On Feb 10, 6:18*am, dave wrote:
traveler wrote:

You think NPR is "unbiased?" *Ha ha ha.

- "...facts have a Liberal bias."

Dave has a 'DaviD' bias.

On Feb 8, 5:42*pm, wrote:
Democratic plans to revive government censorship of the radio and TV
airways will strike hardest at religious broadcasters who stand in the
way of a liberal social revolution.

If idiots like Democrats actually knew how either radio or TV works,
people with
brains wouldn't have built digital, CD, DVD, HDTV, Optical
Computers, Adaptive AI.
GPS Digital Terrain Mapping, Drones, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx,
AUVs,
On-Line Banking, Fiber Optics, Microcomputers, Mini Harddisks,
HDTV,
GPS, parallel processing, Holograms, Holographic Memory, On-Line
Publishing,
Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Cell Phones, Anti-Spam, Post Ford
Batteries,
and Post GM Robotics.








Christian broadcasters tell HUMAN EVENTS they will be targeted once
President Obama's appointees gain control of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) this year.

"The Left Wing, I think, will immediately start filing complaints, and
it will in short order shut Christian broadcasting down," says Warren
Kelley, president of "Point of View," the first Christian talk show to
go on the air via satellite 37 years ago. "I think it will so limit
what they say that, in essence, they will cease to be Christian
broadcasters."

A number of prominent congressional Democrats, among them House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, want the FCC to bring back the so-called
Fairness Doctrine. Until its abolishment by President Ronald Reagan,
the doctrine gave the five-member FCC the right to demand that
broadcasters present contrasting views or risk losing their broadcast
license.

What is even more troubling to Christian talk show hosts is a left-
wing movement to use regulatory boards like the FCC to cancel
broadcast licenses and to stamp out free speech altogether. Such
government power is already being exerted in Europe and Canada, where
those at the microphone cannot criticize Islam or homosexuality
without risking a blackout.

"Our founders believed the most important liberty was religious
liberty," says Frank Pastore, whom some have dubbed the "Christian
Rush Limbaugh" for his daily radio talk show in Los Angeles. "They
enshrined that belief in the First Amendment. And now that religious
liberty is threatened. We need to just look at Canada and Europe and
see what liberals have in mind. I don't want to be France. I don't
want to be Canada. I want to continue to be America."

Says Bruce Fein, the FCC general counsel during the Reagan
administration, "The whole purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to
force contrasting views even if it violates the broadcaster's
scruples. The overall objective is to try to make it sufficiently
expensive, so it isn't worth it so I'll say nothing at all. The
alternative is not to have more views but to have fewer."

History tells Pastore and his colleagues they have has good reason to
be concerned. Religious broadcasters were the most targeted during the
Kennedy-Johnson administration. In perhaps the most infamous case --
the FCC crackdown on Christian fundamentalist Carl McIntire and his
radio station, WXUR -- the commission leveled a series of complaints
for McIntire not presenting "contrasting views." Finally, it refused
to renew his license. McIntire, big on Christian values and anti-
communism, was off the air in 1973.

Perhaps coincidentally, Christian broadcasting has grown since the
Fairness Doctrine went away, producing some of the great conservative
voices. Men like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson became
a major pillar within the Republican Party. Their flocks help elect a
Republican Congress in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2000.

Their association, the National Religious Broadcasters, meets in
Nashville's Opryland this weekend for an annual convention, just as
Democrats in Congress mull how to bring back a doctrine that would
stifle the family values message.

The convention features a panel of lawyers and broadcasters discussing
possible threats from the new Obama administration.

"Will hate crimes and the Fairness Doctrine now threaten the
broadcasting landscape?" the convention program states. "Where can you
expect attacks on your religious programming content. What is the
prospect for religious liberties in America.?"

One panel speaker is the host of "Janet Parshall's America," a daily
popular show on the Salem Radio Network. Some congressional Democrats
have talked of specifically targeting Salem and its 95 radio stations
by challenging its license renewals. In all, there are over 2,000
Christian radio stations in America and 100 TV stations.

"What we want to do is tell the message of Jesus," Parshalls tells
HUMAN EVENTS. "What the Fairness Doctrine would have us do is give
equal time to Buddha, Allah and [scientologist] L. Ron Hubbard."

Indeed, the issues the conventioneers tackle especially rankle the
Left. Christian broadcasters oppose same-sex marriage, abortion,
rampant illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, strict teaching of evolution and
the liberal secular movement. They promote marriage, home schooling,
prayer in school and homosexual-to-heterosexual conversion.

"These are things that would make religious broadcasters prime
targets," Fein said.

When voters in California last November approved Proposition 8, which
defines marriage as between a man and woman, religious broadcasters
may have made the difference.

"We were a large mouth piece that kept the base informed," Pastore
says.

The party holding the White House enjoys a 3-2 commission majority,
meaning the Obama FCC merely has to draw up a new Fairness Doctrine
and vote to institute it.

The Dallas-based "Point of View" is an example of a talk show that
uses the Christian world view to discuss public policy issues. A
second category of Christian broadcasting is the pastor who goes on
the air to preach the Gospel.

For both, the Fairness Doctrine "is going to have a chilling affect,"
Kelley tells HUMAN EVENTS.

The process would work this way: a Muslim group such as the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or a homosexual rights group such as
the American Civil Liberties Union would file a complaint with the FCC
because, for example, "Point of View" did not provide a contrasting
view.

This would spur a formal FCC investigation involving the 370 radio
stations who relay the show to an estimated two million listeners. The
commission would be empowered to force the station to present pro-gay
rights programing or lose its license. Some stations might opt to
cancel the show to avoid the controversy -- and the legal expense.

"For the teaching ministry in today's culture I think they will be
dramatically affected," Kelley says. "If you have a pastor who talks
of salvation through Jesus, then Muslim clerics will want equal time
and to force Christian broadcasters to provide time to competing world
views and religions."

"If 'Point of View' does a program that deals with the problems of
homosexuality, then any station that carries us would be forced to
give air time to homosexuals, and I think that most broadcasters,
rather than being forced into that situation, would restrict their
broadcasters in the content they would put on the air."

Pastore has doubts the Democrats and Obama will be so blatant. He
believes a Democratic-controlled FCC will turn to the concept of
"localism" to hamstring Christian broadcasters and deny license
renewals.

"We are going to take back the airways and give it back to local
ownership," is the way the Left will begin the movement, Pastore says.

Under Pastore's scenario, liberal groups will organize against certain
broadcasters under the premise that the public airways should devote
more time to local issues of importance. They then file complaints
against radio stations across the country. The FCC interprets these
complaints as a public outcry and establishes rules requiring stations
to devote more time to pressing local issues. The end result: talk
show hosts such as Pastore must relinquish air time.

"Lets get a Christian host saying something that a gay listener is
offended by," explains Pastore. "Just say that's wrong. He complaints.
You have rally cry on the Left. this will set up the case for
localism. Barack comes on and says, 'I can hear the voices of the
people.'"

Parshalls believes the FCC itself will set up panels across the
country to monitor talk shows and report to Washington that station X
if violating "localism" and needs new ownership.

"So you dilute, dilute, dilute the message of the Gospel until there
is no Gospel message left," Parshalls says. "What they want to do is
have us sell all kinds of good [but] we believe them to be false
except the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30580

wrote:

If idiots like Democrats actually knew how either radio or TV works,
people with
brains wouldn't have built digital, CD, DVD, HDTV, Optical
Computers, Adaptive AI.
GPS Digital Terrain Mapping, Drones, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx,
AUVs,
On-Line Banking, Fiber Optics, Microcomputers, Mini Harddisks,
HDTV,
GPS, parallel processing, Holograms, Holographic Memory, On-Line
Publishing,
Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Cell Phones, Anti-Spam, Post Ford
Batteries,
and Post GM Robotics.



That makes no ****ing sense.

y'all want to know about democracy?

