We get emails every day from listeners who are concerned about a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.  Curious to hear how presidents and politicians in history have used the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics?  Listen today to Nealz Nuze at 12:35 ET.  Maybe you'll learn something.

Cristina Kirchner of Argentina is really making some waves lately. Just a few months ago, she proposed the idea of nationalizing all private pension plans in her country. (Coming soon to the US, if I don't miss my guess.) Now, she wants an overhaul of the media laws in her country ... and there is a lot of suspicion that she wants to change the laws in order to punish the largest media group in Argentina and silence her critics during an upcoming election campaign.

What she wants to do is reduce the control of a few companies that dominate broadcasting. More specifically, she wants to limit the number of broadcast licenses one company can hold locally and nationally, increase the number of soccer games shown on free channels instead of pay-TV, and guarantee a share of the airwaves for nonprofit groups.

This woman is a despot. Despots learn that you must control the media. Despots talk of such things as the "Fairness Doctrine." Watch her, she's dangerous and Obama likes her.

"Diversity" is going to be the new way to justify the regulation of talk radio. To a Democrat, how can ANYONE be against the idea of diversity? I'll tell you - if it is government mandated. And that is exactly what Nancy supports.

Dick Durbin wrote an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the FCC to "take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest." And Nancy Pelosi agrees. She says, "Diversity in media ownership is very, very, important."

Barack Obama may have said that he's not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine .. but there are many ways to skin this cat. Believe me, it's not over. As the Democrats continue their march to a government-dominated society, more and more people will turn to talk radio to understand what is going on, and to vent their frustrations. Talk radio listenership and impact will increase along with leftist frustrations at their inability to master the genre. Trouble on the horizon.

Well there goes my fun ... but then again, maybe not! I was really looking forward to Congressional hearings and the whole bit. But White House spokesman Ben LaBold told FoxNews.com that Barack Obama opposes any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Well then somebody ought to inform Congress and the FCC that this is the official stance of the administration. But remember, the key nowadays is to rename things. Like "tax cuts" is the new name for "welfare." Or "economic stimulus" is an excuse for "government spending." If it is so easy to re-brand a welfare check as a "tax cut," how difficult could it be to re-brand the Fairness Doctrine? Remember that comment from a Democrat congressman earlier this week? The goal of some Dems, including Henry Waxman, is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine but not actually call it the Fairness Doctrine.

Here are two possibilities:

1. "Localization." Most of the talk shows that cause the Democrats such headaches are syndicated. Instead of the Fairness Doctrine, all the Democrat-controlled FCC has to do is announce a new policy that requires radio stations serving certain sized radio markets to make 50%, 70% or more of their prime time programming local. Syndicated radio programs like Limbaugh and Hannity aren't local. In order to save their licenses to operate these radio stations would have to get rid of one show or the other and substitute local talk show hosts who don't quite have the impact on national policy that the big dogs do. Mission accomplished.
    
2. Create a radio version of the "Community Reinvestment Act" that would require radio stations to program for their specific communities rather than the population at large. This law would permit various community groups, like ACORN, to monitor the programming of radio stations in the area and file complaints with the FCC when the programming isn't to their liking. While it is true that community groups can do that now, the new regulations would give their complaints added weight in determining license renewal.
    
3. Create local boards to oversee radio stations. Politicians, naturally, would appoint these boards which would be made up largely of community "activists." These boards would have extraordinary access to station policies and documents regarding decision-making processes. These boards would have great influence on FCC license-renewal processes and would, therefore, become de-facto program directors.

Fairness Doctrine? They don't need no Fairness Doctrine. There are plenty of ways they can shut down talk radio. Perhaps Obama does actually have an appreciation for the concept of free speech when it comes to talk radio ... but I see nothing in his history or current actions that would tell us that.

The Boortz staff has tried to track this story back to sources ... admittedly, it's pretty sketchy, so bear that in mind as you read. The poll results are real, as is the desire of many on the left to shut down talk radio. After all, if you can't beat 'em, shut 'em down. The stuff about Henry Waxman? No solid source .. but this really sounds just like good ole Henry. Anyway ...

The latest Rasmussen polls show that 38% of Americans believe the government should resurrect the Fairness Doctrine - require radio stations to offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary. This is almost a ten point drop from last August when 47% of Americans said that the government should require radio to be "balanced."

And while Jamie Dupree and others believe that there is no chance of the Fairness Doctrine being reimposed .. I'm not so convinced. Heck, I HOPE that the government holds hearings and dabbles with the idea of bringing it back. The immediate result will be more listeners for talk radio. Some will go away again, many will stay. We have a good beat and we're easy to dance to.

According to this report, senior staff working for the acting FCC Commissioner met with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. Why is that? Because they wanted to discuss ways that the committee can create openings for the FCC to reimpose some form of the Fairness Doctrine, without calling it the "Fairness Doctrine."

Apparently Henry Waxman is also interested in imposing some sort of "balance" on the Internet as well. Wow, even better news for me .. I'll have my radio show and this website for the government to "balance"!

A Democrat committee member (who remains nameless) says that the stimulus package may have opened a door for regulation of the Internet. He says, "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

Didn't I mention that politicians just love to control things? I think I may have said that somewhere before.

They're really cranking up the language out there. Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General, was on Michael Savage's talk show last week pushing the idea. Governor Moonbeam (or whatever they call him this week) actually said "A little state control never hurt anybody." Now that's a nice little Democrat. Democrats love state control. Only government is bright enough to do these things ... not the private sector, and certainly not the people. No Democrat in his right mind would ever let the public decide what they wanted to listen to on radio.

Let me clue you in on something. If any leftist or Democrat ever tells you that the Fairness Doctrine is about restoring some sort of balance .. that person is lying in your face. The Fairness Doctrine is about destroying syndicated talk radio .. nothing less.

Try this: I want you to pay a visit to the Media Matters website. Media Matters is an organization that has dedicated itself to the destruction of conservative talk radio. In fact, the Clinton/Soros myrmidons at Media Matters are setting up the infrastructure they need to launch a full-scale attack on talk radio as soon as the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. Now if you were to ask these folks what they're up to, they would tell you that they're just about fairness and balance. Again .. they're liars. They're lying straight to your face.

Click this link. You're going to see the Media Matters website in the background with a dialogue box in the center. "Join our Team Today!" it says. "Help us hold the media accountable." The box reads "Send me Media Matters newsletters and action alerts." Then come the sign-up spaces. Action alerts? Well, they ask for your first and last name - but that's voluntary. They then require your email address and zip code. Now just why would they want your zip code? Well ... let me tell you.

On their main page Media Matters says "Over the next few months, we'll be developing new tools to help you take action on both the national and local levels." What kind of action? Complaining to individual radio stations and making equal-time demands, that's what kind of action.

Media Matters is building a database of radio stations around the country that carry their two main enemies, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I'm probably not important enough for them to waste the time building a database for me. Perhaps that's a good thing. But I'll guarantee that they have a list of Hannity radio stations .. and that list includes all of the zip codes in the signal coverage area for each radio station. Here's how they will use that information:

After implementation of the Fairness Doctrine Media Matters staffers and volunteers will monitor what's being said by Hannity. (We'll stick with Sean for this example). As soon as Hannity voices an opinion on a controversial issue - like socialized medicine - Media Matters will get into their database and send emails to members of their "action network" in virtually every Hannity zip code. These "action network" members will be encouraged to call their local Hannity radio station and demand, pursuant to the Fairness Doctrine, time to express an opposing viewpoint. The radio stations will be forced to interrupt programming to present a constant stream of these "opposing" sound bites or risk losing their licenses to operate. In just a matter of days these radio stations will be completely fed up with the constant stream of Media Matters (and other organizations, to be sure) generated demands for equal time. They'll start dropping these syndicated shows like hot coals. This may turn out to be good for local talk talent ... but it will kill syndicated talk radio. That, after all, is the ultimate Democrat goal. They know they can't succeed in the genre, so destroy those who can.

Should be interesting.

We have yet another moonbat senator to add to the list: Michigan Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow.  This woman thinks that right now would be the perfect time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.  Interviewed on a talk show yesterday, Stabenow said, "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Doctrine or something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."

If Stabenow gets her way we could expect these hearings as soon as this year.

Me?  Thanks for asking.  I'm loving this.  I welcome the hearings - and I relish a Democrat-led attack on talk radio.  Can you say "more listeners?"  With more listeners come higher ratings, and with higher ratings come higher prices for advertising .. and with more money comes ...well, you connect the dots.  There is one problem though, since the hearings will be conducted by Democrats you can rest assured that the list of witnesses will be tightly controlled.  It is highly doubtful you'll hear any testimony from experts who can tell these hacks that leftist talk radio fails simply because people can't stand listening to that dogsqueeze.  Left wing talk radio, with a few exceptions such as Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, does not get ratings. Two viable hosts cannot keep the genre afloat.  No ratings - no advertising.  Therefore it loses money.  How simple is this?  Look ... the left-wing talk radio station in Washington DC, for goodness' sake, just flipped formats.  This station even used "Obama" in its title.  If left-wing "Obama" talk radio can't make it in DC, where can it succeed?  Well, there's always Madison, Wisconsin. 

Oh and by the way, this might be of some slight interest to you.  Stabenow is married to the co-founder of TalkUSA Radio network and is now the Vice President of ... wait for it .. Air America.

Of all liberal arguments for government control, this is perhaps one of the easiest to destroy.

Since the era of mass communications despots have realized that one of the keys to absolute power was control of the means of communication.  Our founding fathers didn't do today's politicians any favors with the First Amendment.  There is really nothing the power-hungry political class can do about newspapers because of that troublesome little guarantee of "freedom of the press."  Clearly our framers intended for a prohibition of any control over the means of communication.  Back then there were only two means of communication .. writing and the spoken word.  Both were covered in the First Amendment.

Later came broadcasting .. and with broadcasting came the realization that a new means of mass communication was coming; a means of mass communication not specifically referenced in the Constitution.  So .. time to exert some control.  But wait!  You need an excuse!  Well, let's try this.  We'll develop this concept of "the public's airwaves" and use that concept to legitimize government control. 

Public's airwaves?  What does that mean?  Just what is it the public owns here?  Does the public own the electromagnetic waves that travel through space at close to the speed of sound?  Why?  Did the public pay to produce those electromagnetic waves?  Find me the budget item for "procurement and propagation of electromagnetic waves" in any appropriations bill.  Light is also an electromagnetic wave, and light also comes to us through the airways.  Where's the government department that controls light?  When you speak you produce sound waves that travel through the public's airwaves. Where's the government department that regulates your conversation?  Oh, wait .. that First Amendment problem again.  But there are universities with speech codes ... so there's hope. 

Politicians like to use the excuse of "scarcity" to regulate broadcast frequencies.  Scarcity?  In Atlanta there is one newspaper, but 30 radio stations.  The broadcast spectrum could handle dozens more.  Where's the scarcity?  If there's a scarcity it's in newspapers.  Maybe that's where the regulations ought to go .. .but, again, there's that pesky First Amendment. 

While it's hard to make any sensible excuse for this "public's airwaves" nonsense, our roads and highways are another matter.  Clearly the roads and highways are paid for by the people .. by all of us.  Clearly a case can be made for public ownership of the roads and highways.  And just guess how your newspaper gets to you every day.  That's right, over the public's roads and highways.  Same for the U.S. Mail, magazines ... pretty much everything you have in your home.  Everything, that is, except for the sounds and pictures that come over your radios and televisions. 

The attacks on the Godfather of Talk Radio (that would be Rush Limbaugh) are stepping up ... and they're coming from all sides! First .. and I think I can speak for many of my talk radio colleagues here .. we couldn't be more thrilled: Not because Limbaugh is under attack, but because millions of people are turning to talk radio who haven't listened before just to see what in the world is going on. Some will tune back out, but some will stick around. Good for our side.

Now it's perhaps understandable why the left - why Democrats - are on the attack. The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee now has an online petition so that Democrat myrmidons can put their outrage against Rush Limbaugh on the record. Sure, I feel left out here .. but the truth is I'm doing quite well with Limbaugh's scraps. Besides .. the nail that sticks out the furthest gets pounded down first. I'm happy with my nail not sticking out all that far.

Oddly, Republicans are joining in here. Georgia Republican Congressman groinocoligist Phil Gingrey told Politico that it was "easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh .. to stand back and throw bricks." Yeah .. that poor Republican leadership, they're so misunderstood. They're just trying to get along.

In the meantime - Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center is saying that the attack on conservative talk radio has begun. Bozell says that Obama is "setting the stage for the Fairness Doctrine."

Let's see how many Democrats and assorted leftist moonbats join in the Amen Chorus here.

OK .. so it was actually a shot at the Godfather, but we're all in the crosshairs. And no, I'm not at all outraged by this. It's great! Who knows how many new listeners are listening to talk radio today trying to see just what it is that PrezBo is so upset about.

On Friday, Barack Obama had some sound advice for Congressional Republicans ... stop listening to talk radio. Well to be more specific, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Obama said, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." A White House official says that Obama meant that "there are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats ... We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

Translation: We have the Republicans right where we want them. They're kowtowing to Barack Obama and giving up pretty much everything we want without much of a fight. We don't need them listening to anyone that could possibly cause them to see the light."

Yes, but when one party wants to spend billions of dollars on their party platform in the name of "economic stimulus" .. somebody has to talk about it. And when one party wants the government to be in charge of your healthcare, someone has to say something. And when one party supports the unionization by intimidation, someone has to say something.

Are you getting my point, folks? The reason why Barack Obama doesn't want people listening to talk radio is because it is a major speed bump in the way of his massive government spending and national socialist schemes. Talk radio is really the only form of media that is willing to challenge Barack Obama .. somehow we just don't seem to get tingles up its leg every time he speaks. Talk radio is willing to ask the tough questions. And now, more than ever, is the time for tough questions.

A Congresswoman from California by the name of Anna Eshoo (bless you) says that she is going to work fiercely to make sure that hate radio is shut down! Okay, so she didn't exactly say that .. but she did say that she is going to work to restore the Fairness Doctrine in the new Congress. She also wants the Fairness Doctrine to apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

She says, "I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it ... It should and will affect everyone." She says that the current system is "unfair" and that there needs to be "equal time for the spoken word."

My gag reflex gets triggered big time every time I hear that absurd "the public's airwaves" phrase when a discussion of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" comes up.

Do any of you really doubt that if broadcasting had been around when the Bill of Rights was written that the broadcast freedom would have been included in the protections of the First Amendment? You know the answer to that one. Of course it would have been there. Back then there were only two ways to spread information. You either spread it by word or in written form. Both were protected. Today you have electronic communication. The same protections should be offered there.

One of the first lessons despots learn is that they must control the means by which information is disseminated if they are to cement their hold on power. By the time broadcasting came along the politician's love for freedom of the press had subsided somewhat. They knew what a powerful force for information broadcasting would be, and they just had to come up with a way to exert government control. This brought us the precursors to the FCC. The excuse? This ridiculous "public's airwaves" nonsense.

So ... here is the question I want one of you liberal bedwetters to answer. If broadcasting should be controlled by the government - including content control - because it comes over the "public's airwaves," then why should your morning newspaper be similarly controlled? After all, your newspaper comes to you over the public's roads. In fact .. the people actually paid for those roads with their tax money, unlike the airwaves, so the argument for control of newspapers should actually be a stronger one! OK all you brilliant liberals out there ... your response is ...????

Have you noticed these articles lately? I've seen more and more popping up around the Internet ... declaring talk radio to be, essentially, dead. My advice to these naysayers is don't count your chickens. Remember when much of talk radio (excluding the Talkmaster) once declared liberalism to be dead? Yeah, that was stupid. And look where that got us.

But this is an example of what I am talking about. Here's an article from the Boston Globe declaring "The rising irrelevance of talk radio." It says that one of the most significant outcomes of the 2008 election is to declare that talk radio had no major impact on the election. And this is apparently because people grew brains "that are available for persuasion."

The reasons they site include the rise of opinion television programs, the fact that talk radio "no longer pretends to be a 'town meeting on the air,'" and because Americans no longer expect talk radio hosts to be reasonable or rational.

Gawd, wouldn't it be boring to turn on your radio every day and be subjected to my rational arguments? Guess this is just the warm up article. The next one I expect is why this is justification for the Fairness Doctrine. But wait a minute, if talk radio is so irrelevant, why would liberals even care we say?

Here's part of an email that has been sent to MediaMyrmidons by the Democrat Party's MediaMatters. It would seem that now with complete Democrat control of the government apparatus in Washington the liberals want to step up their attacks on freedom of expression .. especially expression of ideas with which they do not agree. When and if the Democrats get the idiotically-named "Fairness Doctrine" implemented again it is clear that MediaMatters wants to be THE clearing house for challenges and demands for equal time on the nation's talk radio stations. This message to their followers is part of that process:

I'm tellin' ya ... I would have been very disappointed if they hadn't included me in their examples. Glad to know that all my hard work isn't going for naught. Now you folks sign up out there! There's no sense standing for freedom of expression when Erin Hofteig and MediaMatters is standing ready to help you strike it down! The people they're signing up here will be the shock troops when Pelosi gets her Fairness Doctrine. MediaMatters will send them their ACTION ALERT! emails and they'll be instructed as to just how to contact their local Limbaugh, Hannity or Boortz affiliate to make a demand for equal time.

They don't have the skill to play with the big boys, so they want to close the playground.

If you want a good laugh ... and some insight into the mind of a liberal who just can't stand the thought of me "spewing hate" out of a microphone for 4 1/2 hours a day ... just read this column by Douglas Turner in The Buffalo News. Here's the title, "Virulent talk radio may be a loser, too." I'll give you a little taste, maybe with some of the usual Boortz commentary.

"Talk radio lost this federal election in two big ways. Its candidate, Republican John McCain, got creamed. And its most dedicated enemies, who want to trim talk radio's sails, were massively empowered.

Elements of the team of President-elect Barack "Hussein" Obama, as they were fond of calling him, and the expanded Democratic majority will move to remind broadcasters of a fundamental tenet of broadcast law.

That is, that the airwaves do not belong to the station "owners," as they call themselves, but to the people of the United States of America ... As station ownership became more consolidated, talk radio became more virulent, if not violent, and one-sided ...

The basic service that a broadcast licensee owes a community is truth. As the election neared, that commodity was in short supply.

Obama was compared to Hitler on the "Mark Levin Show." Obama would open the United States to an "invasion" of Muslims, according to the "Gunny" Bob Newman show. On the Lee Rodgers show, critics of Obama were going to "be jailed or killed." Host Neal Boortz wanted to know how many prayer rugs Obama owns ...

There are constitutional issues related to imposing equal time. So the Democratic route seems to be to roll-back media consolidation."

We really need to put this stupid "the public's airwaves" nonsense to rest - but that idiotic idea has been hammered into the heard of Americans for so long it's going to be difficult. This whole "public's airwaves" stuff came about with the ascendancy of broadcasting. Politicians realized the great information dissemination potential of radio (and then television) and intuitively knew that if they did not find a way to control broadcasting it could spell big trouble for them. There can be no doubt that the framers of our Constitution would have included broadcasting in the protections offered by the First Amendment - if they could have foreseen broadcasting. By the time broadcasting came around the goal was more about protecting government than it was protecting free expression .. hence this "public's airwaves" idiocy. Any excuse ... the political class just needed any excuse.

Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increases their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat's looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez' attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela? And trust me ... the Republicans would have tried the same thing during the Bush Administration if talk radio had been overwhelming liberal. Richard Nixon used to brag about how he used the "Fairness Doctrine" to harass left-wing commentary on television. Democrats and liberals generally fail miserably at talk radio .. therefore it must be destroyed.

One more point about this "public's airwaves" dog squeeze. How does your newspaper get to you every day? Do you think it just magically appears at your doorstep? Hardly .. it is delivered over --- guess what? --- publicly owned highways and roads! Yeah! The "public's highways!" How about a Fairness Doctrine for newspaper editorial pages! Oh, wait .. there's that darn Constitution in the way again. Don't you just hate that?

There are some rumors that Obama could appoint a man by the name of Henry Rivera to head a transition team for the FCC. Rivera used to be FCC commissioner during the Reagan years. Once he left, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, which allowed talk radio to flourish. Rivera, by the way, believes in a doctrine of "communications policy as a civil rights issue".

If appointed, Rivera will have the chance in 2009 to replace current Republican Robert McDowell because he term expires. That will give the FCC a three-vote Democrat majority. Even if it is not Rivera, whoever Obama appoints could be very telling for talk radio's future. Keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine is not a law, it is simply FCC regulation.

The end of the secret ballot in union elections
A return of the Fairness Doctrine
A tax code punishing the wealthy, businesses, entrepreneurs, achievers
More federal government in government schools
Universal healthcare
Cap-and-trade policies on coal (no nuclear power, no drilling)
Supreme Court justices who favor a vaporous idea of "fairness" over the Constitution
The security of our nation and our allies (particularly Israel)

So now it's all up to the Democrats ..... it is their turn to prove that they can somehow tax the achievers, increase spending programs and still get federal spending under control. Isn't that what the people want? Change? Oh, that's right. The people forgot to ask what exactly we were going to be changing to.

Making the rounds on Election Day, Senator Chuck Schumer reiterated his support for the Fairness Doctrine. He says he supports it because all people should support coverage that is "fair and balanced." He said, "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that... But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."

Okay, folks. I know that you are tired of hearing about this. And this may not be something that Barack Obama champions, but the fact is that there is huge momentum for House Democrats right now. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (a close friend of Obama) says that it is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has stated her strong support for the Fairness Doctrine. My point is that these Democrats in Congress could get greedy. They could feel like they have a mandate of the people and push for legislation like this.