Fortunately, the talk of “nationalizing” banks, policies mandating “reasonable” executive compensation, effort to re-introduce government health care, and the passage of a “stimulus package” which allocates ungodly amounts of taxpayer money on pork projects serve to reinforce the notion that the Democrats generally gravitate to big government socialism. This is obvious to well-informed conservatives. It is beginning to become more clear to the average American.

It is with this political backdrop that I eagerly await the forthcoming eruption when Democrats subversively re-introduce the failed “Fairness Doctrine“.

For those unfamiliar with this black mark on American history, the “Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”

To most Americans, this flies directly in the face of their limited understanding of the First Amendment which very simply states,

“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.”

No amount of nuanced, smooth-talking, feel-good Clintonesque language from the Messiah himself will veil the fact that Democrats would be trying to use their power to squash free speech; specifically, the free speech of the political right who has has dominated the airwaves of talk radio for nearly 20 years. I believe any attempt to establish government oversight of political free speech and commentary could serve as a tipping point that severely damages the Democrat brand and quickly removes them from power. I relish the debate and would welcome an historic groundswell of revolutionary-style opposition.

This issue was the topic of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rush Limbaugh. As the most successful and dominating figure in talk radio, his conservative views are ground zero for any legislation that directly or otherwise attempts to re-introduce the failed big government policies embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.

Let the debate (and the revolution) begin!

Excerpt:

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

By Rush Limbaugh
February 20, 2009

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Click here to read the article on the WSJ website.

Obama’s statement and Chip’s reaction seems to perfectly characterize the worldview differences between Democrats and Republicans with regard to this issue.

Excerpt:

Mortgage Whoppers from the President
By Chip Hanlon
Created 2009/02/18

Speaking in Arizona today about the details of his mortgage assistance plan, the President let loose one of the most amazing strings of whoppers you’ll ever hear. Speaking of the housing burst, he said:

It begins with a young family maybe in Mesa or Glendale or Tempe, or just as likely in a suburban area of Las Vegas or Cleveland or Miami. They save up. They search. They choose a home that feels like the perfect place to start a life. They secure a fixed-rate mortgage at a reasonable rate and they make a downpayment, and they make their mortgage payments each month. They are as responsible as anyone could ask them to be.

WAIT just a second. I feel like I’m living in bizarro world because that description has nothing to do with this particular housing crisis.

They saved? They made a down payment? They acted responsibly? In far too many cases we knoow that none of these statements was true.

Banks have been blamed, as have mortgage lenders, and rightly so. But borrowers get a pass–they were all just innocent dupes, apparently!

Read the whole post here.

H/T: Michelle Malkin

Over the weekend, Mark Steyn published a piece titled, “Obama’s Pastor Disaster” wherein he offers a glimpse into the views of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While I agree with Steyn that guilt by association can be very tricky business in the political arena, a close look at Obama’s relationship with his pastor should be examined. Perhaps such an examination will offer glimpse into the core values that drive Obama and begin to remove some of the excess varnish built up during his political honeymoon.

Key excerpts from Steyn’s article:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white
America, black Americans have no reason to sing “God Bless America.”
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no,
no, God damn America,” he told his congregation. “God damn America for
treating our citizens as less than human.”

And how about this:

The Rev. Wright is like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always
agree with.” So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on Sept. 16,
2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United
States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. “We nuked
far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never
batted an eye,” said the Rev. Wright. “We have supported state
terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we
are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought
right back to our own front yards.”

With statements like these, the Obama camp is scrambling to distant themselves from the controversial (read: unAmerican and racist) Rev. Wright. But should Americans accept some sort of nonsensical, focus-group-tested, Barbara Walters-esque mea culpa from Obama? No.

How does he distance himself from a pastor from whom he sought guidance for 20 years, who married him and Michelle, who baptized his children, and to whom he dedicated his bestselling book? The answer is, you don’t.

If you haven’t already seen some of the video of the Rev. Wright, take a gander…

Two words: OPRAH WINFREY

I’ll pause a couple of moments while you collect yourself… pause… pause…

I believe I just watched one of America’s most influential personalities of pop culture grab the mantle of optimism, the one claimed by winners of most presidential elections, and place it squarely in the hands of Barack Obama. It is the same mantle claimed by Ronald Reagan when he spoke of the “shining city on the hill.” It is a message of hope that tends to capture the imagination of the electorate and inspires groundswells of support. One that truly resonates with the average American, but is so elusive to many wannabe political leaders. In short, it is a message that makes the petty partisan politics seem… small.

I know very little about Democratic politics. I have seen very few episodes of the Oprah Winfrey show. I am not a supporter of Barack Obama. He is far too inexperienced to be considered for Commander-in-Chief and far too liberal to be acceptable under nearly any circumstances. However, I find Hillary Clinton revolting, John Edwards seems like a clown, and Dennis Kucinich is probably from outer space.

But I do know when I am watching something that could have a powerful impact. In speaking on behalf of Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey spoke with eloquence, genuine optimism, and passion. It was a powerful endorsement that rose above the typical negotiated arrangement we see between players in the political arena. Of course, it soared above the coveted endorsements of a Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand.

I don’t know if Obama and Winfrey can overcome the disciplined Clinton machine. Maybe Clinton can simply run out the clock and capture the Democratic nomination. Regardless, I think Clinton is in trouble. And if Hillary is in trouble — as one of the most polarizing and off-putting figures in American politics who offers the Republicans their very best chances for winning in ‘08 — then the Republicans may also be in trouble.

… but I’m still optimistic.

My government mandated K-12 experience was immediately followed by my parent mandated attendance at a four year college. I studied at a state university along with 40,000 of my closest friends for… however long it took me to graduate. Through the first couple of years, I partied a lot and studied very little. That changed when I took an entry level political science course with Professor Alana Northrop. She captured my imagination and in the process, helped kick start my passion for learning. I graduated with an undergraduate degree in political science.

Fast forward a few years and I began to think about enrolling in graduate business school. This time, nobody was looking over my shoulder telling me I had to be there. Just as importantly, nobody was helping me pay the bills. I was there because I wanted to learn and because I wanted to immerse myself in a collegial academic experience that I missed the first time around.

In retrospect, the personal time commitment and the sacrifices were a very small price to pay. I recall learning more in two years than I had in the previous ten. I learned from reading, writing, preparing, and presenting. While my professors guided the discussions, it was my peers who put everything into context. They offered real world examples and fresh perspectives. It was a wonderful learning experience because I truly wanted to be there.

This issue offers a number of compelling articles on the topic of education. We are most grateful to Dennis Prager for distilling a remarkable speech he gave in front of the Education Alliance into an article titled the Ten Nos of Education. We think you will also enjoy our interview with KABC’s Larry Elder and our profile of long-time Orange County resident and current Ambassador to the United Nations Food Program in Rome, Gaddi Vasquez.

As always, we look forward to your e-mails and letters following the publication of each issue. It tells us we are doing our jobs and striking a nerve.

Enjoy and Fight On!

Scott W. Graves
Editor-in-Chief