of club. that would be all the angels would score and all the angels would need. the highlights as the angels leading 1-0 in the third. river would come up and line a base hit to center field. the ball would be misplayed by jones. one run comes in to the base hit and another to rare fielding error. >> it setting the inning up for the orioles. two easy rbi and the runner goes into 2nd base uncontested the orioles should have had that out. quinlan a base hit, rivera would score and that's a 5-0 game. >> a good throw to home plate but no way that wieters can make the tag. >> here's the orioles run. >> markakis continues to swing the bat well. 2 hits to game and doubles to right center field and scores the orioles only run of the

game. >> the 9th inning the orioles got the first 2 on, on a single and walk. fundes is closer coming on. the orioles were trying to make it back-to-back wins have won consecutive games back to back wins only once since the all- star break. 8 and 20 since the break. in 28 games since the all-star break the orioles put wins together back-to-back only once. lackey gets the win. matusz the loss and fuentes the save. let's head back to the broadcast booth. jim, when you look at the pitching matchup you saw the difference that the experience can do, because john lackey was able to navigate through jams and there was one bad inning but enough damage was done.

>> it was. the one thing, a lot of times if you have a bad inning and pitching again someone with 98, 99 lifetime win, thats the difference between winning and losing. the only thing that concerned me he sped up too much as the inning went along. he gets early on, he's terrific. he's thrown two fastballs down an way. fouled them off. chone figgins and he makes a perfect curveball. this is what -- why he's the number one draft choice. 14 months ago, all of a sudden he gets in trouble as we get right here, he has a 4 batter period he walks 3, got the first out. figgins walked. he scored. they made adjustment. there's a routine ground ball. if you don't walk the 3 guys, good throw, late at home plate. all in all, they didn't hit a lot of balls hard. kept the ball from the

ballpark. the orioles don't give him offense. there are the numbers. you like the fact he did strikeout 7 without the me making a conscious effort of trying to do it. contrary to his start in detroit. he gave up 5 runs 4 earned. the hits a lot has to do with the fact this is one of the best offensive teams in baseball, number 2 in the american league and they showed that tonight. >> a side of that one bad inning, he came back, he gave up hits in every inning and pitched out of trouble before and after the 3rd inning. look at john lackey and what he does. he getting in some trouble. the orioles got early we talked about when robbers coming up he doubles and goes to work on the lineup and shuts it down. >> you have to understand, in 8 have hadis last 9 game, now 9 out of 10 games he's given up 3 runs or less. this is john lackey. if i think of one guy in the american league you want to the pitch for you is john lackey.

he won 19 gao games a cup -- games a couple years ago with a e.r.a. of 303. he can pitch. he has a good change-up. curveball reminds you have roy halladay. you made a great point. when he needed a strike out he went to the the high fastball. again. nick didn't have a better at bat. we know how good a hitter he. you look away. pie hits for the cycle. he strikes them out inside. the guy with 98 wins coming into the night against a guy in his third major league start. lackey will pitch well. brian matusz. for a young pitcher to give up 5 runs and get into the 6thinning that was a testimony tonight. >> we go inside to dave trembley his postgame conference. >> he threw a lot of strikes.

100 pitches he threw 30 some balls. kept the ball down, a lot of ground ball outs. we needed a couple hits to get us back in it, and you know, had good at-bats but the hits didn't fall. so that's that. >> you guys had guys up in the pen early, was it important to let matusz pitch out, attempt to the pitch out of that. >> my thoughts were, as long as he was throwing the ball well, you know, his delivery was good. his mound presence was good. i didn't want to see him have a long inning and maybe errors behind him or successive hits. i didn't want the run his pitch count up in that one inning. i think that's where you're guarded. you're guarded with a guy like that, like you would be with any young pitcher. it's important they learn how to pitch out of jams.

