April 22, 2012
Charles Krauthammer Takes Apart Obama’s Fairness Doctrine
Charles Krauthammer is on with Liz Cheney.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Two of some of my favorite people and a great comment by Charles Krauthammer.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:50 AM | Comments (2)
February 28, 2012
Rush: Maybe It’s Time To Bring Our Troops Home And Say The Hell With Afghanistan
It’s gotten to the point of why are we there?”...“If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out and the hell with the place over there" Rush exclaimed on his radio show today following the news of the Koran burning backlash in Afghanistan and the news that NATO has agreed to prosecute our soldiers."
Wild Thing's comment........
I am so furious at what Obama has done. I wish they could drop him out of a plane over there from as high up as possible. No parachute....nothing.
Posted by Wild Thing at 02:47 AM | Comments (3)
November 30, 2010
Rush Limbaugh on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange
Rush Limbaugh on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange
RUSH: Everybody is freaking out over this WikiLeaks stuff. And, frankly, the WikiLeaks guy bugs me because he looks like a waif. He looks like he ought to be in a Peter Pan stage play rather than on the world stage affecting things. He's a little wuss, Julian Assange. Need to find this guy and string him up. Frankly, I find what's in this stuff interesting. I think it's more interesting than the news the networks come up with each and every day. Give me more of this stuff. For example, we have learned that the Saudis, our friends the Saudis, they're all ticked off at us because we won't go take out Iran. Apparently, prior to the big Cairo speech, Obama went over there, met with King Abdullah, and Obama's going on and on and on about how important it is to find peace with the Palestinians and the Israelis. Apparently King Abdullah couldn't care less about any of that. He's worried about Iran and its nukes, and he wants to hear from Obama what we're gonna do about that.
RUSH: "Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die from lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain and nobody would know who put it there. We've known this stuff is coming and yet it keeps coming"
.
Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Speaks ...the video is embedded so I am only able to use the link. Please CLICK ON THE LINK to watch the video.
.
Wild Thing's comment.....
"Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die from lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain and nobody would know who put it there."
Heh heh love ya ElRushbo!
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:40 AM | Comments (2)
November 25, 2010
George Washington's Proclamation Delivered By Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: "George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation."
Here it is:
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me 'to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'"
RUSH: So, the first paragraph of Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation is essentially thanking God for the Constitution. (interruption) It was! Washington was thanking God for our founding and our Constitution.
"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks -- for His kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His Providence which we experienced in the tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. -- Given under my hand at the City of New York, the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."
RUSH: The Father of our Country. There you have it. That's the first Thanksgiving Proclamation. There's nothing in there about the pilgrims. There's nothing in there about Native Americans. There's nothing in there about a feast. There's nothing in there about communal living and socialism. There's nothing in there about syphilis and starving. There's nothing in there about anything that you think Thanksgiving is about. George Washington.
RUSH: And the number of references to "the Almighty" and to God? Why if a president read that today the ACLU would file suit! A number of other groups would claim oppression over having to listen to it and having it forced upon them. Also, ladies and gentlemen, I must note (before our obscene profit time out) that on the third day of October 1789 A.D. in New York, George Washington gave out not one Butterball turkey.
RUSH: Not one! Zero, zilch, nada Butterball turkeys were given away in New York, including what is now known as Harlem.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
This was so good, worth saving or sending it to others as well.
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:40 AM | Comments (3)
November 24, 2010
Al Sharpton: Time For FCC To Censor Limbaugh's Speech
Rev. Al Sharpton actually calling for the FCC to take action against stations that carry the Rush Limbaugh program, accusing Rush of having a show with a “race or gender bias format.” Laughably, at the same time, Sharpton says no one wants to block “free speech,” but wants Limbaugh to be shut down on the public airwaves. Specifically, he advocates the FCC pulling the licenses of stations that carry Limbaugh’s program. He believes the FCC should decide what to “permit” on air.
Here’s the transcript:
And part of what I think the FCC needs to do is give the guidelines of what is excusable and what is not. What is permit-able or permitted I should say and what is not because clearly you’re not trying to block free speech.
But, I think that for people to engage in programming shows that will use racial or gender bias as their format, we’ve got a right to say there are standards that the FCC can say that you cannot continue to have licenses to do that. You got to remember that those stations that Rush Limbaugh is on and others are regulated by FCC, granted by FCC. They go back to them to get wavers. They go back to them to get consolidation.
They have the right to set standards that does not impair your right to speak what you believe, but it does say that you are not going to be able to do that to offend groups of Americans based on their race their gender, their sexual status, none of that.
Wild Thing's comment.......
He is so jealous and hates Rush. Rush should sue this jerk for slander. sheesh
Keep up the great work ElRushbo. Tah dah!!
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (7)
August 26, 2010
The Real Radio Hatemongers
The so-called “news” media have spent much of the past two decades demonizing the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts as mean-spirited, divisive or a menace to civil discourse. But these same journalists — who gleefully castigate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other conservatives — are silent about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spews from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts.
Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org.
This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio.
Among the lowlights:
■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)
■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)
■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?...When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!...Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)
■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)
■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)
■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)
If the establishment media were really interested in cleansing the airwaves of hateful rhetoric, they would not confine their criticism to conservative hosts. Instead, they would — and they must — make an equal effort to expose the nastiness that runs rampant on left-wing talk radio. Unless and until they do, they are participating in an act of journalistic hypocrisy.
Formatted PDF Version of Full Report
Wild Thing's comment........
Terrific special report by the Media Research Center on hate left-wing
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:47 AM | Comments (2)
July 31, 2010
Gibbs Takes on Rush Limbaugh ~ Gibbs=O, ElRushbo = WINS
Gibbs Takes on Rush Limbaugh
At a briefing today to discuss the administration’s efforts to rescue the auto industry, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh—and every other critic “sitting in the cheap seats” –for criticizing the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler as a “government takeover” that smacks of socialism.
.
Told by a reporter that “You had Rush Limbaugh today — today or yesterday — talking Obama Motors again,” Gibbs, who doesn’t often provide free advertising by taking on his critics by name from the podium, let fire.
“Look, Rush Limbaugh and others wanted to walk away. Rush Limbaugh and others saw a million people that worked at these factories, that worked at these parts suppliers, that had — that supported communities, and thought we should all just walk away. The president didn’t think that walking away from a million jobs in these communities made a lot of economic sense,” Gibbs said.
He was just getting up to speed.
“We’ve got auto companies that for the first time since 2004 all showed an operating profit in the first quarter of this year. It’s adding jobs. And the money that this administration invested — about $60 billion — we believe we’re on the path to recouping all of that. That’s a significant story.
“I’ll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year-and-a-half ago and wanted to walk away” from a milion workers, he continued, “explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision.”
Finally, he wrapped it up: “And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh — I don’t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.”
The F-150 truck, we should note, is made by Ford, which didn’t get federal rescue funds.
.
Let's see what ElRuibo has to say................
Robert Gibbs Swerves Into Your Beloved Host and Gets Totaled
( SNIPETS ) taken from Rush's website at this page
RUSH: The White House press secretary, a sock puppet for the president of the United States, Robert Gibbs, swerved into Rush Limbaugh and the mighty EIB Network yesterday afternoon, and Gibbs ended up totaled.
RUSH: You would think these people would learn. You would think that they would figure it out. Gibbs launched into me.
RUSH: We got Obama as a CEO of Obama Motors, he's gonna go in and drive the Obama Volt today, gonna go speak at Chrysler, and, folks, it's amazing. I live rent free in their heads.
Yesterday afternoon a reporter said, "What do you say, Robert or any of you, to the folks who at the beginning, a year and a half ago, were deriding this effort taking over GM, calling it socialism, calling it a government takeover, you had Rush Limbaugh today talking Obama Motors again. Is essentially the message here a sort of, 'We told you so'?"
This bailout, $68 billion and we have 55,000 jobs. All this was a bailout of the unions, pure and simple.
We have a command-and-control, dictator, authoritarian-type regime manufacturing, dictating that cars be made that nobody wants. Go rent the movie, if you haven't done so on my suggestion yet, Lives of Others. It's a foreign language film that won the foreign language Oscar a couple or three years ago. It's about the Stasi, the secret police in East Germany back in the Cold War days. Go get it this weekend and watch it. It's scary as hell. It's eye-opening as hell.
So you want to buy a Volt, you go right ahead. I am not trying to discourage sales of the product. I'm not trying to be harmful at all, except to this administration. I am trying to expose this administration for what it is and who they are. Now, Obama's out there touting all these jobs created. How about all the jobs he destroyed with his indiscriminate or -- wrong word, with his -- purposeful shutting down of dealerships? Have we forgotten this? You want to talk about jobs? Yeah, he propped up a bunch of union jobs because he owed them. He propped up union health care and pension plans with the bailout. Then he got his fingers in there and demanded they finally bring this electric car to market.
He put people in charge of it that had never been in the auto business before. Steve Forbes has a piece today . You know, Obama's out there claiming credit for all this, but really Steve Forbes (writing in Politico, by the way) says the real heroes at General Motors are the free market capitalists who are making the company go in spite of the obstacles but in front of them by this guy and his regime. I applaud that. (clapping) Right on, right on, right on. Now, he's also outta talking about Cash for Clunkers. He's praising Cash for Clunkers. Everybody knows that was a disaster. That didn't generate any new sales. All it did was shift sales into a quarter earlier than the sales would have taken place. This guy's out there touting success and the only way, the only opportunity, the opportunity times he sees success is when the government is involved giving a tax credit or a discount.
Fifty-five thousand jobs created, $60 billion bailout. Can I go through again what this has cost? It's a $60 billion bailout, $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to General Motors last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Korean battery supplier, $1.5 billion in tax breaks for you who buy the car, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan that GM got in 2008 for retooling its plants. If you add all that together you get some idea of how much you have already spent to build every one of these cars. The whole point of this is to make the bailout work. The whole point of this is so Obama can claim credit. The whole point of this is creating an illusion that the government saved something that capitalism broke. The government saved something that the evil, mean American capitalist system destroyed.
That's the message. That's why go to Detroit today, that's why talk about General Motors and Chrysler. "Look what we did! Capitalism destroyed these companies. They were evil, they were ripping people off, they weren't treating their union employees well." No, no, no. They were saddled with all kinds of CAFE, mileage standards, regulations. They were forced into making cars because the environmentalist wacko amusement had taken control of the Department of Energy and all the regulatory agencies. Let me read to you something else here from the New York Times. Edward Niedermeyer, "GM's Electric Lemon -- and this is why Gibbs has to run out and swerve into me rather than deal with the specific criticism I offered about the Volt.
RUSH: Okay, now, Mr. Gibbs, let me explain something to you, and in the process, all the rest of you who are listening. Mr. Gibbs, you, your president, your party, have destroyed millions of jobs. You sit here and talk about protecting, saving, keeping a million jobs, you're not fooling anybody. You and your president and your party, the Democrats, have impoverished millions of families. You have destroyed home ownership for hundreds of thousands of families. You have destroyed small businesses throughout this country. Your tax and spending and regulatory policies have driven parts of this nation into Third World status. You have taken a recession and you have made it worse. You haven't saved or created a damn thing except for more government jobs. The real prosperity in this country right now is Washington and surrounding environs. As for the automobile industry, I'll say this again, no industry can survive forever with endless subsidies, massive subsidies paid for by the taxpayers in an economy where those same taxpayers are losing their jobs and homes and savings. And we brag about this?
People have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings. And you're taking future earnings from them and bailing out industries. The saddest thing of all for General Motors, Obama Motors, is that they are pinning all of their hopes on the Volt, a car that requires a $7500 tax credit to even interest people. Look at all of the great cars that General Motors has made in its storied history, all the great cars it still makes, and they've been forced by the government into counting on the Volt, an electric car that has been a dream and a myth for 100 years. If you don't believe me I'll read to you from the New York Times from 1911 in just a moment about the electric car. They were having wet dreams about it back then at the New York Times. This makes me sad to listen to these stumped-up press conferences and town meetings touting all this great success when none of it is taking place. I do not know how in good conscience you expect the automobile industry to survive when the very people who are paying for it are losing their jobs, small businesses, savings, and homes.
Mr. Gibbs, if government ownership and subsidies were the answer, then Zimbabwe would not be a Third World country. Cuba would be teaching us how to do things. The Soviet Union would not have failed. North Korea would be the place everybody in the world wanted to go if command-and-control economies, government ownership and subsidies created a workers' paradise. The old Soviet Union would still be in existence, Mr. Gibbs, if you were right, but you aren't. General Motors makes great cars. We drove the Crossover SUV, a bunch of these cars.
Even the Malibu we had a great time driving here. They make a lot of great cars. These models were on the drawing board long before you, Mr. Gibbs, became a spokesman for Obama. The problem is insuring the long-term sustainability of the automobile industry and your answer is to destroy bondholders. The legitimate investors in Chrysler got the shaft and were called greedy. When it came time to bail somebody out, when the government was gonna bail out Chrysler, the legitimate investors got the shaft, the bondholders, and they were told they were greedy, and who got the money? The United Auto Workers. And who got the seats on the board of directors? You! And the board of directors has members of the United Auto Workers on it. Average investors, the bondholders. Then you go out there and you destroy bankruptcy laws to reward your political allies.
To pin the hopes of this great company on a car that's having to be forced on people is just very sad. Mr. Gibbs, I don't believe you people care about, when you get right down to it, the car workers. You care about union leaders.
Mr. Gibbs, your entire economic model is unworkable. Look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I mean your economic model's been tried. Every Western socialist democracy, Cuba, Soviet Union, North Korea, wherever you look, Zimbabwe, take your pick, it's been tried. It doesn't work. You use, Mr. Gibbs, your podium at the White House every day to spread lies, to spin, to twist, creating all these phony measures of progress, creating or saving jobs because you failed, so you have to resort to these magic tricks.
There's no compassion in this agenda. There's no compassion in these results. This regime, folks, does not believe in you, and that's the saddest thing. This is the first presidency, the first administration maybe in history, maybe in my lifetime, that does not believe in the American people, does not believe in America. It believes this country is the problem in the world; that we're not the solution. We're no longer going to be the leader of anything. We have people happily presiding over the decline of the United States. You don't believe in the American worker, you don't believe in the American dream, you believe in big government, an ever-expanding, all powerful government. That's what Gibbs and Obama and Pelosi and Reid, et al, believe. And that's how your president is going to be remembered, just how Herbert Hoover is remembered. We live in Obamaville.
Mr. Gibbs, we all pay your salary, all of us taxpayers. And you show no respect. You have nicer things to say about our enemies than you have to say about Americans. You sue one of your own states, a state trying to protect its people. Your job, you sue the state. You declared war against the people. You're governing against the will of your own people and in the midst of all this you run around and continue to insult all of us. One other thing. Whatever I drive, Gibbs, I pay for. The dirty little secret, Mr. Gibbs, I've earned it. Everything I drive, whatever I have, I pay for it. I don't ever ask anybody for a penny, Mr. Gibbs, and I never make the assumption that anybody owes me one, unless I'm providing a service for them. I don't ask anybody for a dime. I have no expectation that anybody else is responsible for me, certainly not you. The day will never come I want to turn over my necessities in life to people like you and Barack Obama.
You people in the White House have earned nothing. You produce nothing. The food that you're eating at the White House mess is paid for by us, or even if you go out and grab a burger at Obama's favorite burger joint, the odds are you're paying for it with money that we've paid you. We pay for the food you eat, transportation, the jets your boss uses. There's never any gratitude. There's just more insults. There's never any thanks or appreciation for what the people of this country have done for the ruling class. There's just more contempt and insults to our intelligence.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Rush lives rent-free in their heads.
You will rue the day, Gibbsy! Bwahh! They haven’t learned yet to ignore Maha Rushdie. It’s a fight you’ll never win.
"we believe we’re on the path to recouping all of that"
YOU LIE Gibbs....Biden just said your (we) are going to lose $24 billion......and just like the Fanny and Freddie scam, your administration is not doing a thing to correct what caused the problem in the first place
For the last time, Ford didn’t receive any bailout monies, Gibbs, you asshat! Geez...this admin can't even get their bailouts straight. LOL Either incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. He simultaneously legitimizes Limbaugh and reduces the White House. heh heh Go get ‘em ElRushbo! This is sort of like bringing a marshmallow gun to a fight when the other guy has an AK-47.
This is an occasion for example why Rushbo graces the idiot liberals with one half his brain tied behind his back. Tah dah!
Good luck, Gibbs.
This is unconscionable. How many administrations in the past publicly confronted a private citizen for his views? This government makes me sick.
I thank God every day that there is a Rush LImbaugh and that each one of you that come to this blog and give your input and comments are in my life. You all add so much and it means everything. YOU all make a difference!!
This is the movie iRush was talking about I looked it up ...... " The Lives of Others"
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:50 AM | Comments (6)
June 07, 2010
Congratulations Rush and Kathryn ! ~ Limbaugh Heads Down the Aisle!
It was a lavish Hawaiian-themed wedding bash headlined by none-other-than Sir Elton John Saturday in Florida.
He made a plea for privacy in an e-mail statement to the Post.
"We try to live our lives as normal people. We do not seek media attention.We do not want it, especially for this," he wrote.
Radio Host Rush Limbaugh Heads Down the Aisle
American radio host and conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh, 59, wed for the fourth time in a Florida ceremony Saturday, The Palm Beach Post reported.
