The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical and preciou

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical and precious metals analysis. IN THIS ISSUE: OCTOBER 1993 I. THE HISTORY OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IN AMERICA.... P. 2 II. EXPANSION IN BROADCAST COVERAGE SINCE REPEAL OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"...................................P. 4 III. THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE": THE "HUSH RUSH" LAW......P. 4 IV. ARGUMENTS AGAINST (AND IMPLICATIONS OF) THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE"...................................P. 6 V. CONCLUSION............................................P. 8 VI. WHAT TO DO: AN ACTION PLAN............................P. 9 VII. BRIEFS................................................P.10 VIII. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS..............................P.15 CENSORING FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA: THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN CONSERVATIVE/CHRISTIAN RADIO AND T.V. PROGRAMMING (AN ANALYSIS OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE") "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6 [ED. NOTE: Control of the media by the political left in America has been a fact of life for decades. Over the past five years, since the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine", there has been a proliferation of conservative, traditionalist, contrarian talk shows and Christian programming (especially on radio) that has begun to break the liberal monopoly of the media. Tens of millions of Americans have begun to become informed on the vital issues of our day and to become involved in public affairs. Now the liberals in the Congress and the Clinton Administration are moving to impose censorship of the airwaves in America by reimposing a new "Fairness Doctrine". This report attempts to analyze this liberal move to censor and shut off conservatives and Christians from the airwaves, and suggests how incredible this attack on our free speech can be stopped. Please study it closely, copy it and circulate it to friends, to associates, and people in the media, and take the action steps in Section VI below. The new "Fairness Doctrine" can be stopped if enough concerned Americans will act now.] INTRODUCTION For years American liberals (and socialists) have claimed "that they stood foursquare for the airing of both sides of every issue, for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of the air waves, etc. They have, however, only championed freedom of speech when it was their own speech -- certainly not that of conservatives, traditionalists or Christians, which today are not deemed to be "politically correct." It has been no secret that for several decades liberals have overwhelmingly dominated the American media (i.e., the television networks and their news desks; the large newspapers; news magazines; and the wire services -- as well as Hollywood and the film making industry.) Surveys have been done which show the vast majority of the people working in the media are liberals, vote Democratic, support abortion-on-demand, the radical feminist agenda, homosexual rights, expansion of big government in almost every way, are pro-disarmament, etc. The vast majority of media owners and top management are also quite liberal. However, since 1987, a major loophole has developed in the liberal/left's decades-long information monopoly -- namely the emergence of public affairs oriented radio and television talk shows (especially radio) on both secular (non-religious) and religious stations, with conservative, traditionalist, Constitutionalist, and Christian talk show hosts, guests, and audiences. It is estimated that four out of ten Americans regularly listen to such talk show programming (i.e. Rush Limbaugh alone has 20 million listeners each week) and while some programs are politically or religiously neutral, most are decidedly conservative, liberal, or Christian oriented and many deal with controversial issues (i.e., abortion, homosexuality, lesbian adoption of children, prayer in schools, government interference in Americans' lives, political shenanigans in Washington or on a state or local level, the New World Order and much more). Most of these talk shows add dramatically to the public's understanding of, and to public debate on public affairs issues. As a result of the talk radio phenomenon in America today, tens of millions of Americans are better informed on many issues of public concern, and know more about our government's misdeeds or mischief than at any time in decades. And this is driving liberals in the Congress and the Clinton Administration crazy, as they see their misdeeds, their tax and spend boondoggles, and their bureaucratic mischief brought to light and subjected to public scrutiny and anger. Hence, liberal Democrats (and some Republicans) in the Congress and the Clinton Administration are moving to institute legislation, called in Orwellian "double-think" terminology the "Fairness Doctrine" -- which is designed to shut down virtually all conservative and Christian talk radio and programming (including Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Buchanan, Marlin Maddox, Chuck Harter, Tom Valentine, Dr. James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Charles Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Chuck Colson, Hal Lindsey, and hundreds of other conservative and Christian talk show hosts and programs) which reach 15-25 million Americans each day. The fact is that these programs are the alternative viewpoint -- they help to balance the left-wing reporting on the major networks and in the major newspapers of the country. The liberals who run Washington want to intimidate radio stations into silence, and this legislation will do it. The "Fairness Doctrine", which has no more to do with "fairness" than Planned Parenthood has to do with family planning, has been tried before (for almost 40 years) and stifled controversial, conservative, traditionalist, Christian public affairs programming to the extent that it was neutered and became almost non-existent. It was lifted in 1987 by the Reagan Federal Communications Commission and there has been a proliferation of public affairs and Christian talk shows ever since. The liberal