Oklahoma US Senator Tom Coburn on Fox News talking about Banning Earmark

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) pledged to force a vote on earmarks even and especially if Republican senators fail to ban the practice in a closed-door vote tomorrow. When the Food Safety bill comes up, said Coburn, "we can suspend the rules and have a vote on whether have earmarks or not."

Coburn's strategy would deny wavering Republicans a chance to defeat the "earmark ban" in a secret ballot. Senator-elect Mike Lee of Utah has asked for tomorrow's vote to be on the record, something that both Coburn and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) say they support. A secret ballot, they claim, is the only method by which the GOP conference won't approve the promise not to request earmarks.

DeMint: Announcing the Broadcaster Freedom Act

DeMint, Thune, Pence & Walden Introduce Bill to Stop Fairness Doctrine

Broadcaster Freedom Act would keep radio airwaves free from government censorship and suppressio

In an effort to prevent Democrats from suppressing the right to free speech for talk radio and other broadcasters, today Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana), chairman of the House Republican Conference, Congressman Greg Walden (R-Oregon), Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, and Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota), Vice Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34 in the Senate, bill number pending in the House). The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse.

“The time has come to do away with the Fairness Doctrine once and for all,” said Congressman Pence. “Over the past few months, some of the most powerful Democrats in Congress have made their intentions to restore this Depression-era regulation clear. However, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.

“During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty. I urge this Congress to send the Fairness Doctrine to the ash heap of broadcast history where it belongs,” said Congressman Pence.

Senator DeMint added, “Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has grown rapidly due to the power of the free market. We should not allow our government to suppress free speech by reversing this decision and regulating the marketplace of ideas.

“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation, and this legislation will protect this sacred right,” said Senator DeMint.

Senator Thune said, “One of America’s greatest pillars of democracy and freedom is our Constitutional guarantee to exercise free speech. For over 200 years, the First Amendment has allowed Americans to voice opinions, thoughts and questions of their choosing without the fear of Government reprisal. This guarantee is now threatened by some liberal ideologues who are frustrated with the free flow of ideas on talk radio. The bill we have introduced will stop them in their tracks and help protect the vibrant marketplace of ideas we have today in our media. I advise every American to be hesitant when government officials offer to regulate the media in the name of ‘fairness.’ Our support for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech means that we must support the rights granted to even those with whom we disagree. Simply put, giving power to a few to impose ‘fairness’ in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.”

Congressman Walden, who owned and operated radio stations for more than 21 years and is part of a small town broadcast family that dates back to the 1930s, stated, “The founders would spin in their graves at the thought of the government censoring speech on many of today’s radio and television stations. Yet that’s just what some Democratic leaders seem to be after. Whether as a throwback to the old Fairness Doctrine or under a less controversial guise, any effort to exert government control over speech on the airwaves is an insult to the principles behind the First Amendment.”

The Fairness Doctrine was implemented by the FCC in 1949 in an attempt to ensure balanced and fair coverage of controversial subject matter by broadcasters. In 1985, the FCC determined that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a “multiplicity of voices in the marketplace.” The FCC was also of the view that the Fairness Doctrine may have violated the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. Twice, Congress has passed legislation restoring the Fairness Doctrine, but Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush vetoed the bills.

The DeMint-Thune Senate bill, S. 34, has 24 cosponsors including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Christopher Bond (R-Missouri), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) John Ensign (R-Nevada), Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), Mel Martinez (R-Florida), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).

The Pence-Walden bill in the House already has over 100 cosponsors including Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio), Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), John Carter (R-Texas), David Dreier (R-California), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Kevin McCarthy (R-California), Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan), Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Washington), Tom Price (R-Georgia), Adam Putnam (R-Florida), Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and Fred Upton (R-Michigan).

LOL: Snow blankets London forGlobal Warming debate

How Parliament passed the
Climate Bill

By Andrew Orlowski

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.

In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.

The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) "requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the company is responsible" by 2012.

Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".

Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.

Yet anyone looking for elected representatives to articulate these concerns will have been disappointed. Instead, representatives had a higher purpose - demonstrating their virtue. And for the first 90 minutes of the marathon debate, the new nobility outdid each other with calls for tougher pledges, or stricter monitoring. Gestures are easy, so no wonder MPs like making them so much.

It was all deeply sanctimonious, but no one pointed out that Europe's appetite for setting targets that hurt the economy has evaporated in recent weeks - so it's a gesture few countries will feel compelled to imitate.

The US Senate has Senator James Inhofe, but in the Commons, there wasn't an out-and-out sceptic to be found. It was 90 minutes before anyone broke the liturgy of virtue. When Peter Lilley, in amazement, asked why there hadn't been a cost/benefit analysis made of such a major change in policy, he was told to shut up by the Deputy Speaker.

(And even Lilley - one of only five out of 653 MPs to vote against the Climate Bill in its second reading - felt it necessary to pledge his allegiance to the Precautionary Principle.)

It fell to a paid-up member of Greenpeace, the Labour MP Rob Marris, to point out the Bill was a piece of political showboating that would fail. While professing himself a believer in the theory that human activity is primarily the cause of global warming, he left plenty of room for doubt - far more than most members. The legislation was doomed, Marris said.

Marris had previously supported the 60 per cent target but thought that 80 per cent, once it included shipping and aviation, wouldn't work. We could have a higher target, or include shipping and aviation, but not both.

He compared it to asking someone to run 100m in 14 seconds - which they might consider something to train for. Asking someone to run it in ten seconds just meant people would dismiss the target.

"The public will ask 'why should we bother doing anything at all?'"

Out of bounds

The closest thing to a British Inhofe is Ulsterman Sammy Wilson, Democratic Unionist Party, who'd wanted a "reasoned debate" on global warming, rather than bullying, and recently called environmentalism a "hysterical psuedo-religion". Wilson described the Climate Bill as a disaster, but even colleagues who disagree with his views of environmentalism are wary of the latest amendments.

The Irish Republic is likely to reap big economic gains if it doesn't penalise its own transport sector as fiercely as the UK pledges to penalise its own in the bill. Most Ulster MPs were keenly aware of the costs, and how quickly the ports and airports could close, when a cheaper alternative lies a few miles away over the border.

Tory barrister Christopher Chope professed himself baffled by the logic of including aviation and shipping. If transportation was made more expensive, how could there be more trade?

"As we destroy industry we'll be more dependent on shipping and aviation for our imports!" he said.

"When the history books come to be written people will ask why were the only five MPs... who voted against this ludicrous bill," he said. It would tie Britain up in knots for years, all for a futile gesture, Chope thought.

However, Tim Yeo, the perma-suntanned Tory backbencher who wants us to carry carbon rationing cards, said it would "improve Britain's competitiveness". He didn't say how.