Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


No Silence Broken: Just Position Restated

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay, in spite of your best efforts to create the Fairness Doctrine as a huge issue, you have failed.  The White House did not “break” any silence.  It just reiterated what President Obama had said when he was “candidate” Obama: I don’t want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  Are you now satisfied?  America wants to know!

To subscribe to Lynn v. Sekulow, click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(16)
post a comment
Cara

posted February 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm


The right position would be to let people be born. A person does not have the right to reduce an individual to a reproductive insignifigance of life sustaining matter. The human fertilized egg, is a baby forming in early stages of life. So, why do we have this arguement of a baby not being a baby? I guess they are seeking ways to murder their children in disguise, taking away the very rights of an individuals maturity. It sounds a bit murderous to me, to put it lightly.



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted February 21, 2009 at 6:43 pm


Cara, what do you think about the fairness Doctrine?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 21, 2009 at 9:14 pm


Cara the fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with your argument that a woman is not a woman but rather a government owned breeding pig. Changing abortion laws will not reduce the number of abortions at all it will just make it more dangerous for the women getting them. Why is you personal ideology so much more important than public safety may I ask?



report abuse
 

Laura

posted February 22, 2009 at 11:23 pm


I don’t care if President Obama states that he is against the Fairness Doctrine. There’s people in Congress who are currently meeting to put it through by another name. There’s also the new FCC appointees who can put it through with only three votes. The threat is still real. I’ve heard clips of all the senators speaking about how we have to bring it back whether it’s called the Fairness Doctrine or something else.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted February 23, 2009 at 1:32 am


I am all for a persons safety, I just think it is completely crazy to not protect the individual within the womb, as if to say it does not exist. I am for citizenship of every individual within the United States.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2009 at 5:13 am


What’s currently being discussed is not the Fairness Doctrine. What’s being discussed is whether or not some stations are failing to meet their contractual requirements to use the airwaves “in the public interest” and whether waivers should be continued that allow certain media conglomerates to own multiple venues in major markets when they are clearly not acting in the public interest or are actually interfering with the broadcast ability of some of their smaller competitors. The First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to their own opinions, but that does not extend to the right to suggest that the President should be assassinated, that the government should be violently overthrown, or advocating any other domestic terrorism. Broadcasters who cross that line should have their contracts cancelled and their licenses immediately revoked…



report abuse
 

dsjulian

posted February 23, 2009 at 5:15 am


Previous post, “What’s currently being discussed…” belongs to me…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2009 at 11:33 am


Cara, what on earth does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with abortion?
Laura, so there are people in Congress who want some version of the Fairness Doctrine in place. If that’s so, a bill will be presented and voted on, and then go to the President’s desk for his signature. There will be plenty of opportunity for the people to write to their representatives in Congress, either pushing for such a bill to be passed or warning their Congressmen and woman of the dangers they see in such a bill. It seems to me that you are hastening to a disaster, since a Fairness Doctrine bill has not even been written yet.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm


Barry, “Candidate” Obama said a lot of things. I remember him saying in Kansas City that he was going to get us out of Iraq. Now, its going to be “16 months”.
Whatever.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted February 23, 2009 at 2:17 pm


==Changing abortion laws will not reduce the number of abortions at all…==
It’s true that women will still have choice.
==… it will just make it more dangerous for the women getting them.==
“Roe” does not require us to provide alternatives from which to choose. It requires only an atmosphere where a person may choose.
If the law becomes more restrictive, the woman will still have choice. Her alternatives will be limited, but she will still have choice.
==Why is you personal ideology so much more important than public safety may I ask?==
The Constitution protects persons. The law treats the unborn as persons — that is, “jural persons.” If corporations can be jural persons, so can the unborn.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm


Dear Mary-Lee,
Actually, there have been some senators who have tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for several years. They already have written a bill (Senator Henchey-D sp?) They’ve just been waiting for an opportune time when there is a majority in Congress who would support such a bill so it can pass. The Democrats favor the Fairness Doctrine or the same restrictions under another name. Since they now make up the majority in Congress, many senators have been recorded stating how they want the “Fairness Doctrine,” either those exact words or something like it to be put into place. The White House web site under the Obama Administration has all kinds of references to Fairness Doctrine principles without using the exact words “Fairness Doctrine,” but they add up to the same thing. President Obama has now stated that he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. But, does he mean the original “Fairness Doctrine” from the 1940′s? Why does the White House web site have references to the same types of code words for the same thing? Diversity, localized control, variety of viewpoints etc. It remains to be seen if President Obama would actually veto this bill if it would pass, and thereby stick to his statement. His new appointments to the FCC could just decide to put it in place again all by themselves. Then President Obama’s opinion wouldn’t really matter unless people hold him to it because it’s his appointments and his administration doing it. How many times has he broken promises already and used doublespeak? No one is buying his statement because almost his entire party wants to bring it back, and could do so very easily.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted February 23, 2009 at 6:28 pm


Sorry, Mary-Lee. The “No Name” above is my post (Laura).



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted February 25, 2009 at 10:58 pm


==…”Candidate” Obama said a lot of things. I remember him saying in Kansas City that he was going to get us out of Iraq. Now, its going to be “16 months”.==
UPDATE:
According to Ubama’s plan, it will now be 19 months, three more than promised. Also, he plans to leave 50,000 in Iraq after that.
All this is not quite what he promised, is it?
Don’t lookit me! Don’t blame me! I didn’t vote for him.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm


Incredible you are correct sir. Even a broken clock is right twice a day though. I would have liked to see Dennis Kucinich and ESPECIALLY his wife get into the White House. No knock against Mrs. Obama. Kucinich said he would call for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan his first day in office. Republican Ron Paul did him one better and said he’d pull every troop out of the Middle East and close all our bases because these things are the reason those people hate us in the first place. Imagine if some foreign country had military bases in YOUR/our country, the USA! You’d be mad enough to attack them and perhaps even fly planes into their important buildings wouldn’t you? I would. I’m a patriot. So were the people who attacked us on 9-11. We need to get out of the Middle East until the world grows up enough to stop fighting over whose fairytales to believe. At that point there will no longer be a need for nations or borders or political hacks like Barak Obama.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted February 27, 2009 at 9:24 am


==I would have liked to see Dennis Kucinich and ESPECIALLY his wife get into the White House. ==
Noooowwwww I see your problem! You suffer from Liberalism disease, or, at least, enough of that nasty political virus has infected your mind that you become giddy at the sight and sound of your own errors.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm


Even so, why was the White House delaying a decision or a press statement then? The hesitation indicates some cognitive wavering, does it not?



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.