Congressional Democrats and the Clintonistas are now moving to silence that voice of debate and dissent in America, much as Hitler moved to install the censorship of the media and free speech in Germany in the 1930s, and as Lenin and Stalin did in Russia in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s (and their successors up through the '80s). If the liberals and political left are allowed to silence free speech on the U.S. airwaves, they will next move to censor free speech in the print media (starting with controversial, non-Establishment newsletters and moving quickly to newspapers, news magazines, religious publications, computer bulletin boards, etc.). This is the way it began in Germany in the '30s and in Russia from the '20s forward, It is beginning in America in 1993! This report will analyze the historical background of the "Fairness Doctrine"; its fallacies and weaknesses; its implications in the current era for the ending of Constitutionally protected free speech in America; and what to do to stop this dangerous attempt at media censorship and the silencing of conservatives, traditionalists, and Christians in America. I. THE HISTORY OF THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" IN AMERICA The "Fairness Doctrine" was first imposed on broadcasters in 1949, calling for the giving of people or groups with sharply differing views a chance to air those views on the airwaves with "equal time." On the surface, what could sound fairer? But, as the "Wall Street Journal" (9/1/93) pointed out: "In practice, it mainly gave incumbents leverage over their opponents. The Reagan Administration killed it in 1987 after proving that Congress hadn't authorized it. It was dreamed up by Federal Communications Commission staffers in 1949, and was quickly dubbed the Blandness Doctrine. 'It led to timid, don't-rock-the-boat coverage,' recalls Bill Monroe, the former host of NBC's 'Meet the Press.'" When the "Fairness Doctrine" was imposed in 1949 by the FCC, the argument was that there was only a limited number of radio and T.V. stations and that no single viewpoint should dominate them. (Actually, when the earliest form of the "Fairness Doctrine" went into effect in 1934, there were only 583 licensed radio stations in the U.S.). So, the "scarcity" of radio frequencies was thought to justify government regulation that otherwise would have been clearly unconstitutional. However fair this may have seemed in 1934 or 1949, technology leapfrogged the rule by bringing multitudes of new stations on stream. Today, stations are springing up everywhere. The FCC reports that 11,420 radio stations have licenses and another 1,395 have permits to begin operations. Similarly, 1,517 television stations are federally licensed and another 165 could start broadcasting tomorrow. In the period between 1949 and 1987 (when the FCC repealed the "Fairness Doctrine" in '87) it was used aggressively by the Kennedy, Johnson and the Nixon Administrations to stifle political opposition. As the FCC wrote in its 1985 Fairness Report: "It is now known that two Presidential Administrations promoted active campaigns to utilize the 'Fairness Doctrine' to undermine the independence of the broadcast press and that a third at least considered the implementation of such a program." Kennedy used it in the early 1960s to silence the growing anti-communist movement on the airwaves (i.e., Carl McIntyre, a strongly anti-communist Christian preacher was on over 600 radio stations in the early '60s. The Kennedy Administration used the "Fairness Doctrine" to frighten those stations with the threat of losing their broadcast licenses and virtually all of them dropped McIntyre. The same thing was done to Dr. Fred Swartz and other strong anti-communists of that period). A senior Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, boasted to the "New York Times" that: "We had a massive strategy to use the 'Fairness Doctrine' to challenge and harass the right wing broadcasters and hoped that that would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide that it was too expensive to continue." During the Kennedy and Johnson years, radio stations that broadcast anti-Administration view-points were inundated with "Fairness Doctrine" complaints as part of a comprehensive strategy to shut off all conservative opposition. The Nixon White House considered establishing an office that would urge the FCC to make life miserable for stations that provide "unfair coverage" (i.e., anti-Nixon coverage). As the "Wall Street Journal" (9/1/93) said: "The Nixon Administration used it to torment left-wing broadcasters, and the Kennedy Administration used it as a political weapon." In the 25 years following the Kennedy era, until the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" by the FCC in 1987, the FCC, and liberal government politicians and bureaucrats pulling the FCC strings, as well as liberal/left pressure groups, harassed, intimidated, and pressured station owners into neutral, pabulum-like noncontroversial, milquetoast-type programming with the "Fairness Doctrine's" loss-of-license penalty hanging (like a sword of Damocles) over their heads. Reporters, editors and even the managers of powerful networks felt a chilling effect that worked this way: If you aired a controversial opinion (i.e., lesbians should be able to adopt children, or kids should be able to pray in school), and a listener filed a complaint with the FCC, the station (or network) owner or manager would then have to prove that the treatment of the issue conformed to the FCC's views of fairness. Documents would then change hands, expensive lawyers and court battles would then move into gear. It would be better to leave controversial issues alone than to jeopardize renewal of your station's license. As veteran NBC reporter Bill Monroe put it: "It was thoroughly understood in the industry that the most likely outcome of bold journalism was trouble with the FCC." The FCC (under President Reagan) dumped the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 after determining that it actually "stifled free and open discussion and inhibited free speech." Many stations steered clear of controversy, even on tame subjects, so as to avoid legal harassment by groups determined to get their say, or to prevail with their own agenda. The FCC (in '87) cited examples: A Pennsylvania station