From a report on the effort to create a new seat in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C.:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who spoke in favor of the bill earlier this month, said the question of constitutionality should be resolved by the courts, not Congress.

Aside from her support for this unconstitutional bill, that statement alone should be disqualifying. Senator Collins, like all senators, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. That oath is an independent obligation; her sworn duty cannot simply be passed off to the courts. Collins really needs a primary challenger the next time she’s up for re-election.

A CNN blog reports on Democrats’ desire to censor conservative talk radio hosts:

Dems target right-wing talk radio

WASHINGTON (CNN) – ” More and More Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.

“I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.

Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa added their voices recently to those calling for a return of the regulation.

Republicans oppose the Fairness Doctrine, arguing it would be wrong for the federal government to monitor political speech on the airwaves, in order to require opposing views.

It isn’t hard to imagine a different level of reaction from places like CNN if Republicans were in the majority and threatening the licenses of broadcasters who don’t have enough conservative views on the air. They’d probably even go so far as to report it on the air, rather than merely on a blog post on their website. Words like “fascism” and “Mccarthyism” would be used. And they’d be right. The Democrats are ready to go after talk radio only because the most popular voices on the air are conservative. It is entirely based on viewpoint.

In a similar story from the AP:

China to create blacklist of local journalists

BEIJING (AP) – ” China plans to create a blacklist of journalists who break its reporting rules, state media reported Friday, adding to an array of controls used to restrict its domestic media.

According to a report in the China Press and Publishing Journal, the agency that exercises control over the state-owned Chinese media plans to “establish a database of media professionals with a bad record.”

It said reporters who violate the rules or laws will have their press cards taken away. “Their names will be entered into the list and they will be restricted from news reporting or editing work,” Li Dongdong, deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publication, was quoted as saying.

As noted here at Townhall.com, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t the only way for Democrats to try to suppress conservative speech. There are a number of less direct or perhaps less visible ways for them to try to accomplish the same goal. The Democrats’ willingness to even consider such an open and direct assault on the 1st Amendment should be very troubling to every American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And a fascist doctrine roundup from Michelle Malkin.

Democrats have a particular knack for shamelessly making completely conflicting arguments at different times, as political conditions of the moment require. They’ll passionately argue a point one day, and just as passionately argue the exact opposite later, as needed for principle-free political effect. If the DeMSM held them accountable for any of this, it wouldn’t work, but we know (and they know) that’s not going to happen.

A particularly egregious example of this occurred this morning on Meet the Press.

Here’s Congressman Barney Frank, in response to a point by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, condemning “bloated spending” during Republican control of the White House and Congress:

SEN. ENSIGN: … But the other thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers and firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of the states. The states have grown, in their budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for the last several year–actually, probably about the last 15 years. Their budgets are bloated, the federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back.

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on the bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled the federal government–House, Senate and White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. And in fact, we didn’t have the presidency. So the bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

But just a moment later, here’s Senator Claire McCaskill:

SEN. McCASKILL: I, I, I do think that there was some spending in the [so-called stimulus] bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party; frankly, of the American people. …

Was the federal budget in the last eight years “bloated” or on a “starvation diet”? Two Democrats, sitting at a table right across from each other, can make both arguments at the same time, all for political effect. It’s all about scoring points at that moment; without any regard for intellectual consistency or truth. And in any case, it’s ridiculous to suggest that irresponsible spending now is justified by alleged irresponsible spending in the past.

Incidentally, why does Congressman Frank assume that the first budget items states are going to cut will be cops, firefighters, and teachers? What responsible elected official is going to put those things at the bottom of the budget priority list? Frank appears to have a pretty low opinion of state and local officials. Of course, Senator Ensign is right, this is just pure fear-mongering. But for Frank, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant.