideas.

this is not good for democracy.


we have to be able to agree on basic facts, not be presented with two sets of "so-called" facts and choose the ones that fit our personal political philosophy.

factcheck.org does a fairly good job but we need a national clearinghouse that would establish what is true and what is false.

Jack
Why don't you look in the mirror?

Its the ozone, its global warming, its oil running dry, etc etc.

Don't you believe in anything yourself? Or do you just float around criticizing?

Christian Lib
Your inclination is laudable, but it will not happen.

As I have written many times, Americans no longer seek information, they seek affirmation.
(TM). People who do not want information but are satisfied with the propaganda and mythology that already agree with them are easy to manipulate.

Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this. And both will claim they are not. There have been a few attemptts at organizing people who are interested in real problem solving based on real information. Thus far, limited success.

I once haed a friend, PhD in psychology, focused on sports perforamnce. He3 was admant in every conversation that the beginning middle and ending question shoudl always be "what do the data say?" Sadly, too many people have no interst in listening to the data.

Christianlib
A national clearinghouse to establish what is true and what is false? You gotta be kidding.

Take a look at a jury trial. Both sides of an argument are presented and still you don't always have agreement among the jurors or anyone else.

Use your mind and check the facts for yourself when you read something. Why have someone else do your thinking for you?

And by the way, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic.

CK

Of course I believe in things. Very strongly. And to the degree I can, I base those beliefs on what data and logic tell me. I don't worry about the ozone, but that's because data indicate we made progress by redcing chloro-fluoro-carbons. I do worry about global warming, but not so much. The data isn't clear as to the impact.

I do worry about oil supply being a serious problem before we devise an alternative. Logic and experience dictate that demand from growing powers like China and India will be a serious issue.

You want to know what I believe in. I believe in basing decisions on information rather than inclination.

Opinion vrs fact
There is a line that is often crossed when reporters report stories "news". Too often people can't sort out what is opinion and from what is fact. I'm sure readers of these columns may accept these writers opinions as facts when it is opinion.


WDE
We do indeed live in a Democracy. I grow very weary of people trying to make this point. We live in a Democracy in the sense that a Representative Republic is one form of democratic government. ANd we have

wde
yes i know technically we live in a representative republic.

factcheck.org as i said already does some of this.

Jack
Clearly you don't.

"I do worry about oil supply being a serious problem before we devise an alternative. Logic and experience dictate that demand from growing powers like China and India will be a serious issue."

How many trillions of barrels of oil have been found in the earth, just in the past 20 years? We could not develop alternate energy for 100 years and still not be close. So you are clearly using your biased opinion rather than facts. Its time to use your own advice.

Jack
You mean you don't hear them????

I decide what's fair
For my own ears.
No other man on earth will ever decide this for me, as I alone decide it and no one has the power to change this fact of life.

When I hear a commercial from the Obama Campaign, I turn it off, and some of McCains.
I will not vote for either of these non believers in America.

This is the only fairness doctrine any man has a right to.
The fairness of every man deciding for himself what he will listen to.

It gets no fairer than that.

America is not a democracy
A democracy is 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on whats for dinner.

Thoreau:
"The mass never comes up to the standard of its best member, but on the contrary degrades itself to a level with the lowest."


Democracy the mass "degrades itself to a level with the lowest."

Who in their right mind wants to be like Jack?

Christian Lib
You would be well off reading some Francis Schaeffer.
There is the socialist position and there is the capitalist position.
You apparently think the socialist position is just as viable as the capitalist.
Truth is they both have a base.
Read up on what those bases are then discuss.

Good News and Hate Speech
I've been hearing that sharing the Good News about salvation through Jesus Christ is hate speech. Because some will end up in hell. Will churches stop preaching the "Good News" to save tax dollars?
Many churches that have Christ in their title already have.

Send a message!
We have to vote them out!
If we all vote for a 3rd party candidate, at this point short of a communist any outsider will do, and vote out ALL incumbents period! Then those left in office faced with a maverick in the White House and 1/3 freshmen with a mandate for responsible governement ,might get the "deer in the headlights look" that they should have as they consider their primary important goal of their own upcoming election.
We can revolutionize this government in a 6 year period by simple firing , insubordinate public servants who fail to be stewards for our interest.
But WE need to get over the stigma in our mind of voting for someone outside of our comfort zone, who may not be in one of the 2 clicks we call political parties.


Jack
"As I have written many times, Americans no longer seek information, they seek affirmation."

Coming from you, that statement is more than a little ironic.

Jack
We are ruled over by our Constitution.
We are a Constitutional Republic.
That's why it's extremely important that the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution instead of rewriting it in their image.

Ken
You do have this tendency to leave content out of your posts.

Socialism
Winston Churchill state that you cannot have a socialist state unless you limit freedom of speech. Socialists, communists and fascists, cannot tolerate free speech and guns....the guns protect our free speech...keep voting for these mongrel incumbents.

Jack
Once again, you proved my point. Thanks.

Richard
If you vote for a 3rd Party you are really voting for Obama. Are you an Obama supporter? If you are be honest and just say so.

Hey Mr. Blackwell,
I'd like to say that I appreciate your time in office here in the Buckeye state and thought you did a great job. If in fact our national freedom of speech and freedom of religion is indeed in jeopardy as alluded in your article, are not these grounds for charges of treason against the perpetrators?

Where is the call in the U. S. House for Pelosi to be impeached or censured? Where is the courage from any GOP office holder to hold this woman accountable for her actions? Why is not the POTUS seeking clarification from this woman? Is it not his job also to UPHOLD the Constitution under the oath he took at inauguration? I agree with "talent scout" from Colorado, when he stated:

"The law under a tyrant is nothing but the will of a tyrant, and is lawfully opposed by the Spirit of Liberty that only comes from God and our Creator. The basis of America is the recognition of this eternal truth."

Impeach Pelosi NOW!

joycey
i am not speaking from a partisan point of view just saying that we have to come to some agreement on crucial facts.

for example,

oil companies have leases to drill on 70 million acres of american soil, including the outer continental shelves.

now why aren't they drilling.

some say they are still surveying those acres.
some say there is no oil on those acres.
some say they are waiting for prices to get higher.
some say they don't want to because it is to expensive.

i don't know the answer but those are the type of facts we need to make an educated decision on the future of our country.

CH Hustler

You write: "How many trillions of barrels of oil have been found in the earth, just in the past 20 years? We could not develop alternate energy for 100 years and still not be close."

Not be close to what? I said that I worry about oil supplies being a serious issue. You think that the demand for oil from developing, massive economies will not be a serious issue?

If you believe there is enough oil for us to have cheap oil in an environment marked by quickly increasing demand, you are a dreamer.

ANd why ask me for data to prove your popint. If you have data on oil discoveries, out with it.

Ken, This is Great
we can keep proving each other's points without you ever having to say anything.

Jack
Well, as you can see by the trillions we have found on American soil alone, it seems we can go for years on end before we run out. If we open up drilling to anyone in the US, that alleviates lots of pressure on the rest of the world, as well as us. Obviously technology is on the horizon, but will oil run out within 20 years? Well, seems to me but you have fallen for the scare tactic. So...really you didn't look at any data, didn't check out any facts. Just thought...well other countries are using more so Im scared. That sounds about right for your reasoning.

Jack
If I've said nothing, then why do you keep responding? Are you looking for affirmation?


HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Jack
I suggest you take a look at some facts...here ya go.

http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.cfm?id=380§ion=pubs& page=pubs_content_text&z=

Jack
Keep in mind, that source doesn't even include the oil shale in the US. The estimate on that is almost about the same as the article, which means we have plenty of time for the new technologies to take hold. You shouldn't get frighten so easily.

ckhustler
thanks for the link.

the article says 43 years is optimistic because all the oil fields are known but some are simply (in russia) to expensive to drill in.


Uncle B, I dont think Killer...
...is from the US or GA here is his earlier post...


"killer
Location: GA

Reply # 18
Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 7:20 AM EST Ken
The vetoing of the Fairness Doctrine by President Reagan did not lead to talk radio.As a young person, who visited America in the late 70's, I experienced talk radio in Miami.Is there no end to the "Lies" that you will tell.You are better than that.I "Hope"..."

He says as a young person who visited America in the 70's. No wonder his posts are so disjointed and unreadable. English is probably not his first language. What do you think?

Audax

christianlib
It does, but that would also assume zero new discoveries...well clearly we are already breaking that assumption. It said...proven oil still. Our oil shale is not proven 2 trillion, but many estimates put it around there. Did we know of that oil shale such as that in 2000? If not then we just doubled our oil in the world with one discovery.

That link just proves how much oil we have. It leaves out some discoveries since it was written 8 years ago, and in those 8 years we have discovered much much more oil. As our technologies get better we will find even more. There is plenty of oil for us to change over to new technologies in the next 20+ years. For now, why allow our economy to tank while not drilling?

i find it fascinating
that blackwell wants to complain about democrats while the bush administration won't let congress see the fbi notes on the interviews for the plame case.


