“We are now closer than ever before. I’m not going to break the confidentiality of certain conversations, but some British politicians have already told me: ‘If we had the euro, we would have been better off’,” Barroso told a weekly French news programme, referring to the fall in the pound’s value since markets and liquidity meltdown earlier this year.

“The British have an enormous quality, one of many, that is they are pragmatic,” he said on the panel of a joint RTL-LCI radio and television broadcast. “This crisis has emphasised the importance of the euro, and also of Britain,” he added.

“I don’t mean this will happen tomorrow, I know that the majority (of British people) are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration underway and the people which matter in Britain are currently thinking about it,” the former Portuguese prime minister said.

Barroso pointed to the case of Denmark, another EU state which has so far refused to accept the euro but is now planning another referendum on the single currency. The Danish voted against joining in 2000.>>>>Read the Full Article

Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

Key Points:

• The FCC has recently changed its policy making it a violation for broadcasters to allow “fleeting expletives” to be aired. Previously, such fleeting expressions were allowed under certain circumstances.
• A federal appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.…” The federal appeals court is in essence saying the FCC ruling is an act of Congress abridging the freedom of speech.
• The Founders’ intent with this prohibition against the federal government was intended to protect those who chose to speak out against the government and was not intended to protect profanity or other vices.
• William Blackstone, predecessor of the Founders and British proponent of man’s rights, stated in 1758, “Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public….But if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his temerity.” Profanity is, in effect, improper and mischievous in a moral society.
• The FCC’s appeal is that the court has left the FCC accountable for “the coarsening of the airwaves” with no authority to address the situation.
• The involved networks say the old policy of allowing “fleeting expletives”, in place for 30 years, worked well and should not be suddenly changed.
• The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

Conclusion:

The debate over rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are important to a thinking and vigilant individual. One of the gems of the United States Constitution, the right of an individual to express himself should be protected for the individual. Clearly understanding this principle is the duty of each citizen. Also, understanding the government’s proper role in this matter is a critical element. Our Founding Fathers believed and taught that the Constitution was built upon the foundation of morality. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Further, Benjamin Franklin noted, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Does the government have the right to regulate the use of certain words over the airwaves of the country? A moral society chooses to regulate itself through independent constraint and general respect for one’s neighbors.

Action Steps:

1. Review the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2. Read Principle 216 of W. Cleon Skousen’s Making of America.
3. Consider the statements by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin quoted above. Discuss in a family council meeting how to remain free under the Constitution by living virtuous lives.
4. Read the 30-year old ruling between FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation.

MRFC Principles: (3, 4, 11, 12)

Resources

Mark Sherman, AP. “Court Will Examine Profanity Rules,” March 17, 2008

The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Making of America. National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), Washington, D.C. 1985. p. 688-9

Skousen, W. Cleon. The 5,000 Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World. NCCS, Washington, D.C. 1981. p. 49, 56