Today we celebrate Constitution Day and delight in the freedoms and countless rights that are outlined for us as Americans in our founding document. No country has ever existed that has experienced the liberties we take for granted in the United States. Not only did the founders have great foresight when drafting the Constitution, but millions of men and women have stood up to defend our republic and way of life.

It was in the Constitution that our founding fathers penned the infamous words, “We the People.” We the people, benefit from countless civil rights that aren’t found in all countries. We the People, have freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, economic liberties, equal protection under the law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishments.  We the People, ordained and established the Constitution in order to form a more perfect Union.  

Sadly, the understanding of our founding documents have been lost due to indifference and misinterpreted due to ignorance.  Recognizing the vital need to understand the Constitution, the specific observance of Constitution Day was established in 2004 by Congress to fall on today’s date, September 17, the day the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution back in 1787. The law recognizing Constitution Day requires all publically funded educational institutions to learn about the Constitution every year on this day. However, all American citizens should take an interest in the base of their government, not just students in their youth. Young or old, rich or poor, the Constitution plays a role in the lives of all its citizens.

The Constitution is both testimony to the foundations of our national heritage and still relevant to the circumstances and needs of our times.  It was a unique idea to the Founding Fathers, and it remains uniquely American today.  It is important that all Members of Congress remember to view every piece of legislation through a Constitutional lens when bills are presented throughout the year, not just on the anniversary of the ratification of our founding document.

Our Constitution has been preserved over the last two hundred years thanks to the tireless efforts of so many. We too must continue to be vigilant to stand by the freedoms safeguarded in this document. It is my wish that all future generations be able to experience America as a sovereign nation ruled by the limited form of government found in the Constitution of the United States of America.

One of the issues being overshadowed by the administration's massive deficit spending, cap-and-trade energy tax, and government take-over of our health care system is the effort to diminish freedom of speech on the airwaves by reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.

The Heritage Foundation points out that "in such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views." The Fairness Doctrine was shelved in the 1980s.

Yet, sadly, the revival of the Fairness Doctrine is a very real possibility – particularly with this Administration.

In fact, Mark Lloyd, a former senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, has been appointed as “Chief Diversity Officer” of the FCC. It's been reported that "Lloyd is a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine and recently wrote that the Doctrine, and other regulatory tools such as localism and diversity mandates, should be employed by the FCC to limit the number of conservative voices on the air and supplant them with liberal voices.  He also suggests fining conservative radio stations up to $250 million and giving the proceeds to national public radio."

Now, Mr. Lloyd is in a position to make his ideas into policy.  Clearly, while this issue has taken a backseat in the headlines, it remains alive and well.

To learn more about the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, check out "Don't Touch My Dial," a website and coalition set up by several radio show hosts to counter censorship efforts by the FCC.

Paul Weyrich was a leader and a pioneer.  In co-founding the Heritage Foundation, Paul not only built one of America’s great grassroots organizations, but helped to change the course of the Republican Party and the country itself.  His fingerprints can be clearly seen on so many of the great conservative victories over the years.

Paul’s political conscience was like a guiding rudder through even the foggiest policy debate.  And in the rough-and-tumble world of politics he never backed down.  He was a fighter – but he always waged his battles with warmth, grace and good humor.

We will miss Paul dearly.  And our prayers are with the Weyrich family at this most difficult time.

But we can take heart in knowing that, even years from now, as memories fade, his legacy will grow ever brighter in the light of the freedoms he fought for, the principles he stood for, and the noble ideas he so eloquently and passionately championed. 

With Democrats about to take over the White House and control the Senate and House in greater numbers during the next session of Congress, the threat of the fairness doctrine becoming a reality is very, very real.

Here's what Senator Schumer has to say about it:



According to the Politico newspaper:

"Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

"In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, 'It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.'

"Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, 'I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.'"

Seeing as how the Democrats can not compete on the radio airwaves with conservative viewpoints, they are now pulling out all the stops. Remember Air America? It failed miserably. So essentially, liberal leaders in Congress are saying to America -- So you don't like what I have to say? Well, I'm going to make you listen to me anyway!

For those of you who don't know, Nancy Pelosi's book, Know Your Power, A Message to America's Daughters, reportedly sold 2,737 copies during its first week of sales. Now I'm not here to knock her for writing a book; in fact, I give her credit for undertaking such a task. The problem I have is with her promoting it when she should be not only working with Congress, but LEADING it to pass a substantive piece of energy legislation.

Explaining the book’s poor performance, a source close to her was quoted as saying:

"The speaker was pre-occupied with house business last week. She has now turned her focus to promoting this extraordinary book...doing local signings and speeches. I think we'll see an uptick."

WOW!

So, are we to take from that that before this summer recess she'd led Congress to accomplish so much, she now deserves time to promote her book to enhance sales??? Not only is the premise wrong – Congress has accomplished nothing – but the ensuing statement is, too.

Partisanship aside, I think we can all agree that Pelosi should get back to work in Washington to deal with our energy crisis.  Book sales are the last thing she should be concerned about. 

At least, we now see crystal clear the priorities of the Speaker of the House. No wonder she’s leading what is known as the "Do-Nothing Congress."

A rule is making its way through Congress that will have a huge impact on our freedom of speech. This rule would prohibit Americans from getting information from their Members of Congress – about what they are doing in Washington, what they are saying, and what they are proposing – on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.

This rule affects all of us regardless of political affiliation.

What this essentially means is that sites like YouTube that Members use to communicate with constituents would have to make their way through a complicated, arcane, and restrictive set of House regulations before Members could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content to only those websites.

This proposed rule could mean the end of blogs like this one that have become a real forum for conversation.

The rule has been proposed by the Democrat Chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA).

Read Rep. Capuano's letter to Chairman Brady.

If this rule is adopted, the free flow of information from Members to constituents and vice versa would be significantly stunted. Essentially, a panel of federal employees that are not neutral or independent would say what messages and formats are fit and unfit for circulation.

This rule accomplishes nothing except increased censorship of free speech.