Uncharacteristic to his conservative and anti-gay commentary, Limbaugh reportedly hired British crooner Sir Elton John to play at his Hawaiian-themed wedding.
Sir Elton, who is openly gay, will reportedly receive $1 million for the singing gig.
Limbaugh married West Palm Beach resident Kathryn Rogers, 33, whom he met at a celebrity golf tournament in 2004. Rogers is a direct descendant of former U.S.
President John Adams and her father was a classmate of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the U.S. Naval Academy.
“I grew up so differently, traveling around the world, that I’m sometimes not able to relate to the average person my age,” Rogers told The Post regarding the 26-year difference between the two.
Wild Thing's comment.......
There were 400 to 500 people there, Bill Bennet ( radio tak show ) discussing it right now( 6:00a.m.) on the very early talk show Bennet has. He and his wife went to Rush's wedding.
Bill Bennet said Sean Hannity and his wife there as well.
The music included Phantom of the Opera and classical as well as other songs. Bennet said no politics from Elton John unlike what some have done like McCartney did the other day.
He said it was wonderful and Rush is totally happy. He said the party started Friday and ended Sunday. There were people there that had helped Rush all his life and other friends and family. Lots of military people, and NO gifts, donations made as a gift are being sent to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation .
Rush conducts an annual drive to help the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation collect contributions to provide scholarships for children of Marines and law enforcement officers/agents who have died in the line of duty.
Congrats, Rush, you rock!
You know what else I love about this......heh heh....having Elton John there to sing will drive the left NUTS! hahahhaha
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (3)
There Will Be No Freedom Left If Obama Gets His Way
.
Journalism 'Reinvention' Smacks of Government Control, Critics Say
A list of potential policy recommendations to reinvent the field of journalism that has been compiled by the Federal Trade Commission is a "dangerous" overreach of power and a waste of taxpayer funds, critics of the project told FoxNews.com.
FTC officials began a project in May 2009 to consider the challenges the journalism industry faces in the digital age. The federal agency recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism," a 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000.
Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are:
-- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually;
-- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed;
-- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice;
-- increased funding for public radio and television;
-- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism;
-- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals;
-- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding.
But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism.
.
"I find it dangerous for government to have a role in speech because the government gives and the government taketh away," Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, told FoxNews
"I don't even understand why they're doing this," he said. "This document is an anti-competitive and even unconstitutional world view."
Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, a Washington-based media watchdog group, questioned the "legal and constitutional justification" for the FTC's involvement .
Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for the Media Research Center, a Washington-based media watchdog group, put his take on the proposals more succinctly.
"The mere fact that they're holding these hearings is the beginning of the problem," Gainor said. "They should have no hand in the future of journalism."
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
So we can expect this......This segment of the news is brought to you by Big Brother.
...smacks of government control.
Smacks of? Wrong. This is fundamentally and exclusively about government control of the press. Period.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:40 AM | Comments (2)
May 29, 2010
Rush Limbaugh to Wed Longtime Girlfriend
Limbaugh to Wed Longtime Girlfriend
Palm Beach Post
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is set to marry his longtime girlfriend, Kathryn Rogers, next week in an intimate ceremony at his beachfront home in Palm Beach, Fla.
Limbaugh, 59, met 33-year-old Rogers, a direct descendant of Founding Father John Adams, in 2004 when she ran a golf tournament/charity fundraiser and Limbaugh was a celebrity guest, Jose Lambiet reports in his column in the Palm Beach Post.
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Congrats, Rush!
I wish them every happiness and many long and fruitful years together.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (6)
November 24, 2009
CZAR Cass Sunstein Wants To Censor the TRUTH About Obama
Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors
Cites websites for 'absurd' reports of Obama's ties to Ayers
By Aaron Klein
Websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors," argued Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.
In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
Ayers became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.
As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.
Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.
WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama's award-winning autobiography "Dreams from My Father."
However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as "absurd" charges for which corrective measures can be taken.
Sunstein's book – reviewed by WND – was released in September, after he was already installed as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
"In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone," Sunstein writes.
"Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites' goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers," he writes.
Sunstein continues: "On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes."
Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of "rumors."
He contends "freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective."
Sunstein proposes the imposition of a "chilling effect" on "damaging rumors" – or the use of strong "corrective" measures to deter future rumormongers.
For websites, Sunstein suggests a "right to notice and take down" in which "those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice."
Sunstein also argues for the "right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging." But he does not explain which agency would determine whether any statement is false and damaging.
Sunstein further pushes for "deterrence" through making libel lawsuits easier to bring.
Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Sunstein's proposals outlined in his book "On Rumors" were not the first of his writings to recommend regulating talk radio or the news media.
WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
April 14, 2009
The Obama Administration Is Criminalizing Dissent? Intimidating Its Ideological Opponents? You Must Be Joking
by Andrew C. McCarthy
I’m still digging out of my various pre-election hate mail piles — you know, “How could say Obama is a socialist who will redistribute wealth just because he used to be a member of a socialist party and criticized the Warren Court for failing to order the redistribution of wealth?”; “How could you say Obama is a Left-wing radical rather than a centrist moderate just because he made common cause with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Mike Klonsky, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, et al?”; “How could you say Obama would be an extremist on abortion and other life issues just because he supported infanticide as a Chicago legislator?”; “How could you say Obama would be anti-Israel in his governance and appointments just because he pals around with Rashid Khalidi?”; “How could you say an Obama administration would turn TARP into a Big Government slush fund just because he managed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as a Big Lefty slush fund?”; “How could you say Obama will be soft on Iran just because Obama is soft on Iran?”; etc. But I note that I got plenty for this one, too:
Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment
I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent...........
In St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, [are] threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”
The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Obama and this guy are pure evil. They revel in such destruction of decent people and freedom.
I can’t belive I am alive to see this stuff...it’s like one of those terrible sci-fi thriller that is set in the very disant future...only it’s not.
Hey piece of work Cass, “False rumors?” You mean like global warming?
I believe this guy knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s called dictatorship. Absolute and total control over the masses.
I’m not going to let the Obama Administration tell me what I can post on the internet. They have no right to declare a statement a “rumor”, and ban it.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:47 AM | Comments (6)
October 06, 2009
FTC to Regulate Blogging ~ Product Review Bloggers
FTC to Regulate Blogging
The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.
The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take.
Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned.
Before the FTC gave notice last November it was going to regulate such endorsements, blogs varied in the level of disclosures about these potential conflicts of interest.
The FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments.
To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a "substantial" operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.
Existing FTC rules already banned deceptive and unfair business practices. The final guidelines aim to clarify the law for the vast world of blogging. Not since 1980 had the commission revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials.
Cleland said a blogger who receives a freebie without the advertiser knowing would not violate FTC guidelines. For example, someone who gets a free bag of dog food as part of a promotion from a pet shop wouldn't violate FTC guidelines if he writes about the product on his blog.
Blogger Linsey Krolik said she's always disclosed any freebies she's received on products she writes about, but has stepped up her efforts since last fall. She said she adds a notice at the end of a post, "very clear in italics or bold or something — this is the deal. It's not kind of buried."
Wild Thing's comment......
This effects product reviewing bloggers. I have no idea who they would be or what blogs they are. I have no time to go look for blogs that review products, and am not really interested. But I would think if they are conservatives they would be the kind of person that would have stated if something was a freebie given to them, in their review. But I really have no idea.
What IS alarming about this is how this is just another step towards hampering freedoms that we all have loved so much.
What about the Democrats that get paid by the DNC to post online like at YouTube and harass conservative bloggers and post in forums to disrupt posts and threads known as Trolls. Maybe this applies to them but it does not state that in the article. Like the bloggers employed by Obama.
I searched what is product review blogs and found this:
"Specifically about review blogs and fake review sites that Search Engine Optimization companies and web marketing companies set up. They generate hundreds, possibly thousands of fake reviews, all with links to the product pages on the seller's web site. Then, when the search engines find these reviews with the links, the website selling the products gets a boost on their ranking for the keywords in the link test. "
.
....Thank you Richard for sending this to me.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:47 AM | Comments (8)
September 21, 2009
More on Obama Plans Internet Grab Plans
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomena in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has been waged in Washington over the extent to which the new medium would be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
This is a money grab and a power grab with the big 5 service providers in each respective field having enough power to bully every other company who want to transverse their network or peer.
Until now the Internet has largely been self-regulated and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could soon change dramatically if the Obama administration has its way.
This weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development. The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
According to reports, Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
According to the Associated Press, Genechowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks . . . "
The news service added that once in effect, the FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks."
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During his campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality -- a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large ISPs denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The last FCC Chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players like Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it... I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
Wild Thing's comment........