killed a series on B'nai B'rith; an Iowa farm network plowed under a public service series on the effects of inflation; a Houston television affiliate censored a discussion of public-employee pay hikes. The late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (himself a liberal) laid out the argument a number of years ago that the "Fairness Doctrine" violates the Constitution, when he wrote: "The 'Fairness Doctrine' makes the broadcast licensee an easy victim of political pressures and reduces him to a timid or submissive echo of the dominant political voice." In other words, it enforces "political correctness." In a 1969 decision that let the "Fairness Doctrine" continue, the Supreme Court conceded that the Fairness Doctrine "might be unconstitutional if it failed in practice to encourage public debate." Indeed it did fail to encourage public debate as countless broadcasters attest -- and as the FCC itself concluded before dropping the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, after acknowledging that "the regulations hindered free speech, and therefore contradicted the 'Fairness Doctrine's' purpose." During the Reagan Administration (in '87) the FCC held extensive hearings on the "Fairness Doctrine", repealing it on the findings that: 1) Dramatic expansion of the information marketplace insured that the public would be sufficiently informed on controversial issues without relying on government-imposed regulations of programming (or censorship); 2) The operation of the "Fairness Doctrine" actually had the effect of reducing the diversity of viewpoints presented to the public; and 3) Administration of the "Fairness Doctrine" created a danger of politically motivated intimidation by government officials. What has been the effect of the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987? An unprecedented flourishing of talk radio (both liberal and conservative) and Christian programming, with total radio audiences up 5 to 10-fold. II. IN THE FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DOCTRINE WAS REPEALED, THERE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN BROADCAST COVERAGE OF CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. The FCC was plainly correct in its prediction that repeal of the doctrine would open the way for more expansive broadcast coverage of controversial issues of public importance. Indeed, in the five years since the doctrine was repealed, the country has witnessed a veritable explosion in the kink of "uninhibited, robust, wide-open" debate that the First Amendment was designed to promote. The most dramatic illustration of this development is provided by the emergence of broadcast call-in shows as a major force in shaping the nation's discussion of public issues. As "Newsweek" Magazine (2/8/93) reported, ""Call-in democracy ignited the presidential race. Now it's shaking up government, rattling Clinton -- and driving Washington's agenda." This medium has promoted direct citizen participation in the political process in a way that was never before possible. Issues that once might have been quietly resolved by politicians themselves on an "inside the beltway" basis can now (according to the "Washington Post" (1/23/93) "generate tidal waves of switchboard-clogging calls and letters-to-your-congressman" Call-in is now the fastest growing radio format, accounting for nearly 10% of the nation's radio stations. In addition, television networks, which experimented with call-in formats during the '92 political campaign, are studying ways to use them again. In the meantime, television stations themselves have substantially expanded their coverage of public issues in other formats. National networks have added regular prime-time public affairs programs, such as CBS's "48 Hours" and "Dateline NBC." In addition, ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates now feature overnight newscasts that integrate local news with features supplied by the networks. Also, some 130 stations carry the CNN Headline News overnight feeds. Moreover, in recent years, news on independent stations has expanded so rapidly and attracted such large audiences that the independents are now threatening the domination of network affiliates in many cities. For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the FCC was entirely correct in its conclusion that the "Fairness Doctrine" was inconsistent with both the First Amendment and the public interest. Indeed, as the agency predicted, the repeal of the doctrine has been followed by an expansion in the kind of robust debate that promotes the principles on which this country was founded. As Supreme Court Justice Stewart has stated: "Those who wrote our First Amendment put their faith in the proposition that a free press is indispensable to a free society. They believed that 'fairness' was too fragile to be left for a government bureaucracy to accomplish." III. THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" -- THE "HUSH RUSH" LAW Twice since 1987 (i.e., in '88 and '89) liberal Congressional Democrats have reintroduced and passed "Fairness Doctrine" legislation designed to censor conservative and Christian radio programming, and each time it was vetoed by either Presidents Reagan or Bush. Congressional liberals have again introduced "Fairness Doctrine" legislation (i.e., "The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" -- H.R.1985 and S.333) but this time they have an ultra-liberal in the White House who is very hostile to conservative and Christian talk shows and programming (especially to Rush Limbaugh -- who has been more than mildly critical of the President and his first Co-President) and who has indicated that he will sign the new censorship bill. It's called "shut up the conservative opposition and get the Christians off the air." S.333 was introduced February 4 by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Senator John Danforth (R-MO), and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and HR 1985 was introduced on May 5 by Rep. Bill Hefner (D-NC), Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). "The Wall Street Journal" has dubbed this latest attempt at liberal censorship of the airwaves the "Hush Rush Law," in honor of America's most popular talk show host and tormentor of liberals, socialists, and Clintonistas -- Rush Limbaugh. As the Journal pointed out (9/1/93): "The problem for liberals, of course, is that most of the popular talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Gene Burns, and G. Gordon Liddy -- are conservatives. Liberals have a lower market share because, according to listeners, conservative talk radio provides information that isn't carried, or is mocked, in the mainstream media and press." "What's really behind the proposed 'Hush Rush' Rule is that members of Congress just don't like the wide interest in public policy matters that talk radio generates...During the recent debate on the Clinton budget, talk shows did indeed help generate 100,000 calls an hour into Capitol Hill. Its switch board briefly broke down...The Beltway is trying to pull the plug on its effective critics..." As H.R.1985 co-sponsor Rep. Bill Hefner says: "Talk radio scares me. The negative attacks on Congress [ED. NOTE:i.e., on the liberals, like Hefner] are getting to the point where we are not able to govern." [ED. NOTE: Translated, that means "our liberal, socialist agenda is getting exposed by talk radio and blocked by our constituents.".] Certainly the "Hush Rush" Law is designed to silence Rush Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of 20 million Americans (with 4.5 million people listening to him at any given moment of his three-hour-a-day, five-day-a-week program) and a nightly audience of 300,000 viewers of his 30-minute late night T.V. talk show. As syndicated columnist William Rusher recently wrote: "The legal effect of the new 'Fairness Doctrine' would be to require radio stations that now carry Rush Limbaugh to make equal time available to liberals to counter him. Of course such programming would exist already if there were enough willing listeners (and thus commercial sponsors) to support them. But, since there are not, many stations would be forced to drop Limbaugh rather than run three hours a day of liberal drivel that nobody wants to listen to or sponsor. "All this justified in the name of 'fairness' on the ludicrous theory that the American people are being denied a chance to hear the liberal point of view! Imagine that the vast barrage of liberal propaganda that blares out at us from our T.V. sets every morning and every night, from every network is somehow not being heard by the American people, so Rush Limbaugh (and other conservative and Christian programming) must be muscled off the air lest their counter-barrage prove too persuasive. Give me a break!" But Rush is by no means the only, or even the main target of "The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993". Christian radio programming, which highlights traditional family and Biblical values and reaches 5 to 10 million listeners per day, is also a major target for censorship (i.e., total silencing or exclusion) by the Congressional liberals and the Clintonistas. As Stu Epperson, Chairman of Salem Communications (which owns 20 large radio stations) and an Executive Committee Member of the National Religious Broadcasters, recently wrote in the July/August issue of "Religious Broadcasting Magazine": "Reenactment of the 'Fairness Doctrine' today would be a threat and problem for all broadcasters, especially religious broadcasters. In this time of political correctness, part of the elitist agenda is, knowingly or unknowingly, the suppression of free speech that is not , in their opinion, 'correct.' "The most politically non-correct speech today comes from religious radio and television stations broadcasting the programs of James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Charles Colson, and a host of others, including almost anyone who forcefully advocates traditional family values, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and a biblical world view. These views, not so controversial in the sixties and seventies, are very much so now. "If the proposed bill is passed into law, the results could be disastrous for religious broadcasters. For example, if a religious station broadcasts a discussion on the desirability of a normal, Christian family, and activist group such as Queer Nation could request time to present its views on this 'controversial' subject. Well, one request probably could be handled, but how about 10 or 20 requests a month? Today's activist groups are better educated, organized, financed, and politically positioned than at any other time in history. Sooner or later, the station will simply have to stop broadcasting 'controversial' programming because of the bombardment from activist groups." Epperson's opinion is that the new "Fairness Doctrine" is the greatest threat ever to the continuation and very existent of religious broadcasting as we know it. He also points out that the Clinton FCC could reinstate the doctrine by regulatory fiat even prior to any legislative approval. [ED. NOTE: The intimidation factor for broadcasters should not be underestimated. Not only can they lose their license if they buck the government censors, but, according to Virginia Postrel, editor of Reason Magazine, "Stations that fail to comply with regulator's interpretation of the vague provisions on 'affording reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance; could lose their license or pay fines of up to $250,000 per offense. Radio stations with their diverse niche markets are far more vulnerable than mass-market television broadcasters." A $250,000 fine would shut down most small and medium sized radio stations.] IV. ARGUMENTS AGAINST (AND IMPLICATIONS OF) THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" There are numerous compelling arguments against reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine", which include the following" 1) The "Fairness Doctrine" violates the First Amendment Constitutional prohibition against government censorship of the press and restrictions on free speech. 2) Talk radio attracts millions of people (some liberal, some conservative, some apolitical) with its uninhibited discussion of issues. This is positive for our political system whether they listen to Rush Limbaugh or National Public Radio. 3) Washington bureaucrats DO NOT know better than ordinary people what is good for the nation to hear. Dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Castro always think they know what is best for the people to know. But they don't. 4) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL lead to an abuse of power by Washington, as it did under the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations (and all others from '49 to '87). Talk radio is exposing the tax/spend/people control mendacity of our political leaders in Washington and they want to go back to doing their dastardly deeds in the darkness, out of sight of public scrutiny. 5) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL lead, in short order, to the silencing of virtually all conservative and Christian radio talk shows and programming. Most liberal programming will be allowed to continue as it did from '49 to '87. Remember, enforcement is in the hands of the "politically correct" liberals and socialists who hate the traditional values of conservatives, Constitutionalists, and Christians. 6) The "Fairness Doctrine" WILL NOT restore fairness or balance to the airwaves -- the liberals already control the major television networks, they control the biggest radio stations in America, there are far more liberal radio and T.V. talk show commentators and newscasters in America than conservative or Christian (i.e., Larry King, a liberal, has the largest T.V. talk show), and no one would accuse Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw of being conservative. Studies show that the vast majority of media personalities vote Democratic and support the liberal/left agenda from A to Z. Most conservatives (or traditionalists) have been blacklisted from key positions in the networks, or in Hollywood. The liberals simply want 100% of the airwaves -- they want back the information monopoly which they enjoyed for decades. 7) The original intent of the "Fairness Doctrine" was to allow legitimate political candidates access to a limited number of broadcast outlets. It was never intended to dictate what program content stations could air, in violation of the First Amendment. 8) Religious radio as we know it will be virtually wiped out. Christian stations, for example, will be required to provide air time to people of all faiths; Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, secular humanists, cults, occultists, witches, etc. It will no longer be feasible to have a radio station owned by any one religious group to service a community. As it is now, any religious group, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise can apply for a station license if they want their views aired. 9) Talk shows with a particular bias will have to allow opposition (which could be any kook, weirdo, or extremist group) equal time to express their views. This will become a time-keeping nightmare for radio stations, especially when talk show hosts (or people calling in) express a series of different opinions over a two- or three-hour show each day. (Many shows cover a number of topics in a given program, or have an open call-in format whereby callers can talk about anything.) Does each opinion voiced create the legal obligation for an opposing response time? QUESTION:Who's is the final arbiter of what is equal time, of what represents an opposing viewpoint, etc.? ANSWER: Government bureaucrats appointed by Bill or Hillary Clinton, or a judge after a lengthy and expensive legal litigation. 10) Stations are usually identified by their "sound." Many stations are liberal, some conservative, some religious, some of other persuasions. The "Fairness Doctrine" would trash all that by making each station a mish-mash of ideas. 11) There is already fairness in radio and T.V. programming in that thousands of different stations or owners provide a wide spectrum of ideas and products in the broadcast market today. There are thousands of radio and T.V. stations (i.e., 11,420 radio and 1,517 T.V. stations, up to 500-channel cable companies and communications companies that will soon be airing programming over fiber-optic telephone lines, up to 60% of the nation's homes now receive cable television with an average of 35 channels of basic programming, and there are dozens of satellite networks). Though the liberal viewpoint is the dominant one, every shade of political philosophy persuasion and ideology, Christian and other religious persuasion is already being aired. If you don't like or agree with one station, channel, or program, simply spin the dial until you find one you like. [ED. NOTE: The Clintonistas and Congressional liberals want to take that freedom of choice away from the public. Why freedom of choice in the aborting of babies, but not in the choice of what kind of programming you wish to listen to or view? Is that not a gross inconsistency?] 12) If the government can censor programming on radio talk shows or Christian programs, will it also be able to censor the content of local and national television newscasts -- determining which material is proper for public exposure, which is not, is reporting balanced and fair, etc. Where does media censorship end? 13) H.R.1985 and S.333 are replete with vague, hazy, generalized wording (like "The Crime Control Act of 1993", like RICO and conspiracy statutes and so many of the environmental, privacy, and other people- control laws which are being pushed in the current era) which leaves open broad, arbitrary and open-ended interpretation and enforcement powers to overzealous regulatory bureaucrats. For example, "reasonable opportunity," as stipulated in H.R.1985 remains undefined. How will it be applied when a station is charged with a violation of this law? Does this mean that if Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson have a much larger audience in a given market, that challengers could say that the test of "reasonable opportunity" has not been met? The station might have to move Rush or Dobson to a less favorable time slot, or give a liberal program or host a longer program. Or a station might just decide that the hassle and risk is not worth it -- and simply drop the "controversial" shows. Finally, exactly which issues are open for rebuttal and by whom under the "Fairness Doctrine" is unclear. For example, if a religious broadcaster airs a program discussing the need for greater adherence to their faith, who is entitled to response time? All other denominations? Or just a select few? Or perhaps only public officials? The answer to this question is unclear under legislation in both Houses. Fairness is never properly defined. The only requirement discussed in the legislation is that broadcasters, "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." Unfortunately, determinations of "reasonable opportunity" and what is "of public importance" will be left to a handful of FCC bureaucrats. 14) Conservative talk shows, as presently constituted, make it very likely that Bill and Hillary will not be re-elected as Co-Presidents in 1996. Too much information about their personal and political shenanigans is coming out via talk radio, which has put the Clintonistas in a sort of "gold fish bowl," where much of their mendacity can be quickly exposed for what it is, and understood by the public. Letting the government judge the "fairness" of political commentary (via the "Fairness Doctrine") would for the Clintonistas be like "manna from heaven." 15) Reenactment of the doctrine would present a grave danger to the free exercise of religion. In today's cultural environment, traditional or "orthodox" religious teachings are increasingly "controversial" and would be subject to governmental regulation under a restored "Fairness Doctrine." Conventional Jewish and Christian teachings relating to such matters as marriage, parental responsibility, sexual immorality, and the sanctity of human life are now hotly contested by an increasingly "secularized" society. In this environment, reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine" would lead to an unconstitutional "entanglement" of government regulators in religious matters. 16) If the government can censor the airwaves, will it next censor the print media (i.e., newspapers, news magazines, newsletters, religious publications, books, videotapes, audio tapes, etc.)? Once it begins, where does the censorship end? In Nazi Germany, it reached the extremes of book burning and ultimately total censorship of all political thought. Ditto for Russia. If scarce broadcast frequencies are a justification for airwave censorship via the "Fairness Doctrine" (but as we have seen -- frequencies are no longer scarce), it should be remembered that newspapers are far more scarce than radio or television stations or frequencies, and therefore, according to the convoluted logic of congressional liberals and the Clintonistas, may also need to be regulated or censored to "spare the public the pain or suffering of editorial imbalance." Perhaps this is why the liberal "Washington Post" has come out very strongly against the "Fairness Doctrine". On 9/8/93 the Post wrote: "We do share his (Rush Limbaugh's) opposition to any resurrection of the deceptively labeled 'fairness doctrine' in broadcasting...The FCC was right to scrap this antiquated rule, which had set up the government as monitor of programming on public interest issues as well as of air time allotted to opposing views... "Present efforts in Congress to codify a 'fairness doctrine' in the name of diversity and availability of information would mean government- ordered doses of ideas, aired by formulas..."Fairness Doctrine' backers in Congress think that interference is a way to produce free, independent, and fair communications of points of view...They are wrong. The federal government should not be the program manager of public affairs director. "Free, independent, and fair communications of points of view isn't made better by government supervision and sanctions. Most viewers and listeners have mastered the controls that turn off the programs of cruise the bands and channels for diversity. They don't want or need government guidance for these decisions." [ED. NOTE: The Post is right! The Post also owns broadcast facilities in other cities and perhaps they know that they could be next if this media censorship drive gains momentum. There have also been other liberals who have come out against the "Fairness Doctrine" (i.e., Mario Cuomo), fearing it could also be used to squelch their free speech on the airwaves.] V. CONCLUSION America is plunging toward socialism and toward what the globalists like to call the New World Order. Hundreds of new laws are passed each year (i.e., 2,500 in 1992), along with tens of thousands of new rules and regulations to implement these laws -- many carrying with them criminal as well as civil penalties ranging from heavy fines, to property seizures, to jail sentences. There were, according to USA Today, 52,000 such seizures of property by government regulators (totaling over $800 million) in 1992, for violation of some new law, rule, or regulation. These new laws, rules and regulations involve privacy; the use of cash; the environment; discrimination against so-called minorities; whole new definitions of child abuse; hate crimes (i.e., thought crimes); gun control violations; and a host of restrictions on most businesses and individuals which are unconstitutional and would have been unheard of in an earlier day in America. Americans are progressively finding themselves in the predicament which Gulliver found himself in when he lay down to take a nap in the land of the Lilliputians. While he was asleep, the tiny Lilliputians (who were certainly very small and inferior in strength to Gulliver) began to wind small threads around the giant and did so until he was bound up like a mummy or a man in a straight jacket. This is how tens of thousands of new people-controlling laws, rules and regulations have been binding the American people in recent years -- until, like Gulliver, we will soon have almost no freedom of movement or action. People control (i.e., controlling every aspect of the American people's lives) is what the socialists of our day, who control the major levers of power in America (i.e., in government, the media, the educational system, etc.) have in mind for the American people. It can be seen in the proposed new Crime Control Bill of 1993 (which defines most forms of political dissent, including speeches, writings, and assembly, and so-called efforts to influence government policy, or to intimidate the public as "criminal terrorism"). It can be seen in the proposed new mandatory inoculations bill, which labels parents who refuse to get their children government-mandated inoculations as criminal child abusers -- subject to prison sentences, government seizure of their children, or fines. It can be seen in the new gun control, environmental, cash reporting, privacy, and hate crimes laws. However, there are still a number of loopholes and obstacles which