Read Between the Lines

READ BETWEEN THE LINES

Never before has it been so imperative to read between the lines. I know how hard it is to just stay abreast of the news. But it is now more than ever, our responsibility to read, digest and analyze the steps taken by this government in one month. It is apparent to me and many others that, at this speed, they are on a jet stream to a successful transformation of our country.

When have we ever seen or heard of such extreme measures taken so quickly. We have to stop and question the motives behind these measures. Sunday morning, March 1, 2009, on Face the Nation, I heard Rahm Emaunuel tell Bob Schieffer that he should not be concerned at the speed with which "economic recovery" is being enacted or about the content of these acts. Rahm Emaunuel's contention is that there should be no surprises here, President Hussein campaigned on extreme measures and he's faithfully carrying them out. He is being true to his promises whether they be worthy solutions to our economic crisis or the smokescreens that will produce irreversible conditions for generations, such as bigger government, spending out of control (negating his assertion that he can reduce the deficit), government intrusion into what we say, how we express faith, our reverence for life and deemphasizing a strong military, while advocating a totalitarian style civilian national security force.

There is a force within this man that is undetectable by many, hidden by the charm and allure of a personality, that can fool enough of the people most of the time, and repulse the rest of us all of the time. This obsession to present a palatable image became apparent when he identified himself as a Christian. We all know that he is anything but a Christian in the true sense of the word. His church is a spin off of Black Liberation Theology, no connection to Christian theology. It can be described as a perversion of Christianity. Then he adopted the Black American Slave experience as his own for the sake of intoxicating his adorers with his prose on the history of racism. Neither he nor his father share this story rooted in American history, but then again it adds so much more drama when you or your family have been a victim. And what about this name thing. He is Barack Obama for the primaries and the general election, and emerges as Barack Hussein Obama upon taking the oath of office. Are we to assume that with the emergence of a new identification, so too emerges a new or the old Barack Obama? Something to ponder.

I digress, to get back to the talk of the day, we have a responsibility to stay abreast of the critical economic and social policies Mr. Obama is promoting. We know he is using the economic crisis to promote and solidify changes that will establish a socialist machinery. America has a constitution to uphold, not the agenda of a power driven liberal whose ideology is in keeping with the European socialists. Keep in mind that it is our responsibility, starting now, to contact our representatives Republican and Democrat alike, in response to the most expensive budget ever proposed. You might say how could Obama be proposing such a thing in the middle of such a crisis. That is the thing, he's not really concerned with getting us back to sound economics (if he even understands that) He's concerned with satisfying the interest groups and supplying the pork. He can't possibly reduce the deficit with all the spending he's proposing, that's just another smokscreen to further his agenda. When you see the headlines or listen to the soundbites over the next few weeks about passing the most expensive budget that exceeds the total of all budgets since Washington through Reagan, up to Bush, ask yourself why.

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

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.

The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

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."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints

Alan Keyes calls it like it is

This is the kind of thing I talk about in my profile. Here is one of those compelling stories that ignite the fires within so many of us. We read the papers, we listen to the news, we go to our sources online and we see time and again that there are voices presenting the truth to the American people, but it is not resonating for most because it is being drowned out by an agenda driven media. Their task is to perpetuate the phenomenon they created and to benefit from the folly for as long as possible, even if it jeopardizes their country. See video below - Alan Keyes rightly calls Obama a radical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrM