January 20, 2018

Why The Disbelief About Depopulation?

International Depopulation Documents..

“Everywhere and at all times groups, organizations and leaders meet in closed meetings, before going ‘public’. A minority of policymakers or advocates meet, debate and outline procedures and devise tactics to secure decisions at the ‘official’ meeting. This common practice takes place when any vital decisions are to be taken whether it is at local school boards or in White House meetings. To label the account of small groups of public officials meeting and taking vital decisions in ‘closed’ public meetings (where agendas, procedures and decisions are made prior to formal ‘open’ public meetings) as ‘conspiracy theorizing’ is to deny the normal way in which politics operate. In a word, the ‘conspiracy’ labelers are either ignorant of the most elementary procedures of politics or they are conscious of their role in covering up the abuses of power of today’s state terror merchants.”~Prof. James Petras

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: political science
Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists “see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works.”[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.
____________________________________________
Systemic Conspiracy Theory is a valid part of political science, political environmentalism, politically motivated depopulation activated by all member governments of the United Nations.. It is a NON NEGOTIABLE FACT..

Share

The Status of the Law of Nations In Early American Law

It should be clear who a Nation/State belongs to and who it does not belong to…
[Sylvester, supra note 55, at 67; see also Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 VAND. L. REV. 819, 823 (1989) (“In ascertaining principles of the law of nations, lawyers and judges of that era relied heavily on continental treatise writers, Vattel being the most often consulted by Americans. An essential part of a sound legal education consisted of reading Vattel, Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui, among others.”).]
Below is what Vattel and the Law of Nations has to say…
“The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. It is principally for them, and for their ministers, that it ought to be written. All mankind are indeed interested in it; and, in a free country, the study of its maxims is a proper employment for every citizen; but it would be of little consequence to impart the knowledge of it only to private individuals, who are not called to the councils of nations, and who have no influence in directing the public measures. If the conductors of slates, if all those who are employed in public affairs, condescended to apply seriously to the study of a science which ought to be their law, and, as it were, the compass by which to steer their course, what happy effects might we not expect from a good treatise on the law of nations! We every day feel the advantages of a good body of laws in civil society: — the law of nations is, in point of importance, as much superior to the civil law, as the proceedings of nations and sovereigns are more momentous in their consequences than those of private persons….”
“…But fatal experience too plainly proves how little regard those who are at the head of affairs pay to the dictates of justice, in conjunctures where they hope to find their advantage. Satisfied with bestowing their attention on a system of politics which is often false, since often unjust, the generality of them think they have done enough when they have thoroughly studied that. Nevertheless, we may truly apply to states a maxim which has long been acknowledged as true with respect to individuals, — that the best and safest policy is that which is founded on virtue. Cicero, as a great master in the art of government as in eloquence and philosophy, does not content himself with rejecting the vulgar maxim, that “a state cannot be happily governed without committing injustice;” he even proceeds so far as to lay down the very reverse of the proposition as an invariable truth, and maintains, that “without a strict attention to the most rigid justice, public affairs cannot be advantageously administered.”
Providence occasionally bestows on the world kings and ministers whose minds are impressed with this great truth. Let us not renounce the pleasing hope that the number of those wise conductors of nations will one day be multiplied; and in the interim let us, each in his own sphere, exert our best efforts to accelerate the happy period.”~[Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations]
From: The Law of Nations; Preliminaries: (This is what “States should be attain­ing” and this will give you a clue about what “all indi­vid­uals in a State” should be striv­ing for.)

§ 4. In what light nations or states are to be considered.

Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a State, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the State, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, and all other Nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them.

§ 10. Society established by nature between all mankind

Man is so formed by nature, that he cannot supply all his own wants, but necessarily stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his fellow-creatures, whether for his immediate preservation, or for the sake of perfecting his nature, and enjoying such a life as is suitable to a rational being. This is sufficiently proved by experience. We have instances of persons, who, having grown up to manhood among the bears of the forest, enjoyed not the use of speech or of reason, but were, like the brute beasts, possessed only of sensitive faculties. We see moreover that nature has refused to bestow on men the same strength and natural weapons of defence with which she has furnished other animals — having, in lieu of those advantages, endowed mankind with the faculties of speech and reason, or at least a capability of acquiring them by an intercourse with their fellow-creatures. Speech enables them to communicate with each other, to give each other mutual assistance, to perfect their reason and knowledge; and having thus become intelligent, they find a thousand methods of preserving themselves, and supplying their wants. Each individual, moreover, is intimately conscious that he can neither live happily nor improve his nature without the intercourse and assistance of others. Since, therefore, nature has thus formed mankind, it is a convincing proof of her intention that they should communicate with, and mutually aid and assist each other.
Hence is deduced the establishment of natural society among men. The general law of that society is, that each individual should do for the others every thing which their necessities require, and which he can perform without neglecting the duty that he owes to himself: (4) a law which all men must observe in order to live in a manner consonant to their nature, and conformable to the views of their common Creator — a law which our own safety, our happiness, our dearest interests, ought to render sacred to every one of us. Such is the general obligation that binds us to the observance of our duties: let us fulfil them with care, if we would wisely endeavour to promote our own advantage. (5)

§ 14. Of the preservation and perfection of a nation.

He who no longer exists can have no duties to perform: and a moral being is charged with obligations to himself, only with a view to his perfection and happiness: for to preserve and to perfect his own nature, is the sum of all his duties to himself.
The preservation of a nation is found in what renders it capable of obtaining the end of civil society; and a nation is in a perfect state, when nothing necessary is wanting to arrive at that end. We know that the perfection of a thing consists, generally, in the perfect agreement of all its constituent parts to tend to the same end. A nation being a multitude of men united together in civil society — if in that multitude all conspire to attain the end proposed in forming a civil society, the nation is perfect; and it is more or less so, according as it approaches more or less to that perfect agreement. In the same manner its external state will be more or less perfect, according as it concurs with the interior perfection of the nation,
§ 21. A nation ought to perfect itself and the state.
The second general duty of a nation towards itself is to labour at its own perfection and that of its state. It is this double perfection that renders a nation capable of attaining the end of civil society: it would be absurd to unite in society, and yet not endeavour to promote the end of that union.
Here the entire body of a nation, and each individual citizen, are bound by a double obligation, the one immediately proceeding from nature, and the other resulting from their reciprocal engagements. Nature lays an obligation upon each man to labour after his own perfection; and in so doing, he labours after that of civil society, which could not fail to be very flourishing, were it composed of none but good citizens. But the individual finding in a well-regulated society the most powerful succours to enable him to fulfil the task which Nature imposes upon him in relation to himself, for becoming better, and consequently more happy — he is doubtless obliged to contribute all in his power to render that society more perfect.
All the citizens who form a political society reciprocally engage to advance the common welfare, and as far as possible to promote the advantage of each member. Since then the perfection of the society is what enables it to secure equally the happiness of the body and that of the members, the grand object of the engagements and duties of a citizen is to aim at this perfection, This is more particularly the duty of the body collective in all their common deliberations, and in everything they do as a body. (18)
End Law of Nations; Below Citizen defined..
Section 1; 14th Amendement;
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”Definition of subject
1 :  one that is placed under authority or control: such asa :  vassalb (1) :  one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch’s law (2) :  one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or statesubject (v.)
late 14c., “to make (a person or nation) subject to another by force,” also “to render submissive or dependent,” from Medieval Latin subiectare “place beneath,” frequentative of Latin subicere “to make subject, subordinate” (see subject (n.)). Meaning “to lay open or expose to (some force or occurrence)” is recorded from early 15c. (implied in subjected). Related: Subjecting.
subject (n.)
early 14c., “person under control or dominion of another,” specifically a government or ruler, from Old French sogit, suget, subget “a subject person or thing” (12c., Modern French sujet), from noun use of Latin subiectus “lying under, below, near bordering on,” figuratively “subjected, subdued,” past participle of subicere, subiicere “to place under, throw under, bind under; to make subject, subordinate,” from sub “under” (see sub-) + combining form of iacere “to throw” (see jet (v.)). In 14c., sugges, sogetis, subgit, sugette; form re-Latinized in English 16c.

Meaning “person or thing regarded as recipient of action, one that may be acted upon” is recorded from 1590s. Grammatical sense is recorded from 1630s, from Latin subjectum “grammatical subject,” noun use of the neuter of the Latin past participle. Likewise some restricted uses in logic and philosophy are borrowed directly from Latin subjectum as “foundation or subject of a proposition,” a loan-translation of Aristotle’s to hypokeimenon. Meaning “subject matter of an art or science” is attested from 1540s, probably short for subject matter (late 14c.), which is from Medieval Latin subjecta materia, a loan translation of Greek hypokeimene hyle (Aristotle), literally “that which lies beneath.”

allegiance (n.)
“ties or obligations of a citizen or subject to a government or sovereign,” late 14c., formed in English from Anglo-French legaunce “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,” from Old French legeance, from liege (see liege (adj.)). Corrupted in spelling by confusion with the now-obsolete legal term allegeance “alleviation, mitigation” (for which see allay (v.)). General figurative sense of “recognition of claims to respect or duty, observance of obligation” is attested from 1732. French allégeance in this sense is said to be from English.

liege (adj.)
c. 1300, of lords, “entitled to feudal allegiance and service,” from Anglo-French lige (late 13c.), Old French lige “liege-lord,” noun use of an adjective meaning “free, giving or receiving fidelity” (corresponding to Medieval Latin ligius, legius), a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Late Latin laeticus “cultivated by serfs,” from laetus “serf,” which probably is from Proto-Germanic *lethiga- “freed” (source also of Old English læt “half-freedman, serf;” Old High German laz, Old Frisian lethar “freedman;” Middle Dutch ledich “idle, unemployed”), from PIE root *le- (2) “let go, slacken” (see let (v.)). Or the Middle English word might be directly from Old High German leidig “free,” on the notion of “free from obligation to service except as vassal to one lord,” but this reverses the notion contained in the word.

From late 14c. of vassals, “bound to render feudal allegiance and service.” The dual sense of the adjective reflects the reciprocal relationship it describes: protection in exchange for service. Hence, liege-man “a vassal sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to protect him” (mid-14c.).

-ance
word-forming element attached to verbs to form abstract nouns of process or fact (convergence from converge), or of state or quality (absence from absent); ultimately from Latin -antia and -entia, which depended on the vowel in the stem word, from PIE *-nt-, adjectival suffix.
Definition of -ance
1 :  action or process furtherance :  instance of an action or process performance
2 :  quality or state :  instance of a quality or state protuberance
3 :  amount or degree conductance

I can keep going with this.. Corpus Juris Secundem Citizen defined backs this up also..

Interesting how they established freedom by enslaving everyone else…

Share

The Unfairness Of The Government Controlled MSM Indoctrination Scam

 

 

The following document is key to understanding what those who waste their time watching it are seeing with the main Hoax stream media perpetual lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

 

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

 

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

Origins

The 1949 FCC Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine. It established two forms of regulation on broadcasters: to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views.[4] The second rule required broadcasters to provide reply time to issue-oriented citizens. Broadcasters could therefore trigger Fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.[5][6]

 

 

The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[7]

 

Application of the Doctrine by the FCC

In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of “access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue…” but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had “voluntarily” complied with the “spirit” of the doctrine. It warned that:

Should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of ‘voluntary compliance’] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated.[8]

 

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC). In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitconcluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it.[9]  In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.[10]

 

 

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[11]

 

 

Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[3]

 

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

“Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court’s 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine’s limits unnecessary:

“We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)”

 

After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be “chilling speech”, the Court added:

“Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine ‘[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing’ speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12)[12]

 

Revocation

 

Basic doctrine

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[13] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

“The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

 

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country’s inception.[14]

 

The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to “flout the will of Congress” and the decision was “wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.”.[15] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[16] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[17] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[18]

 

 

Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff’s position as saying to Reagan:

The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![19]Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress’s effort to make the doctrine law.

Corollary rules

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the personal attack rule and the “political editorial” rule, remained in practice until 2000. The “personal attack” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “political editorial” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

 

Reinstatement considered

Support

In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501)[20] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station’s license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[21] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[22]

In the same Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation “to restore the Fairness Doctrine”. H.R. 3302, also known as the “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005” or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[23]

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,”[24] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[25]However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:

Senator Durbin’s press secretary says that Durbin has ‘no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view’—that the American people were served well under the doctrine—’and it’s all been blown out of proportion.’[26]

 

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow DemocraticRepresentatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'”, the Speaker replied “Yes.”[27] On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[28]

 

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[29]

 

On February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, “…we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.” Later in response to Press’s assertion that “…they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,” Senator Harkin responded, “Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair—that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.”[30] Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”

 

Clinton cited the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn’t reflect economic reality.[31]

 

 

Opposition

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.[32][33]

 

 

In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (Republican, Minnesota) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from “using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.”[34] It was blocked, in part on grounds that “the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction”.

In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742)[35]and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).[36] It provided that:

The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).[37]

 

Neither of these measures came to the floor of either house.

On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[38] It could also include “government dictating content policy”.[39] The conservative Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.[40]

 

On February 16, 2009, Mark Fowler said:

I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you’re included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, Period.[19]

 

In the 111th Congress (January 2009 to January 2011), the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S.34, S.62, H.R.226) was introduced to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160),[41] [a bill which later passed the Senate 61-37, but not the House of Representatives].[42] The Associated Press reported that the vote on the Fairness Doctrine rider was:

“In part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.”

 

The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. Carolina) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.[43]

 

 

Suggested alternatives

Not to be confused with Unfairness doctrine.

Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger “public interest” standards enforcement (with funding from fines given to public broadcasting).[44]

 

 

In June 2008, Barack Obama’s press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters … [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.[45]

 

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[46]

 

 

Public opinion

In an August 13, 2008 telephone poll released by Rasmussen Reports, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is “possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media” (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error was 3%, with a 95% confidence interval.)[47]

 

 

Formal revocation

In June 2011, the Chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the Fairness Doctrine and other “outdated” regulations from the FCC’s rulebook.[48]

 

 

On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal the language that implemented the Fairness Doctrine, along with removal of more than eighty other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books”, to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[1]

 

 

References[edit]

  1. to:ab Boliek, Brooks (August 22, 2011). “FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine”. POLITICO.
  2. Rendall, Steve (2005-02-12). “The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back”. Common Dreams (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). Retrieved 2008-11-13.
  3. abRed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, decided June 8, 1969, also at 395 U.S. 367(1969) (Excerpt from Majority Opinion, III A; Senate report cited in footnote 26). Justice William O. Douglas did not participate in the decision, but there were no concurring or dissenting opinions.
  4. Jung, D.L. (1996), The Federal Communications Commission, the broadcast industry, and the fairness doctrine 1981-1987, New York: University Press of America, Inc.
  5. Donahue, H.(1988). The battle to control broadcast news. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
  6. Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949])
  7. Donald P. Mullally, “The Fairness Doctrine: Benefits and Costs”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Winter, 1969-1970), p. 577
  8. In the Matter of THE HANDLING OF PUBLIC ISSUES UNDER THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARDS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 48 F.C.C.2d 1 (F.C.C. 1974)
  9. Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 801 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1986)retrieved on August 17, 2008
  10. Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987), February 10, 1987, retrieved on August 17, 2008
  11. Tom Joyce: “His call for a reply set up historic broadcast ruling; Fred J. Cook, whose book as ttacked on Red Lion radio station WGCB in 1964, died recently at age 92.” York Daily Record (Pennsylvania), May 6, 2003, retrieved on August 17, 2008
  12. The quotation is from Section III C of Red Lion v. FCC 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Justice Brennan’s opinion was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powelland Sandra Day O’Connor. Dissenting opinions were written or joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and John Paul Stevens
  13. Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989), retrieved on August 17, 2008
  14. FCC Video, NBCUniversal (1987) (“Today we reaffirm our faith in the American people. Our faith in their ability to distinguish between between fact and fiction without any help from government.”) “FCC 1987”; see Robert D. Hershey, Jr., F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision, New York Times, August 5, 1987 [http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/05/arts/fcc-votes-down-fairness-doctrine-in-a-4-0-decision.html
  15. Robert D. Hershey, Jr., F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision, New York Times, August 5, 1987 [1]
  16. Sandra Salmans, Regulator Unregulated: Dennis Patrick; At the FCC, Another Man Who Loves Free Markets. [2]
  17. The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, S. 742 & H.R. 1934, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)
  18. Val E. Limburg, “Fairness Doctrine”, April 27, 2009, Museum of Broadcast Communications
  19. ab The Mark Levin Show, February 16, 2009 (a 26-Megabyte MP3 file), from about 17 minutes 15 seconds into the broadcast to 25 min. 45 sec.
  20. H.R. 501, Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (109th Congress, 1st Session)(full text) from GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 13, 2008.
  21. Congressional Research Service summary of H.R. 501–109th Congress (2005): Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation), retrieved on November , 2008
  22. Overview of H.R. 501 (109th Congress, 1st session) from GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 14, 2008.
  23. Summary at “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005”. Archived from the original on 2007-09-02. Retrieved 2007-09-12. – Full text at H.R. 3302 Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005retrieved on August 17, 2008.
  24. Alexander Bolton, GOP preps for talk radio confrontation TheHill.com, June 27, 2007, retrieved on October 27, 2008
  25. John Eggerton (June 27, 2007). “Kerry Wants Fairness Doctrine Reimposed”.Broadcasting and Cable. Retrieved October 27, 2008. describing an interview on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC radio
  26. Marin Cogan, Bum Rush: Obama’s secret plan to muzzle talk radio. Very, very secret, The New Republic, December 3, 2008, retrieved on November 20, 2008
  27. John Gizzi (June 25, 2008). “Pelosi Supports Fairness Doctrine”. Human Events. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  28. Pete Winn (October 22, 2008). “Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine–on Them”. CNS News. Retrieved October 28, 2008.[dead link]
  29. San Francisco Peninsula Press Club (DECEMBER 16, 2008). “Rep. Eshoo to push for Fairness Doctrine”. San Francisco Peninsula Press Club. Retrieved December 15, 2008.
  30. Michael Calderon (February 11, 2009). “Sen. Harkin: ‘We need the Fairness Doctrine back'”. Politico. Retrieved February 11, 2009.
  31. John Eggerton (February 13, 2009). “Bill Clinton Talks of Re-Imposing Fairness Doctrine or At Least “More Balance” in Media”. Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved February 13, 2009.
  32. “Rush to Victory”. The Wall Street Journal. April 4, 2005. Retrieved July 1, 2008.
  33. “‘Fairness’ is Censorship”. The Washington Times. June 17, 2008. Retrieved July 1, 2008.
  34. Frommer, Frederic J. (July 14, 2007). “Democrats Block Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine”. Associated Press. Retrieved August 10, 2008.
  35. Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, Open Congress Foundation, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  36. Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, introduced February 1, 2005, “To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine”, Open Congress Foundation, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  37. Text of H.R. 2905: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, GovTrack.us, retrieved on November 14, 2008
  38. Jeff Poor, “FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content”, August 13, 2008, Business & Media Institute
  39. http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=34016 See also Commissioner McDowell’s speech to the Media Institute in January 2009.
  40. Culture & Media Institute report on The Fairness Doctrine. – accessed August 13, 2008.
  41. “Senate Backs Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine Revival”. FOXNews.com. February 26, 2009.[dead link]
  42. Warren, Timothy (February 26, 2009). “Senate votes to give D.C. full House vote”. The Washington Times. Retrieved February 26, 2009. The Senate roll call is here.
  43. Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine The Associated Press, February 26, 2009
  44. “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio”, Free Press, Center for American Progress
  45. John Eggerton, “Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine”, Broadcasting & Cable, June 25, 2008, retrieved on October 30, 2008, citing an e-mail from Obama’s press secretary, Michael Ortiz.
  46. “White House: Obama Opposes ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Revival”. Fox News. February 18, 2009.
  47. 47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV, Rasmussen Reports press release, Thursday, August 14, 2008 and Toplines – Fairness Doctrine – August 13, 2008 (Questions and answers from the survey).
  48. Gautham Nagesh, FCC sets August target for striking Fairness Doctrine, “Hillicon Valley” blog, The Hill, June 28, 2011, quoting Republican Representatives Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee, and Greg Walden (R-Oregon), Chairman of its Telecommunications Subcommittee

The Mickey Mouse Mainstream Media;

Share

Mr. Bannon We Salute You

Mr. Chiarini asks what folks think of this scumbag now….

Share

Slow Boiling Frogs

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”— Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

Share

Wide Angle and Telephoto Lens Distortion Tutorial

Having personally owned several expensive cameras and lenses over the years and including friendships with a few special effects people and radio broadcast gurus over the years I can totally agree with this tutorial.. Wide angle and telephoto lens distortion for the purpose of deceiving YOUR eyes…Been going on for decades where Hollywood and government is concerned.. They don’t merely rely upon words/terms to fool YOU… A picture, video, used in media news no doubt is worth a thousand lying words…

 

Share

Presidential Candidate Oprah

Share

Wolf Migration Corridor From Canada

This is a nice picture of an opinion. Where’s the radio collar data supporting these migrations? Or did Buffalo Bob ride his donkey and follow those wolves down those routes.. This is insufficient data that would be laughed out of a court room.. “The wolves did it on their own”, the “wolves were here all along”, “the wolves rode down in pickup trucks and were dropped off”.. All opinions backed by nothing. Nice picture of the opinion though.. It does leave out the late 70s early 80s Wyoming sightings south of YNP.. You’d think the Grizzlies would do it too… So since there are recorded wolf sightings going back to the late 1970s why did the wolves fail to establish a population? Or if some wolves survived the removal process of the early 20th century, again, why did the wolves fail to establish a population. Yet in 1995 the program to reintroduce wolves did rather quickly established a population.. So I’m going with wolves migrated down here from Canada in cages at various times over the years and were released.. Those attempts for whatever reason failed.. Myself and people in the family observed wolves near Bear Valley and Goat Mountain just west of the Sawtooth Wilderness in the 1970s{We did not think about shooting them}. There is no solid evidence supporting how those wolves came to be in these regions of Idaho prior to 1995..There are only opinions.

 

Share

Janet Reno Looks Like a Dude

Share

Depop Poisons In Foods And Containers

Share