they are allowed the opportunity to go deep as lodge as they can and as long as they are throwing well and look like it is free and easy. matusz doesn't labor. so, you know, in that regard, that's a good outing for him. >> at one point in the 3rd inning you gave him extra looks. did that discourage him the strike? >> i think matusz competes. i think one pitch, one pitch and a bad inning you know could have, might have, should have, would have, made a difference in that inning. >> he only lost the strike zone for a couple batter. >> that's the umpire's opinion he lost the strike zone for a

couple batters. you know. >> both benches warned. i don't know what that was about. >> i have no idea what that was aabout. i have nothing. i have no idea. what was going on there. >> all right. >> dave trembley his postgame comment. john lackey gets the win and brian matusz now 1-2 with a loss. at&t player of the game as voted on by the fans. 36 to 32 to 32. nick markakis 36% is your player of the game. o's extra postgame and the fans with us. as the angels beat the orioles 5-1. you can get great deals. it's perfect.

i just want to make sure it's the right decision. future...us? we got here as quick as we could. look it's the cc. you don't pay for scheduled maintenance, you get the car of your dreams... seriously us, just drive it. you're right. dealer: let's take this one. it's a time-space continuum thing. the future...

of samuel adams. (bob cannon) hops add a spicy, citrus flavor to sam adams. (jim koch) the best hops have been grown on family farms like stanglmair's for centuries. it has unique conditions of soil, moisture and sunlight. (bob cannon) boston lager-- the proof is in the taste.

 angels 5-1 to even up the 4 game certifies at a game each as john lackey out pitches brian matusz. the team put together 9 doubles and it's a mazing how often roberts and markakis is in the middle. they are as good as it gets in baseball. >> brian roberts is a machine. if you can imagine that roberts or markakis, we see him fist. he takes this wall on the outside concern and drives it to left field. perfectly placed out there. short hops the fence and he has his 38th double of the season. that's second in all major league baseball. roberts a double machine. if he had real power can imagine he would hit 40 to 50

home runs a year. it's amazing what he can do. >> they each have a dub, 3 more double and they are the major league leader. roberts 44, markakis 38. butler in kansas 7037, linden and byrd 36 and 35. roberts and markakis at the top of the list. one of thing about their swing they each have the ability to the use the entire feel. though hit it down the line or gore the gap. that's the reason they get so many doubles. you can't defend a guy that uses the whole field. you've to the play them one way or the other. there's brian roberts and mick markakis is beading the defense. >> when dave trembley was talking about the media he was asking about a pitch thrown to buy in his first at-bat and a discussion between mike scioscia and the home plate

umpire, who's to crew chief. last night when pie hit for the cycle the angels were upset about him celebrating a cycle. that may have had a carry over. you tell me. was this ray purpose pitch. no caught in my mind it was a purpose pitch. theyn't wanted to send a message they didn't like the celebrating. mike said it after i heard that they were upset with pie, that he would probably get thrown at, at that point this the game. he did. >> you see mike scioscia came on the field for two calls right there. another foul tip off the bat of aybar. aybar thought it was a foul tip. the umpire saw it wasn't. aybar trying to get the extra swing. >> i want to go the pie last night. you've seen all kind of player. pie had a tough year. he was the starter.

he losts a job. he's had to work to get whatever playing time he gets and has a career night. only 4 cycles in the history of the orioles. why is he not allowed to celebrate with his teammates and why is scioscia offended. i don't think he was showing anyone up. >> i don't think he was trying to show up anything. if there's anything we need it's emotion and he has it out there. i don't see any reason for the retaliation. like they threw at his head. they threw inside. maybe there's a question if they did it on purpose. since i thought about it last night and said it publically there would be a little bit of retallation. it's gamesmanship and i wish we had more of that myself here. >> if we went back and looked at every angel home run none of their hitters flipped the bat and showed up the opposing pitcher. >> it happens everywhere.

>> in the old days past everybody would and getting drilled for showing emotion after you hit a home run. that's the way it was back then. now they do the 3060 turn. flip the bat up in the air. throw the helmets and do all sort things to show up the other team and nobody does it. it's part of the game you have to learn to live with it. part of the game sometimes you have a bad night. abreu had a bad night. >> he had 4 strikeout on the night. not like abreu at all. he likes to take pitches. tonight, this is a testimonial to matusz who can make pitches. he got off track, that's the difference between the minor league and the big league. you get off track up here you pay more than you do at single a or double-a ball. the angels win it by a final of 5-1. game 3 tomorrow afternoon. good defense in the game. the an jegels got their 5 in

the top of the 3rd. the orioles in the bottom of the 3rd. 6-4-3 as the orioles turn 2. ♪

♪ tell me who's watching. (announcer) it's right here. it's easy. ♪ i always feel like somebody's watching me. ♪ it's the money you could be saving with geico.

 >> adam jones had a triple that set up the orioles only run. he would score on a double by nick markakis. adam jones to game. was it mixing it up or location wise. >> he's a good pitcher. he relies on the slider and the fastball location. so he, he benefitted from it and he threw a good game. we tip our hats off. we're not going concede to him, but he threw a good game. >> adam, how do you think brian held up. >> that was one inning. he threw a terrific game. it was one inning. that's what everyone will think about rather than he did throw

5 pretty good inning. >> so adam jones goes one out 5, a triple and the run scored. 66 rbi to the year and talked about john lackey who pitched a good game. when you look at his line, 7 inning, one run on 7 hits and the orioles had base runners in 6 of the 7 inning. there was only one 3 up 3 down inning and that was the last one he pitched. >> he knows the weakness of every hitter. look at the pitches he makes. rarely ever do you see ball down the middle of the plate. he's on the corner and very tough to hit these kind of pitches. nick markakis, when he swings at a bad pitch. he's vulnerable. lackey knows, that he waits to the right time. makes the pitch. all the orioles hitters you didn't see much offered at any of the pitches on the corner. he stays to corner and making pitches when he has to.

it's a veteran in the american league. >> what i liked about what he did. larry was very generous with some of the calls for lackey. that pitch to the wall streets for called strike 2, looked like it was outside. the umpire encourages you to the throw strike. he will call it. >> we saw on the replay how many times he hits the black on that play. 17 1/2 inches wide and lackey stayed on both corner. an umpire wants to give i pitches because he knows your consistent. they want to keep the game moving. when orioles pitchers throw to corners and hit them they will get the same pitches in the future. >> speaking of out standing pitching performance. let's look at our minor league probing prospect. zach went 7 inning, one run on 4 hits. sidewalked -- walked two and

struck out 7. he took the loss. zach outstanding as he goes to 8 and 6 on the year. look at the e.r.a. that's the second best e.r.a. in the carolina league, a tough luck loss as he goes 7 allowing one run. let's look at the minor league scoreboard. charlotte leading 7-5. buoy at portland. winning 4-3. fredrick loses 1- 0. that's a tough luck loss. the 1-0 final to winston-salem. the game at savannah postponed because of rain. >> aberdeen and james down in the 9th and jamestown leading 8- 5. bloomfield won 5-3. that's a final there. tyler townsend turned to aberdeen tonight. he had been injured. he was a top draft pick in

june. there's the scoreboard. texas beading boston 4-2. the rays win 8-3. just underway in seattle. the yankees and mariners scoreless. kansas city in the 9th inning. cleveland wins 7-3 and the white sox win at oakland 8-1. the al central very interesting and tight. here at orioles park the angels over the orioles 5-1 to even up the series at a game each. 

 going for 2 in a row and i lost. aubrey huff 0 for 3 with a walk. mar cake wis a double and the lone rbi for the orioles. matusz pitched to a loss tonight. he pitched well when you consider he gave up 5 runs in

one inning. >> a little bit. i feel like my change-up is not as effective as i want it to be. i'm trying to throw it over the plate rather than throwing like i know how too. after that 3rd inning i was able to relax. this was the first time since i've been here i felt confidential. i re-- comfortable. i made good pitches. some of the pitches were good. and that's what a good team are going to do. they're going put the ball in play and find the gaps and, find the stop. i was able to the battle and finish off strong. >> do you chalk this up to a learning experience tonight. >> >> i never think about things like that. obviously, it's based on, not based on results with the loss, never lappie with a -- happy with the loss. you know, i'm happy i can bring

a lot of good positives from the game. a lot of good positives and it's 8 matter of continuing to learn, make adjustment. i learned a lot today. i learned a lot from the toronto outing and a lot today. there's bad things that i did. i can make adjust. and continue moving toward and getting better. >> the good things you battled abreu and he looked at you what was that you threw me. that does that do for your confidence to know a vet hand hitter gave you the -- veteran hitter gave you the look. he's a good hitter. and that at-bat that i walked him i thought i made good pitches and he didn't chase. i was able to the make adjustment and the last at bat was huge with one out, i was to get 3 slides in a row and get him. obviously that's a huge confidence booster for me.

knowing i had the tough. i have the stuff to get guys out. it's a matter of throwing the right pitch at the right time. hitters, they make adjustment as fast as you can. it's a game, that's what it's about. i'm happy about that last hitter, giving us a chance to get back in ball game. >> brian matusz. his first full year. he will learn and be a good one. angels win it 5-1. enjoy the rest of your saturday night of the we'll see you back here tomorrow afternoon. ?

announcer: during the autobahn for all event, you can get great lease deals. i love it! i just want to know it's the right move. me? thirteen days in the future. you get a deal on the car you always wanted. scheduled maintenance is included, it's all good. what's the future like? you love your new jetta. and the suit? you like it? no...i love it!

>> next on espnews, on this the 40th anniversary of woodstock, woods stock continue toco rise? more on day three of tiger's festival. the eeg michael vick continued his long strange trip back to the football field. give credence to the revival with the lions. matthew stafford begins his quest to raise trait from the dead. we'vemi got santana throwing

canned heat against san fra, dude. and no hendrix motor sports. plenty of crosstown traffic on the nationwide circuit. peace, love, and sports next on captions paid for by espn >> wishing we were at yazger's farm in new york. keeping you current and you think of the lineup that there was at woodstock 40 years ago. a c hendrix, the dead, the who. rather impressive. >> i know. you're going to be disappointed because we don't have jimi, janice, joan, you have to settle for the next best thing. tyingal, bad did i, and ernie. all atop the leaderboard. round three of the p.g.a. championship. dwoodz -- tiger woods came into

the day leading. tying arrest continuation of the first two rounds. his approach on the par four nicely done. we would birdie. move to eight under. then on four, tiger a short par putt, knock it in, right? oh, no. no. tiger would bogey the hole. take another look in slow mo. the ball goes in and then comes out. the golf gods going against tiger. rare that happens. >> yeah, isn't he a golf god himself? >> vijay singh, par five, a seventh hole. third shot off the green. bingo. vijay would eagle. he would move to fouro under. but then shoot four over on the back nine. that sort of messed up his day. padraig hairge harrington, the defending champ. he moves to six under with a birdie putt. one behind tiger.

14, another birdie for padraig. three under for the day. six back for the tournament. back of the leader. y.e. yang, only p.g.a. tour this season, the honda classic. he had the rownld of thean day. shot five under on moving day. and that a nice approach on 16. he would birdie. that would be his third straight birdie. move to 6-under. back we go to tiger. remember he had the four-shot lead coming into the round? bladed wedge for a birdie. take one more look. that was on 14. from the edge of the rough. the fist bump. tiger now on 15. his third shot on the par five. not happy with that. he would two-putt for par. tiger parred 15 of the 18 holes. program director is to keep tabs on radio ratings nationwide. i look at markets where there is little talk, air america or other avenues of talk and these

stations are often times read it 28, 29, 30, 34th in the marketplace, you can't exist that way. that really drives little snots. they can't admit their ideas failed in the free market place therefore what do they do? they run to daddy, the government -- >> host: daddy, very big daddy. >> guest: very baghdad, and they want -- well, give laissez-faire -- they can't believe that in all diverse america that our point of view doesn't work. we don't accept that. that's even contained in the capper report, center for american progress, again, headed by john podesta. stated in that report. welcome the fact the matter is the free market place where ideas germinate and succeed or fail. and we have to value that. >> host: if the liberal point of view doesn't succeed in talk radio that is just one medium,

and that is what they are focused on because it fails there however the left has csn come msnbc, "washington post," "new york times," "boston globe," pretty much every newspaper with the exception of very few in america plus time and newsweek and the list goes on and on. i believe in taking media outlets where their point of view is multifold and expressed in every single outlet, cannot turnaround or go to a newsstand without seeing one of these liberal newspapers or news weeklies, so they're focused on the one medium they cannot succeed when they have the advantage everywhere else. >> guest: well, they've wanted it all for years and cannot stand to of have it all. and that is why we have to protect conservative talk radio is because it is the only opposition left. if they marginalized for the regulation of whatever is the public interest obligations of

america through the airwaves we have given up freedom. we become homogenized as americans at that point we are just puppets in the state. there is no opposition. there is a country that is even trying to do this right now if you read its the country of argentina. the country so angry at the big media companies for the criticism that she wants to force more diversity of media ownership and that is exactly what of our government is trying to do it the same time. >> host: in fact you write about this in the book, "censorship" come and talk about these international examples of what is happening here in america and you do write about canada and say it looks like what canada is doing is sort of leading the way for the left in this country and their movement against free speech. >> guest: my word. the canadian situation scares me to death. the canadian human rights tribunals, they even call them that, very powerful. our friend, mark stein in his book "america alone," when he

wrote through the queens magazine, and the canadian islamic council protested and went to petition it to the human rights tribunals costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and legal fees. i am not sure how much it cost him but it certainly did cost. it was an absolute affront to free speech in canada. it took months to clear that up and it wasn't just one human rights tribunal. it was british columbia. it was alberta, others, saskatchewan as well i believe and the national canadian human rights tribunal. that tribunal, those tribunals have censored pastors, have censored canadian citizens, find them for what they deem to be hate speech, speaking out against homosexuality and a marriage and so forth and we are seeing the same thing creep into

the united states, absolutely. >> host: do we have any evidence that the obama administration and democrats in congress or really looking toward these international with samples, we have concrete evidence that they are watching what is happening in canada or argentina or western europe and they are literally taking that as a model for what they want to do. >> guest: i absolutely believe that is the case. it's apparent the recent example of the united kingdom banning michael savage for his bombastic speech against radical islam, it's incredulous a country that purports to bellevue free speech would even consider them. in fact i defend michael savage in several instances in the book so i would presume that of the united kingdom should ban the book. if they really follow consistency you think that would be heat speech as well. we are seeing many examples of

other organizations and assaults on free-speech not just through the fcc but other organizations such as hispanic organizations and especially in los angeles working with the chicano studies group in ucla where they have isolated and 80 minute tape with three different shows, michael savage and who works with your network and also and in the 80 minutes of tape they claim to have 334 instances of hate speech. well first of all, who defines hate? you know, there is a saying that one man's cup of tea is another man's poison or something like that. who defines that? who defines what is hateful and what is not? i found interesting the hispanic groups suggesting this stated

the value free-speech but -- >> host: there is always about. >> guest: there's always a but. whenever you see that or hear it be careful. free speech can only be free with all that bought. >> host: on this point talking about political correctness and when it runs amok like this it does for into a form of censorship and i think to the example of don imus who made infamous crack on the air broadcast on msnbc while doing his nationally syndicated radio program and that political correctness came down on him. the left got him out as fast as possible. the advertisers were squeezed and that is just one example of the backdoor approach the leftist have to silence voices they disagree with >> guest: there have been many of those exhibits around america and don imus is the leading example, no question. yes it was a stupid comment

absolutely. he apologized profusely, i think it was heartfelt in his apology. he's back talking where he should be. he does have his free-speech rights. there is common sense and i think that most conservative talkers understand what that common sense is about. there are liberal talker is out there who are vehement and hateful themselves and if we wanted to be the same as liberals and charged that we would do that but we are not. we believe in free speech and we don't want reregulation. >> host: about this idea of the double standard? don imus does make a misguided stupid remark and he does paul dysphoric and he does pay the ultimate price. he loses his job and radio show for a while. but somebody like wanda sykes, african-american comedian can stand at the white house correspondents' dinner and wish rush limbaugh did and she gets laughed out, she doesn't lose gabus, even the president of the

united states laughs at that so this is the environment we are dealing with. >> guest: it is very hypocritical, and as you noticed rush did not comment on that. he didn't need to. it tells the full story of the far left really wants for america and they don't want conservative views. the heat conservative views and they want to absolutely kill conservative views around america. therefore they allow for the talk-show hosts. >> host: now we are talking about soft censorship. let's talk about this car censorship you write about. do you think this democratic president with big majorities in the congress will go at a full frontal reinstitution of the fairness doctrine or will the approach it from a different angle? >> guest: if they do, they can expect 80 party that is incredulous. laughter, it will be the biggest tea party the nation has ever seen. >> host: you ain't seen nothing yet. >> guest: know, they are not going to go through the front door on this because a lot of

balloons were put up about the fairness doctrine especially as the new president was coming into the office and power earlier this year. former president bill clinton for example expressed his desire to see some kind of balance and fairness on talk radio and other democrats launched into it. there have been many efforts the past couple of years to do the same thing. it's been going on basically since the early 90's when they wanted to return the fairness doctrine but no, they figured out and they knew all the time that it would be found unconstitutional in the court system at least we would hope it would be found unconstitutional. because if it isn't, then we are not -- we are not the nation we thought we were. therefore they want to go through the back door and trust and fairness doctrine and new clothes so to speak and that is what they are doing. >> host: why would the fairness doctrine only apply to talk radio and mossy to the broadcast television or newspapers? >> guest: it would have to

apply to television. >> host: broadcast television? and cable television? >> guest: knott cable television. cable television as a self regulated although there are democrats who would like to take a fairness doctrine to cable and satellite as well, no question about it. they are very radical. they are the speech centers of america. so what they have done, they basically are going in through the back door for the two measures called localism and diversity of media ownership. the diversity of media ownership is intended to do one thing, force liberal viewpoints into conservative talk america. it is absolutely for that purpose and that intention that began democrats will not admit that and they will not be truthful in their goal but it's already started. it started in may with hearings organized by the acting fcc chairman, michael copps. they have a group of 31 advisers who were there to try to figure out a way in which they can take

media licenses from one group and give them to minorities and women. i think that is fine to have diversity in america that has to be earned through the free market place. all i am a free marketplace person and you cannot tell me that taking a license away from one group and giving it to another doesn't impact speech. it absolutely does. they cannot -- maybe they can claim that it does not impact free-speech in america but it does. >> host: this is a form of affirmative action be in a post on talk radio. >> guest: forced affirmative action. >> host: let me ask you with the nefarious doctrine in the forms that you're talking about a flight to national public radio? >> guest: of course not. >> host: which is taxpayer funded and little as we know. so in pure is exempt from all of this. >> guest: it is their own turf. it wouldn't apply to them. of course it would apply to them in the legal sense they could not pass a law or regulation

that would impact just conservative talk radio without impacting npr. >> guest: i will be there with your shoulder to shoulder demanding equal time on every npr radio station. >> host: doesn't this strike you as absolute upside down alice-in-wonderland craziness where npr which is a government-run in to be on talk radio which is far to the left, paid for bye taxpayer dollars they would essentially be protected from this kind of imposition of fairness or whatever other euphemism they want to stifle free speech. >> guest: our friend, alan echols, nailed it. he says we have to be careful for what we ask. and he's absolutely true because and right because it would impact public radio and all public media potentially and let's face it again to have control over most mainstream

media and their thoughts permeate most mainstream media so i think they are on slippery, slippery slope and thin ice big-time. >> host: you mentioned president obama and a little bit of a track record in talking about these issues and certainly, he's a smart politician to the extent that he will put people in place will do the heavy lifting and dirty work for him so he can look like the good cop as opposed to what say john podesta or the head of the fcc that will be the bad cops and situations. so, is there, first of all was there a public statement on the record by president obama on the fairness doctrine? >> guest: yes there is. two types i am aware of. he says he does not favor the fairness doctrine however he does favor diversity of media ownership and diverse viewpoints on the airwaves which we already have and he favors some of localism and radio and tv which by the way we already have and the free marketplace determines that. he's very much on record for

these two new fairness doctrine like regulations without having to come out for the fairness doctrine. let me say this, too. i think this is very important. i've been accused of paranoia. i've been accused of manufactured controversy. i have two words for manufactured controversy, global warming. and i think those are serious words to take into consideration by you but i am paranoid about speech. absolutely. there is nothing better to be paranoid about than three speech in america. it is the most important right. i wouldn't be as paranoid if house speaker nancy pelosi would allow a vote on the broadcaster freedom act which would forever band the fairness doctrine. but she has not permitted a vote on that for two years and she is on record quoted as saying our caucus, the interest of our caucus is in the reverse.

nancy pelosi stands for regulation of speech on the airwaves, and i think that america should turn the heat of on her office, call her out on this because if you are not for free speech and she is clearly not by resisting this broadcaster freedom act, which is sponsored by congressman mike pence and walden, to former broadcasters to understand what's at stake here, if you are not for that and i don't know how she can look herself in the mirror. >> host: are their republican members of congress speaking out forcefully on this and do we have legislation either in the hopper were being considered for and against what we are talking about? >> guest: yes, the two gentlemen i mentioned are the chief spokesman for the conservative talk radio side and that is congressman mike pence and walton. they understand what's at stake and there are others. is there a regulation or legislation that would prevent that? yes, they would queue up

legislation but it would be shot down by the democratically controlled majority in both houses, no question. the only thing that we have here -- we don't even have a filibuster. we won't have a filibuster in this matter. the only thing that we have is a court system, and the court system is queued up and there are legal centers cued up and ready to go if we get back to the regulation of speech. one is the thomas moore will center in detroit. they are representing michael savage at this point on the u.k. controversy where he cannot travel to the u.k. because he is too hateful in his speech. by the way, he has never advocated violence. >> host: that's right, that's right. >> guest: and his, he is bombastic and many of us say to get down, michael, a little bit, but he has got free-speech rights. >> host: that's right. but we ask you, the general listening public -- what should there years be turned to when they start seeing this kind of

move that? are there review stations who are already anticipating this might come down the pipe pretty soon and you agree it is going to happen within a year or year and a half? because democrats realize they don't have that much time right? >> guest: i think certainly by that time frame yes. maybe even sooner because the fcc is negative several commissioners right now that obama must replace but it will soon have a 3 for 2 majority democrats on the fcc, and when it does, and i expect that in the next at least two months, maybe more but i think in that timeframe. >> host: at soon? >> guest: that he will start to see at that point movement toward redefining public interest obligation and the new chairman will be julius genachowski. he led the digital effort for obama's election campaign for

what he did because he helped garner the youthful vote, the young vote. this man absolutely is in the mold of diversity of ownership, diversity of opinion and you point of localism, no question about it so those will be the two efforts led through the fcc. so i think it is around the corner. >> host: will this be a creeping kind of thing or instant and do you see radio stations already starting to build and localism or put on her little hosts in anticipation? >> guest: i don't see them putting on a liberal hosts so to speak but there is one group that is the largest retail company in america, clear channel communications, which has, it is trying to get out in front of this a little bit by establishing programing advisory boards which the fcc and clearly wants to get done through their localism mandates and they want to be doing it themselves rather than having government regulate

and to me programing advisory boards are scary things in america. it's clearly -- >> host: again, orwellian. >> guest: very orwellian. i read a 98 page report issued january 24, 2008 and i counted at least eight references to establishing programming or community advisory boards for stations. and they've leave language very, very great and nebulous. they say it should these members be appointed or should they be elected even in one sentence? and then they state the stations that already have a formal led by sorry board would be xm from this. just by stating would be exempt means they are going to mandate for anybody who doesn't do this right away. the free-market place dictates what is popular and what is not. we already have our board of

advisers has radio talk-show hosts. they are your listeners. they reach you through the arbitron service is and if your ratings are that, you are gone. that is just the way it is. and to establish a board of advisers at the very least he is at your looking over the shoulder of the broadcasters for the fear of what he may say, what you may say at the worst it could be censorship because of who is on the board. who appoints those members? does the radio station or the government? host, and there's a potential conflict of interest all over the place. let's try to get pro-active in the remaining minutes. what can any of us do to stop this attempt putting the first amendment into the fis and let's begin with retial management. what can they do? >> guest: retial management needs to stay and up for the first amendment number one. the need to talk about the first amendment rights we as americans have. that is what i did. it finally got to me and i said was i have to say something about this.

i am in the position i can say something about this. i have no conflict of interest whatsoever and i can speak out loudly. we as americans have to realize this should not be a fight of conservative against liberals. it should be a fight by conservatives and liberals against anybody who favors regulation of speech in america. and i would hope that number one america would realize that. not allow it to happen under their nose because this administration acts quickly in a stealth manner in which it can happen and we don't even know that it's happened and until it is too late and we have to be aware of this. second thing is there are many groups out there leading the cause to protect our speech rights on the airwaves. one is the media research center, the other media research center on have a lot of faith, brent bozell does a fabulous job on our behalf, has a petition drive which you can easily sign on line.

they are going to deliver or have to look for that this point at least 400,000 signatures on line and there are others, unfaireckert of oregon to resist any regulation of speech on the radio and there are others. donttouchmydial.com is another organization representing our rights as americans, so there are avenues you can protest through with an on-line petition. the other thing that i would suggest is that we have to demand that the broadcaster freedom act receives a vote, stand up vote in congress on the house floor, and i think that we have to aim our criticism and desire for this boat to nancy pelosi who has not allowed this the last two years. i think it is reprehensible she has not done this. it is a simple matter. if you believe in free speech rights of the airwaves there is

no reason whatsoever to get in front of this bill and not allow a vote on it. so those are some things we have to pay attention to. >> host: i can understand why people who are devoted to conservative talk radio would be passionate about this. my audience, your audience over the years. the general public, have you been hearing from the general public, liberals, moderates, independence, as well as conservatives who you might expect? are you hearing a sense of outrage about what is going on here or is there a general sense of apathy? what is your feeling? >> guest: well, i think that by the mainstream public right now, there is lack of awareness of what's going on in this regard. i think among conservative audiences there is a big awareness of what is going on. i have been at many rallies in america. i did a 20 market tour of this book. four of those were absolutely

huge. albuquerque, minow, boise and portland, oregon, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people turned out to talk about this issue and hear about this issue. it was gratifying to see their interest and a depth of knowledge on this issue. liberals for the most part panned the book as we expected and that's fine but believe me if we've lose any free-speech rights in america through the reregulation in the public interest through the fcc, liberals are going to lose those rights as well because what is good for one is good for the other. it has to be that way. >> host: final question for you, if we lose conservative talk-radio whether you listen to it or not, whether you agree with the conservative point of view or not what do we lose? >> guest: our heart and soul. we are no longer america. simple as that. >> host: one of the great ironies here is the founding fathers, the reason they began

this american space experiment was based on two things, freedom of worship and freedom of speech. and this is why it is so vital to protect talk radio and in particular conservative talk radio. >> guest: government has no right to sit in the editress chair or to control content through regulation, pogo. >> host: this is about protecting the christa amendment, our bill of rights and great constitution. brian jennings, thank you for joining me today. the book is called "censorship: the threat to silence talk radio" the new fairness doctrine exposed, the author is brian jennings. i am "after monica crowley. thank you so much for being with us today. de author contends general thomas known as the rock of chickamauga was the most successful general during the civil war. this event hosted by the civil