When 'fairness' means 'censorship'

George Orwell prophetically warned of a time when, due to the need of government for total control of the lives of citizens, the very meaning of words would change.

"Peace" might mean "war." "Freedom" might mean "slavery." The supreme dictator was known as "Big Brother."

That was Newspeak in the classic novel "1984."

But, in 2009, Americans will witness firsthand a nonfiction form of Newspeak.

That's when, for the first time, Congress will approve and the president will sign a piece of legislation called "the Fairness Doctrine." In a right-thinking free society, this law would more accurately be called "the Censorship Doctrine."

Why are Democrats plotting legislation to impose "fairness" and "balance" and "equal time" on broadcasters? Everyone knows the answer to that question. It is transparent. There is one segment of the media not thoroughly dominated by those who support Democrats and their ideology. That one segment is talk radio.

WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah has written a full-blown blueprint for restoring America, titled "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice." Today, you can get an autographed copy for only $4.95 – an $8 savings – but only from WND!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others don't seek to impose any constraints on their friends in network television – even though they are arguably every bit as partisan as Rush Limbaugh. You will notice no one in network television is very concerned about the effects of the federal government regulating what they say. That's because they know they say only what the people who will soon have complete control of the federal government want them to say.

This so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is designed to go after Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Michael Savage and hundreds of other outspoken critics of the party in power. It is designed to silence them. It is designed to censor their speech, pure and simple. It is designed to shut off debate in this country. It is designed to permanently empower a ruling class by destroying the only meaningful national soapbox of opposition.

Of course, there is nothing "fair" about it.

But neither is there anything "fair" about their desire to impose an ever-increasing burden of taxation on those at the highest end of the income scale. By definition, "paying one's fair share" would mean everyone paying the same percentage. That would mean those at the lower end of the scale would pay in dollars and cents a mere pittance of what people at the top end of the scale paid.

But those who say they believe in "fairness" in taxation have perverted this idea to establish the graduated tax that soaks the higher end of the scale while leaving nearly half the public paying nothing at all – or, as Barack Obama suggests, even receiving money seized from the wealthy.

"Fair," when used by Obama's new junta, is a word that means just the opposite of the dictionary definition. It doesn't mean equitable treatment. It portends vindictive, unfair treatment designed ultimately with one purpose in mind – the permanent empowerment of the ruling party.

Listen to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., if you need proof these people have completely lost their moral bearing and would say anything and do anything to maintain control over our lives.

"The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to limit pornography on the air," he told the Fox News Channel. "You can't say, 'government hands off in one area' to a commercial enterprise, but you're allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."

Personally, I'm not concerned with consistency. I'm concerned with the Constitution. But let's analyze Schumer's statement. I could easily turn it around, much more effectively.

It is Schumer and his buddies who don't believe government has any business limiting pornography and obscenity on the broadcast airwaves but believe the government should monitor and police and limit political speech on those airwaves.

There's a good reason I believe the FCC has the power, authority and moral and legal obligation to limit pornography and obscenity on the broadcast airwaves and don't believe the government has any power, authority or moral or legal obligation to limit political speech. That reason is the First Amendment. The founders never intended to protect pornography and obscenity when they wrote the First Amendment – perish the thought! Their sole intent was to protect the free exercise of political speech. Frankly, only a godless pervert like Schumer would even compare the expression of political viewpoints he doesn't like with pornography and obscenity.

But that's who's running the asylum these days in Congress. And they are about to be joined by a new president ready to sign on to whatever Newspeak legislation comes down from the Hill.

I intend to stand and fight.

I intend to battle for the Constitution.

I intend do whatever is necessary to thwart the implementation of clearly unconstitutional legislation, which won't just infringe on Rush Limbaugh's rights, it will infringe on all of our rights.

I intend to expose these evildoers so that their actions, while intended to empower them permanently, actually result in their undoing.

Will you join me?