Your ability to speak out may become limited.

As reported by Citizenlink.org this week:

There have been persistent indications that liberals in Congress want to take legislative action to stifle conservative talk radio.

One suggested route would be to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine on radio and TV stations. It would demand that when programs express a particular point of view, stations would have to seek out an opposing point of view.

For example, if a station aired a conservative talk show or a Focus on the Family broadcast that offers opinions on what Congress is doing, it would have to find and air someone to present an opposing point of view. Historically, when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, many stations chose to avoid issues programming altogether. That means many popular conservative talk radio shows would simply vanish, and many Christian radio stations would face the choice of either dropping issues-oriented programming or giving up airtime to groups such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

"There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine," one lawmaker said this week. "Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

Family Research Council adds:

Issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949 and repealed in 1985, the Fairness Doctrine ordered broadcasters to give equal time to both sides of controversial issue. Rather than risk enforcement actions and wade through bureaucratic red tape, many broadcasters opted to air non-controversial material, which essentially killed healthy debate and discussion.

To preempt liberals from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced the "Broadcaster Freedom Act." The bill strips the FCC of its authority to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, effectively codifying the status quo and protecting free speech.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished democracy from socialism very succinctly when he said, "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it... Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." If the left wants equal time to express its views on the radio or television, they have the liberty to do so by starting their own programs and shows. In fact, in the larger media world including broadcast TV, public broadcasting, and print, the left predominates. The challenge for them is getting people to listen. To seek parity in talk radio by restraining the freedom of others is neither free, nor equal, nor fair.

Citizenlink.org urges Christians to take action:

Please call your U.S. representative immediately and ask him or her to reject any attempt to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine and to support the Pence Amendment and the Broadcasters Freedom Act. You can find contact information for your representative in the CitizenLink Action Center .

Cable Choice Would Empower Families

Citizenlink.org reports that a bipartisan effort by elected representatives in Washington are currently seeking to enact a new law to keep harmful television programming from children:

Legislation introduced [this month] in the U.S. House would allow consumers to choose the cable channels that enter their homes.

Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R Neb., are sponsoring the Family Choice Act of 2007. The bill calls for a family tier, indecency standards or "a la carte" programming and would allow subscribers to get a refund for channels they choose to block.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said the current climate of TV makes it nearly impossible for parents to shield children from profanity and violence. "Television programmers steal children's innocence in their drive to the bottom to outdo each other," she said in a statement. "Their irresponsible and arrogant behavior in the face of protests from consumers is an invitation for this legislation."

The polls are clear: people want choice. However, the cable industry has tried to confuse the public into thinking their current “cable choice” programs already provide what consumers want. However, cable subscribers are not buying it. They know the technology is there for them to pay per channel. A lot of families want their FOX NEWS, their Discovery Channels, their ESPN, their favorite hobby channel; but they don’t want to pay for channels, like M-TV, that bring down their family. However, the detrimental channels are being forced into many of the so-called “family-friendly” choice packages.

FCC Says A La Carte Cable Pricing Means “Substantial” Savings To Consumers

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced last year that cable customers would see “substantial benefits” if a la Carte programming is allowed to be instituted.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see all your money go to only those channels you want to watch? Instead of paying $50 a month while wasting your time flipping through hundreds of channels you really don’t want to watch anyway, imagine being able to pay say $1.99 per month for every channels you do want to watch – as well those you know are safe for your whole family.

TAKE ACTION: By just a few simple clicks here, you can write a short letter to all your elected representatives in Washington. Tell them you want “a la carte” programming instituted into actual policy. Tell them it’s shown to work, and it helps your pocketbook at the same time. Mandate that cable providers offer “a la carte” television programming to its viewers so consumers are not forced to pay – and thereby support – channels they find morally detrimental to their families.

