Liberals aren’t just trying to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservatives on talk radio in their mad dash to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine…

…It appears they have their sights set on shutting down CONSERVATIVE CONTENT YOU READ ON THE INTERNET AS WELL!

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently told an audience at the Heritage Foundation:

"Speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and 'government dictating content policy.'"

And McDowell added that the Fairness Doctrine could end with “the government regulating content on the Web.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that -- it’ll be called something else. So, will Web sites....”

And McDowell isn't the only one who sees what is coming down the road.

The Liberal media is covering just about every aspect of the Democrat National Convention this week, but you probably won't see anything in the news like what Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media recently wrote about the Democrat Platform:

“'We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,' the Democratic platform says."

You already know the code words.  They don't need explanation.

Make no mistake, the racket you'll soon be hearing in Washington will be the ker-blam of the wrecking ball, battering down freedom of speech in America, as Pelosi and Reid and Hillary use the so-called Fairness Doctrine to reduce the First Amendment to rubble and haul it away in dump trucks.

And this time around, the Hush-Rush lefties won’t be content to stop with conservative talk radio.

Maybe you can imagine a world in which Rush and Hannity and Ingraham would be FORCED to provide 'balance' as dictated by Nancy Pelosi?

But can you imagine conservative sites you rely upon for information being FORCED to alter content to suit the socialist whims of Nancy Pelosi?

For years, control freaks on the Left have wanted to muzzle conservative ideas and thoughts and if we don't act now, they may just get their chance!

That may explain why Pelosi REFUSES to allow Congressman Mike Pence's Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill designed to prevent an imposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, to come to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote!

And that's why it's up to each and every one of us to turn up the heat, or in a few months, an emboldened Pelosi Politburo may have the chance to make the so-called Fairness Doctrine the law of the land and DICTATE TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU CAN HEAR ON THE RADIO OR READ ON THE INTERNET!

Guess Who Else Wants Government to Control the Internet?  Hint: She Thinks There’s a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

In 1998, Hillary Clinton -- in a wild-eyed, teeth-grinding, nostril-flaring rage because the Drudge Report broke the Monica Lewinsky story -- told reporters:

"We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with [the Internet], because there are all these competing values.... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?"

She stopped just short of saying 'Off with their heads!'  But here is more of what she DID say:

"Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression [of] people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that.”

Right!  It might lead to the "oppression" of Hillary's "right" to do as she pleases, without being accountable to the American people.  It might lead to her NOT  being able to "manipulate information."  It might lead to some "bad outcomes" for her.

Hillary first went ape over the Internet in 1995, when she headed a White House group investigating which media were anti-Clinton and therefore in desperate need of “editing” and “gatekeeping."

The group developed a report called the Communications Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, which accused Richard Mellon Scaife of setting up “a vast right-wing conspiracy” to spread ugly lies about the circumstances of Vince Foster’s death.

Specifically the report complained that the Internet “allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people."

Amen Hillary!

Can you imagine it? Anybody and everybody -- a garbage collector as well as the First Lady -- allowed to express political opinions UNREGULATED!

Conservative commentator Joe Farah read the report and a light bulb went on.

Here’s what Farah wrote:

"The ironic part is that we were not utilizing the Internet very well back then. We did have a website called etruth.com, and it did get a high level of traffic. I was always surprised that there were more people reading our stuff on the Internet than were reading our newsletter. But it still never occurred to me that it had all that much potential until the Clintons connected the dots for me."

"When I saw that report, I became convinced that the Internet was the vehicle for keeping government under control, because if these guys were so scared of it, I felt we could do much more as journalists to utilize it."

For his bull-dog tenacity in pursuing anti-Clinton stories like the Vince Foster death, Farah was audited by Clinton’s kinder, gentler IRS.

So were other conservative Internet commentators like Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax.

So was Bill O’Reilly of the out-of-control Fox network (three years in a row).

So were the American Spectator and National Review.

All these audits occurred during the Clinton years.  Probably just a coincidence, but the stakes are high and we can’t let them gag America’s greatest free-speech forum.

Is it Payback Time?

The following is an account from USA Today on how bloggers stopped the Lying Left-Wing Media (LLWM) from defrauding the American people and stealing the 2004 presidential election.

Remember what happened? On a Wednesday night edition of 60 Minutes, Dan Rather produced forged documents in an attempt to discredit President Bush’s military record.

Here’s a blow-by-blow account of how bloggers caught Rather and the rest of LLWM with their pants down:

Wednesday, Sept. 8, Throughout the Night: Internet bloggers dissect the 60 Minutes report. Many say the memos look like they were done using a computer font that didn't exist in 1972 or 1973.

Thursday, Sept. 9, Daybreak: The 60 Minutes report is front-page news in The New York Times and The Washington Post. USA TODAY spreads its story across nearly two-thirds of one page inside its news section and notes that it, too, obtained the memos. There is no discussion in the major news media about whether the memos are authentic.

Thursday, Sept. 9, 7:51 a.m.: Powerlineblog.com, the Internet site that has received much of the credit for calling attention to signs that the documents might be forgeries, posts a long analysis of them.

Friday, Sept. 10, Daybreak: The New York Times runs a story (on Page 17) headlined, "Commander's Son Questions Memos on Bush's Service." The Washington Post headlines its article, "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush." USA TODAY publishes a five-paragraph story headlined, "Officer's son questions Bush memo."

Look what happened! A few next-to-anonymous bloggers -- who knew what they were talking about -- forced the high-and-mighty New York Times, The Washington Post and USA TODAY to backtrack.

But the story didn't stop there!  The LLWM was rather cavalier about the whole fraud.  “Hey, some are saying this MIGHT have been a mistake” slowly progressed to “Opps, Rather made a little mistake... no big deal.”

And Dan Rather petulantly defended the story and refused to "go gently into that good night!"  Dan Rather went on CNN and squawked: "The story is true. The story is true."

But that was the beginning of the end.  CBS COULD NOT just shrug this fraud off.  People were fired and plans were already being drawn-up behind the scenes for Dan Rather's 'retirement.'

You see now why the Left would just love to control the Internet? AS LONG AS IT’S NOT UNDER THEIR CONTROL, THEY MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE!

Just Look at What You've Been Able to Accomplish, Using the Power of the Internet!

The Hard Left is after the Internet, because we tell good folks like you what Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing to you behind your back.

Because of the Internet and patriotic Americans like you, we live in a better country!

Look at what we’ve done together:

The know-it-all smart guys, the swaggering insiders, said with a wink that amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens was a sure thing. Couldn’t lose! Then the Blast Faxes and calls came pouring in so thick and so fast that veteran Congressmen and Senators realized that they woke up the No-Longer-Silent Majority. YOU shot the bill down -- AND NOT JUST ONCE -- you shot it down on at least four occasions -- each and every time it raised its ugly head.

We're beating back the Global Poverty Act that could give a corrupt and dysfunctional United Nations billions of your hard-earned dollars to squander, misappropriate and misuse. That battle is not over yet but make no mistake, if not for patriotic Americans like you, IT WOULD BE OVER NOW, and the consequences would not be to your liking!

Those are a couple of reasons (there are many more) why the Left wants to gain control of the Internet and shut down conservative opinions and ideas!

The Left simply can’t survive in a free marketplace of ideas.

Don’t let them “edit” and “gatekeep” the Internet!  Don't let them shut you down!