Monday, October 29, 2007
Baptist Press on Planned Parenthood
The Baptist Press highlights the movement to suspend Federal funding of Planned Parenthood in the midst of criminal investigations of the Kansas/Missouri chapter.
Click here to read the full story.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Planned Parenthood back in the news
CNS News has a story today on why Planned Parenthood’s federal funding could be in danger. Check out the story here.
Excerpt:
NOTE: Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, said on Thursday that although Democrats have marginal control of both houses of Congress, the charges in Kansas might be enough to convince federal officials that the abortion provider doesn't deserve government money.
"We had a very significant vote in July in the House on the labor, health and human services bill," he told Cybercast News Service. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) "introduced an amendment to take all Title X money away from Planned Parenthood, and although we didn't win that time, we failed by only 20 votes."
Sedlak stated that the 107 criminal counts submitted last week are "only going to add to the reasons why Planned Parenthood should not get funding," noting that "a district attorney put the charges together, and a judge reviewed the thousands of pages of documents supporting them."
"It's not as if somebody just beamed it up and threw the charges in," he added.
Citizen Link Urging Action on the Fairness Doctrine
"Take Action: Ask Your Representative to Protect Talk Radio"
Click here to view the full story.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Transcript of Congressman Pence and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Congressman Pence: “Let me call to your attention today’s Associated Press story that reads, ‘October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in US military and Iraqi civilian deaths in a row. American commanders say they know why the US troop increase and an Iraqi ground swell against Al-Qaeda and Shiite militia extremists’ is the cause. “Thank you for your diplomatic work on the ground in Iraq. Thank you for the progress that it’s making; reported or unreported. “I want to speak to you about Annapolis and get your sense of things. I admire your statement earlier that the objective is a secure and stable peace in the region that the President said that was preconditioned on the ‘nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.’ “As an unapologetic champion of Israel, let me say I am very interested to know, going into Annapolis, what the substance of that means. Specifically, you may recall, I think it was a week after September the 11th when the word of the creation of a Palestinian state was first rumored in the newspapers. “We met shortly thereafter on Capitol Hill to speak about it in your prior role. What was a rumor a week after 9/11 has been reported to be the stated objective of Administration policy. I heard it driving in this morning that the goal of Annapolis is to create a Palestinian State. “I am troubled by that. Shouldn’t the goal, first and foremost, be a secure, stable, and permanent state of Israel, as a Jewish state? And then adjust settlement for the other people in the region? “Israel is our ally. America was instrumental in a rebirth in 1948. I would just ask you, very sincerely, because I think I know your heart on this, I think I know the President’s heart, I don’t question that at all. But do we put ourselves tactically at a disadvantage when we state that the objective of these negotiations is the establishment of a Palestinian state as opposed to saying the objective is the cessation of violence, the objective is that all parties would recognize the right of each party to exist, the objective is a humane solution. And then if that leads us to the creation of a Palestinian State, then so be it? “I’d love to know what your definition of success is. Can you speak specifically to those reported accounts that the objective of this conference is the creation of a Palestinian state, and what your mentality and the President’s is, going into this conference? Secretary Rice: “Thank you. First Congressman, let me just note, you mentioned September 11th and I think that after September 11th, one way that the United States and the Israeli leadership actually got closer was in our joint belief that terrorism was a significant, indeed existential threat, not just to Israel but also the United States. “The President made very clear early on that you could not, with the one hand, condemn Al Qaeda and on the other hand hug Hamas. It was the President who said in effect that there could be no such thing as a freedom fighter in that context. “This was that a Palestinian State could not be born of terror. It is why we rejected the leadership of Yasir Arafat. It is why the President then called for a Democratic leadership in the Palestinian territories to lead their people to statehood. “You now have, in the Palestinian territories, a democratic leadership, and one that we believe is really trying to fight terror. They don’t have all the capability they need, but one of the things that was very encouraging for me when I was in the region recently is there isn’t much argument that these are people who want to do the right thing. “So I think the circumstances have changed very much. I would say that the conference will try to lay a foundation for the parties to come to the establishment of Palestinian State. Perhaps it was put best by Ariel Sharon, what he talked about in his Herzliya speech, the need to divide the land, and the need to make painful compromises because a Palestinian state was in Israel’s interest. “I think that what people have come to recognize, is that the way that you will ultimately secure a democratic Jewish state called Israel is to have, living side by side in peace, a Palestinian democratic state. “So the goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Not one born of terror as I think it would have been in earlier times. Not one that is unable to carry out its security responsibilities. Not one that is not democratic and delivering for its people. “I would defend the statement that there needs to be the establishment of a Palestinian state in order for there to be, in the long run, a stable and secure Jewish state. I think that was the reason that the father of the settlement movement, Ariel Sharon, moved from the concept of a greater Israel to the concept of dividing the land and having two states, one for Palestinian people and one for the Israeli people.”
