Night Of The ManBearPig: The Senate Sleeps Over

Inspired, perhaps, by President Barack Obama’s State of the Union declaration that they’re as important to governing as a motorcycle is to a fish, the U.S. Senate took some action of their own this week. While their efforts might not equate to an Obama-esque “year of action,” they did manage to cobble together a night of action. Well, some of our beloved Senators took time out of their busy schedules to participate in a Senatorial bull session. All right, a handful of them got their jammies and blankies and threw themselves a Senate-floor sleepover.

But let’s not indict the absentees for missing out on the chance to toast marshmallows and tell ghost stories. It’s not as if they missed out on anything more than a good night’s rest. The Senate’s big night in didn’t produce, or even discuss, the trillions of dollars Obama has added to our crushing National debt. They didn’t untangle us from the fraudulent knots of Obamacare. They didn’t hear articles of impeachment against Obama for illegally deploying the Internal Revenue Service as a political cudgel. They didn’t demand Obama and his accomplices pull back the curtain of lies they’ve thrown over Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the funneling of weapons to al-Qaida in Syria. They didn’t even put an end to the Orwellian machinations of the National Security Agency and the illegal surveillance they swear they’re not conducting on American citizens.

Nope, rather than use their late-night lock-in to lighten the load our increasingly sinister executive branch has laid across our backs, 28 members of the upper house of Congress burned the midnight oil to discuss a discredited theory that is so divorced from actual science that its pushers have been forced to change its name no fewer than three times in the past three decades. With the exception of Democrats who are facing re-election bids in States where job- and industry-crushing pseudoscience sell like a Hillary Clinton campaign speech to a Sheriff Joe Arpaio fundraiser (not to mention Senators with better dinner plans), the people charged with handling Congress’ heaviest lifting spent an entire evening in an ersatz hippie drum circle discussing “global cooling” “global warming” “climate change” “ManBearPig.”

More than two dozen of what ostensibly ought to be some of the finest leaders our great Nation can produce spent an entire night exhaling enough carbon dioxide emissions for a year’s worth of Al Gore’s private jet travels — but over neither Presidential lying, spying nor crying. Instead, they talked about “global warming,” clearly blissfully ignorant of the epic cold, snow and ice delivered by this record-setting winter.

The Senate’s lock-in was led by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and featured face time from the usual suspects, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Chuck Schumer (D-the closest camera). Actually, as I perused the roster of attendees to the Senate Climate Action Task Force’s 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. babblefest, something occurred to me: Those 28 Senators spent the wee small hours talking about — but not actually doing anything about — a cartoonish hoax that would need a boost to reach the lofty scientific heights of phrenology and Piltdown Man. And I can’t think of a better place, or time, for all 28 of them.

–Ben Crystal

Behind The Bear

Behind the inexplicably bare-chested swaggering of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has done to Ukraine precisely what Russia has made a habit of doing to its neighbors since before Ivan was Terrible. Given the number of Russian flags flying about Crimea these days, either most of the locals don’t mind or “don’t mind — honest!”

While the world, except for certain boys in the Greater Beijing Area, reacted with shock and dismay at Putin’s bold sack of Ukraine, President Barack Obama did precisely what he has made a habit of doing since before he turned the Nobel Peace Prize into a “participation ribbon.” Facing a crisis involving an intimidating dictator violating another nation’s sovereignty, Obama hit the links.

To be fair, Obama might not have scurried down to Key Largo, Fla., just to avoid dealing with matter of diplomacy that clearly exceeds his meager skills. I don’t mean to minimize the very real horror unfolding in Ukraine. I do mean to point out that not only does America face more serious crises, but the architect of those serious crises just teed off on the back nine, casually smiling to himself over the fact that few people are focusing on his latest swipe at the brass ring of power.

In the event you missed the latest news from the front lines of the Democrats’ war on Liberty, Obama, who is exempt from his own monstrous creation, has decreed yet another delay in the implementation of what he supposedly considers his crowning achievement: Obamacare. The fact that he lacks the Constitutional authority to decree anything regarding the implementation of his extra-Constitutional bureaucratic nightmare actually pales in comparison to the other big news: He has no idea how it’s going. According to Gary Cohen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the Obama Administration isn’t even sure how many uninsured people have signed up.

Asked to estimate the number of uninsured people who have taken the Obamacare plunge, Cohen responded: “That’s not a data point we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way.” After months of technical glitches, compounded by failures, compounded by outright lying, Obama not only has no idea whether Obamacare is working for the very people for whom it’s supposedly intended, he has no idea who those people are.

Don’t ignore Obama’s latest clowning in front of Putin and the world. But don’t forget that Ukraine is a long way from places like the White House — not to mention your house. Hell, the Democrats don’t even believe the Ukrainian situation is all that urgent. Obama didn’t do more than send his cartoon character of a Secretary of State, the perpetually dumbfounded John Kerry. Even the new Democrat talking point regarding Ukraine involves an idiotic theory that conservatives are somehow rooting for Putin, although that invalidates six years’ worth of the same Democrats calling conservatives “stupid” for warning that Putin would do precisely what he did. Some people have even gone so far as to claim the nonexistent conservative support they’ve dreamed up stems from the racism they falsely assign to conservatives rather than engage in meaningful dialogue. And it’s all a show designed to distract you from the real drama at home.

Just remember, if the partisan mouthpieces in the lapdog media “report” Putin’s Ukrainian adventure in the context of a racist groundswell of support for the creep, then they’re obviously not overly concerned with the plight of the Ukrainian people, who can’t bandage their wounded, fight off their attackers or feed their defenders on stale rants by self-discredited hacks like Maureen Dowd and Rachel Maddow. More importantly, Americans can’t do much of anything with Obamacare; according to Obama’s own people, they have no idea if they even can.

–Ben Crystal

Chinese Diplomacy

From the moment Russia invaded Ukraine without so much as courtesy nod to President Barack Obama, I waited for the other shoe to drop. And then Monday, the proverbial footwear hit the deck. Far from the firestorm enveloping the suddenly Russian-controlled Crimea, the Chinese foreign ministry signaled the Chicoms’ acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian blitzkrieg. Just like that, the geopolitical village drunk has teamed up with the geopolitical village psycho. And the man who should theoretically run the town sheriff’s office was too busy defrauding his own constituents to notice.

The Chinese decision to officially overlook Putin’s decision to coldcock Ukraine in broad daylight should come as no surprise to anyone with a better understanding of global politics than the truly benighted among us (looking at you, Secretary of State John “Conflict Resolution Man” Kerry). After all, the Chinese share the same philosophical roots as Putin and the Russians. But the Chinese are vastly more dangerous to America and the free world than Putin likely fancies himself.

By no means do I mean to downplay the threat Putin presents. This is a guy who spent the bulk of his career being spooky for a living. I’ve said it before: He’s a monocle and a pet cat away from being the villain in a James Bond film. But Putin is a bully with a bellyful of liquor. He’s big and bad, but he lacks discipline. He’s Drago from “Rocky IV.” If you can withstand the initial onslaught, you have a shot. And while Putin’s backup is the ursine-esque Russian military, it’s also the ursine-esque Russian military.

Bears are trouble, but only when they’re interested. And a bear who’s spent decades, if not centuries, knocking back potato liquor can be contained.

The Chinese are far less easy to pin down, and that’s precisely how they like it. Like Putin and the Russians, the Chinese regime honestly believes that: a) the world needs to be ruled like a herd of sheep, and b) they’re just the shepherds for the job. Like Putin and the Russians, the Chinese people have never really known actual freedom — at least in the Western sense of true individual liberty. A populace indoctrinated into complacency from birth eliminates a lot of oligarchs’ headaches. But unlike Putin and the Russians, the Chinese work quietly. While Putin clears the bar, the Chinese are cleaning out the cash drawer. While the Russians built more huge stuff, the Chinese bought American debt, real estate and politicians by the truckload. While Putin shakes his fist at us from the Crimea, the Chinese are rubbing their hands together from their sizable real estate holdings right here in the heartland. While Putin challenges us to dueling pistols at noon, the Chinese are sneaking up behind us with a brick.

I am not suggesting any sort of coordinated conspiracy. The Chinese are doubtless willing to let Putin dance the lead while they hide in the shadows backstage. Think about it. Anyone who regularly visits the pages of Personal Liberty Digest™ knows who Putin is. Heck, even the loafers who flip to MSNBC after Jerry Springer finishes his “final thought” recognize the name — even if they think he’s the assistant greenkeeper at their country club. But the Chinese leadership is nowhere near as well-known. In fact, the last Chinese capo di tutti capi whose name was instantly recognizable to the American man on the street was probably Deng Xiaoping; and his last major act involved running people over with tanks.