On the web,
Dave Daubenmire And to the Republic
cuhulin

On Feb 10, 9:28*pm, "M Peraaho" wrote:

****His con snipped****

Well, it sounds like you are spewing the same thing you are condeming
them for. Sounds like you're preaching "your" version.

I think I will agree with the scriptures over a no doubt intellectual
scholarly fella such as yourself. ;-)

Good try though.

On Feb 13, 9:48�am, BCBlazysusan wrote:


I think I will agree with the scriptures over a no doubt intellectual
scholarly fella such as yourself. ;-)

Good try though.

Thre problem with "the scriptures" is that humans can only understand
them through the process of perception and interpretation. Two people
reading the same scriptures often interpret the words to mean very
different things. Some interpretations are so bizarre that some silly
people believe they can be used to predict the probable outcomes of
21st century foreign policies. In other word, they start the process
of interpretation with certain personal beliefs that they will always
end up at when they finish interpretation the scriptures.

Also, the scriptures have been altered over the millenia. Books have
been added and removed - not by God, but by bureaucratic committees in
the Vatican. Translations from one language to another also inserts
more "diftage" into the holiness of the scriptures.

I've never heard a very good answer to the problems involved in
scriptural interpretation.

I know a lot of what I hear on religious radio probably would make God
sick.

Jackson Gun and Knive Show.February 21 - 22,2009
http://greatsoutherngunshow.com

Gems and Rocks and Minerals and Jewelry Show, February 21 - 22,2009 in
Jackson.
www.stonesbones.com/roc.htm
All of that real good stuff will be at the great big humongous Trade
Mart Building.
People around here are Armed to the gills.
cuhulin

Michael W. Bryant, the dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:48�am, BCBlazysusan wrote:


I think I will agree with the scriptures over a no doubt intellectual
scholarly fella such as yourself. ;-)

Good try though.

Thre problem with "the scriptures" is that humans can only understand
them through the process of perception and interpretation. Two people
reading the same scriptures often interpret the words to mean very
different things. Some interpretations are so bizarre that some silly
people believe they can be used to predict the probable outcomes of
21st century foreign policies. In other word, they start the process
of interpretation with certain personal beliefs that they will always
end up at when they finish interpretation the scriptures.

Also, the scriptures have been altered over the millenia. Books have
been added and removed - not by God, but by bureaucratic committees in
the Vatican. Translations from one language to another also inserts
more "diftage" into the holiness of the scriptures.

"diftage" ? Surely you meant "driftage", PhDufus.

On Feb 13, 9:19*am, Mike wrote:
On Feb 13, 9:48 am, BCBlazysusan wrote:



I think I will agree with the scriptures over a no doubt intellectual
scholarly fella such as yourself. ;-)

Good try though.

Thre problem with "the scriptures" is that humans can only understand
them through the process of perception and interpretation. Two people
reading the same scriptures often interpret the words to mean very
different things. Some interpretations are so bizarre that some silly
people believe they can be used to predict the probable outcomes of
21st century foreign policies. In other word, they start the process
of interpretation with certain personal beliefs that they will always
end up at when they finish interpretation the scriptures.

Also, the scriptures have been altered over the millenia. Books have
been added and removed - not by God, but by bureaucratic committees in
the Vatican. Translations from one language to another also inserts
more "diftage" into the holiness of the scriptures.

I've never heard a very good answer to the problems involved in
scriptural interpretation.

I know a lot of what I hear on religious radio probably would make God
sick.

Very well said. Given the popularity of Revelations among the
"Rapture" crowd today, for example, it's worth noting Martin Luther's
opinion among others.

Telamon
Ventura, California

Thanks, but I'm not holding my breath. *And it's not propaganda. *It's
the truth. *Living in liberal Southern California, you don't
understand what goes down in isolated parts of Arizona.

Ventura County voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Elton Gallegly is the
local Congressman. When descriptive terms such as "liberal" cease to
be used to accurately describe a situation, maybe it's time to seek
more accurate terms that reflect a more complex reality.