Pence on Washington Journal today
C-SPAN is highlighting Congressman Pence’s discussion of U.S. policy in the Middle East today on Washington Journal. Secretary of State Rice testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee on the same topic. Click here to view Washington Journal video and click here to view Congressman Pence questioning the Secretary of State.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Herald Bulletin Editorial
The Herald Bulletin has an editorial on the hiring practices of the new Honda plant in Decatur County. Click here to read the full story.
Excerpt: Pence said he was disappointed in the Honda decision and hopes the company revisits its restrictions. He also noted that federal law allows companies to base hiring on a geographic area.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Media Shield
Friday, October 19, 2007
Special Order on Fairness Doctrine
Congressman Pence gave a Special Order speech on the Fairness Doctrine yesterday after the House adjourned. You can watch some of it here. (Hat tip: FreedomWorks)
Investor's Business Daily on Fairness Doctrine
Investor's Business Daily has a great editorial today about how the Fairness Doctrine has run into a wall:
The Democrats' assault on the First Amendment has run into a wall. Republican Rep. Mike Pence is determined to see that freedom of speech isn't repressed in the U.S. as it is in tin-pot dictatorships. For years, the political left has been setting the country up for a rerun of the Fairness Doctrine, looking for a Reichstag fire to whip up public support for a regulation that is clearly unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court's absurd 1969 ruling. *** So Democrats, jealous of the right's success and frustrated over their failures (they can't understand why everyone doesn't think correctly, as they do), aim to fix things with authoritarian regulation. Apparently the legacy of liberty left to us by our founders is an archaic notion. Censorship is the new freedom of speech. Though he'll get no praise from the mainstream media for his vigorous First Amendment protection, Pence is pushing through the House a bill with more than 200 co-sponsors that prohibits the FCC "from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance." Should Pence get 218 House members to sign the discharge petition he filed Wednesday, the Democratic majority will be forced to bring his bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Given that 113 House Democrats voted in June in favor of a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine, it's likely the Indiana congressman will draw the required support. Getting the Senate to pass a ban will require a greater effort. Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has tried, but Democrats have blocked his bill from seeing the floor for a vote. Apparently their definition of fairness is the absence of opposition to the leftist agenda and their voices' artificial domination of the airwaves.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fairness Doctrine cartoon
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Myths vs. Facts on the Fairness Doctrine
HR 2905 – The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Congressman Mike Pence (IN-06) and Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02)
H.R.2905 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations or policies that will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The so-called Fairness Doctrine is a regulation from the 1940s that required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues to avoid revocation of their broadcasting license.
MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine is needed in order for talk radio listeners to hear both sides of a controversial issue.
FACT: When the Fairness Doctrine was in place, broadcasters actually minimized programming that could be considered controversial to avoid the substantial dangers associated with the Fairness Doctrine such as government sanction and administrative and legal expenses.
MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine is needed due to consolidated ownership of media outlets.