The proposal doesn’t just take on the force of law, poof. It has to go through a comment period and possible revisions. So we will be able to know what the heck is happening, like this article says and more articles will come out too along the way. Not that we can do anything about this kind of thing they want to do. AUGH!
The way I understand it is the reason the FCC came about was because there had to be some way to keep radio stations and others who transmit over radio frequencies from stepping all over each other.
I don’t see why they need to be involved in ANYTHING that doesn’t have to do with assigning radio frequencies, regulating transmitter emissions and so on with an eye toward preventing interference. NOTHING else should be their business. Like Blogs for instance or our opinion of bills being passed and whoever is president at the time.....oh wait we don't have a president we have a dictator.
So “net neutrality” is letting the government camel’s nose under the tent.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 07:49 AM | Comments (6)
September 16, 2009
CZAR Cass Sunstein Drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Cass Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the fairness doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a fairness doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
.
Wild Thing's comment........
"at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
This is one DANGEROUS person. Here comes the attack on the Constitution....and our FReedom. I don't care what he said about it being in the Constitution.
The constitution guarantees my rights, not Cass Sunstein.
Sunstein is Obama’s Chicago constitutional law buddy. Sunstein wants to “reinterpret” the Constitution. His wife Samantha Power deserves focus as well. Power was appointed by Obama to the National Security Council. Sunstein’s wife, Samantha Power, wanted the US to invade Israel.
Ann interview from 2002.........Samantha Power left the Barack Obama campaign in March of 2008 , after her reference to Hillary Clinton as a “monster”. Power advised Obama on foreign policy, having spent her career detailing genocides and international responses to them, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the subject. Power had some interesting ideas about how to resolve one particular instance of what she sees as a genocide in this April 2002 interview at Berkeley with Harry Kreisler:
Posted by Wild Thing at 04:50 AM | Comments (11)
August 27, 2009
Beck: Rush Limbaugh Telephone Interview About FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd
Beck talks with Rush Limbaugh about free speech and Barack Obama's new FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd.
.
Glenn Beck: Rush Limbaugh Telephone Interview [2/2] [FOX News]
.
RUSH: I find the whole administration breathtaking, Glenn. You're doing great job this whole week. I mean I saw Sarah Palin even "tweeted" about what you're doing, urging people to watch. This whole administration is as radical and far left as any that the country has ever had, and what they're trying to do here to communications is simply stifle dissenting voices. They're trying to wipe out any opposition. If you look at Barack Obama and his track record as a politician, it is to clear the playing field. He doesn't even like debating his opponents. He just wants to get rid of them. And this "diversity czar" comes from a fringe, radical, Saul Alinsky-type of background; and the things that he's talking about doing -- and I watched your show for the first half hour today -- but the things he's talking about doing to shut down radio are simply un-American. It's not enough to say that it's not constitutional.
It's simply un-American, and make no bones about it, folks, Glenn is right -- and I think he's maybe underselling a little bit about as far as their intentions are concerned. The stimulus plan! Glenn, look at what they're doing to the US economy. Anybody with a sense of economic literacy would know this is not how you create jobs. You do not rebuild the private sector. This is being done on purpose. All of these disasters are exactly what Obama wants. The more crises, the better. The more opportunity for government to say, "Let us come in and fix the problem." His number one opposition is on radio and Fox News. His number one opposition is on radio. They can't go Fairness Doctrine because it's too obvious. So they're trying to do this backdoor route with "diversity" and ownership, a 100% tax on operating in order to pay public radio because they're supposedly fair. It's insidious. But I don't think it's gonna work in the end because the American people are too informed, Glenn. They're too aware of it. Their radio means too much to them. Their free speech -- freedom in general -- means way too much to them. And just as they're fighting back on health care and a number of other things, so will they fight back on this.
... You know, we may be looking at Barack Obama destroying the Democrat Party. It's too soon to say that now, but we may be looking at that happen. There are reasons for optimism, but you are right: It is a dangerous time. It's the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country.
...My first hour yesterday was chronicling how this man is systematically dismantling our ability to gather intelligence to protect ourselves against an attack. He is purposely using his attorney general to make the United States the villain of the world -- and I'm going to tell you, folks: from the bottom of my heart, I am uncomfortable thinking and saying these things about a man who's been elected president of the United States. It is terribly upsetting and disconcerting, and I wish I didn't think it and I wish I didn't have to say it. But there's no way to sugarcoat it. This is not politics as usual. This is not left versus right. This is not Republican versus Democrat. This is statism, totalitarianism versus freedom.
...How is it that people know some of the plans the administration has? The Drive-By Media is not telling anybody anything -- and they are discombobulated. I saw Chuck Todd the other day go ballistic because too many people are doing news now that are not journalists, that are not qualified and they're reflecting people's opinions on the media and so forth. These people, it's embarrassing. I think they've met their Waterloo and their Waterloo is Obama.
Mark Lloyd, new Czar, attacks Conservative Radio by proposing 100% tax on operating costs
FCC's New Hire Targeted Conservative Radio Stations in Writings
Mark Lloyd, the FCC's new chief diversity officer, laid out a "battle plan" for liberal activists to target conservative talk radio stations in 2007.
The FCC's new chief diversity officer laid out a battle plan two years ago for liberal activists to target conservative talk radio stations, and critics say they are concerned that he now will want to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine."
"What he lays out is a battle plan to use the FCC to threaten stations' licenses with whom they do not agree with politically, and now he's at the FCC waiting to take their calls," Motley told FOXNews.com. "This is not about serving the local interest, it's about political opposition."
Lloyd, who wrote the essay during his tenure at the Center for American Progress, said the rise and influence of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts were traced to "relaxed ownership rules" and other pro-business regulation that destroyed localism.
While he said he was not interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, he called for "equal opportunity employment practices," "local engagement" and "license challenges" to rectify the that perceived imbalance. "Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine," he wrote.
"The other part of our proposal that gets the 'dittoheads' upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don't want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community."
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi announced Lloyd's hiring late last month along with two other senior staffers in its Office of Communications Business Opportunities.
"The FCC must ensure that the communications field is competitive, generates widespread opportunities, and is open to new ideas from all sources," Genachowksi said in a statement announcing the hires on July 29. "This exceptionally talented team will collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace."
Wild Thing's comment.......
Rush said the whole Obama Administration is as "radical" and "far left" as any the country has every seen.
He thinks they will try to shut down talk radio but he also feels their attempts will not work.
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:40 AM | Comments (8)
July 03, 2009
Obama's War On Talk Radio
Wild Thing's comment......
I wonder if Obama will leave anything untouched by his filthy hands when he leaves. IF he leaves!
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:40 AM | Comments (9)
May 27, 2009
Obama's War on Talk Radio
.
Obama's War on Talk Radio
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
Obama’s liberal philosophy dictates that when the news is bad, shoot the messenger. The newest data from Arbitron, the company charged with measuring the size of radio audiences, suggests that listenership to hip hop, inner city, and minority radio has been overstated in the past and that the popularity of conservative talk radio has been under-reported.
This conclusion - ideologically inconvenient for Obama - comes from the company’s decision to dispense with the Stone Age way it has been measuring radio audiences - by hand written diaries based on listener memory - with modern machines which automatically record what the person is listening to and for how long.
The opening barrage in Obama’s efforts to reign in talk radio was fired by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this week when its acting Chairman Michael J. Copps announced an investigation of Arbitron’s radio measuring technology called the Portable People Meter. (Not to be confused with the Purple People Eater celebrated in song in the 1950s).
Arbitron is the company tasked with rating radio listenership. The equivalent of the Neilson television ratings, its measurements of audience share are revered like Scripture by station managers, owners, and advertisers. Traditionally, Arbitron relied on hand written diaries. Since the diaries were based on memory, they were often faulty. So Arbitron availed itself of new technology in launching its Portable People Meter (PPM) - a cell phone sized unit the listener wears on his or her belt which automatically notes what station they are tuning in and when they switch or stop.
The PPM measurements concluded that hip hop, urban rock, and minority-oriented radio stations reached fewer listeners and for shorter periods of time than the diaries had indicated. It found that talk radio had a larger listenership.
The left saw an ideological bias at work and the states of New York and New Jersey sued Arbitron alleging discrimination in its choice of the sample charged with wearing the PPMs. It said that the ratings agency, which presumably recruited its sample by phone, was under-representing people without landlines who used only cell phones and hence under-counted minorities.
Now the FCC is launching its own investigation.
But almost all political polling is done by telephone and samples cannot include cell phones because one cannot determine the residence of the user from the number. Since survey researchers draw their samples geographically, they do not know which cell phone numbers are for which neighborhoods. (Land lines distribute the first three numbers of an exchange geographically).
If Arbitron is flawed, so is all polling, political and otherwise. The accuracy of most polling in predicting election results suggests that the flaws cannot be too bad.
What is really at work here is an effort by the FCC to stack the deck to help left-wing and minority stations earn higher advertising revenues than those to which their real market share would entitle them. Solicitous of the financial viability of its liberal allies on radio and anxious to undermine the balance sheets of conservative stations, the FCC is lending itself to the president’s political agenda.
This investigation is, of course, only the first shot of the war against conservative radio. Soon the FCC will try to strip right wing stations of their licenses or impose fines on them payable to National Public Radio.
In our forthcoming book, Catastrophe, we explain how this offensive will work and what will be its likely consequences.
But the opening salvo has been fired by the FCC which is willingly lending itself to stations with Democratic bias in an effort to swell their advertising revenues and to stop the growth of talk radio. Because the FCC will do much more to try to destroy the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Neil Boortz, we must be vigilant if we hope to keep free speech alive, even if it comes from the right side of the stage.
Wild Thing's comment.......
Obama is trying to eliminate dissent and dissent is heard on talk radio, a medium that liberals have not managed to keep interesting or dominate.
Obama and the dems remind me of the terrorists. They want to kill off anyone that does not agree with them. They may not do it physically like the terrorists do but other then that it is very similar. They have tried to destroy people and their reputations like Joe the Plumber, Gov. Sarah Palin, Rush, Ann Coulter, and others, anyone that speaks out against what the left is up to.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (4)
May 21, 2009
Democrats Seek Money for Minority-owned Broadcasters
Democrats seek financial rescue of minority-owned broadcasters
High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is leading an effort to convince Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to take “decisive action” by extending credit to this sector of the broadcasting industry.
Clyburn and other senior members, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), argue that minority-owned broadcasters are sound businesses, but that the recession could undermine the government’s efforts to diversify the airwaves.
A number of members from the Congressional Black Caucus signed the letter, too.
“While many jobs are at stake, a more important principle — the government’s fundamental interest in promoting a diversity of voices, including service to underserved communities — is severely threatened,” the members write in a draft of a letter that was scheduled to be sent Tuesday.
The letter comes as some of the biggest recipients of government bailout money, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, jockey to repay government bailout money. As banks seek a way out from the government’s restrictions, other industries struggle and seek government support. Some firms seeking to repay the government argue that the government’s restrictions have burdened their businesses.
The congressmen suggest the Treasury Department could provide access to capital to minority-owned broadcasters, which they say represent less than 7 percent of full-power radio stations and a “negligible” ownership of television stations.
“They are looking for continued access to capital to continue their otherwise fundamentally sound operations,” the members write.
The letter suggests Treasury could set up a credit facility specific to the industry, similar to the government’s efforts to support auto suppliers, or possibly set up a program for bridge financing and government-backed loans until the economy improves.
“In addition to the credit crisis, also weighing heavily on minority broadcasters is a significant decline in advertising revenues, particularly the loss of automobile advertising,” the congressmen write.
The members are asking for a meeting with the Treasury Department and minority-owned broadcast entities and representatives from the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters.
Other members signing the letter are Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush (Ill.), Edolphus Towns (N.Y.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), G.K. Butterfield (N.C.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) and Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
I think this is Racist!
“They are looking for continued access to capital to continue their otherwise fundamentally sound operations,” the members write.
Scratching my head, I don't get it. If they are " otherwise fundamentally sound operations", then why are they looking for a handout. Wouldn't they have their own capitol? They own backing from advertisers etc. This just does not make sense to me.
From Rush on this, he gave a great take on this:
When Tim Geithner and Barack Obama buy companies, they run them. What's happening here, this is about statists owning media. This is the first step toward Obama and the government owning minority radio stations. Crisis is an opportunity, after all, remember? "High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury department to prop up --" I mean they propped up GM, they own it, right? They propped up the banks, they own it, the mortgages, they own it, right? Propped up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from lack of capital and lost advertising revenue.
Now, later in the story, here's the irony: "In addition to the credit crisis, also weighing heavily on minority broadcasters is a significant decline in advertising revenues, particularly the loss of automobile advertising." Ha! Make me laugh! It is Obama who has slashed the advertising budgets of the auto companies! Obama, the first black president, has cut the Chrysler ad budget in half; he's going to do the same thing to General Motors. That hurts the media, and particularly the minority-owned media, according to this story.
So Obama will get an opportunity to buy into the broadcasting business. This is shades of Hugo Chavez. But the unintended consequences of these people taking over the automobile companies -- they haven't stopped to think. Shutting down all of these dealerships? Did they know how important to communities dealerships are, these owners, what they do, they donate to charity, they prop up the local symphony, they do a lot of things, and they're being shut down.
The lack of revenue in local communities that will result from these dealerships being shut down is going to be devastating. It's going to mean more people out of work, not just at the dealership. It's going to mean less charitable operating revenue in these communities
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (8)
May 03, 2009
31 Horsemen of Talk Radio's Apocalypse?
FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission
The Federal Communications Commission has announced the roster of a new advisory committee on "diversity" in communications, a move many critics have warned would mark the beginning of government regulation of talk radio and a reinstallation of the "Fairness Doctrine" by another name.
A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concluded, the best strategy for getting equal time for "progressives" on radio lies in mandating "diversity of ownership" without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the "Fairness Doctrine."
Now, Michael J. Copps, acting chairman of the FCC has announced that the "Commission's Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age" will meet at the FCC headquarters on May 7 with a purpose closely paralleling step one of Podesta's plan for "balancing" talk radio.
The mission of the new diversity committee, according to the FCC website, is to "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."
Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, further commented on the lineup of 31 activists and media moguls chosen to form the committee.
"Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this commission," Motley writes. "More than a dozen leftist groups are. A little ironic for a 'diversity' panel, is it not?"
"The Obama administration confirmed the worst fears of talk radio by appointing Henry Rivera chairman," writes WND commentator Roger Hedgecock. "Rivera was the 1980s FCC commissioner who championed the 'Fairness Doctrine.' President Reagan replaced him on the FCC to get a majority to repeal the 'Fairness Doctrine' and usher in the talk radio era, which has given conservative Americans for the first time a media outlet with real clout."
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has joined up with other influential Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, in calling for a resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
Obama's speech before he was elected president in which the former Illinois legislator says, "I'm committed to having the FCC review what our current policies are in terms of media diversification. And part of what I want to do is to expand the diversity of voices in media, or have policies that encourage that."
In a statement regarding the new diversity committee, Acting FCC Chairman Copps expressed enthusiasm for fulfilling Obama's commitment.
"I am extremely pleased to announce the membership of this vital Advisory Committee," Copps stated, "which will provide an important and independent voice for strengthening our commitment to diversity. The sad truth is that the diversity of this great nation is not reflected in the ownership of its media and telecommunications facilities. The time has come to chart a new course, to roll up our sleeves and get to work to craft sustainable solutions."
The full membership of the committee is listed below:
Henry Rivera, Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media
Raul Alarcon, Jr., Spanish Broadcasting System
Jenny Alonzo, Mio.TV
James M. Assey, Jr., National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Geoffrey C. Blackwell, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Matthew Blank, Showtime Networks
Maria E. Brennan, American Women in Radio and Television
Kathy Brown, Verizon
Toni Cook Bush, Virgin Mobile
Alan B. Davidson, Google, Inc.
Ralph de la Vega, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
Steve Hillard, Council Tree Communications
David Honig, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Rodney Hood, National Credit Union Administration
Ronald Johnson, Ronson Network Services
Debra Lee, BET Holdings, Inc.
Jane Mago, National Association of Broadcasters
Robert Mendez, ABC Television Network
Marc H. Morial, National Urban League
Karen K. Narasaki, Asian American Justice Center
Melissa Newman, Qwest
Jake Oliver, Afro-American Newspapers
Susan K. Patrick, Patrick Communications
Lisa Pickrum, The RLJ Companies
Rey Ramsey, One Economy Corporation
Michael V. Roberts, Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project
Anita Stephens Graham, Opportunity Capital Partners
Diane Sutter, Shooting Star Broadcasting
Charles Warfield, Inner City Broadcasting
James Winston, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
This advisory committee is being formed not for fairness, but specifically to muzzle conservatism. Its member choices reflect that mission. The diversity in communications is Federal Government speak for there is not enough interest in the “market” for liberal radio, gay radio, islamic radio etc. So they have no choice but to force it down our throats.
And when their ratings go down, and the radio stations are losing money, what happens then? A radio station itself has little value, with the studios and antennas and all the hardware. What they sell is airtime in the form of commercials, which in turn is based on the number of listeners. Fewer listeners = fewer ad dollars = less value for the radio station as a business investment.
Does that mean then Government, BIG Brother will take over after they all fail and then own all radio?? Just curious.
If they want a fight...they’re going to get one.
Here's the link to the "advisory committee's" website.
The reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, is an incredible denial of human rights, worthy of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Castro. It is to crush dissent, and thwart any questioning of the powers that be. This is a sour stew of sour grapes - the left cannot stand the debate and they don’t have the confidence in themselves to ignore it because the arguments are two strong. This is sickening. Something Hugo Chavez would do, or Daniel Ortega. So blatant, so obvious that only a tin horn Latin American dictator or dyed in the wool communist, would pull a move like this, but not a President of the US.....oh wait......change that to yesss Obama would do this.
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (17)
May 02, 2009
FCC Announces May 7 'Diversity Committee' Meeting - Behold a New 'Fairness' Doctrine
FCC Announces May 7 'Diversity Committee' Meeting - Behold a New 'Fairness' Doctrine
Behold one of the new "Fairness" Doctrines - "media diversity" - coming soon to a radio station near you.
President Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released the names of the thirty-one members of their Advisory Committee On Diversity For Communications In The Digital Age. This May 7 gathering is made up of a laundry list of left-wing grievance groups, with a smattering of radio and television companies included to break up the monotony.
Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this Commission - more than a dozen Leftist groups are. A little ironic for a "diversity" panel, is it not?
Chairing the meeting is Henry Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who was (and presumably still is) a strong proponent of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Many, many liberals in Washington have over the last several years called for a reinstatement of the Doctrine. But push-back from people who have read and actually understand the First Amendment led the Left to realize that the political price to bring it back was too high, so they MovedOn.org.
Of course, their desire to silence the lone voices of their opposition had not lessened in the slightest. They're still just as dictatorial, just pragmatically so.
On February 26, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin - one of the myriad past "Fairness" Doctrine champions - sponsored an amendment, passed via a 57-41 Party-line vote, which forces the FCC to "take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."
About which Durbin said at the time: ""No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative. When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature."
As to his first statement, we have our doubts (see below).
And with the second, Color-Blind-America notion in mind, here is just a fractional listing of the organizational attendees of next week's gathering:
Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media (Rivera's outfit)
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Black Entertainment Television Holdings, Inc.
Afro-American Newspapers
Inner City Broadcasting
National Urban League
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (yes, again, NABOB)
Spanish Broadcasting System
American Women in Radio and Television
Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Asian American Justice Center
Rivera got the gig heading up this racial grumble group because he has long championed the concept of "media diversity."
The proponents of station owner affirmative action are the same Leftists who were so ardently in favor of reinstating the Doctrine. One can thusly be forgiven for seeing this as an alternative route for the Left to reach their long-sought original destination - the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio via governmental regulatory fiat.
And it's not just our imagination - it's also our lying eyes. The Center for American Progress is a left-wing hack outfit headed by former Clinton Administration and Obama Transition Team adviser John Podesta. And they released on January 22, 2007 a report entitled "Local Media Diversity Matters - Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values."
The name of the report is right up this Committee's alley and instantaneously gives any sensible person the Willies. So anti-free market a title is but a prelude - the recommendations are a series of assaults on the broadcast industry so as to effect their desired ideological outcome - less conservatives on the air.
Many on the Left see the media pantheon as fraught with racism and sexism. And of course the airwaves are dominated by ideological monopol-ism. There are too many white men owning too many radio and television stations that broadcast too many conservatives to suit liberal tastes.
They truly believe the former is the only possible explanation for the latter. The existence of Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, Tammy Bruce and other un-white males in the talk radio universe fails to persuade them. Neither does the ratings argument - thems that get the ratings get the airwaves. Conservatives have listeners; liberals do not.
According to the Left, these white male station owners don't put conservatives on the air because they make them money, they put them on the air because they are conservatives. The anti-free speech/anti-free marketeers remain as always steadfastly impervious to facts.
Again, the CAP report's subtitle is "Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values." Why would the Left care about the bottom line of a bunch of white male station owners? There's a media world to be re-made, and these liberals don't care how many billions it it costs these racist-sexist bigots to make it happen. Besides, they deserve to get the shaft; it's only fair.
The broadcast license is of course a station's lifeblood; take it away, or make it impossible to meet the regulatory obligations to keep it, and they are literally out of business. The Left, no longer comfortable with trying the top-down, all-out assault that is the "Fairness" Doctrine, intends instead to silence conservative and Christian talk via this broadcast license manipulation.
If they can succeed in making it impossible for talk radio to operate as a business, talk radio will cease to operate. Leftist problem solved.
"Media diversity" is just the latest Leftist attempt to get this done.
Henry Rivera (Chair) Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media
Barbara Kreisman (Designated Federal Officer) Federal Communications Commission
Jamila Bess Johnson (Deputy Federal Officer) Federal Communications Commission
Carolyn Fleming Williams (Deputy Federal Officer) Federal Communications Commission
Raúl Alarcon, Jr. Spanish Broadcasting System
Jenny Alonzo Mio.TV
James M. Assey, Jr. National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Geoffrey C. Blackwell Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Matthew Blank Showtime Networks
Maria E. Brennan American Women in Radio and Television
Kathy Brown Verizon
Toni Cook Bush Virgin Mobile
Alan B. Davidson Google, Inc.
Ralph de la Vega AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
Steve Hillard Council Tree Communications
David Honig Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Rodney Hood National Credit Union Administration
Ronald Johnson Ronson Network Services
Debra Lee BET Holdings, Inc.
Jane Mago National Association of Broadcasters
Robert Mendez ABC Television Network
Marc H. Morial National Urban League
Karen K. Narasaki Asian American Justice Center
Melissa Newman Qwest
Jake Oliver Afro-American Newspapers
Susan K. Patrick Patrick Communications
Lisa Pickrum The RLJ Companies
Rey Ramsey One Economy Corporation
Michael V. Roberts Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
Andrew Schwartzman Media Access Project
Anita Stephens Graham Opportunity Capital Partners
Diane Sutter Shooting Star Broadcasting
Charles Warfield Inner City Broadcasting
James Winston National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters
For those that might want to call and express outrage:
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Fax: 1-866-418-0232
E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov
.
Clarence Thomas : Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'
Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'
Clarence Thomas: Controversial policy 'deep intrusion' into broadcasters' rights
For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.
In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."
The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.
There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.
Don't be silent! Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas "very significant."
"To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue," Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND.
"It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it's unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court."
Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.
"The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.
"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."
He also noticed "the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 ... to 15,273 by the end of 2004."
If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly.
"We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "Justice Thomas' opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate."
.
Wild Thing's comment........
Importanrt to know too, we do have people on the right fighting back on this from happening, there are several in congress are pushing the fight hard too. Mike Pence for one.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:47 AM | Comments (9)
May 01, 2009
Obama's War on Free Speech
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are intent on nationalizing media in the U.S. much the same way they nationalized the U.S. auto industry and the nation's banking and financial institutions.
This isn't the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
It's much worse.
Here's what you can expect in the coming weeks and months:
* a new appointment to the position of chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who will implement a plan to create "community advisory boards" of community activists to monitor the content of talk-radio programs, threatening stations that carry dissenting content with broadcast license challenges;
* billions of additional dollars to be invested in so-called "public broadcasting" – those entities already funded and controlled by government;
* bailouts of failing newspapers perceived as essential propaganda tools for the party.
It's a program worthy of the old Soviet Union – where the old joke noted there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.
But this is no joking matter.
The First Amendment is at stake.
The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new chairman, Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed.
But the nominee is not just another Democrat. He's a Democrat with a plan.
Genachowski advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states:
"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."
Translation? Government control of broadcast media – particularly the kind of talk radio Democrats find so annoying.
The party in power wants to remain in power perpetually. And to do so, like so many other power-hungry parties of the past, it seeks to control the debate and stifle dissent.
Because the party in power looks to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System as the models of fairness and balance, look for massive new "investments" in these official voices.
And, lastly, look for the bailout model to be used to keep the party's choice newspapers on life support.
Just last week, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., all but assured employees of the deeply troubled Boston Globe, a newspaper owned by the New York Times, that he will not allow the paper to go out of business despite falling revenues.
All of these may seem like unrelated developments. But they are not. They are part of a sophisticated plan to socialize the media – preserving with taxpayer dollars failing media institutions that support the party in power and using the coercive power of government to crush those media institutions that are critical of the party in power.
The plot was not hatched inside the White House or even in the halls of Congress. It was developed by John Nichols of the Nation magazine and Robert McChesney, a self-described neo-Marxist media theoretician.
The essence of their program – "the need to promote an understanding of the urgency to assert public control over the media."
"Our claim is simply that the media system produces vastly less quality than it would if corporate and commercial pressures were lessened," they wrote in "Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media."
Amazingly, they cite the founders' commitment to a free press as their inspiration.
I guess they forgot to absorb the literal meaning of the First Amendment that begins: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. …"
That's the origin of the game plan.
You can watch it unfold soon.
Or, you can put your foot down and say boldly, "Not with my money, you don't."
Wild Thing's comment........
Hussein and his people understand the First and Second Amendments, implicitly. What they understand the most, is that those Rights stand in their path to totalitarian rule. As such, they also understand that those amendments must be subverted, any way possible. Without free speech, there is no true dissent. Without dissent, Obama has total control.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:48 AM | Comments (12)
'Arctic blast' Against Free Speech Coming
Censors for talk radio expected within 90 days
Leader of public awareness campaign warns of 'Arctic blast' against free speech
The leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.
WND reported just days ago on a meeting at which more than two dozen principals of the nation's top talk radio shows held a private strategy meeting to discuss government plans to squelch critical political speech on radio.
Organized by Brad O'Leary, author of the new book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the group chose one attendee to be spokesman and chairman of the coalition – syndicated host Roger Hedgecock of San Diego.
The American Radio Free Speech Foundation was adopted as the name, and leaders now have announced a public awareness campaign and educational initiative, called Don't Touch My Dial.
The announcement said the U.S. now is facing "an insidious attack on its First Amendment Rights that is being cloaked in legislation and regulation evidenced by the recently circulated draft FCC regulations … to impose 'localism' and 'media ownership diversity' on talk radio."
"In addition, under the guise of 'cyberspace security,' Sens. Rockefeller, Snowe and Nelson have introduced S773 which would, critics say, give the federal government control over the Internet including, under emergency conditions, the right of the president to shut down the whole Internet or sites on it, including the interruption of e-mail," the announcement said.
"When the public is informed about what is happening behind the scenes to threaten their First Amendment rights, they will be outraged. As shown in a recent poll that was commissioned by the coalition and is part of the 'Zogby/O'Leary Report's First 100 Days Poll' when 3,937 voters from the last election were asked: 'Four members of the U.S. Senate recently introduced a bill that would allow the president of the United States to turn off the Internet nationally in the event of an emergency, however the Bill does not DEFINE what constitutes an emergency. Do you support or oppose this bill?'" the announcement said.
Roger Hedgecock told WND that most people simply don't understand what the government appears to be demanding.
"I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," he said.
"I believe the strategy is to make the current state of compliant journalism that prevails in the mainstream media the norm as well on the Internet and in talk radio," he said.
And it's coming soon.
"I think in the next 90 days we will see the imposition of the local advisory boards. They will immediately become complaint departments staffed by the Left on all local and nationally syndicate talk programs," Hedgecock warned.
The underlying threat, of course, would be to the license the business needs to operate as a radio station.
"The threats of those complaints to the viability of the underlying station licenses will be immediate and will force corporations that own these stations into a very defensive posture," he said.
.
Wild Thing's comment......
This is all overwhelming, I get emails from Roger Hedgecock, I signed up for them at his website for his talk show. I seldom get to hear his talk show so this way I can still stay informed. He has been talking about this for days and is on fire about it. Thank God.
I have no idea who the other talk show hosts were at the meeting but I am sooo glad they had a meeting.
This article in WND has a lot more infomation that we need to be aware of. Thank God we can have articles like this one and others. At least so far.
"WND reported just days ago on a meeting at which more than two dozen principals of the nation's top talk radio shows held a private strategy meeting to discuss government plans to squelch critical political speech on radio. "
This was my post about this:
Nation's Talkers Meet On 'imminent threat'
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:45 AM | Comments (4)
April 29, 2009
Obama's Nominee For "regulatory czar" Wants Net "Fairness Doctrine"
U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net 'Fairness Doctrine'
Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail
WASHINGTON
Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.
Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."
Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet."
"Apparently in Sunstein's world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires," Thierer wrote.
Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."
Perhaps Sunstein's most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book "Nudge," written with Richard Thaler, for a "Civility Check" for e-mails and other online communications.
"The modern world suffers from insufficient civility," they wrote. "Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month."
That's where the "Civility Check" comes in.
"We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."
Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:
* In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
* In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
* In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
* In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."
"As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team."
O'Leary disagrees.
"It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."
Wild Thing's comment........
1st Amendment? Is that the one where we are supposed to have freedom of speech? Or is that for only people on the left?
This guy is another nutjob who believes Communism works. Then again he fits right in with the rest of the insanity in his administration and Obama himself.
"angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period..."
I'd like to see that technology - this guy is pure kook.
“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government”
Can’t have freedom of individual choice now can we? Oh like COMMUNISIM! So when Obama said "Yes we can.", "we" didn't include the citizens.
LOOK at this from Wikipedia:
"Sunstein’s 2006 book, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, explores methods for aggregating information; it contains discussions of prediction markets, open-source software, and wikis. Sunstein’s 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyberbalkanization."
Wow, well we have the head Vermin to thank for all the rest of the vermin is coming out of the woodwork. What a bunch of flaming Reds Obama has on staff.
Taking a deep breath, well I can't help it , I still faith in Americans. We love our liberty and will not relinguish it easily.
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:46 AM | Comments (8)
April 28, 2009
Nation's Talkers Meet On 'imminent threat'
Top hosts hold unprecedented summit to stop efforts at government control
Putting aside their own competitive interests, representatives of more than two dozen of the nation's top talk shows held an unprecedented private meeting over the weekend to brainstorm strategies against what they agreed are government plans by to squelch critical political speech on radio.
Organized by Brad O'Leary, author of the new book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the group chose one attendee to be spokesman and chairman of the coalition – syndicated host Roger Hedgecock of San Diego .
A daylong discussion today focused on what was described as the "imminent threat" of so-called "localism" requirements that will subject radio programming to the review by panels of community activists who will evaluate station content. These panels will be empowered to make recommendations for programming changes and challenge at the Federal Communications Commission the licenses renewals of stations that don't heed their advice.
Last month, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., submitted an amendment to the D.C. Voting Bill which would require the FCC to "encourage and promote diversity in ... media ownership" and reaffirm FCC authority to mandate the presentation "of opposing points of view on issues of public importance."
Also of concern to the hosts and producers gathered in the nation's capital was a decision last week by Clear Channel, the nation's largest owner of radio stations, to mandate the creation of local advisory boards by June at all of its properties. The move was seen as pre-emptive as the industry anticipates an FCC stacked with Barack Obama appointees will soon require stations to answer to panels of community activists.
Clear Channel stations will be required to air a total of 12 minutes of public service announcements daily and 84 minutes per week. Community leaders will be invited to submit information for future PSAs. In addition, the company will choose one national cause to be highlighted company-wide each quarter for coordinated campaigns.
The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new chairman, Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed.
Obama technology agenda, which states:
"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."
"Such language is bureaucratese for government control," says O'Leary. "So-called 'public interest' requirements would put broadcasters at the mercy of local review boards. Such boards would, of course, be politically charged entities with the power to bar any broadcast content that is not deemed to be in the 'public interest' of the local community."
O'Leary says the plan amounts to the development of party-approved "commissar committees" to censor the kind of lively and free-wheeling debate America has known since the scrapping of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" by President Reagan's Federal Communications Commission in 1987.
By demanding radio stations answer to local community watchdog boards to ensure programming is "balanced," "fair," "diverse," "tolerant" and "serving the public interest locally," O'Leary says the rules and legislation being planned will once again make talk radio accountable to politicians, political activists and bureaucrats at the FCC.
Wild Thing's comment.......
"Diversity" , the socialist code word for accept socialism or else.
The current administration has no more respect for the First Amendment than it does for the Second; they’re just waiting for the right time to move. Against conservatives only, of course.
For so many years we have had the right to free speech, now with Obama that is something that might disappear if ithey get their agenda passed on all the various things he wants to do.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:40 AM | Comments (6)
April 15, 2009
Obama Blueprint For Silencing Talk Radio Exposed
New book warns of 'commissar committees' to censor speech
WASHINGTON
As popular opposition to the reinstitution of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" mounts, Barack Obama and the Democrat-dominated Congress will end-run critics with legislation that will curb dissent on talk radio through the imposition of "localism" rules and community watchdog boards across America, charges a new book by a former NBC Westwood One talk-show host.
In "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," author Brad O'Leary says the plan amounts to the development of party-approved "commissar committees" to censor the kind of lively and free-wheeling debate America has known since the scrapping of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" by President Reagan's Federal Communications Commission in 1987.
By demanding radio stations answer to local community watchdog boards to ensure programming is "balanced," "fair," "diverse," "tolerant" and "serving the public interest locally," O'Leary says the rules and legislation being planned will once again make talk radio accountable to politicians, political activists and bureaucrats at the FCC.
The ultimate threat over the heads of radio stations is license renewal, he explains. "Far-left groups such as ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] stand at the ready to pressure these boards into silencing conservative talk radio programs, either through intimidation or the loss of broadcast licenses," says O'Leary, who, during the presidential campaign, wrote the best-selling book, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."
The book points out there were only 75 radio talk shows in America during the last year of the "Fairness Doctrine" rules. Today, there are more than 3,000.
"The liberals' once-dominant media forum is fading fast, in part because Americans have discovered real diversity of ideas elsewhere," O'Leary writes. "The enemies of free speech know this. They also know that, if they are to accomplish their goal of stifling all debate, they will have to control all media outlets."
While the Obama administration and some Democratic congressional leaders have denied efforts to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," none have denied efforts to stack the FCC with appointees open to the idea of reining in talk radio.
"Under the rubric of 'broadcast localism,' it is clear the commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media," wrote Rep. John Boehner, House minority leader, in a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as far back as last June. "The proposals and recommendations for commission action contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designated to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences."
Those regulations would specifically "reinstitute advisory boards to regulate broadcast content and revive a host of other rules the commission dropped more than 20 years ago," explained Boehner.
And the Internet
Also revealed in "Shut Up, America" is evidence that Obama's new FCC chairman wants to create a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet to regulate and censor online speech.
Julius Genachowski, an Obama friend from Harvard Law School and the mastermind behind Obama's online fundraising machine, is an ardent supporter of so-called "net neutrality" regulations, perceived by O'Leary as a first step toward "Fairness Doctrine"-style regulations on content for the Internet. Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide.
"Incredibly, he claims this is to keep the Internet free and open to all," says O'Leary. "In reality, his goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent. Genachowski would give federal regulators editorial authority over what private operators must provide."
Genachowski also advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states:
"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."
"Such language is bureaucratese for government control," explains O'Leary. "So-called 'public interest' requirements would put broadcasters at the mercy of local review boards. Such boards would, of course, be politically charged entities with the power to bar any broadcast content that is not deemed to be in the 'public interest' of the local community."
.
Wild Thing's comment.......
This will serve to kill AM radio. Of course, those frequencies won’t go unused. Once the stations begin to fold the govt will step in to save them. Then they will not only control the content of the airwaves, they will actually own them.
The enemy within is relentless attempt to stamp out every shred of opposition.
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 06:43 AM | Comments (4)
February 27, 2009
Fairness Doctrine on Senate Floor
The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine.
Senator DeMint will encourage all senators to OPPOSE the Durbin Amendment.
The DeMint amendment passes 87-11
- The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.
Dems have attacked from back door on media ownership, localism.”
Democrats passed the Durbin Amendment to restrict free speech- 57-41.
"Durbin Amdt. No. 591; To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." Durbin’s trying to bring it in through the back door by going after ownership of stations.
Source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote for .........On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 591 )
Is Durbin going after Limbaugh?
Is Durbin going after Limbaugh? By Alexander Bolton Posted: 02/26/09 04:58 PM [ET] Conservatives fear that Democrats are pursuing a “back door” approach to cracking down on Clear Channel Communications, the media conglomerate that airs "The Rush Limbaugh Show," a favorite among conservatives.
The Senate voted along party lines Thursday to adopt an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, that directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
The measure passed 57-41 without a single Republican vote.
Durbin said his proposal would encourage more women and minorities to apply for radio and TV ownership.
But Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), chairman of the conservative Senate Republican Steering Committee, charged the proposal would lead to regulatory pressure on Clear Channel, which owns and operates more than 1,200 radio stations in the United States.
Wild Thing's comment........
God bless Senator Jim DeMint for his efforts and for the Republilcans for staying firm on this.
Democrats = Stalinists
Durbin's bill is much more dangerouso I think. His would order the Federal Communications Commission to encourage radio ownership “diversity.”
A DeMint aide said Durbin’s measure will “impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership.”
The aide called the Durbin proposal “an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue.”
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (4)
February 22, 2009
DeMint to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.
DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”
Although the Obama administration has come out publicly saying they would not pursue the Fairness Doctrine, several prominent Democrats have. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said it was "absolutely time to pass a standard.” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, came out with a similar message, saying, “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”. And former President Bill Clinton said, “You either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side.”
Wild Thing's comment........
Bravo! I really like Jim DeMint, he has taken a stand often on things.
"Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue. "
Here is a good example of you need to listen to what *O* says, not how he says it!
He won't "pursue the revival", but he does not say he will not stop congress from doing it, or vetoing it if it comes across his desk.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (12)
October 23, 2008
Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman Wants A Push to Reinstate the 'Fairness Doctrine'
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) was asked by KKOB talk-radio host Jim Villanucci if, "There would be a push to reinstate the 'Fairness Doctrine'?" His answer was, "I hope so." Like all liberals, he thinks free speech should be protected just as long as all the speakers agree with him.
Senator Bingaman also said all media should be regulated "at a higher level." Does he want America to end up like the old Soviet Union where all speech was controlled.??!!!!
FROM RUSH LIMBAUGH ABOUT THIS:
RUSH:
Before the Fairness Doctrine was lifted by Ronaldus Magnus in the late eighties, I think it was 1987, you know how many radio stations were doing talk, Senator Bingaman? One hundred and twenty-five. And you know what was on those stations? I mean sometimes from midnight to six you'd get the wild wackos, the provocational political people, but most of the time it was the correct carrot cake recipe for the holidays, where the next traffic problem was going to be in town. Then you'd have a little segment where if your dog was lost you could call the station, and do lost animal reports. All of this wonderful stuff that nobody wanted to listen to, Senator. One hundred twenty-five talk stations. Senator Bingaman, do you know how many talk radio stations there are in America today? Try over 2,000 since the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, and on those 2,000 radio stations are countless points of view, from the extreme communist left to the wacko whatever it is way out on the fringe right. They're all over the place.
What Bingaman is saying here is, (paraphrasing) "Well, it's not that. We want every station to be balanced." What he wants is for this kind of programming to be stopped. Because of the way the Fairness Doctrine worked and will work, especially the way it will work if it's ever reinstituted, reimplemented, within five minutes of my show open, 15 or more extremist groups in every city carrying this program will call the station carrying this show, demanding a response to the outrageous thing that I have just said. And then, after the next ten minutes, they would call again. After an hour, the management of the local station would probably have received over 150 phone calls demanding a chance and an opportunity to reply.
At which point the manager says, "I can't keep up with this. In order to maintain my license, I'm going to have to do all this and grant all these people all this access. I gotta put amateurs on the radio? I gotta put talentness, complaining whiners on the radio? I'm not going to mess with it." And that's how it works. It's not that the Fairness Doctrine is passed and all of us go away. It's that local stations will not put up with the grief they're going to get. And that's what Senator Bingaman and that's what the Democrats want. They don't want balanced programming on a radio station. They want no conservative programming on a radio station. He sounds all concerned and educated here, but make no mistake.
Wild Thing's comment.........
God what is this country coming to! Censorship and Socialism march hand in hand.
The left intends to silence any dissenting opinions, BECAUSE THEIR IDEOLOGY IS INDEFENSIBLE. The Fairness Doctrine...broadcasting Socialism 24 hours a day!
Following Senator Bingaman's remarks, the program director Pat Frisch came on with the talk-radio host Jim Villanucci and blasted Bingaman as an “idiot”.
Then the callers joined in and were besides themselves with anger at this clown.
Please, America. WAKE UP!!!! We are on the edge of a horrific future. 1984 was not written about right wingers. It was written about Obama and his gang of hooligans. How can we be this close to such a future?
Good book about this............
The alternative-media revolution of the last twenty years has smashed the liberal monopoly over news outlets and created a true marketplace of ideas. Rather than fight back with their own beliefs, today’s liberals work relentlessly to smother this new universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign finance reform and media regulations.
Bestselling author Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer examine the crucial place of free political speech in our nation’s history, from the feisty polemics of Revolutionary-era pamphlets to the explosion of new media in the twenty-first century. Today, shockingly, freedom of political speech in America is facing sustained attacks unlike anything since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
ADVANCE PRAISE of book
"Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer have written an important book about the future of media freedom and why we must be vigilant in defending that freedom against unjust and undemocratic regulatory proposals like the Fairness Doctrine. This timely and concise manifesto serves as a rallying cry for that cause." —Congressman Mike Pence, Indiana
"Brian Anderson is that rare analyst who has conducted scholarly research, edits a distinguished Old Media public policy journal, but has also written extensively on the importance of New Media and pop culture. He and Adam Thierer were among the first to grasp how the New Media was reshaping politics and cultural attitudes. That makes them especially qualified to now warn about the dangers that government regulation is about to pose to media democratization." —John Fund, columnist at the Wall Street Journal
"From radio talk to political campaigning, the First Amendment is under sustained assault. In this concise, thin volume, Anderson and Thierer demonstrate with concrete examples how a combination of self-interested politicians, left-wing partisanship, and public ignorance about technology and media markets have created the most serious threat to free speech in America since the Red Scare." —Bradley Smith, former FEC Chairman
Posted by Wild Thing at 03:44 AM | Comments (12)
