You are probably starting to hear the name Mark Lloyd more and more. This would be Barack Obama Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC. But Mark Lloyd may be facing the next wave of conservative criticism. And here are a few reasons as to why ....

FCC's Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting

Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for 'Confrontational Movement' to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications

FCC Diversity Chief Asked Liberals to Copy FDR, Take on Limbaugh, Murdoch, Supreme Court

FCC Diversity Chief Says Republican Communications Policies Hurt Civil Rights

Top Senate Republican Fears FCC's 'Diversity' Chief May Use 'Back Door' to Regulate Talk Radio

Now ... on to some reading assignments!

An FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, has an internal report which examines the state of media journalism. The report discusses, "ways to address issues such as the rise of media conglomerates and the prevalence of opinion journalism." Known as the Notification of Inquiry, this is the first step the FCC usually takes when making new rules to regulate media.

As you can imagine, the report talks about the decline of traditional media and the rise of others such as blogging. But there are a few ideas that I want to point out. These are ideas that are circulating in the FCC and could have potential impact on yours truly, not to mention the basic concept of freedom of the press.

One idea presented in the report is using the tax code as an incentive to help struggling news outlets. We are talking about either tax breaks or government handouts. See politicians love to do that .. use the tax code to punish or entice. That is why they are so resistant to ideas like the FairTax - because it would remove this powerful weapon from their arsenal. Consider this ... if the government creates a system of government tax breaks or handouts for various elements of the media, don't you just know that media outlets that are more friendly to Obama will get the goodies? After all, that's the way its working with stimulus funding. If your area voted Obama you're more likely to get help. Here we will have government bureaucrats picking media winners and losers. Some Americans see the danger in that.

Another issue floated in the report is the possibility of "behavior rules" for broadcasters. I love this one. All we know as of right now is that "behavioral rules" might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest - as defined by government.

Look ... despots know they need to control the dissemination of information to their people. They already have their control over our education processes .. now control over information is next.

You can see the despot's desire to control broadcasting in his words. Copps says, "Since we still need broadcasters to contribute to the democratic dialogue, we need clear standards that can be fairly but vigorously enforced ... It is time to say 'Good-bye' to post-card renewal every eight years and 'Hello' to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth."

Talk radio is shaping up to be the primary gathering point for opposition to Obama's grand government schemes. This is not going to go unchallenged. Obama will most certainly shut us down if he can find a way to do so.

Speaking of entitlement culture. Our imperial federal government is trying to capitalize on your next right that must be protected by the Constitution .... Your right to high-speed, affordable Internet access!

You may think I am joking. But there are people out there who sincerely believe that they have the right to own a home and the government has the obligation to make sure that happens. And when it comes to Internet access, we are well on our way to enabling this entitlement mentality.

The FCC, by order of the Congress, has until February of 2010 to come up with a plan to address the issue of "Internet openness, definitions of affordability and what speeds are fast enough." According to whom, the government? So the government, rather than the private sector and the free market suddenly want its hand in determining what is considered "fast enough" Internet access what constitutes "affordable"? Also .. just how do you define "openness?"

It is the goal of the FCC to provide "all citizens" with "high-speed value-laden broadband." Thanks to Barack Obama's stimulus package, we are well on our way to achieving this.

Setting myself up for an "I told you so" here. The ultimate plan here will be for the government to begin controlling Internet content. Any decent Democrat would want this.

"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.

Have you heard about this plan proposed by the chairman of the FCC?  Kevin Martin is a Republican.  And his time as FCC chairman is short-lived.  But he wants the FCC to auction off "public airwaves", and the highest bidder would be mandated to set aside some of those airwaves for free nationwide Internet service.  Don't you just love that word?  Mandated? 

The opponents are lining up.  The cell phone companies say this isn't a feasible business model to be forced to provide free Internet.  Free speech advocates are upset because the winning big would be required to block pornography and offensive content for their free Internet access.  Also, who in the world would be willing to build up the infrastructure to provide free Internet, particularly in this economy?  Oh ... and "free?"  Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays ... and this stuff rolls downhill.  If it's a wireless provider setting up the "free" Internet in some local, you can bet that the people with the cell phones will be picking up the tab.

Solution?  Free market.  If the demand is there, let the free market provide it.  This is not a government function. 

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 ...????

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.