FACT: The Fairness Doctrine is a holdover from the days of scarce media outlets. When the FCC issued the Fairness Doctrine in the 1940s, it justified the regulation on the grounds that there were only a scarce number of broadcast stations across the country. Today there are over 14,000 broadcast radio stations, numerous satellite radio stations and internet radio streams, over 10 million blogs, internet video websites like YouTube, and podcasts. The scarcity justification that once was used to validate the need for the Fairness Doctrine does not hold true in today’s 24-hour news environment.
MYTH: The Fairness Doctrine only applies to political talk radio programs hosted by radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.
FACT: The FCC applied the Fairness Doctrine to discussion of “controversial issues of public importance.” Since the FCC’s guidance on the Fairness Doctrine lacked clarity, the breadth of what could be considered a controversial issue today is significant. Therefore, religious broadcasters could very well be prevented from presenting their views over the airwaves without federal interference. In America’s increasingly polarized society, traditional religious and ethical principles are considered as controversial as ever. If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, complaints could be filed with the FCC against religious broadcasters that examined conventional Christian and Jewish teachings relating to sexuality, marriage, parental responsibility and the sanctity of human life by those with differing beliefs.
MYTH: The FCC has repealed the Fairness Doctrine, so there is not a need for HR 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
FACT: The FCC could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine at any time through a rule making. Clearly, there are concerns this could occur because more than 300 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to prohibit the FCC from using appropriated funds for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine during FY 2008 (Roll Call 599, June 28, 2007).
A future presidential administration could direct the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Only an act of Congress can protect the free speech rights of broadcasters.
MYTH: Only conservative talk radio hosts and broadcasters think the Fairness Doctrine is troublesome.
FACT: In a 2003 interview on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, well-known liberal talk show host, Alan Colmes, said:
Modern day talk radio would not thrive if there were a Fairness Doctrine and the bureaucratic nightmare that’s involved in the kind of paperwork you need to do that. The free market should be the arbiter of what flies on talk radio. … That’s where I want to make it, and not because I have government help to do so.
In 2007, on his own program, Hannity and Colmes, Mr. Colmes wholeheartedly agreed with a guest’s comment that radio hosts simply chose not to talk about controversial issues on the air when the Fairness Doctrine was in place.
As managing editor and anchor of CBS News, Dan Rather said:
"I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost."
MYTH: If the Fairness Doctrine is about First Amendment freedom of speech protection, its fate should be decided by our nation’s court system.
FACT: In 1974, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino. Twenty-three years ago, in FCC v. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate and, as a result, the FCC overturned it.
FreedomWorks chimes in
Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, has a great column out today on the Broadcaster Freedom Act discharge petition here.
Fairness Doctrine Update
Here is audio from today’s press conference announcing a discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
The speaking order is as follows:
Congressman Mike Pence
Republican Leader John Boehner
Republican Whip Roy Blunt
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam
Republican Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor
Congressman Greg Walden
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling
Here is a link to a story in The Hill today.
Here is a GOP Leader Alert from Mr. Boehner’s office.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Media Shield Update
Below are a few editorials from key papers around the country on media shield today including a must-read in USA Today from the Balco Boys (Lance Williams (left) and Mark Fainaru-Wada):
USA Today
Detroit Free Press
LA Times
WSJ on Armenian genocide resolution
The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today on the Armenian genocide resolution voted on last week in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Monday, October 15, 2007
More news on Turkey and Armenian Genocide
The Indianapolis Star ran a story on Sunday quoting Congressman Pence about his vote on the non-binding resolution. Here's an excerpt:
Rep. Mike Pence thinks the mass killings of Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire was genocide. The Columbus Republican used to support a congressional resolution saying so.
But Pence voted Wednesday against the resolution -- "after a gut-wrenching number of days of reflection and prayer" -- because he said Turkey is an indispensable partner to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush had warned that the resolution would do "great harm" to relations with Turkey, which allows the U.S. to use its airspace for cargo flights.