Democracy Now informs us that an 80 year old clergyman was arrested at a mall in Long Island wearing an antiwar T-shirt. He was asked to turn it inside out and when he refused he was arrested. That just seems so strange to me.

a woman was removed from a mccain speech in denver because she has a sign that said
mccain=bush.

the censorship is happening on both sides.


Now I'm wondering if MRCMRC..
...is also a foreign correspondent. His posts are worse than killers

CK Hustler
Ahhh, now I get it. You think that we won't have a problem with oil until it runs out or is in danger of running out.

According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, which provides much more current data than the source you cite, Ultimately recoverable reserves are just over a trillion barrels. (not including oil shale or tar sands, a significant increase). But the demand fropm China and India is expected to increase 5-7% a year.

This becomes a serious problem for supply within a dozen years. We don't have to run out of oil for there to be major problems. We just have to see that there is a gap between when we do run out of oil and when replacement technology will on line.

And all that presume there will be no major disruption in Middle East supplies.

That said, the solution is exactly what I have been saying. WE need innovation, we need conservation and we need exploration. What we don't need is someone telling us "never mind, thigns will be fine no matter what we do now."




audax
No, MRCMRC wants people to respond, he actually takes pride in people responding to him. He will say outrageous things, just so you respond. Just ignore him.

Jack
I can see you are like Paul on another thread.

Our inventions will become stagnant unless you force them upon us!

My gosh...you claim to do research and that is the best you can come up with? The oil shale is estimated at 2 trillion...so thats a 200% increase. Kinda blows your 7% out of the water now. And then you go on to say we need to conserve...well Ive decided that people can and should only live in houses that are 500 sq ft or smaller. Then in the future when we have more people on this planet, we won't need to worry about overcrowding very much. Sounds about your logic there. haha, you crack me up.

Fear of freedom
Liberals are strict constructionists when it comes to talk radio. The Constitution mentions newspapers but not radio.

Liberals believe in a "living Constitution" when it comes to the gun issue or the enumerated powers issues.

Liberals have flexible policy and beliefs. If you are for a Liberal they will believe in your right to free speech. If you are against a liberal they believe in "fairness" aka, silencing free speech. This is all about silencing conservative opposition. It is about restricting the voices of the people who have no voice in any other outlet.

Anyone who says different is a liar or an idiot.

Tibby

CK
You really should pay more attention to what people say rather than fabricating what you THINK i mean. Thus far, in a number of discussions, you have yet to get it right.

As I said, shale and tar sands result in a significant increase. The information I provided is at least 7 years more current than what you cite.

If you think that conservation is irrelevant, that's fine. But here's a test. Would you suggest that any politician come out and just say that? Not likely, is it?

Nor do I suggest in any way that "Our inventions will become stagnant unless you force them upon us!" (I think I know what you mean, even though the way you say it makes almost no sense at all.) but that is your imagination at work.



Jack
Face it...with our growing technologies we can drill for the oil shale. With that great increase in oil, we have plenty of time for our non-gas innovations to take hold. What are you so worried about?

tibby
I agree with what you said about liberals, but I think you're much too kind. If liberals could get away with it, they'd burn the Constituion and appoint themselves as dictators-in-perpetuity.

After the next national election,
if democrats have both the seats and the executive branch many are afraid that we will begin to see an end to what is left of free speech in America. The 'fairness doctrine' will be only the first in a line of assaults, and it will cover not only radio, but the Internet and all other mediums of mass communications. Next will come additional hate crime laws so invasive, and with punishment so terrible, that most Americans will simply not argue about anything of merit where they fear a government stooge is present. And there will be plenty of 'stooges.' As in the Soviet era, all citizens will be encouraged to spy on one another.
The dwindling conservative courts will not be able to cope with this massive onslaught of anti-constitutional law and will be virtually ignored if their rulings clash with government edict. How many battalions can the Supreme Court field?
Obama has already been noted saying, he wishes to spend billions on a 'civilian police force.' Should we not believe him? And who would these secret police go after?

It is mostly our fault. We Americans have sat back and allowed this sorry mess to happen. By not paying attention and not bothering to vote we have set the stage for the largest power grab and suppression of liberty in history.
If what many see as the end to our free system is allowed to happen, what then will we tell our children who will be born and brought up in tyranny? ...I think we will tell them nothing. Like in the Soviet Union and it's off-shoots, these children will be taught to report any subversion by their parents.
If you have something to say, better say it now!

After the next national election,
if democrats have both the seats and the executive branch many are afraid that we will begin to see an end to what is left of free speech in America. The 'fairness doctrine' will be only the first in a line of assaults, and it will cover not only radio, but the Internet and all other mediums of mass communications. Next will come additional hate crime laws so invasive, and with punishment so terrible, that most Americans will simply not argue about anything of merit where they fear a government stooge is present. And there will be plenty of 'stooges.' As in the Soviet era, all citizens will be encouraged to spy on one another.
The dwindling conservative courts will not be able to cope with this massive onslaught of anti-constitutional law and will be virtually ignored if their rulings clash with government edict. How many battalions can the Supreme Court field?
Obama has already been noted saying, he wishes to spend billions on a 'civilian police force.' Should we not believe him? And who would these secret police go after?

It is mostly our fault. We Americans have sat back and allowed this sorry mess to happen. By not paying attention and not bothering to vote we have set the stage for the largest power grab and suppression of liberty in history.
If what many see as the end to our free system is allowed to happen, what then will we tell our children who will be born and brought up in tyranny? ...I think we will tell them nothing. Like in the Soviet Union and it's off-shoots, these children will be taught to report any subversion by their parents.
If you have something to say, better say it now!

impeachbush
I know this is difficult for a liberal to do, but stop and think for a minute. If this is SUCH a police state (as you claim), why are you able to post your opinions on TH?

Do you really think President Bush has nothing better to do than spy on your miserable excuse of a life? I'm sure he has more effective ways to cure his insomnia.

impeachbush
I think you, like most liberals, think some one can be impeached without cause. Please read the Constitution. It helps to be informed before shooting off your mouth! You should stick to topics you know something about.

The gathering threat to freedom
Great column! You should be running for president. You could get my vote!

bucs68
You said to "impeachbush": "Please read the Constitution."

What?!!! I'm surprised at you! You should know that liberals NEVER let the Constitution stand in their way!

CK
you write: "Face it...with our growing technologies we can drill for the oil shale. With that great increase in oil, we have plenty of time for our non-gas innovations to take hold. What are you so worried about?"

I am worried because there are people, like you, who are not. If we stop feeling the pinch in terms of oil, we will regress to the state we were in several years ago. We will consume at a higher rate and the perceived need to develop alternatives will dissipate. Cut the price of oil by half right now, and consumption would explode. Alternative processes will not be developed, becuase they will not be economically competitive.

The risk is that if we do not start developing the alternative technology now, we are just pushing off a necessary development into the future. We will be fine if we do the obvious, which is to conserve, produce and innovate. We will not be fine if our overwhelming desire is simply to get more oil.

If the U.S. uses 25% of the oil,

that equates to about 29 billion barrels of oil consumption worldwide annually. If there are already one trillion barrels of oil in the ground that have been discovered (and that does not include shale-oil), then we have 1000/29 years (that equals about 35 years) of oil available in already discovered and evaluated fields. That does not include undiscovered oil fields, nor does it include additional oil from already established fields that can be recovered with new technology. Of course, consumption will increase annually thus reducing the 35 years to maybe half that or 18 years. However, if other forms of energy are increased the consumption rate may not increase as fast. Anyway, with the oil shale's two trillion barrels the petroleum era should last another 100 years at least. Throughout the next century many people will be inventing new sources of energy. I am not too worried about the energy situation for the forseeable future.

eddie too
Put that comment on Ann Coulters column and the creatons of the depths will try to eat you alive.
Those who follow Ann's column are die hard drug addicted Oil junkies who only want more of the same no chance of change in their game.
An imbarrasment to Republican Ideals of a strong America through free enterprize and hard work.
They are sounding like Democrats over there saying give me, give it to me, give me my oil.

Is there no hope to change..............
CKHustler
Location: MN
Reply # 55
Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 12:22 PM EST Jack
Clearly you don't.

"I do worry about oil supply being a serious problem before we devise an alternative. Logic and experience dictate that demand from growing powers like China and India will be a serious issue."
How many trillions of barrels of oil have been found in the earth, just in the past 20 years? We could not develop alternate energy for 100 years and still not be close. So you are clearly using your biased opinion rather than facts. Its time to use your own advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CKH, are you saying that there is no chance in hades for us to develope new technology to supplant oil as a fuel or a God?

Todays topic is>........................
Freedom of speech is the most sacred of our liberties and to deny them in any way or form is treason in my opinion.
If the Democratic Party succeeds us into the White House, more than the freedom of speech will be removed. Our right as Americans will no longer exsist, because we pray to God and not the Dollar. Though many of our supporters do.

Who owns the media?
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

It's the monied interests that own the media that keep conservatives on the air ;)

Hey, check out number 4 on the chart! Viacom's got who in their pocket?

If paranoidmystic
got together with impeachbush, you'd get a paranoid cuckoo!

license to speak
the radio broadcasters do not have the freedom of speech on the airwaves.
they have a license to speak.
and the government can grant, take away, diminish, broaden, and whatever else the current party in charge wants.

this was true of marriage in california. we had a license issued for marriage. it was not a right. 4 republican appointed judges turned a licensed process into a freedom of issue.

so, the republicans? and democrats? that vote will never get real representation from these 2 failed (for us anyway) parties.
the party bosses do not consider registered voters as party members, but as sheepdip voters.

adios,
a.b. normal
lancaster, mexifornia
dial 1 for english
viva juan mccain, viva la raza, viva amnestia, viva reconquista, viva mexico.

ckhustler
i carefully read your link and what you say is not reflected in the article.

it says we have located all the oil on earth through enhanced satellite imagery and that much of it is inaccessible.

it says a max of 43 years if consumption stays static which it obviously is not.

re-read it again for yourself.

A Rebellion Is Born
What we've got here is.....failure to communicate. Some liberals you just can't reach. So you get what we had here 20 years ago.

Why Not?
The Left has every right to dissolve American freedoms. We are going to vote them into office in November and their margin of victory will dwarf the 49 state landslide of 1972.

Thus, they have to assume, correctly so, that we are unable to care for ourselves and willingly don the yoke of servitude.

Most Americans can't maintain themselves without being a burden. They clamor for any no talent no body to give them government cheese and big screen TVs. A sizable percentage of Americans are just one step above being potty trained. Many sit home waiting for government and structured settlement checks, are illiterate, fat, lazy and ridden with fat diseases such as diabetes. They are merely wards of the state.

Consequently, they have to be managed. Freedom is too hard. They are slaves.

There's no need for them to hear any media that upsets and confuses them. What's the use, anyway? They're not going to do anything on their own. Why get the riled up?

All television and radio should broadcast reality and game shows, the level of intelligence of a country that elects such marginal scum as we have now.

So long Rush.

Fat and lazy yes
But still human beings with human natures. Made in the image of God. Get rid of the government entitlements and they become better human beings. Life needs challenges. "Fat, dumb and stupid is no way to go through life, Spalding."

America Taken Hostage


Every morning I turn on my local news, then I go to FOX, CNN, MSNBC and then I go to news websites on the Internet..And people we are all taken hostage by the anti Christian & anti America (as it is) movement of the left.

The left has taken hostage of our local, state and national government, churches, business, homes, cars, infrastruture,our children , schools , our media, etc.

If you are not a leftist, you have no rights and you can forget about being treated like you do.

This movement will never stop..all we can do is fight it, but I think a lot of people have given up and are accepting their own demise of freedoms.

UncleB Writes
Go ahead..
Bring back the (UN) fairness crap. Then conservatives will DEMAND equal time on all MSM papers tv's and everywhere else. That would just make K. Olberdouche and Chris Matthews day on MSNBC now wouldn't it. If they get equal time then WE get equal time EVERYWHERE. They better be careful what they ask for. We could DEMAND equal time in the NY Slimes. Maybe this could be fun.

Read the law. The Fairness Doctrine does not apply to newspapers or TV only Radio. It would not silence Chris Matthews or that egghead Oberman. It would kill talk radio as well as other forms of communication. In a way it could be a big wake up call for the down trodden conservative movement Heaven knows we need something to rally behind.

Molon Labe
Millions aren't going to go quietly into the night.

Like Glenn Beck's call to arms: Pitchforks and torches

Fairness
One of the greatest arguments against the fairness doctrine was given by the CBS anchor when she interviewed Al Gore.

Please anyone believing that there isn't a media bias and that our freedom to get information is being endangered by the left see that interview.

There were no questions about his sincerity as evidenced by his use of energy? There were no questions about government supports for large utilities and possible manipulation of the carbon offset schemes? Simpler yet, why were there no questions on the outragious idea that the deserts are going to provide energy for the nation because the sun shines more often during peak energy use periods? How do you get the energy from the desert Mr. Gore? Why didn't she take a sceptical view and ask if the last periods of global cooling, which have been said to have been produced by a meteor and a massive volcanic eruption why shouldn't the globe be warming?

Fairness Doctrine and Liberals
I have been saying for some time now that the biggest threat to our freedoms and democracy is liberalism and liberals, not terrorists. We need to make sure we fight them at every step of the way, because our freedom is at stake. Liberals only believe in free speech when it is what they want to be said (communism). They believe the government knows best and should do everything (communism). They want to control the economy through taxation and fear of "global warming" (communism). They won't let the oil companies drill because they want high energy prices for control (communism). Time to rise up and fight this enemy!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.