Lies the government told you (14 page)

In 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States expressed its approval of the Fairness Doctrine in
Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC
, which involved a Pennsylvania radio station that had aired a “Christian Crusade” program attacking author Fred J. Cook.
³³
Exercising his right under the Fairness Doctrine, Cook requested time to rebut the program’s attacks. Red Lion, however, did not grant Cook’s request. The FCC prosecuted Red Lion’s infraction, and the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine, ruling against the broadcast company.

The Court ruled that it made sense that with the limited spectrum on which to broadcast, it was only “fair” that stations be obligated to represent both sides of issues. The Fairness Doctrine, however, had the effect of censoring speech because it induced stations to steer clear of controversial topics that may be reported to the FCC.
³⁴
It also
forced
speech, a concept as antithetical to freedom as suppressed speech. As a result, very few stations did opinion pieces, and talk radio was relatively bland.
³⁵

By the 1980s, with the rise of cable television and the growing number of channels available, many more voices could be heard in the “marketplace of ideas.”
³⁶
Seeing little reason to continue the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC, in 1985, issued its “Fairness Report,” recognizing the Doctrine’s chilling effect on free expression.
³⁷
In 1987, the FCC voted unanimously to cease enforcement of the Doctrine, stating that “[t]he Fairness Doctrine, on its face, violates the First Amendment and contravenes the public interest.”
³⁸
So, the government is in essence admitting that it created and implemented an unconstitutional doctrine for
decades
and now it just says, “Oops, my bad”?

Especially now, there is no place for the Fairness Doctrine in talk radio. Today, news and opinions are literally everywhere. There are six cable news stations representing a plethora of political views. The Internet is a treasure trove of information and perspectives. There are hundreds of blogs and news Web sites specifically geared toward every possible political persuasion. In today’s world, the Fairness Doctrine also runs contrary to the idea of the “marketplace of ideas.” Markets are supposed to be “free,” not artificial. “Free” can only mean free from regulation by the government.

The great part about the freedom of expression is that it sparks debate among competing viewpoints without restriction. By forcing a radio station to represent both viewpoints, a station cannot take a solid position on the issues. The Fairness Doctrine essentially dilutes the station’s opinions, rather than providing fair coverage.

Furthermore, commercial radio stations are in business to make money; they get no outside funding. They must attract listeners so that they can attract advertisers and turn a profit. If talk radio stations do not give the people what they want, listeners will likely shop elsewhere. Liberals may want to hear conservative viewpoints, and vice versa, but they do not want opposing ideas to drown out their own views. Put another way, a New York Yankee fan may want to know what’s going on in Boston, but won’t necessarily want to be exposed to Red Sox propaganda on a New York-area radio station.

The First Amendment—which everyone in government has sworn to uphold—mandates that individuals be free to listen as well as free to speak.

It is important to realize the hazardous effects of the Fairness Doctrine and understand that its implementation is violative of the First Amendment and will only weaken the level of debate in this country.

Caution!

Another potential form of censorship, outside of the Fairness Doctrine, is a new bill that President Obama signed into law on October 28th 2009. This law, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, contains very troubling language.
³⁹
According to the Act:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, Internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support, severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This potential law can lead to “thought crimes” committed by radio or television hosts, or even Internet bloggers who are intentionally hostile toward
any
person, but do not actually intimidate or cause substantial emotional distress to the intended audience.

Part of First Amendment doctrine states that speakers cannot be prosecuted because they say things that merely offend people. This law, however, can be used to violate the First Amendment by permitting the federal government to prosecute people for simply
intending
to be offensive. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act can cause disastrous results and seriously restrict the freedom of speech. Victims of hate crimes, as well as potential victims, must be protected, but the protection cannot criminalize offensive speech.
Change the channel, move the dial, boycott the products, but leave speech alone.

Conclusion

The government has historically attempted to undermine the First Amendment, and it is a foregone conclusion that it will continue to do so. We have learned over the years that Congress
will
abridge the freedom of speech. It is up to the courts and more importantly, we the people, to notice government invasion of this sacred right and to fight to eliminate it.

Lie #6
“The Right of the People to Keep
and Bear Arms Shall Not Be
Infringed”

After the Constitution of the United States had been enacted and the issue of the Bill of Rights rose to the forefront, the Second Amendment was “passed [by] the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate.”
¹
The debate that did exist was centered on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms actually needed to be articulated in the Constitution, since many saw it as a natural and thus fundamental right that could not be taken away by any government, absent due process. George Washington called the Second Amendment the teeth that gave the Constitution its bite.

Essentially, the right to keep and bear arms is a restatement of the ancient natural right to self defense; it recognizes not only the right to protect oneself from criminal conduct, but also from a tyrannical state or federal government. That is why the Founding Fathers placed it second in the Bill of Rights, following behind only the right to freedom of expression and worship. And for almost one hundred and fifty years, the federal government did not interfere with this fundamental liberty.

During the early twentieth century, the federal government’s benign attitude began to change. The progressives in the federal government began to erode this natural right, as they did many others, always with “good reason” for the “safety
and security of the people.” Their descendants today argue that without gun control the U.S. will turn to anarchy; that, if armed, people will shoot each other on the streets during minor disagreements like traffic disputes. Yet when you ask those who make such claims whether
they
would shoot another person, the response is always, “Well, no;
I
wouldn’t do that.”