"The old book tells us that there is a time for every purpose under heaven," Pence said during the House Foreign Affairs Committee's debate on the resolution. "This is a season that calls for maintaining relationships with a crucial ally in the global war on terror."
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette also ran a story on Sunday about the vote. Here's an excerpt:
"Rep. Mike Pence was one of the few committee members who were persuaded, saying he believed genocide occurred, but "with American troops in harm’s way, dependent on critical supply routes available through an alliance that we enjoy with the nation of Turkey, I submit that at this time, this is not the time for this nation to speak on this dark chapter of history."
Rep. Dan Burton, also a committee member, agreed with Pence’s view. Unlike Pence, he did not have to change his position to vote against the resolution. Burton has opposed similar bills the many times they have been proposed in the past 20-some years.
"There’s no question that thousands and thousands of people were killed during the time period we’re talking about," Burton said. "That was over 90 years ago. And right now there’s a conflict in Afghanistan, there’s a conflict in Iraq, there’s a conflict that’s going on – off and on – in Lebanon and the West Bank. All over that area it’s a tinderbox. And right next door, we’ve got Iran who’s trying to develop a nuclear capability."
Our strongest ally in the area, and has been for 50 years, is Turkey. I just don’t understand why we’re going to cut our nose off, shoot ourselves in the foot at a time that we need this ally."
Global warming "ridiculous"
Here is an excerpt from a story in the Sydney Morning Herald:
"One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works."
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
More news on media shield
The Richmond Palladium-Item ran editorials on Saturday and on Sunday.
The Evansville Courier Press ran an editorial this morning calling for the passage of the media shield bill.
The Muncie Star Press ran an editorial on Sunday urging passage of the bill.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Denver Post on media shield
Congressman Pence's federal media shield bill, The Free Flow of Information Act, will be voted on for the first time ever on the House floor Tuesday. The Denver Post ran a great background piece on the bill today. Broadcasting and Cable as a story here.
Baptist Press: Pence challenges Planned Parenthood funding
Baptist Press has an excellent story today on Congressman Pence's challenge to federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Here is an excerpt:
Now, federal and state office holders, as well as enterprising pro-lifers outside government, are seeking not only to uncover Planned Parenthood's practices but to diminish its influence and public funding.
Congressman Mike Pence is one of those. The Indiana Republican tried this summer to eliminate a sizable portion of Planned Parenthood's government grants, sponsoring an amendment that would have ended funding of the organization under Title X, the federal government's family planning program.
The House of Representatives defeated Pence's amendment in a 231-189 vote in July, meaning Planned Parenthood remains the largest recipient of Title X funding.
The action, however, marked an apparent first. There had never been such an "up-or-down vote" on funding for Planned Parenthood, according to his congressional sources, said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League (ALL).
In a statement on his website, Pence explained his reasoning behind offering such an amendment to a spending bill for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, noting that "millions of pro-life Americans should not be asked to fund the leading abortion provider in the United States."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Pence on Turkey and Armenian genocide
The NY Times has this report on the Armenian genocide bill that was before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. Here is Congressman Pence's quote in the piece:
Representative Mike Pence, a conservative Republican from Indiana who has backed the resolution in the past, said Mr. Bush persuaded him to change his position and vote no. He described the decision as gut-wrenching, underscoring the emotions stirred in American politics by a 92-year-old question.
“While this is still the right position,” Mr. Pence said, referring to the use of the term genocide, “it is not the right time.”
CQ had this report. Excerpt below:
That message clearly got through to Mike Pence, R- Ind., who voted against the resolution, saying he nonetheless believed genocide had been committed.
“I believe this is a season that calls for standing with our troops first, who are in harm’s way,” he said.
UPDATE: Turkey just recalled its ambassador to the U.S. USA Today has the report here.
