Jul 2
The Unfairness Doctrine
The past couple of weeks, several Democratic Senators have generated a stir by publicly expressing their interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. This rule was introduced at the beginning of the anti-Communist hysteria in the US in 1949. It required broadcasters to air contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. It was eliminated in 1987 after the FCC found it had a "chilling effect" on free speech.
Back before the explosion in alternative media outlets, air time for any broadcast medium was very limited. Because it was so costly to operate a network, broadcasters had what we would call today a monopoly.
When I was growing up in Storm Lake, Iowa, we only had four TV channels. In the late '70s, everyone in my household was thrilled when cable TV came to our town with 12 extra channels. Today we have over 300 major cable networks.
We now have so many forms of mass communication, I sometime wonder how each form of media can draw enough of an audience to be profitable. In the 1960s, television shows were cancelled for only drawing 20 million viewers. Today, "American Idol" would love to reach those kinds of numbers.
With the media now spread out over radio, print, TV, cable, satellite radio, and the internet, there is no need to require equal time. The whole problem here is the lack of liberal domination in one particular area of the media. Starting in the 1980s, conservatives began to make their presence known on talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are just a few names among many that have given a voice to people on the political right.
We have conservative dominance of talk radio is because liberals control nearly everything else. One of the main reasons the liberal "Air America" radio program has been mired in bankruptcy and financial problems since its inception is becasue there is an oversupply of liberal views. What made Fox News an instant success in the television market is the fact that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and PBS all lean to the left.
Liberals also complain about conservative blogs. I don't see how they could apply the need for fairness to the internet. Liberals can just open their own website.
What really gets my blood boiling is the hypocritical nature of liberal media. If they want to implement a fairness doctrine, they should start with their own networks. If the newsroom of the mainstream media is 90 percent liberal, it looks like we need to improve things by 40 percent.
I think the devil has put people into position of leadership to maintain his influence over this world. Satan is the instigator, but it takes human decisions to arrive at a point where liberals control key mainstream media outlets.
A culture of liberal bias is the reason you don't see Christians sitting behind network anchor desks or as general editors of major newspapers. The glass ceiling that once barred women from holding important roles is now used to block conservatives from gaining important roles in the media. The liberal logic goes, "We can't have Bob as the head of our Washington news division. He's a devout Christian, so we need someone with an open mind." Any actor who comes out publicly as a believer in Christ in Hollywood can basically kiss his or her career goodbye.
Right now, it doesn't look like the Fairness Doctrine crowd will be winning this round. Some house Republicans, after hearing about the plan for the fairness doctrine, managed to get a rule inserted into one bill that prohibits the FCC from seting up such a mandate.
I don't think Satan is going to give up. Because we know the tribulation will be a time when the antichrist is in full control of the world, at some point the devil is going to win the battle. The open nature of the media seems to indicate his victory will have to come from a legilative decision.
Talk radio reminds me of the night light I have in my kitchen. When the sun sets, a seven-volt light turns on, and it provides enough light to for me to walk in my kitchen, dining room, and living room. Liberals need total darkness in order to implement their plans.
I should clarify one thing. The battle here is not a classic good vs. evil match-up. I do believe the policies of liberals are heavily influenced by demonic forces, but conservatives are not necessarily the angels in this conflict. Many of the leading figures in talk radio are indifferent to Christian values. What makes these folks on the right helpful to the Kingdom of God is that they play a preventive role in politics. Liberals do their best to corrupt the morals of our nation and conservatives have traditionally stood in their way.
I believe the day may come when there is little different between Democrats and Republicans. I was very alarmed when I found out the top leading Republican presidential candidates all supported gay rights and abortion. Hopefully, Fred Thompson will restore sanity to the right.
The rapture could be what ultimately dooms conservative talk radio. When the Church is called home, right-leaning radio programs will lose a large portion of their audience. The U.S. Congress, with its sudden shift to the left, will easily pass rules that would put to shame any attempts at censorship being made today.
-- Todd
Repaving Roman Roads
The well-known saying during the days of the ancient Roman Empire, "All roads lead to Rome," can well be applied in this end time day by a slightly altered apothegm: "All the roads in the 'Roadmap to peace' lead to reviving Rome."
I must say with conviction as strong as any I've experienced that never in my recollection have things regarding Israel, the cry for peace and safety, and the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70 presented such a prophetic/geopolitical picture as we see coming into focus now. All roads are indeed leading back to Rome. The past week's developments, in my view, have greatly given impetus to the movement toward the Daniel 9: 27 prophecies. The roads to reviving Rome are being repaved in a spectacular way.
Fear of war involving Israel is on the rise among the international community diplomatic elite. Never, since the last major war in the region--the 1973 Yom Kippur War--has the fear factor been so pronounced. Israel, according to some in the know, is making ready for an imminent war with Iran, Syria, and others under their influence, if not their hegemony. One source reports on the building hostilities:
"Israeli military intelligence has projected that a major attack could come from any of five adversaries in the Middle East. Officials said such a strike
could spark a war as early as July 2007. On Sunday, Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Cabinet that the Jewish state faces five adversaries in what could result in an imminent confrontation. Yadlin cited Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and Al Qaida" ("Israel braces for July war with up to five enemies," WorldTribune.com, June 25, 2007).
The thing I find most fascinating is the swiftness with which the European Union (EU) has moved to action in dealing with the building confrontation. And, the timing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's unanimously approved injection into the looming crisis has an almost eerie quality in these days when so many things of prophetic stage setting-type things dominate the headlines.
Look first at the following think-piece, regarding the building EU influence:
"BRUSSELS: The revamped treaty hammered out by European leaders at a marathon summit meeting here will rescue the bloc from its current existential crisis...With a road map for its future in hand, a newly empowered union should be able to take a larger global leadership role and become a more equal partner with Washington on issues ranging from the Middle East, a newly assertive Russia and energy security. The creation of a more powerful EU foreign policy chief to represent the bloc internationally should also help Europe to better speak with one voice, making it clearer than ever whom Washington needs to call when, as Henry Kissinger once put it, it 'wants to speak to Europe'"(Dan Bilefsky and Stephen Castle, "A new road map for Europe," June 24, 2007, International Herald Tribune).
Just as the EU asserts its right to put its ever-growing power brokerage stamp on world events, the ideal venue-- the Israel/Arab-Islamic looming war-- presents itself, crying for solution. The fortuitous crisis combines, at the same time, to thrust into the circumstance the ideal individual for dealing with the situation. A newly-created position of influence out of the heart of the area of the ancient Roman Empire bursts into the geopolitical spotlight.
Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU.
The announcement came just hours after he stood down as UK prime minister and shortly before it was announced he was to quit as a member of parliament.
Mr Blair said a solution to Mid-East problems was possible but it required "huge intensity and work" ("Blair appointed Middle East envoy, BBC News, June 27, 2007).
So, Tony Blair will be moving out of 10 Downing St. to become the special peace envoy to the Middle East for the so-called "Quartet,"--the U.S., EU, Russia, and UN.
His new post will be based in Jerusalem, with a second office most likely in the West Bank. Blair will, reports say, be assisted by a team of diplomatic Mid-East experts.
Do I think Tony Blair will be the "Prince that shall come" (Daniel 9: 27)? No. I don't. But, do I believe this portends that man of sin coming forth? Yes. This and all other roads to Rome are being paved for the ascendancy of the one Revelation terms "the beast." This is a development to watch very closely , indeed.
--Terry
