Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


DEMOCRATS HELP LIMBAUGH

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

As you pointed out, Jay, earlier this week the Democrats handed Rush Limbaugh a major victory: they made him relevant again.  Of course, President Obama’s comment to the Republicans about not “listening” to Limbaugh was supposed to be ironic, as in, this is the wing of your party that is really out to lunch.  The DCCC “petition” is just one more fundraising gimmick–and a bad one at that.  I’m sure that Limbaugh will be converting to the Democratic Party if just a few million people tell him they are upset with him.  (And, oh yes, a pig just flew by my window.)

The broader point you attempt to make is that this is all prelude to some Democratic plot to quell right-wing talk radio.  And you invoke the dreaded “Fairness Doctrine.”  During the time the “doctrine” was in place, it had very little positive effect and zero negative effect.  Here’s what it was and wasn’t.  It was not an “equal time” rule, requiring a balanced coverage of all issues by each show.  Indeed, it didn’t even cover specific shows, including shows by, say, Jay Sekulow or Barry Lynn (or that Limbaugh fellow).  It was designed to push local radio and television stations to present alternative views where an issue had become a local matter of controversy.  It was crafted under the unremarkable theory that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and it was “sold” to certain people in the form of licenses to broadcast on specific frequencies, owners had some modicum of responsibility to serve the needs of a broadcast area. 

The Fairness Doctrine, in its entire history, was only partly responsible for two broadcasters‘ failure to renew their licenses. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine, and not even the ACLU saw it as a First Amendment problem.

 
And by the way, Obama said he doesn’t even support the Fairness Doctrine.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(21)
post a comment
Boris

posted January 29, 2009 at 8:57 pm


Cara,
As usual you have it backwards. It is almost pointless to try and talk reason with individuals which try and say abortion it is actual murder. If it were murder then people would be going to jail now wouldn’t they. A fetus cannot have rights that conflict with a woman’s rights. Rights must be considered as a whole. There is no abortion issue or chance that abortion will some day become illegal. It’s a straw issue created by the right in order to get donations to their political machines. Don’t let propagandists like Jay Sekulow fool you into thinking there is some other motivation here.



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted January 29, 2009 at 11:43 pm


Legislation can not make anything legal; it can only make it illegal.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 30, 2009 at 2:10 pm


What happened to the topic?



report abuse
 

Lost Left Coaster

posted January 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm


Back to the topic at hand:
I appreciate that Rev. Lynn has cut through the scare tactics of the Right on this. I appreciate this blog, but I am always disappointed when Mr. Sekulow starts parroting right wing and RNC talking points rather than providing his perspective on church/state issues. The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back, and it was benign enough when it did exist.
Of course, in an ideal world, right wing talk radio would take some responsibility for the hatred and lies that they spread every day. But this isn’t an ideal world, and I don’t believe that we should legislate this anyway.



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted January 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm


I look at it as a privacy issue. The less the state has to do with what an individual chooses to do with his/her body the better. Let us make those tough choices. Same with drugs. State has no business telling what I can injest (or inject) until it causes me to infringe on someone else. How do people feel about Christian Scientists like the Twitchells who needlessly lost a child to bowel obstructin due to their religious beliefs? Personally I would have to respect their choice although I don’t like it. It’s none of my business.
In all of this I keep hearing how Bush so respected life in his tenure and all I can think about is how many people he executed in Texas. Apparantly I didn’t matter if the inmate was “born again” in prison. He dismissed that notion.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted January 31, 2009 at 12:08 am


Lynn_vs._Sekulow_January_30_2009
Dear Nicolas,
You stated, “The same thing with drugs. State has no business telling what I can injest (or inject) until it causes me to infringe on someone else.”
How can you say that abortion is not “infringing on the rights of someone else?” If the fetus (developing human being) is not “human” then what is it? Vegetable, mineral? Any scientific test on a fetus (developing human being) would determine that it is of the species Homo sapien. Have you never seen pictures of a developing human being? Even when it is only a couple of inches long, it has a head, two eyes, a nose, little ears, a mouth, sucks its thumb, has finger nails, arms, legs, its own unique DNA, genetic code, and even figure prints. It has a totally intact body that is only part of the woman’s body because it is attached to her body by the placenta and umbilical cord. Other than that, it has it a totally separate body from the woman’s. It is just dependent upon her body. If you think that a “fetus” (developing human being) is less human or not “fully human,” or “half a human” or only “¾ of a person”-get my drift? Because it is developing, along that line of thinking we can kill toddlers and older children because they are not fully developed adults yet. This type of thinking can someday work against even yourself if someone decides that you are not fully human because of this or that reason (whatever they want to think up). Once they say that developing human beings are not human, or are not persons, what is to stop them from going after other “dependent” people as they already are doing with the disabled and the elderly? Does all this sound familiar to you? All these things were done in Nazi Germany before they went after the Jews, and Catholics etc., or in any other holocausts or genocides that have taken place on the planet. If abortion were legal when your mother was pregnant with you, perhaps you would be not considered human or a person, and therefore, killed in an excruciatingly painful manner. You would have been robbed of your “right to life,” so forget liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! If a woman takes the risk of getting pregnant by having sex with someone, she should be responsible and humane and own up to the consequences. Abortion is never good for a woman’s health. It often causes her to have miscarriages later on, breast cancer (because all of the cells that have developed while pregnant are never put in use for milk because of the abortion stopping the process, but just become a breeding ground for tumors; Britain has had the guts to come out to say that if a woman has an abortion, she will become mentally ill, etc. In a partial birth abortion, the doctors turn the baby completely around and create a breach birth which can kill the woman, the baby is born feet first with the legs kicking and struggling, all of its body is delivered except the head which is still in the birth canal (risking the woman’s life), until they stick a metal instrument in the back of its skull, and then remove the “cranial material,” meaning its brains, which deflates the entire skull. They never show any respect for the dead baby, but flush its body, along with countless others into the city’s sewer system. Is this enough information to make you even want to reconsider?
Laura



report abuse
 

LVKen7

posted January 31, 2009 at 9:56 am


END HATE RADIO
BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted January 31, 2009 at 4:22 pm


No wonder ED is so prevalent.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted January 31, 2009 at 7:57 pm


Laura — all those things may be true, but until the fetus is actually born it is not a citizen of this country — or any other… And in the Roe v. Wade decision it has no legal standing at all until it is considered viable (6 months). The assininity of this whole abortion discussion is that even though 7 of nine Supremem Court justices were conservatives appointed by Republican idealogues, you still can’t get the law overturned. That’s because once appointed, the justices answer to posterity, not to the political whims of a vocal minority. Now can we get back to the topic at hand? The late D.P. Moynihan said “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” Limbaugh knows this. He has also never claimed to be anything other than an “entertainer” and his callers his “props”. If some idiots want to take his schtick as “news” or “facts” that’s ther own fault. The old show biz adage is: I don’t care what you say about me; just spell my name right” is at play here. Limbaugh is dying in the ratings and is losing out to the spawn of his genre, the Irish Gang (Hannity and O’Reilly).



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted February 1, 2009 at 8:10 am


I’m liberal but I listen to Rush and other right wing talk radio all the time. I watch the 700 club once in a while too. Sometimes its hard to imagine these shows aren’t satire. We do have Al Franken to counter Rush. I guess we want to be entertained as we become informed.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted February 1, 2009 at 11:47 am


Laura, none of what you wrote makes me believe that abortion needs to be made illegal. Abortion is a safe. legal medical procedure and I want it kept that way.
But that is not the topic under consideration now.
I’m afraid that President Obama DID give Rush a boost, even though that was certainly not his intent. Let’s all hope that the fuss over Rush dies down quickly… although I’m sure Rush won’t be the one to let it go!
The right radio heads and Foxoids don’t go ballistic because they believe their rants. They do it to build audience among disaffected wingers and whiners. It’s a marketing tactic, not necessary an act of conviction. Posturing fuels controversy; controversy builds anger… and audience. They need this strategy to stay in business And Rush and his ilk are desperate to stay in business.
The haters don’t hate losing as much as they hate declines in revenues. It is a business, an industry that needs to sell a product. Don’t give Rush or his advertisers your business and watch them get ever more shrill… until they turn off even their staunchest supporters. Can’t happen too soon!



report abuse
 

Albatross

posted February 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm


DSJulian said: “Laura — all those things may be true…”
While it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand,Laura should be called to task on her absurd assertions. Most of it is bunk and she would be hard-pressed to find sound scientific evidence to back it up.
Anyone who can rant up one side and down the other, trying to legitimize a position by dragging in everything from Naziism to the local sewage system, really deserves the Loopy-Loo award.
Rev. Lynn – it’s going to take more than one comment to “help” Limbaugh.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 1, 2009 at 9:32 pm


No, Limbaugh is not relevant.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted February 3, 2009 at 11:54 pm


Sorry, Albatross,
I found this information from a former abortionist, and from actual testimony that I heard from “scientific” doctors in a Supreme Court case. It is not bunk.
Laura



report abuse
 

Laura

posted February 4, 2009 at 12:28 am


Read this story showing that abortionist don’t even respect the rights of babies that are born alive during a botched abortion.
Laura



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm


Way to go Laura. They just don’t know their own foolishness. They don’t have the sense to know when their own rights are at risk. I thank God that he will forgive them for it. To be honest, I don’t really understand why any man thinks he has the right to weigh in on this issue anyway.



report abuse
 

Jennifer

posted February 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm


Abortion that is.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted February 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm


Please read:
The Bill of Rights
Amendment I
============
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
YOU WANT CONGRESS TO DO WHAT?
==============================
Where (examine the word in caps for emphasis) does anyone come from when stating they are for the “fairness doctrine”? Are you for or against the constitution? I just quoted it. I believe it PROHIBITS congress from making any law that in ANY WAY restricts freedom of speech. It DOES NOT restrict PRIVATE businesses, individuals, organizations in what speech can be expressed.
WE ALREADY HAVE HAD FOR A LONG TIME OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS
=========================================================
Thus we have the very left views continually pounding our society from Hollywood, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, National Public Television, most of our universities, etc., etc..
FOLLOW THE HISTORY
====================
The Democrats history speaks for itself about their tactics to oppress and hinder freedoms.
1. The Democrats were the ones that embraced slavery. The Republican party was started TO STOP SLAVERY.
2. After the Republicans freed the slaves and then lost their power in our government 12 years later, the Democrats repealed all the civil rights gained in the Republican administrations.
3. The Democrats created the Jim Crow laws to force their view point.
4. The Democrats created the Klu Klux Klan to stop Republicans from having a voice in the South (almost all Blacks were Republicans so they were easy to seek out).
5. The Democrats now want to force their view of how free speech should be exercised in the United States by ignoring what the constitution states!
I am so tired of the gross ignorance our modern culture breeds and the horrible consequences we now face because of that.
Please, people, learn! Study and read. Stop just parroting words you hear on the T.V. and radio. Dig. Research. Learn. Indeed, we are doomed because of our ignorance. What is even worse is that the vast majority of our leaders in Congress and the Senate have never even read the constitution that they have sworn to uphold!



report abuse
 

TC

posted February 6, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Well again another liberal not taking responsibility for what you do. The issue here is being fair from the same point of view that gave you life. What if your mom aborted you…oh I’m sorry that question can’t be answered because you are here. The reason you are here is because God in His infinite wisdom and love sent you to a person who at least believe that life was in her and eliminating that life was not her choice to make because she didn’t put it there!! So I guess you are blessed!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 13, 2009 at 10:08 am


Whether they bring back the Fairness Doctrine or not is beside the point is far as I’m concerned. Jay Sekulow wants to make sure religious broadcasters are protected. I don’t. Christian radio and Christian television should be banned from this country immediately. Shut down, made illegal and eliminated forever. Free speech only goes so far. You cannot yell “fire” in a theatre for example. What Christian preachers and apologists do on the radio and television is much worse. They make all kinds of outrageous false claims and one of these is the constant threat of eternal damnation for not believing what these lying hoaxers claim. An innocent child could hear one of these preachers criminalize him with the rest of humanity and actually believe some of what they hear. This could scar the child and actually ruin his or her life forever. This is a combination of obscenity and child abuse that should be a capital crime punishable the same as any other child abuse. If we have laws against pornography we must have laws against all Christian broadcasting. Pornography has not been shown to have anywhere near the kind of deleterious effect on people the way religious superstitions and the acceptance of blind faith dogma do. Religion is much more dangerous, it’s false and it’s evil – the cause of EVERY problem we have in the world today. I’m calling for an end to all religious broadcasting. It has no place in a country founded on freedom FROM religion.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm


The Fairness Doctrine IS a problem, no doubt about it. Just because the doctrine was only imposed on certain programs does not mean that if it was reinstated, ALL programs would not be affected again. Pres. Barack SAYS a lot of things, but does something completely different. Consider that he SAID the Obama death care plan did not contain federally-funded abortion, but it certainly did support taxpayer funding of abortion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he stated a pig flew by his window and meant it.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.