Previous to the Reagan Administration, our public airwaves were regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) who enforced stipulations that were meant for the public good:

- The Fairness Doctrine required media outlets to provide equal time for opposing view points.

- Broadcast frequencies were assigned to companies - not to the highest bidder, but by what the FCC determined as the “best public use.”

- A corporation was only allowed to own a certain amount of radio, TV and newspapers in any geographical location; this was to keep any one company from monopolizing what was seen, heard or read in the area.

In 1982, 50 companies controlled half or more of the media business.

When the Reagan Administration took power in the early 1980’s, many of the doctrines of the FCC were considered outdated.

The FCC was revamped to promote a more “free market” approach to broadcast and print media.

In 1987 the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1994, broadcast spectrums were auctioned to the highest bidder, regardless of “best public use;” this made only the largest and most powerful of corporations able to afford them.

Large media giants swallowed the smaller companies that could not afford to compete.

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.

The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent.

Today, most of what we see, hear and read is controlled by nine large media conglomerates; the largest five are Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (i.e. FOX News).

Now, take into consideration the fact that 1% of the population controls more than 50% of the wealth of this nation.

That 1% know each other very well!

Call them what you want, the illuminati or whatever, but these are the few families that chose the candidates that we are allowed to pick from.

These candidates, no matter who wins, are no more than puppets of the billionaire families that control the nation’s industry and money.

The way the electoral college is structured, the process only works if you have two serious candidates, and the powers that be make sure they own them both.

So, when Congressman Ron Paul (aka Dr. Paul) from Texas entered the Presidential race last year, he was pretty much written off by the mainstream media as an “extremist” due to his “unconventional” views.

Dr. Paul, did make sense to a lot who listened; his respect for the Constitution, his ideas of small government, a sane fiscal policy and civil liberties are popular ideas in today’s mass-deficit, intrusive totalitarian police state.

But, his ideas and platform challenge the power of the few who control the money, government and media; Congressman Paul’s ideas threaten the status quo.

Ten years ago, the media would have just ignored Dr. Paul until he faded away into obscurity.

However, he gained massive support through the unregulated internet.

So when Dr. Paul won most of the Republican Straw Polls, most of the post debate call-in and internet polls and raised more money in a single day than any other Presidential candidate, the main stream media could no longer ignore Dr. Paul.

How The Media Destroys Candidates

The media down played Dr. Paul’s popularity by blaming it on a few “spammers” that did not represent the majority of voters.

Sean Hannity dissed Ron Paul winning a FOX text poll by saying, “(the poll) is just a lot of fun.”

When FOX News (”Fair and balanced,” “We Report, You Decide”) excluded Dr. Paul from the New Hampshire debates due to “lack of room” it became increasingly clear to more Americans who is choosing our candidates.

At the time when the New Hampshire debates aired, Congressman Paul had already kicked Giuliani’s ass in the Iowa Caucus and had raised more money than any other Republican in that quarter.

FOX had room for Giuliani, but not for Congressman Paul!

The media started to increase the use of adjectives when reporting on Congressman Paul to give the impression to the average voter that his chances of winning were very slim…

“Dark horse candidate Ron Paul…”

“Long shot candidate Ron Paul…”

The media can’t control what Dr. Paul says in the debates but, since they control the cameras, they can pan across to his opponents as they act shocked and mystified when Dr. Paul schools them on the Constitution and fiscal responsibility…

After all, if the other candidates seem shocked at what is being said, shouldn’t most Americans?

Sad to say, most American voters view their ballot as a betting card, not an instrument of Democracy.

I’ve talked to many people who are not concerned about voting for the most qualified candidate, but for the winner.

After all, if you vote for a loser, didn’t you just waste your vote?

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Winston Churchill

It’s hard for the media to ignore Ron Paul, especially his vocal supporters…

Of course, the news reports all Ron Paul supporters as anarchists, conspiracy theorists, racists and wackos.

What “average” American voter wants to be stereotyped as such?

But, the media has a great way to ruin Dr. Paul’s campaign (or any other candidate for that matter) - by simply doing their best to ignore him!

Ron Paul has raised most of his money through individuals on the internet, the most of any other candidate; so when the Orlando Sentinel displayed a widget that would allow you to “find out who in your neighborhood donated to which presidential candidate,” they simply left Dr. Paul out as if he wasn’t running.