Each time the government creates new laws that regulate and limit our access to firearms, we are one step closer to being a disarmed and defenseless people, the very state of affairs the Founding Fathers feared and sought to prevent. Yet the government—while obtaining more power for itself—continues to deceive us, claiming that it is not trying to strip the people of the right to bear arms and that anyone can arm herself; she just needs to follow the rules. And it justifies these rules, claiming that guns cause violence and death and that gun control results in lower crime and safer streets.

But one must ask, safer for whom? Safer for the criminals who rob, assault, and rape, all the while knowing that the probability of their victim being armed is slim and thus they do not have to fear a fight that they cannot win? Safer for a tyrant who fears an armed citizenry? Safer as opposed to freer? If things continue this way, liberty’s tombstone will read, “This was for your own good.”
²

If constitutional guarantees are dependent upon the goodwill or benign intentions or untyrannical nature of future governments, while presently allowing the “good” government slowly to abridge our Second Amendment rights, then the Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper, defenseless and easily destructible.
³
And we can listen to those who deride even the mention of the tyrannical and disastrous results of other national disarmaments, claiming, “Not in America” as they roll their eyes.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to tyranny is paved by believing the government. Even if it had the best of such intentions, the government’s infringement of the people’s right to defend themselves, their homes, their families, and most importantly their liberties, is an asphalt truck paving such a road at an ever-increasing rate.

Shortly after the repeal of Prohibition, the progressives in the federal government decided that we were in need of gun control legislation, and Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since Congress recognized that it did not have the authority to regulate guns, it snuck what was in essence the first gun control law through the back door, claiming it as a revenue-raising measure under the taxing power of Congress.

Surprisingly, Congress recognized that it could not ban guns outright, so instead it overtaxed them. This is the reason why until recently the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was under the authority of the Treasury Department. The 1934 Act regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms and required the registration of such arms
⁴
and was to be enforced by the Treasury agents who were looking for work due to the happy end of Prohibition. Looking for work, or looking for targets?

Justification for enactment of the legislation centered around the gang wars during Prohibition and especially the Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929, when Al Capone had seven of George “Bugs” Moran’s men executed with machine guns. The argument, though moot considering that Prohibition was at an end, claimed that if assault weapons had been regulated, then the violence of Prohibition would not have occurred. The gang violence that had proliferated as a result of Prohibition became the perfect excuse for the federal government, but also another of its lies, considering that gang violence slowed to a crawl once Prohibition was repealed. Did anyone actually believe that mobsters, who stole, maimed, and killed on a daily basis, would hand over their guns because the federal government said they should? Even more egregiously, the 1934 Act regulated other weapons, like short-barreled rifles, which were not associated with any gang activity. But, as usual, once the government was able to gain an inch, it decided to take a mile.

Disarming the Poor

The core of the National Firearms Act was the price people were expected to pay. In order to register a shotgun, payment of a $200 tax was required, an exorbitant amount when considering that it is equal to $3,056.11 at today’s values.
⁵
It is even more excessive when one considers that, according to the Sears catalog in 1938, a
brand
-
new
shotgun could be purchased for $6.95. So why would anyone in his right mind pay a tax of $200 for a $7.00 gun? It is government theft to place a tax on an item that is greater than the value of the item itself, but even more incredible when the tax is
twenty-eight times
the value of the item. The equivalent theft today would be a tax that forced us to pay $200 to the federal government for a paperback novel or a cheeseburger.

Even more shocking is that the Supreme Court upheld the Act, holding that the $200 tax was a constitutionally valid exercise of the taxing power of Congress. The Court refused to look beyond the face of the Act, which was cited as a revenue raiser, not a prohibitory measure, to condemn it as a regulation of matters beyond the power of Congress.
⁶

Stranger still, just a few years earlier, in the
Child Labor Tax Cases
, the Court held that imposing a 10 percent tax on the net profits of employers who employed child laborers was “an act of Congress which clearly, on its face, is designed to penalize and thereby to discourage or suppress, conduct . . .
cannot be sustained
under the federal taxing power by calling the penalty a tax.”
⁷
Was that not the exact intention of the Firearms Act, to regulate and prohibit certain firearms? If charging 10 percent of earnings is considered penalizing, then what else but a penalty is a tax that is more than twenty-eight times the value of the taxed item? The Court apparently did not see this incongruence, noting that the Act did not expressly state the intention to prohibit certain firearms.

And so the government learned that as long as it lied convincingly about its intentions, no matter how unbelievable its claims, and couched the lies in constitutional verbiage, the Court would sanction its actions. And thus began the era of lies and deceit by the government in order to diminish slowly but surely that right the Founding Fathers saw as so fundamental, the right to self-defense.

Supreme Mistake

On the afternoon of June 22nd 1938, Frank Layton and Jack Miller were driving through Arkansas when Treasury agents stopped them. The agents, somewhat bored without booze smugglers to hunt, were hoping to make a bootlegging bust, but encountered a problem when they realized that Miller’s truck contained no illicit bootlegging equipment. Fortunately for the agents, all was not in vain, as the two men were in possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, prohibited under the new laws. So, though no violent or criminal acts had been committed by the men, who were carrying Miller’s beat-up shotgun for protection as they traveled through lonely back roads, they were summarily arrested.