Glenn Beck: Senator voices support for 'Fairness' doctrine return




Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman wants the Fairness Doctrine back

GLENN: Now, you don't think that freedom of speech is on the run? I want you to listen to this interview with a senator out of New Mexico. Listen carefully to what the senator is saying here.

VOICE: Talk radio listeners are concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. Do you think there will be a push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR BINGAMAN: I don't know. I certainly hope so. My own view is --

VOICE: Do you support it?

SENATOR BINGAMAN: I think --

VOICE: I mean, you would want this radio station to have to change?

SENATOR BINGAMAN: I would. I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view instead of always hammering away at one side of the political --

VOICE: I mean, do you -- I mean, in this market, for instance, you've got KKOB, in you want liberal talk, you got Air America in this market, you got NPR. If you have satellite radio, there's a lefty talk station and a righty talk station. I mean, do you think there are people who aren't able to find a viewpoint that is in sync with what they believe?

SENATOR BINGAMAN: Well, I guess my thought is that radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just reflect a particular point of view. I think they should use their authority to try to -- and their broadcast power to present an informed discussion of public issues. You know, KKOB used to live under the Fairness Doctrine. Every broadcast outlet --

VOICE: Yeah, we played music, I believe.

SENATOR BINGAMAN: Yeah, but there was a lot of talk, also. Used to be --

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. This is Senator Jeff Bingaman. He's from New Mexico. Surprise, surprise, he's a Democrat. Let me ask you, do you think if Air America would have been successful, they would have been talking about this? No. No, they would have reclassified right talk stations as hate speech and they would have still tried to drive right talks. Nobody would have been talking about balancing Air America. They wouldn't have done it. They are not interested in free speech. Go back to what Al Gore has been telling us for the last five years. The discussion is over! If you believe that global warming is not happening, you are a Holocaust denier. They don't believe in free speech! "Well, I believe that we used to have the Fairness Doctrine. We all lived under that." Well, we also used to have slavery and we lived under that. Oh, well, we also used to be segregated and we all lived under that. Times change. Times change. I'm passionate about this because this is my job, but you know what? Honestly, I have stopped looking at my job as my job about a year and a half ago. It's not my job. It's my passion. I love this. But also I see this profession, not necessarily me but this profession, this outlet, these radio stations as quite possibly the last string of our Constitution, the last thread of our Constitution. If you can't get here, if you can't get it on the Internet, you ain't gonna get it, gang. They have got to silence the voices. They have got to silence the dissent. They have got to -- you look at the listeners of talk radio. You look at the people and then you look at the average person. The average person isn't informed. If they can keep you uninformed, they got you in slavery. How do I know that? What was punishable by death back before the Civil War? What was a crime? A crime was teaching a slave to read. You didn't educate slaves, and that's what talk radio does in many ways. It informs, it entertains, and it educates.

I was in radio. I've been in radio for over 30 years. I didn't care about the Fairness Doctrine for years and years and years because as the Senator Jeff Bingaman pointed out, "Well, I think we lived under it, this station, lived under the Fairness Doctrine." Yeah, we played music. We played music.

You know, I don't know how many people really know this, but Rush Limbaugh saved the AM dial, and I know it because I got into FM in 1981, maybe 1980. I got into FM radio. FM radio was brand-new. I remember growing up in Seattle and listening and KYYX came on the radio and everybody started listening to the FM and then shortly after that, a new station came on. It was called the Northwest New 93 FM. That's the first station that I first worked in the major market. I was 15 years old, couldn't even drive and worked at 93 FM, KUBE. That's the station that changed, in Seattle that's the station that changed people from the AM band to the FM. People were listening to KJR at the time, they were listening to King. They were AM stations. The FM came on and blew those stations out of the water because nobody wanted to listen to an AM radio station for music. It was over. The days of the AM were over.

I remember standing in an engineering office. This is back in the late Eighties, mid-Eighties, and we had an AM station. I was on the FM. The AM was a piece of garbage. The AM, we had two AMs. One of them actually sold to the company for $1. $1. Nobody was listening. And I remember standing in the engineering office and they said, "Yeah, well, we're thinking about going AM Stereo." I said, "AM Stereo, what's it going to sound like?" They said, "It's the AM band except it's in stereo." I said, oh, so you could lose it under the bridge and it would be all staticy but you'd get two channels of that? Whoa. It was ridiculous.

Here in my office I've got an AM stereo radio made by Sony. It's a collector's item. It was AM stereo was the way to try to do something to save the value of these radio stations. Well, while everybody was talking about AM stereo and people were starting to build AM stereo transmitters and turning their radio stations to AM stereo, which you can't pick up, a guy in Sacramento decided to do radio just the way he wanted to do radio. His name was Rush Limbaugh. He was a success. At the time satellites weren't even important. Satellite time, who was using satellite time? There was no real network radio. There were no shows broadcast on radio. At the same time Rush was doing his thing in Sacramento, another guy was let go by ABC Radio, and he negotiated a deal and he said, "Hey, I'm leaving and, you know, you owe me all this, why don't you just pay me in satellite time." And ABC Radio went... okay, sure, we'll pay you in satellite time. So he had all these hours and hours and endless hours of satellite time. All he needed to do was find something to do with it. He heard about this guy in Sacramento; called him up: "Hey, I tell you what, why don't we put your show on a satellite." They did. It was the Rush Limbaugh Show. Because that voice had not been heard, no one, no one will ever beat Rush Limbaugh, no one. Sean Hannity and I, we could battle it out for the number two spot forever. I mean, it's not much of a battle right now, but we could battle it out forever. We're never gonna battle it really with Rush Limbaugh. Why? Because he has almost every AM station in America. He is on in every market in America. He's sometimes up near 600 stations. You can't do that anymore. You just can't do that anymore. He was the Coca-Cola. He is the Coca-Cola of this industry. Why? Because when he went on the air, his stations had a zero rating and they would rocket to number one. Why would they rocket to number one? Because he was different.

Why do you always hear people say, "Oh, yeah, well, he's just a Rush wannabe." Well, why would you want to be Rush Limbaugh? I mean besides the $35 million a year and the jet and everything else, but why would you want to be Rush Limbaugh? You wanted to be Rush Limbaugh because he was successful. It's the Lemmings things. It's the same. It's happening with the market right now: One person goes in and then they're successful, they pull their money out and they've saved themselves and then everybody else is like, "Yeah, we've got to do with that guy did." Because he was so wildly successful and he saved the AM band, there was no other programming like it and so stations all across the country said, "Can you do that? You get on. You do things like that." He changed the AM band.

If you add the Fairness Doctrine in, these radio stations will go out of business. They won't be able to have the ratings. I've seen it happen. Clear Channel, for all of the horrible things that people say about Clear Channel, oh, they're just bad with the Bush administration. Do you know who partially funded Air America? Do you know who went on and put more Air America stations on than any other company? Clear Channel. Clear Channel. They saw the same thing that we've been talking about on this program for quite a while. We're dividing ourselves. We've got to unite. And you know what? It doesn't hurt the AM band. The real theory was it doesn't hurt the AM band if you can bring the other half of the population to the AM band. Why do you come to the AM band? You come for talk radio and you come for news radio. That's why. You come for these two things. "Well, didn't we used to have the Fairness Doctrine?" "We played music at the time." "But I remember there was an awful lot of talk, too." Yeah, you know what it was? "95 KJR. Good morning, it's Charlie Brown." That's what it was. That's what it was. It wasn't this. We've never had this. And these people are going to try to snuff out your voice.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.