The Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Ronald Reagan if memory serves. Back when it was employed, I remember how a media outlet would have to allow equal time for opposing views to their editorials. If a capitalist did an editorial, a socialist could have the same amount of time to counter. It stimulated debate, thought, and consideration of more ideas.
It informed the public of the choices. Of course, Reagan didn't want the people being informed of alternatives to capitalism. The capitalists didn't want to have to defend their selfishness intellectually before the general public. They wanted dumbing down TV shows to numb people with advertising to convince the people that they, the people, wanted (even had to have) things produced by the capitalists that the people truly often (most often) would be better off without. Consider all the pollution caused by the capitalist's greedy methods that were stupidly copied by militant, Marxist dupes.
Well, the Reagan people didn't want to think of the licensed outlets as being anything but the wholly owned enterprises of capitalists who had the right to so-called commercial free speech and therefore didn't have to offer equal time for opposing views, even though the airwaves, much as the cable ways and satellite ways, were and remain limited in bandwidth and are licensed by the people through their government that supposedly derives its power by virtue of the uncoerced consent of the people.
The limited ways are considered natural monopolies. Licensing to capitalists (privatization) is a compromise it is suggested.
So, now we find that what those in the know knew all along, namely that the talking military heads during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion were paid propagandist (psyops, force multipliers, perception managers), is finally coming out to the general public.
Well, what's new? The CIA has always controlled the mass mainstream media of the U.S. The capitalists control the government for the sakes of the ultra rich. The government has the CIA and Pentagon and FBI, etc., violently enforce capitalism (ram it down other people's throats) around the world as much as possible. The capitalist owners of the corporate media conspire in secret with the CIA to pump out propaganda domestically and also for foreign consumption. Operation Mockingbird is well documented, and David Rockefeller stated openly that the plutocrats of the Bilderberg Group have had such an arrangement.
The owners of the Washington Post long ago acknowledged that the Post is the government's voice to the people. In 1981, Katherine Graham, who owns the Post and Newsweek announced that her editors would 'cooperate with the national security interests. National security in this context means 'CIA'. — John Stockwell, former CIA official
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years, but the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. — David Rockefeller, June 1991
"...supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers"! Listen to the arrogance that is spitting in the faces of the one people (God is oneness) as the source from which government derives its just power. "Intellectual elite," "world bankers," who the hell does he think he is?
Who the hell does he think he is? I'll tell you who he is. He's one of the antichrists. His words and deeds come straight from Hell.
That's what the intellectual elite and world bankers have brought forth. You shall know them by their fruits. Their results stink. The world is worse off after having been kicked and dragged around by the greedy, violent, secretive liars.
It's time to dump them as leaders. It's time to stop following them.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)