The gross incompetence of the Obama Administration is already a matter of record. A resurgent Russia presents problems reminiscent of the Cold War — only with the added danger of a leader who has learned that his American counterpart is an anemic bookworm. Putin has intimidated Obama right out of his “mom jeans.” But the Chinese have made no such moves. It’s possible they won’t, choosing instead to quietly observe as Putin mops the floor with Obama. But the Chinese decision to bet on Putin speaks volumes. Putin may well be a bear, but the Chinese dragon is no less worrisome.

–Ben Crystal

Government School Daze

We see the horror unfold every day. Across the Nation, government-run schools have become war zones. Despite establishing “gun-free zones” from San Francisco to Sandy Hook and back, the bureaucrats have failed to provide adequate protection for our children in a world beset by people who care as much about “gun-free zones” and anti-gun laws as they do for the lives of their victims.

Thank the Savior for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, it upheld a lower court’s ruling that schools have a vested interest in ensuring the safest environment possible and can move to quash danger by forbidding students from hyping that internationally despised symbol of intolerance and hate: the American flag. Specifically, the court ruled that the Morgan Hill Unified School District of Morgan Hill, Calif., did not “violate the students’ right to due process,” and it rejected that part of the students’ claim. It also rejected the students’ equal protection claim “[b]ecause the record demonstrates that the students’ shirts ‘might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.’”

Barring students from displaying the American flag out of fear that it might make the Mexican kids go loco? ¡Ay, caramba! As if that judicial tomfoolery weren’t funny enough, Cinco de Mayo isn’t actually Mexican Independence Day. It’s not even a national holiday in Mexico, where Independence Day occurs on Sept. 16. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that American kids can’t wear the American flag in American schools paid for by the American people on American soil, lest they offend the Mexicans who came to America voluntarily during their own celebration of the wrong holiday. The fact that the previous sentence is true isn’t half as terrifying as the fact that some of the top jurists in the Nation think it makes perfect sense.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Cinco de Mayo. For the whole month of May, the grocery store discounts six-packs of Mexican beer; and the pizza joint down the way offers this delicious taco pizza thing. Also, I can shoot The Great Eight in a sombrero while referring to it as “El Ocho Magnifico.” If Tomás, Ricardo and Geraldo want to mark May 5 as a day to get together before study hall and reminisce about the good old days back in San Martín Texmelucan de Labastida, they’re welcome to it. I’ll even give them an “¡Olé!” for effort.

But whether Tomás, Ricardo and Geraldo ventured here legally or illegally, they came to the United States because they believed it represented an opportunity for a better life than the one they left behind. Yet the flag of their adopted Nation — the shining beacon of liberty that drew them out of the darkness of low pay, institutionalized corruption and undrinkable tap water — so enrages them that they want to give the Alamo treatment to the next kid they see wearing it on a T-shirt. Hey, let’s bring in 30 million or 40 million more people like that. They seem so grateful. What they don’t seem to have is a sense of direction. In this country, they’re allowed to say “¡Viva México!” And I’m allowed to respond “U.S.A.” without their losing their chalupas over it.

Moreover, the decision is actually kind of racist. In barring the image of the American flag, the school — and subsequently the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — implies that Mexicans lack the capacity to control themselves. The same liberals who think we should grant immediate citizenship to Tomás, Ricardo and Geraldo have a pretty dim view of all three of them.

Although they don’t fall to the level of pretty much anything President Barack Obama does when he’s awake, these sorts of court-authored infringements on simple personal expression represent the exact kind of incrementalism by which the left plans to extinguish freedom. While the President batters the walls of liberty by hurling the National Security Agency, the Internal Revenue Service and his army of low-information accomplices like stones from a trebuchet, his collaborators crawl through the justice system like sappers, digging under her foundation. Meanwhile, government-school indoctrinators simultaneously teach our children to not only abhor their own heritage, but to fear the heritage of others. I feel safer already.

–Ben Crystal

5 Reasons Why Governor Brewer Should Veto SB 1062

By the time you read this, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may well have vetoed SB 1062, the “protecting religious liberty” act. And she bloody well should have. Before you begin composing an indignant rebuke in the comments section, take a deep breath and read on. I’m a libertarian. I’m also a capitalist. As such, I deplore any efforts to involve government in my life, my thoughts and my wallet beyond what’s absolutely necessary.

Presuming she hasn’t done so already, here are five reasons Brewer should do to SB 1062 what hiring Piers Morgan did to CNN’s ratings:

  1. It’s pointless. SB 1062 is an amendment to Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1999. But we already enjoy religious liberty in this country; it’s guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The fact that some hyper-litigious malcontents in New Mexico and Oregon missed that lecture in cheap-payday school doesn’t mean Arizona needs to erect legal barriers against the lawsuit lottery set.
  2. It won’t work. It’s actually written backward. You can’t claim your religious mores have been attacked by someone who doesn’t attack them. In order for SB 1062 to apply, you would have to refuse service to someone else and then get sued for doing so. That’s the legal version of closing the barn door after the cows have taken to the field. Moreover, unless a customer literally dances into your establishment wearing a rainbow flag-emblazoned T-shirt and belting out Bette Midler tunes, I’m unclear as to how you’re going to sort out his sexual identity. The last time I checked, gays don’t wear nametags.
  3. It’s bad business. If you don’t want to accommodate someone at your establishment, you’re already welcome to do so. In fact, presuming you’re willing to forgo his patronage (and, therefore, his money), feel free to do so. But a true capitalist doesn’t turn away paying customers because of the customer’s romantic preferences. It’s one thing if a customer behaves poorly, is abusive or is crude. It’s quite another if the customer has a summer home in Provincetown, 400 pairs of Prada shoes or front-row seats to the next Liza Minnelli concert. As anyone who sells anything can attest, business owners are going to have to deal with unpleasant customers, though gays are not necessarily unpleasant. If you turned away every one of them, you’d be hard-pressed to keep your business open. That’s pretty much antonymous with capitalism.
  4. The Democrats essentially supported it, until they didn’t. The key language in SB 1062 is virtually identical to the key language in the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That bill, which was co-written and co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), passed a Democratic-majority House and Democratic-majority Senate by wide margins, and it was immediately signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Now, the Democrats are attacking Arizona like enraged Africanized death fleas over a bill they considered a wonderful addition to their legislative resumes at the Federal level. If Brewer vetoes SB 1062, she’ll simultaneously blunt their attacks and expose their hypocrisy; and that kind of double whammy never gets old.
  5. It’s a solution in search of a problem. SB 1062 was inspired, at least in part, by execrable lawsuits filed against a photographer and baker in New Mexico and Oregon, respectively. Both those suits represented disgracefully abusive litigation. The proper response would involve punishing the filers of frivolous lawsuits in New Mexico and Oregon (and anywhere else, for that matter) — not countering government overreach with more government overreach. Big Bubba’s BBQ ’n’ Oyster Shack cannot serve Muslim or Jewish customers. Neither group needs government interference in their non-transactions. Jews and Muslims can eat somewhere else. And Bubba can keep on dishing up the Brunswick Stew ’n’ Po’ Boys. By enacting SB 1062, the government is affording Bubba protection he doesn’t need from actions Maury and Mahmoud should, and probably will, never take.

–Ben Crystal

Survey Says

Of all the left-wing hate groups that orbit inside the Democrats’ sphere of influence, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is neither the ugliest nor the most dangerous.  While it exists solely to abrogate the Bill of Rights, its motives stem neither from the unhinged racism of groups like Common Cause nor the bloodlust of the Service Employees International Union. However, while the Brady-ites might not have the stomach to march to the bigoted and violent beats of those aforementioned liberal gangs, they do display the same tendency to ignore pesky obstacles like facts — not to mention that bane of liberals everywhere: the U.S. Constitution.

Last month, the Brady bunch sent out a “survey” that it laughably claimed was designed to “… assess and improve (the Brady Campaign’s) efforts to create a nation that is free from gun violence.” Of course, with howlers like that right there in the introduction, only the nuttiest of left-wing nut jobs could remain ignorant to the goal of the “survey.” As most Personal Liberty Digest™ readers already know, the Brady Campaign and its fellow opponents of the Bill of Rights have no interest in protecting anyone or anything other than their political stature and, of course, their sizable bank accounts. The former motive is revealed by the repeated use of hackneyed phrases like “gun violence.” The latter is exposed by the fact that the Brady Campaign stumps for donations in the bloody survey itself:

14. Drawing on the history of other public health and safety campaigns in the United States, we believe that real progress on preventing gun violence in America depends on a strong collective voice. The only way we can dramatically reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries in this country is by standing together. Will you join us?

– YES! I will support the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with a generous contribution of: < various amounts $25-$1,000 and *other >

– I want to become a Brady Champion with my monthly cred card gift of: < various amounts $5/month-$250/month and *other >

– I cannot send a gift right now, but please accept my contribution of $12 to help cover tabulation costs for this national survey.

Being the fun guy I am, I not only managed to get my mitts on one of these thinly disguised push polls, but I managed to make some adjustments thereto. Am I undertaking a fool’s errand in trying to jam sense into a group that actually considers turns-of-phrase like “gun sense” anything other than an absolute rape of the language? Probably. But it runs counter to my nature to abandon otherwise innocent Americans to the ghastly fate of those trapped in cities that have been burned to the ground by people like the Brady bunch. To put it another way: If the Brady-ites had their druthers, America would be one gigantic Detroit, with the exception of the showpiece mansions of the super rich who own the Democratic Party. Let’s be honest, kids. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi couldn’t live in Detroit. She doesn’t speak “middle class” well; she’d be lost in a land without lattes and Botox. Feel free to play along as your buddy Ben attempts to fix something that’s probably broken beyond repair.

1. When it comes to politics, how would you describe your affiliation?

  1. Republican.
  2. Democrat.
  3. I vote for whoever offers the most free stuff.
  4. I vote for whoever threatens my freedom the least.

2. If you had to describe where you fit on the political spectrum, what would you say?

  1. Conservative.
  2. Silly.
  3. Sillier.
  4. I still subscribe to The New Yorker.

3. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to repealing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution through blatant fearmongering and nonsensical attempts to vilify firearms rather than the people who misuse them. Which of the following areas of its “work” are personally repellent to you?

  1. Adding the prefix “gun” to as many unfortunate and/or tragic circumstances as possible in an effort to convince people that being shot is somehow worse than being stabbed to death, beaten to death or thrown off a cliff by an Obamacare death panelist.
  2. Fighting for draconian anti-Bill of Rights laws that make for good talking points at liberal hate group rallies, but do nothing to stem the tide of actual violence in so-called “gun-free” zones.
  3. Falsely blaming firearms for the actions of people who are criminals and, therefore, are likely to be Democratic voters.
  4. Working hand in claw with President Barack Obama and his accomplices to slander law-abiding gun owners while refusing to even acknowledge the fact that Obama is a liar who has armed both Mexican narcoterrorists and al-Qaida and who, as such, is directly responsible for more bloodshed than virtually the entirety of the legal gun-owning community.

4. What is your opinion of the NRA?

  1. I’ve got the sticker on my truck.
  2. Sometimes, I worry they’re more interested in influence-peddling than actually protecting the 2nd Amendment from hate groups like the Brady Campaign.
  3. Disgraced phone-hacker and soon-to-be-ex CNN bloviator Piers Morgan says I should hate them, and I’m a good liberal.
  4. At least they don’t tell me how to live my life.

5. In light of the fact that anti-Bill of Rights laws did nothing to prevent the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, do you think lawmakers in Washington, D.C., have done enough to strengthen our Nation’s gun laws?

  1. Um, is that a serious question?
  2. I’m sorry; I keep my EarPro on at the range. Did you say something?

6. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles to passing laws that could dramatically infringe on the Constitutionally assured right to keep and bear arms? (Check all that apply.)

  1. The Bill of Rights.
  2. The average Americans’ ability to recognize liberal BS by the stink of it.
  3. Some public officials’ ability to stand up to bullying by leftist hate groups like the Brady Campaign.
  4. The fact that conservatives tend to rely more on facts and experience than the hysteria, hate and ignorance peddled by liberals.

7. Of the following “work” the Brady Campaign does, which do you feel is most dangerous right now? (Choose one.)

  1. Working with Congress and Obama to pass legislation at the national level that will eliminate the Bill of Rights.
  2. Helping lawmakers enact more senseless laws to blame firearms for the actions of people.
  3. Shrieking at the top of our lungs in an effort to convince the public that Congress and Obama are more qualified than the American people to determine what’s best for them.
  4. Providing a way for fewer Americans to be heard above the din of leftist fearmongering and anti-Bill of Rights ignorance.

8. Each day, in America, 32 men, women and children are murdered with guns. Another 51 people use guns to commit suicide every day. Knowing this, which of the following statements best describes how you feel about guns and gun violence?

  1. It seems unlikely that 32 men, women, and children were carrying at the time they were murdered, and not one of them got off a shot.
  2. I doubt the 51 suicides would have been less dead if they’d jumped off cliffs, swallowed a bunch of pills or subjected themselves to a Piers Morgan marathon.
  3. The Brady Campaign’s grammar is as abysmally poor as its leadership.
  4. I find the use of nonsense phrases like “gun violence” as offensive as I find Piers Morgan.

9. In your opinion, how long will it take Congress to pass laws to abridge, amend or completely abrogate the Bill of Rights?

