So Matt, did Sanchez ever call you back?

I saw Rosie Avila, she said she would be happy to talk with you.

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), while at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, told reporter John Gizzi, that she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine. The imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing points of view, which would essentially give the government control over what the people can and cannot hear.

Ms Pelosi also said she supported the efforts of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who has been very active behind the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep Slaughter had introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

The Democratic leadership knows that they can't directly pass a "Fairness Doctrine" piece of legislation, so they will most likely try to slip it in under another name or attach it to some 'must pass' piece of legislation. Their support of the 'Fairness Doctrine by any means' strategy poses a direct threat to American citizens' constitutonal right of Freedom of Speech.

The important questions for Americans to ask are: Why is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats against free speech for the American people? Why are they so determined to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? and why is the Democratic leadership refusing to bring a true piece of Freedom of Speech legislation, The Broadcaster Freedom Act HR-2905, to the floor for a vote?

I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if certain political views can’t compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air those views.

I am opposed to any resurrection of the “The Fairness Doctrine,” the 1940’s law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. The real issue here is not what you “are able to” see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to “choose” what to see or hear.

In the 1940’s and 50’s, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

I support the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR-2905), introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) which would prevent these first amendment restrictive regulations from returning. Representative Mike Pence introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 2008, two hundred Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are still needed. So far, not one single House Democrat has signed the petition to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

It should also be noted that two of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners have already indicated that they favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine. All that would be needed to reinstitute Fairness Doctrine regulations would be for the next President to appoint a third sympathetic commissioner. Then, the regulations could go back into effect without any vote at all and the constitutional Freedom of Speech rights and guarantees of all Americans would suffer another blow.

By not bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to limit the constitutional rights of Free Speech of those American citizens who happen to oppose her political views.

The constitutional right of Freedom of Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment, as I do, must oppose the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech.

By:
John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th COngressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

In all fairness, we should be asking about Loretta's character and her fitness to serve in Congress. There have been many rumors of late that she is living with a married man in Washington, dating a married man in OC, and God only knows what else she is doing to undermine the dignity of her office. Is this the kind of conduct we want the nation to think about when they think of us here in the 47th congressional district? Recent blog postings and comments in OC political circles suggest that she has serious reputation issues that should be aired in the current campaign. Ive always voted Democrat, but I am considering voting for Rosie Avila this year.

I met Ms. Avila recently. Nice, but bland. I wrote her, without response. Sanchez's margins of victory are consistent over the past 3 cycles ~22-24%. The way I see it, the only way she wins is by hitting hard on three key issues in the heavily Latino (62%) 47th: 1) school vouchers; 2) abortion; 3) immigration. If anyone wants - I'll post the email.

MM

MM23, there is one other factor that could make the difference in the Sanchez-Avila contest: Loretta's scandalous affair with a married military officer, who was her assigned travel escort. She has managed to keep it secret for several years, but there are increasing indications that the word is getting out. Apparently, the guy lost his family and military career in the scandal. As a senior woman on the Armed Services Committee, that would be extremely damaging to her continued political viability. The Avila campaign knows about the breaking scandal, but lacks hard proof. If someone were to confront Loretta about it, she would either have to admit it, dodge it or lie about it. If she admits it, she's like Rep. Vito Fossella, whose career was ended in June by admission of an affair with his military escort during congressional trips. If she dodges it, the media and her enemies will start digging for the truth. If she lies about it, she'll end up like Edwards. I have a feeling that there is a bigger story about this Pentagon-run "escort service" that could seriously tarnish Sanchez's reputation as a public servant. Frankly, that's the only way Avila has any chance at all.