Congressman Pence's reaction:
“The news that Turkey has ordered its ambassador in Washington to return for consultations is an ominous but predictable result of yesterday's vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and could foreshadow more serious diplomatic consequences to come. By placing the demands of history over the importance of our alliance with Turkey, the Democrat leadership in Congress may be endangering our ability to provide our troops with the resources they need in Iraq. Congress should foreclose any further consideration of this resolution while American forces are in harm’s way."
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Media shield editorials
The New York Times and Chicago Tribune ran editorial here and here today praising the Senate Judiciary Committee for passing the Free Flow of Information Act, or federal media shield bill.
Weekend news wrap
The Indy Star ran a piece this weekend in Behind Closed Doors about the Ramadan vote last week in the U.S. House. Click here for the story.
Sacramento Bee editor Rick Rodriguez wrote a column for the paper Sunday about the need for a federal shield law.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Rush and the Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine has been receiving a lot of attention with the Rush Limbaugh controversy. RedState covered the controversy here. To view a transcript on RushLimbaugh.com, click here. Human Events has an article here. The Hill ran a great article; to read it, click here. Congressman Pence was on Fox & Friends Thursday morning speaking about the controversy, the transcript is posted here and Redstate has the video here. NewsBusters also reported on the controversy here.
Excerpts are below.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Update on the Fairness Doctrine
The following are a few updates on the Fairness Doctrine.
1. The Hill: Battle lines are drawn over conservative radio
2. FOX & Friends transcript: Pence Defends Limbaugh, Warns Democrats Want to Reinstate Fairness Doctrine
3. Letter to House Democratic Leadership
1. The Hill reports on its front page today about Democrat attacks on Rush Limbaugh and how it dovetails with their efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Below are a few excerpts:
House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.
***
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.
Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.
“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”
***
The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from setting rules and policies reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
The doctrine, which the FCC abandoned in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. FCC regulators called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.”
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and government interference.
In addition to Durbin, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has said in recent months that she plans to review the legal aspects of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Aides to Dingell, who chairs the House committee with primary jurisdiction over the FCC, have studied the issue as well, Democratic sources said.
Every Republican in the House has sponsored Pence and Walden’s bill. Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.), a former newspaper publisher, is the only Democrat to sign on so far.
The bill’s sponsors believe they could pressure more Democrats to sign on to a discharge petition, especially as Election Day nears.
At the end of June, 309 House lawmakers voted for an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill prohibiting the FCC from using federal funds to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
Republicans say Congress must consider the Broadcaster Freedom Act now because the amendment the House passed several months ago has not yet become law. The Senate has yet to consider the Financial Services spending bill.
2. Congressman Pence was a guest on FOX & Friends this morning to defend Rush Limbaugh and talk about the need to abolish the Fairness Doctrine. Below is a transcript:
FOX & FRIENDS TRANSCRIPT
10-3-07
Host: Joining us right now from Washington are Congressman Joe Sestak and Mike Pence as well. Good morning to both of you. Congressman Sestak, let me ask you about this. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Democrats are taking him out of context.
Sestak: I think if you look at the transcript, you can see that in response to a caller that said, “hey look, they’re finding soldiers in the media to talk against the war,” he said, those are “phony soldiers.”
Let’s take it to a higher level. Do I agree with what Rush Limbaugh said? No. Do I respect his right to say it after serving 31 years in the military to protect his right? Absolutely. Take the other side, I don’t agree with the words that Moveon.org used. I just think that we have to take this to a higher level of debate. We’re not going to address the issue of solving this war correctly, and that’s what Mike and I should be doing, not talking about talk show hosts, but how to correctly end this war in a bipartisan way.
Host: Ok, so Congressman Sestak, what do you say to Congressman Udall from Colorado who has introduced a resolution on the floor of the US House denouncing Rush Limbaugh? He is doing exactly what you said you shouldn’t do.