Paul Potts debut

Get your tissues out for this. Paul Potts looks like your average guy as he walks on-stage for his audition on the UK television show, "Britain's Got Talent." Watch below and witness the birth of a star as this cell phone salesman reveals to a national audience his very special talent.

Besides his audition, I’ve included below clips from his semi-final and final performances as well as the final results show. These clips show that from the greatest to the least, from the ordinary to the unique, the imago dei, that is, the image of God, is stamped on the entirety of humanity.

No More Christian Nice Guy

Is there a difference between being nice and being good? Or are they the same thing? They are very different says author and speaker Paul Coughlin. He says that while the former seeks others' approval and avoids conflict at all costs, the latter boldly does the right thing, even if it means stepping on some toes. “Do you stand up to injustice? “A good guy is willing to enter into conflict for redemptive purposes,” adds Coughlin. Listen to this Focus on the Family broadcast as they discuss this topic and his related book, No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice--Instead of Good--Hurts Men, Women and Children.

“Being nice is a vice disguised as a virtue.” -- Paul Coughlin

WMDs Found In Press Room

I took a few minutes this morning to re-read portions of an addendum to President Bush's policy statement on human cloning written by Dr. Robert P. George of Princeton. Sounds dry, I know, but not at all. Although it was written over five years ago, it is of as much extreme relevance for us today as it was then.

By contrast, the inconsequential details of the inner life of Anna Nicole Smith have absolutely no bearing on the moral direction or consciousness of our nation. Yet, which topic, would you say, has more dominated news coverage over these years in the mainstream media?

The rationale behind the Presidential Council’s recommendations of a four-year ban on human cloning – as opposed to proposing an immediate permanent ban – was intended, as George pointed out, to “provide time for a careful and thorough public debate about the moral status of the human embryo.” Well, thanks to our national media, that careful and thorough debate never really happened. In its place was incessant borage of headlines about everything from Anna Nicole Smith to the vilified, but now vindicated, Duke men's lacrosse team.

Despite having no significance to society writ large, the Smith story, for example, became a major topic of discussion around the water cooler at work. The mainstream press pushed it down our throats convincing us that she was worth more of our time and attention than discussions on the details of proposed legislation on human cloning.

To illustrate the incessant nature of the media’s coverage of her at the expense of more worthy topics of discussion, let me bet you that I can tell you more about her than the average person can tell you about human cloning. This is true despite the fact that I NEVER tried to learn ANYTHING about Anna Nicole Smith. In fact, I RAN whenever I heard anything about her story. I could smell that story a mile away! Her story was simply another WMD (“weapons of mass distraction”) that the MSM frequently lobs at the American people at the expense of really important matters that should be covered in the news.

As a self-professing moralistic society, how we handle the issue of human cloning has significantly greater implications on the moral fabric of our society, than what we voyeuristically think about concerning the private and troubled life of an individual woman. In fact, this is an understatement of monumental proportions.

In closing, might I encourage you to turn off Jerry Springer (just kidding) and take a few minutes to read the piece on human cloning by Professor George. Greg Koukl calls this “the most sublime piece of reasoning about the morality of cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) (and abortion, by logical extension) that [he has] seen in print.” Read it here.

Counting the Cost for the Preservation of Freedom

With Memorial Day just behind us, and the 63rd anniversary of D-Day just days away, I thought it apropos to reflect briefly on what took place in western Europe in the summer of 1944. What began on the beaches of France on the morning of June 6th, and stretched to the River Seine, the Battle of Normandy, as it became known, was the largest offensive waged by Allied forces against Nazism in Europe.

While victory in Europe was insured by this assault, it did not come without a tremendous cost. When the Battle of Normandy ended on August 25, 1944, a total of 29,000 American G.I.s were dead, along with 11,000 British and 5,000 Canadian soldiers. In order to put this into perspective, by comparison, the fighting in Iraq over the last four years has resulted in deaths of 3,487 American soldiers, along with 276 of those from other coalition forces. (source)

We will never forget! (video)