Ron Paul came in second place in the Nevada Caucus…

The New York Times didn’t even list Dr. Paul and had McCain coming in second, when he actually finished third in Nevada!

Even the BBC News, which has a reputation for being fair and balanced, doesn’t even list Ron Paul on any of their polls!

So, close to the South Carolina primary, Yahoo News doesn’t have room for Ron Paul’s picture?

However, they have room for Giuliani who has been losing to Dr. Paul!

But, when they have too much space, a question mark is good filler!

I watched the debate last night on CNN at the Reagan Library and it was apparent to me that Ron Paul won the debate hands down.

Yes, I know that is only my opinion.

However, when I picked up a local paper today, one of the headlines read, “GOP Nomination Now Between McCain And Romney.”

Of Course, they have to announce this before the Super Tuesday primaries to alert all the sheep to either stay home or vote for either candidate.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin

I will be voting for Dr. Paul.

He still does have a chance, but I am leaving room on my bumper for a “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Ron Paul” sticker!

Sources:

Hannity disses Ron Paul victory in Fox post-debate poll

The FCC

FCC History Notes

More FCC History Notes

Digg.com | Propeller.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services

In a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me why the media is creating and pushing the “crisis” of health care in America.

Once the government has control over the health care of American citizens, the government will have total control over the population.

After all, the government already knows where we live, how much we supposedly make, they eavesdrop on our phone calls and emails; once they take control of our health care, they will own the populace.

I was bending the ear of one of my bartender constituents complaining about a $100 seatbelt ticket that I got last month.

The bartender said, “All Knowing One, you know that you should wear your seatbelt.”

“Seatbelts are a good idea and have saved many lives, but I don’t deserve to be pulled over, harassed and ticketed just because I chose not to wear my seatbelt,” I said.

“But if you’re injured because you weren’t wearing your seatbelt, society has to pay for it,” she responded.

So, these laws aren’t meant to thwart Darwinism, they’re meant to save the taxpayers’ money?

From what I have read, statistically, wearing your seatbelt will improve your chances of surviving an accident.

However, we still hear of instances where someone was “thrown clear of the accident” or flew through the windshield before the engine smashed into the front seat.

There are arguments for and against seatbelt use.

But the fact of the matter is, with a seatbelt mandate, the individual does not have a right to make his own decision about wearing one.

Another absurdity are motorcycle helmet laws.

My friend Matt still cries to this day, “If there was a helmet law when I got into my motorcycle accident, I wouldn’t have this scar across my neck.”

“Well, you always had the choice to wear one, why didn’t you wear one?” I asked.

“It was not the law,” he responded.

“People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”

–Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a 1990 interview with U.S. News.

My biker friend Pete tells me, “The best way to survive an accident is to avoid an accident.

“Helmets obstruct your peripheral vision and your hearing; they also cause fatigue on your neck.

“But since the government assumes that eventually everyone will get into an accident they mandate that you wear one.”

It started with seemingly innocent laws to protect people.

Now, for the “safety of the public” laws are expanding to take away our freedom of choice even further to…

…regulate our food by banning trans fats and other ingredients that have no political lobby.

…make psychiatric assessments mandatory in public schools.

…outlaw health care freedom by making vitamins, minerals and medicinal herbs available only through a prescription.

…regulate your behavior at home by banning smoking in your own residence.

“They’re talking about banning cigarette smoking now in any place that’s used by ten or more people in a week,
which, I guess, means that Madonna can’t even smoke in bed.”

- Bill Maher

If “Universal Health Care” ever takes hold in the United States, there will be no stopping the government from infringing on our freedom to control our own lives.

If we are mandated to wear helmets on motorcycles and seatbelts in cars to reduce the taxpayers’ burden, then why should we not be forced to maintain a certain “healthy” weight, low cholesterol level, exercise regularly, abstain from smoking and be subjected to random drug tests?

After all, it would be for the common good and cheaper on the taxpayer, wouldn’t it?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards announced that part of his socialized medicine plan would require mandatory physical exams for all Americans.

“If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor… You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

- John Edwards

So not only would you be forced to go to a government doctor every year to get an “OK” stamped on your ass, but you would have no choice on how any ailment would be prevented or treated.

Do you really think the government would approve and fund alternate medical treatments?

If universal health care ever does arrive in the United States, gone will be the individual’s right to chose how he will live his life.

Digg.com | Propeller.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services