Sestak: No. I haven’t read the resolution. But I voted for the one that said, “I condemn the words that Moveon.org used, not the organization’s right to say it. I condemned the words if this is how its stated, that Rush Limbaugh used, not his right to say it. Step back one more time though. You know what’s most important for these men and women to remember out there, whether its Rush Limbaugh calling Senator Hagel, who served in Vietnam, Senator Betrayus on 25 January, or Moveon.org using certain words is remember your military in America is different. Your military remembers that age-old maxim from the 1600’s, that the nation that draws a broad line of demarcation between its thinking men and its fighting men, will find its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. You need to have military people who think and critique differently.
Host: Congressman Pence, your view?
Pence: Well, I want to agree with Congressman Sestak, that I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the Democratic leaders of Congress, particularly in the Senate, but many in the House, are focusing on the American political debate and the comments of an American commentator.
Let me say with great respect, Joe, I read the transcript too and I think FOXNEWS yesterday, reported that a literal reading of the transcript shows that Rush Limbaugh did not call veterans who oppose the war “phony soldiers.”
In fact, the term comes from an ABC News report that aired the Monday night before the Wednesday that he used the term. He did a commentary on Tuesday on the subject Joe you know, and this was all about the ABC News initial report of this Jesse Macbeth, and frankly, several incidents of people who have pretended to be Iraq War veterans, in some cases a criminal behavior, who have then been used by the anti-war left to make a case against Iraq.
Rush Limbaugh has clarified his statement but, quite frankly Steve, I see this all as a precursor to an effort by the Democrats in Congress to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. What on earth business is it of the United States Senate to be policing the airwaves of America? I really do believe this whole incident, the circus on the Senate floor Monday, argues for the legislation we’ve introduced in the House that would put the Fairness Doctrine out of reach of any future President or any future Congress.
Host: Congressman Sestak, I’ll give you the final word.
Sestak: Look, you can read a transcript and decide what you want. I read it also. But let’s bring, Mike, this to a higher debate. We should not be wasting our time talking about talk show hosts; we should be talking about the fairness doctrine. And what we should be doing is saying, “Mike, this war, is it hurting or helping our security? How can we bring about a better end to this?”
And that’s what I believe needs to be done. Do I think both sides’ words are wrong? The tone is absolutely wrong. So let’s not defend either side, and say whether we think or don’t think whether these individuals (inaudible). What we need to finish doing, is just to ensure that the tone changes if we are to approach this war correctly.
Pence: I think we should raise the debate, Joe. The debate ought to be about freedom, it ought to be about freedom in Iraq, and the freedom of speech in America.
Host: Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania and Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana, gentlemen, thank you very much.
###
3. Congressman Pence, together with Congressman Walden, sent the following letter to Democrat House leadership asking them to schedule the Broadcaster Freedom Act for an immediate vote on the House floor:
October 1, 2007
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
H-232, U.S. Capitol Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Majority Leader
H-107, U.S. Capitol Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Dingell:
We write to request that you schedule H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act for immediate consideration on the House Calendar.
We have introduced H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Over 200 of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors of this important measure. Additionally, earlier this year the House spoke by a 3 to 1 margin in favor of the Pence Amendment to H.R. 2829, the Fiscal Year 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, preventing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from implementing regulations to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in FY 2008 (Roll Call 599, June 28, 2007). However, since the FY 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act has yet to be considered by the Senate, we feel it is important to advance HR 2905 in order to achieve a permanent solution to the extremely troubling Fairness Doctrine.
Due to the lack of clarity in the regulation and in the FCC’s rulings, broadcasters often opted not to offer any controversial programming whatsoever rather then risk violating the Fairness Doctrine and being subject to federal fines or risking revocation of their license. H.R. 2905 ensures that true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that the Fairness Doctrine squelches free speech. In 1974, the Court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company vs. Torino. Twenty-three years ago, in FCC vs. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate and as a result the FCC overturned it. However, the Fairness Doctrine could be revived at any time by any Administration. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
Considering the significance associated with protecting free speech, we respectfully request that you schedule floor action on H.R. 2905 by Friday, October 12, 2007. While we may not always agree with those who are on the air waves, as Members of Congress and freedom-loving Americans, we should never back down from an opportunity to defend their right to speak their piece. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
________________________________
Representative Mike Pence
Representative Greg Walden
NewsBusters covers Pence’s defense of Rush Limbaugh
NewsBusters covers Congressman Pence’s defense of Rush Limbaugh this morning on FOXNEWS here.
Pence on Redstate
Congressman Pence weighs in on the attacks from the Left against Rush Limbaugh on Redstate today. Click here to read his post.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
National Journal on Select Committee
National Journal's Technology Daily has an update on the Select Committee to Investigate Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007 here (you will probably need a subscription).
An excerpt:
The panel delivered an interim report Thursday on its investigation into an Aug. 2 vote on an amendment to the Agriculture Department's annual spending bill. The measure would have barred illegal immigrants from certain federally funded programs. Republicans argue that Democrats contributed to the measure's defeat by mishandling an electronic voting problem.
The panel will reconstruct the sequence of events that led to Republicans vacating the chamber in frustration. Among the circumstances to be examined will be the operation of the voting system, including messages from the chair during and after the vote, and the relationship of paper votes to electronic records.
"I want to know what happened, and I want to make sure it never happens again," Mike Pence of Indiana, the committee's ranking Republican, said Tuesday. He added that the probe "will be greatly aided by the fact that a lot of it was recorded on film." There are audio files from both the podium microphones and the recording clerks' microphones.
"This was a conflict between parties, man and machine," Pence said. "The minority and the electronic voting machine said that the Republican motion to recommit [the bill to committee] prevailed. [The majority said] the motion to recommit failed."
That system "broke down to the extent that the minority walked off the floor for the first time in my career," he added.
A joint letter signed by all members of the committee will request $300,000 to start its work, said Mark Forest, a spokesman for committee Chairman William Delahunt, D-Mass.
The House clerk's office has been ordered to preserve "all records, documents, recordings, electronic submissions or other material, regardless of form," related to the vote. Pence said the House clerk testified last week that all such information has been kept.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Citizen Link on the Fairness Doctrine
Citizen Link has a great piece on the Fairness Doctrine entitled "Radio Revolutionaries." Below are excerpts. Click here for the full story.
In Congress, the talk-radio community may have found an ideal champion in Mike Pence, the fourth-term representative from Indiana who was a statewide talk-show host in the ’90s. In June, more than 300 House members voted for the Pence Amendment, which prevented the FCC from any re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine for one year. And then Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would keep the FCC from re-establishing the doctrine altogether.
**
An effort has been building for more than a year among liberals in Congress, in the news media, in Beltway think tanks and on the Internet seeking to restore the old strictures no matter who wins the White House next year. Among the most vigorous supporters is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who reportedly told the Democratic Caucus that she would “aggressively pursue” the doctrine’s renewal. “The chances are a lot better than people think,” said Thomas McClusky, vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, “of a return of the Fairness Doctrine.”
It was the end of the Fairness Doctrine late in Ronald Reagan’s presidency that cleared the way for the explosive growth of entertaining and vibrant political talk radio as well as for the huge expansion of evangelical and Catholic radio over the last 20 years.
**
Talk and Christian radio’s record of economic success and accumulated political, cultural and social influence, of course, are the main reasons the Fairness Doctrine has reared its ugly head again.
Conservative critics scoff that it’s about the only gambit remaining for leftist interests whose own efforts to build a talk-radio following, through entities such as the Air America network, have failed miserably. Unable to beat the Right at the talk-radio game, they suggest, liberals simply want to cancel the contest.
And it provokes them that the Left wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to take over conservatives’ little backyard when liberals already own the rest of the neighborhood. “The Left has been a dismal failure in talk radio, and the Right has been a smashing success, so now the Left wants to take that away,” said Gregory Koukl, host, founder and president of Stand to Reason, a syndicated Christian-talk show based in southern California.
|
 |
|
|
Archives
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
|