  1. Good luck with that.
  2. If they want to keep their jobs, it better be longer than my lifespan.
  3. Medical science hasn’t advanced far enough to keep anyone — much less Congressmen — alive long enough to undo the Bill of Rights.
  4. Almost as long as Al Gore has been pushing his Grand Unified Theory of ManBearPig.

10. Please describe what factors you consider when deciding to support an organization like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? (Check all that apply.)

  1. Whether they support Democrats or patriots.
  2. Whether I’m being held at gunpoint by the ATF.
  3. Whether I’ve received my welfare check for the month.
  4. How did I get on this mailing list?

Since the Brady Campaign’s version of the survey was really just a Byzantine fundraising scheme, I’ll be a pal and include its mailing address: 840 First St. NE, Suite 400;
Washington, D.C. 20002. Feel free to send this edition to them upon completion. You’re welcome to throw in a couple of bucks, but I’d recommend something more appropriate. Tuck a spent shell casing in the envelope.

–Ben Crystal

Day Of The Living Fairness Doctrine

The fact that the Federal Communications Commission has retreated from its plan to place monitors in newsrooms across the Nation probably rates a minor celebration. The fact that it even considered trying to place monitors in newsrooms across the country definitely rates major concern. The FCC may have abandoned its Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN), which it claimed was research into minority media ownership. But CIN had about as much to do with racial identity as National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s Benghazi excuses had to do with the actual events in that godforsaken Libyan hellhole.

According to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (the whistle-blower who turned the spotlight on his agency’s plan to make the Nation’s media at least as independent as Pravda was during the Josef Stalin era), CIN represents more than just an incursion into news dissemination by precisely the people who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the process. CIN represents an attempted return to the dark days of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

For those of you who have forgotten the Fairness Doctrine, it lurched into existence in the late 1940s as a Federal attempt to regulate the content of media reportage on politically charged topics. Specifically, it mandated what liberals like to refer to as “equal time” and sane folk refer to as “wasted time.” Under the strictures of the Fairness Doctrine, stations were forced by the government to give as much airtime to opposing viewpoints as they did to any expressed on their share of the airwaves. As an example, under the Fairness Doctrine, any station that aired a report on the rapidly expanding arctic and Antarctic ice sheets would be required to give equal shrift to a “report” crediting the changing weather to pseudoscientific claptrap like so-called “global warming.”

The Fairness Doctrine finally met its ignominious end in the late 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan signed an executive order recognizing that the Bill of Rights absolutely negates leftist attempts at control of the national discourse. But the CIN proves the left never gave up on the dream of an America in which free information exchange is replaced with governmentally homogenized talking points. The fact that CIN met the same end as the Fairness Doctrine in no way mitigates the fact that the Democrats tried to reanimate the Fairness Doctrine’s corpse and send it out for another attack on free speech.

These people are literally trying to do to America what Stalin did to Russia, though they’ve replaced the show trials and gulags with MSNBC and death panels. Ironically, the people who continue to watch MSNBC, support death panels and generally back any and all liberal attempts at government incursions against freedom ought to be among the last to line up behind such tyranny. After all, when Reagan finally drove a stake through the heart of the Fairness Doctrine, they were among the biggest beneficiaries. Were the Fairness Doctrine still law, CNN would be hamstrung by actual ethical standards.  Moreover, were the Fairness Doctrine still law, MSNBC wouldn’t even exist.

Allowing unelected Federal goon squads to stalk media outlets is about as bright a plan as allowing former President, admitted perjurer and sexual predator Bill Clinton to babysit your chubby teenage daughter. Whether one considers the multitrillion-dollar fraud masquerading as Obamacare; the endless array of scandals birthed by Barack Obama and his accomplices through seemingly reflexive mendacity; or even the tendency of Obama surrogates like Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder to lie under oath with sociopathic ease, the Obama Era has been defined by dishonesty at a level that makes Clinton’s lackeys look like George Washington.  To be honest, the only people less qualified than liberal bureaucrats to interrupt the informational chain of custody are the people who blindly support liberal bureaucrats.

The real tragicomedy lies in the fact that much like the abominable Fairness Doctrine, the CIN is entirely unnecessary. Despite the endless government attempts to sanitize the information available to the Nation, the truth nearly always finds its way out. For every Fairness Doctrine, there’s a Wikileaks. For every CIN, there’s an Edward Snowden. For every MSNBC, there’s a Personal Liberty Digest™.  I’ll allow the eloquent Pai to have the final word:

The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch. But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

–Ben Crystal