stand in the way of their socialist agenda for America. Home schooling and private Christian schools are a loophole in the liberal's educational monopoly. Widespread gun ownership by Americans is another major obstacle to the socialist agenda. The right to trial by jury, the right of political dissent, the right to freedom of religion, and parents control over their children are all Constitutionally-guaranteed rights which are major obstacles for the socialists and their agenda for America, and which are under growing attack by the liberals today. Perhaps the most important loophole of freedom which the American people still have today is the loophole in the liberal's information/media monopoly, a loophole which has grown enormously since the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Today, in spite of liberal control of most of the U.S. media, tens of millions of Americans are hearing an alternative, non-liberal, traditionalist message, via hundreds of radio (and T.V.) talk shows and additional hundreds of Christian programs. It should be understood that control of the media by the political left has been their number one tool in moving America toward a socialist society and the New World Order. Now the gaping loophole in their media/information monopoly which has been brought about by talk radio and Christian radio and T.V. programming is endangering their plans. From the political left's viewpoint, they must get their information monopoly back, or potentially see their socialist/globalist plans derailed by an informed and enraged public. All would-be dictators must have a monopoly on information if they are to successfully impose their dictatorship. A national forum for public debate and discussion of government policy; direction; people control measures; and attacks on our Constitutional and traditional, family, and Biblical values has emerged over the past five years. And it is driving the liberals crazy. Talk radio could derail their people-control, big tax and spend, globalist agenda for America, set it back by decades, or even terminate it totally; therefore (from the liberal's viewpoint) it must be stopped. Hence, they have resurrected the "Fairness Doctrine" and are pushing hard to slam- dunk the new "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993" on the American people before they can mobilize opposition to same. As analyzed above, this legislation has nothing to do with fairness, or balance, or diversity in broadcasting. It is purely and simply a political and religious censorship bill, designed to stifle (i.e., to shut up) the conservative, traditionalist, Constitutionalist, and Christian opposition to the liberal agenda for America. It is an anti- free speech, unconstitutional initiative which is designed to re- establish the liberal's total monopoly over the U.S. airwaves. Censorship of the print media will follow. Shades of the Nazi Third Reich! CONSERVATIVES, TRADITIONALISTS AND CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT A POWERFUL TOOL THEY HAVE HAD IN THEIR HANDS (I.E., TALK RADIO AND FREE ACCESS TO THE AIRWAVES) AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO EXPOSE AND DERAIL THE LIBERAL AGENDA IN AMERICA. BUT, THE POLITICAL LEFT UNDERSTANDS (JUST AS THEY DID IN THE KENNEDY/JOHNSON ERA) AND ARE TRYING TO STRANGLE IT. IF THE LIBERALS ARE ABLE TO SLAM-DUNK THIS MEDIA CENSORSHIP BILL, CHRISTIAN RADIO PROGRAMMING AS WE KNOW IT, AND CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOWS WILL BE OFF THE AIR (OR FORCED TO BROADCAST ON A HIGHLY LIMITED AND RESTRICTED BASIS BY SHORTWAVE OR FROM OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.). NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT OF CHRISTIAN AND CONSERVATIVE PROGRAMMING WOULD DISAPPEAR UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. DR. JAMES DOBSON, D. JAMES KENNEDY, CHARLES STANLEY, CHARLES SWINDOLL, RUSH LIMBAUGH, AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER CONSERVATIVE, TRADITIONALIST AND CHRISTIAN VOICES WILL FALL SILENT ON THE U.S. AIRWAVES IF THE LIBERALS SUCCEED IN INSTALLING THE NEW "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE." THE LAST MAJOR OBSTACLE TO THE POLITICAL LEFT'S DRIVE TO ESTABLISH A SOCIALIST AMERICA AND A NEW WORLD ORDER WILL HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THIS CENSORSHIP DISASTER FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE AIRWAVES, AND FREEDOM OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION COULD BE A FAIT ACCOMPLI WITHIN THREE TO SIX MONTHS (IF NOT SOONER)! VI. WHAT TO DO: AN ACTION PLAN "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke Good men and women have been doing nothing for a long time in America and the political left are taking (or have taken) over almost every aspect of our country; the government, the mainline media, the mainline churches, the educational system, etc. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Christians, conservatives, and traditionalists are about to lose their freedom to propagate the truth on the U.S. airwaves -- a privilege which they have really only had in a meaningful way for the past five years. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" 1. Re-read and study this report. 2. Make copies of it (or order extras from the address on this report -- 1-99 at $1 each; 100 or more at 50 cents each). THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON THIS REPORT! 3. Send copies of this report to every radio or television station in your area (i.e., to owners, station managers, program directors, and talk show hosts), to national radio or television talk show hosts or commentators, as well as to newspapers in your area. 4. This writer is willing to be a guest speaker on radio talk shows on this topic with any radio talk show in your area. (call 1-800-525-9556 to schedule a show.) 5. Send copies of this report to conservative and Christian publications, newsletters, and organizations, and encourage them to reprint it (in part or all of it). NO permission from the author is required. 6. To stop this abominable legislation, we must create a deluge (or an avalanche) of millions (or tens of millions) of irate phone calls, telegrams, letters and faxes to our Congressmen and Senators in Washington. Every Congressperson or Senator who even thinks about supporting or voting for the new "Fairness Doctrine" needs to know that there are thousands, or tens of thousands of his or her constituents back home that are fuming mad about this new Congressional attempt at media censorship, and that those constituents will work insatiably for the defeat of that legislator in the next election (in '94, '96, or '98) if he or she supports the "new censorship." 7. The local offices in the home states and districts of the Senators and Congresspersons should also be contacted by phone, letter, fax, mailgram, telegram or personal visit and the support of that legislator in defeating this new censorship initiative solicited. Information from this report can and should be utilized in letters, faxes, mailgrams, or phone calls to legislators, but the report itself, which is too long for most legislators to read, will be much less effective than your own personal correspondence perhaps utilizing a few pertinent points from the report. It should be remembered that many (perhaps most) of the legislators contacted (especially the liberals) will not be swayed by arguments, facts, or principle (especially not the liberals who want to silence the conservatives and Christians and their critics on the airwaves). They will be influenced by fear of what can happen to them in the next election if thousands, or tens of thousand, or hundreds of thousands of their constituents are hot about this issue and diametrically opposed to it. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) used to say: "When we feel the heat, we see the light." One hundred U.S. Senators and 435 Congress persons should feel the heat on this vital censorship/free speech issue! 8. Letters by the thousands in opposition to the new "Fairness Doctrine" need to be sent to the editorial departments of every local and regional newspaper in America. They should be short enough (and articulately written) to merit reprinting in the editorial section of the newspaper. It is important to understand that politicians closely watch the editorial opinions and letters in their local papers to detect any groundswell of negative public resentment which can hurt them in the next election. The local papers also need to be reminded that if the airwaves can be politically censored by Washington, then the print media (and especially the newspapers) may not be far behind. 9. Every radio talk show host, political commentator, and religious group who utilizes the U.S. airwaves (radio or T.V.) should be strongly urged by every recipient of this report to get on their public soap box (while they still have one); to discuss the dangers to free speech from the "Fairness Doctrine"; to vocally and vigorously oppose same; and most importantly, to get their listeners or viewers to launch a telephone, letter, mailgram, blitz to every Congressperson and Senator (at their local or district office AND in Washington) expressing anger and opposition to the "new censorship." The Washington telephone switch board number for U.S. Representatives and Senators is 202-224-3121. (The majority of these efforts should be directed at the Congress - - not the White House. Bill and Hillary Clinton desperately want to Hush Rush and the rest of their conservative opposition and are very unlikely to respond to conservative/Christian grass roots pressure. The Congress, on the other hand, should be the primary target for this grassroots opposition to the "new censorship." Their jobs are (or should be) at stake!) Time is of the essence! Millions of irate phone calls, mailgrams, letters, and even personal visits to legislator's offices need to be made over the next 30 to 60 days (i.e., October and November) before Congressional liberals are able to SNEAK the "Fairness Doctrine" through. This is an issue which lovers of free speech and the Constitution can win! We have the muscle to stop this effort to muzzle free speech in its tracks, or (as the abortionists might say, "to strangle this 'new censorship tarbaby' in the crib." Will we use our muscle to protect and perpetuate talk radio and free speech on the American airwaves, or will we roll over and play dead for the new liberal censors? Much more than just talk radio is at stake here. All of our freedoms may be at risk if we lose our freedom of speech on the airwaves. WHAT CAN OR WILL YOU DO TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH ON OUR AIRWAVES AND STOP THE NEW CENSORSHIP? WILL YOU, IN NANCY REAGAN'S WORDS, "JUST SAY NO" TO THE LIBERAL/CLINTONISTA ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OUR FREE SPEECH? WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH? [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The original newsletter continues at this point with several more pages commenting on various economic, medical, and political briefs. Because of the necessity of getting this information out in a timely fashion, the rest of the report is being omitted. Please contact the author of the newsletter to receive the rest of the report. The rest of the issue may be made available next month or so.] --------- The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor editor by Donald S. McAlvany is a monthly analysis of global economic, monetary, and geo-political trends which impact the gold and precious metals markets and is explicitly Christian, conservative, and free-market in its perspective. Information contained herein has been carefully selected from sources believed reliable, but absolute accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Subscription office: The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, P.O. Box 84904, Phoenix, AZ 85071 subscription rates: Domestic--6 mos. $56, 12mos. $95, 24 mos. $165 Foreign Air Mail: 6 mos. $72, 12 mos. $125, 24 mos. $221 Subscription information: 800-528-0559 in Arizona call 602-252-4477 SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, MAIL PROBLEMS The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor P.O. Box 84904 Phoenix, AZ 85071 800-528-0559 In Arizona call 602-252-4477 EDITORIAL OFFICES The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor P.O. Box 5150 Durango, CO 81301 303-259-4100 Editor: Donald S. McAlvany GOLD, SILVER, AND RARE COIN BROKERAGE & CONSULTATION International Collectors Associates P.O. Box 5150 Durango, CO 81301 For quotes or orders call 800-525-9556 In Colorado call 303-259-4100

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank