Posts Tagged ‘FCC’

New Fascist Outrage From Old Fascist Obama: FCC To ‘Study’ Media

February 21, 2014

Some time back – going on three years ago now – I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  That was before the IRS was turned into a political weapon against conservatives, before Obama’s profoundly unconstitutional lawless abuse of power as he simply changed the law (when only CONGRESS has the power to change or make law) with ObamaCare and numerous other times such as gay marriage and illegal immigration.

The essence of liberalism IS fascism.  It is LIBERALS who want to create economic and political fascism in America.  Fascism is ALL ABOUT government control.  As a conservative, for instance, I am pro-American founding fathers, pro-grammatical-historical Constitution, pro-laisssez faire free market, pro-individual liberty and pro-limited federal government.   And for liberals to claim that it is conservatives who want to expand government control of society in a fascist way is as irrational as it is evil.  Because just how in the HELL am I like Hitler when it is YOU DEMOCRATS who want what Hitler wanted (MORE government power; more power for the government to impose, less power for the people to resist government tyranny, fewer guns in the hands of the people versus the State)???

If you want to see a fascist, go look at a Democrat.  If you are a Democrat and you want to see a fascist, go look in the damn mirror.

There have been so many instances in which Barack Hussein Obama has revealed himself as a naked fascist since I wrote this article it is beyond unreal.  Let it be said that I was RIGHT as usual when it comes to Barack Obama.  When he was running for president and I heard his “reverend” of 23 years say, “No, no, no, NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  I knew that only a truly evil man would have sat in that church under such demon-possessed “preaching.”  And I had what turned out to be a very accurate vision of the wicked man who has plunged America onto the path of dodo-bird-extinction.

When did George Bush propose anything like this?  When did George Bush – who never proposed anything like this – sick his DOJ attack dog on a reporter the way Obama had Eric Holder spy on Fox News reporter James Rosen???  Which revealed nothing short of a fascist agenda with the media.  When did Bush threaten reporters the way Obama threatened Watergate-fame reporter Bob Woodward???  When did Bush try to target and boycott a news outlet he didn’t like the way Obama tried to do with Fox News before all the rest of the journalists pointed out that Obama was being a fascist???

The correct answer, ye Democrat fascists, is NEVER.  And yet had Bush done one-fifty-thousandth the fascism Obama has done you people would have been riotously burning cars in the street in protest.  Because you are the worst kind of hypocrites who ever lived.  “Period.  End of story,” to quote Obama’s words.

Even LIBERALS are now understanding the threat of this naked fascist president.  The New York Times’ James Risen observed, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.”

And it was a LIBERAL legal analyst who pointed out what a godawful CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Barack Hussein Obama has been as he described a nakedly fascist hijacking of the constitutional role of Congress by a dictator-in-chief:

  • The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
  • “I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

You know,

This fascist hypocrite Nazi Stalinist thug Obama made all KINDS of false promises to America when he was lying his way into power.  In 2008 he said:

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Now he’s our Nazi thug-in-chief.  And the American people should be acting like the people of Ukraine while we still have the freedom to act.  Because Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to America BY HIS OWN STANDARD.

And now this:

Monday, 17 February 2014 19:00
FCC to Investigate How Broadcasters Select News Stories
Written by  Warren Mass

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether government action is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.”

When the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) announced the initiative in a release last November 1, it stated it had selected Columbia, South Carolina, to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014.

Citing the FCC, Jason Pye (the editor-in-chief for the United Liberty website and former legislative director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia) wrote that the stated purpose of the CIN is to collect information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” as well as to assess “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

The FCC will also ask reporters: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?”

The  FCC attempts to justify the intrusive fact-finding mission by asserting that the results are necessary to complete a report that the FCC “is obligated under § 257 of the Communications Act of 1934 … to review and report to Congress on: (1) regulations prescribed to eliminate market entry barriers in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses; and (2) proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

However, Pye quotes the FCC’s Ajit Pai: “This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

The statement came from an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal for February 10 written by Ajit Pai, who is a commissioner of the FCC. In the article, Pai noted that news editors often disagree about which stories are important enough to be covered and which stories are not. But, stated Pai, “everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

Then Pai makes an amazing admission, especially since he was nominated to his post by President Obama: “Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree.”

As part of the process to uncover the information it wants, notes Pai, the FCC selected eight categories of “critical information,” including the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes the local news media should cover. The FCC will ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors, and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station will assist the FCC’s quest to (as we noted previously) “ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met.”

As an indication of the egregious intrusiveness of the CIN study, the FCC’s follow-up questions will ask for “specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.”

But Pai’s assessment of the FCC’s new program becomes more ominous:

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary — in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

A frank acknowledgment, coming from an Obama nominee! If a broadcast media outlet is dependent on not running afoul of FCC bureaucrats in order to keep its license and remain in business, what we have, in effect, is a fascist system not too different from what existed in Italy under Mussolini. Though fascism has multiple characteristics, a hallmark of the system is that instead of openly nationalizing private property, as did the communists, fascists allowed private property to exist in name — while controlling it via regulation. Under fascism, entrepreneurs have only the illusion of private property, since the government dictates how their property is to be used.

In his book, Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War II, Anthony Rhodes noted that Italian fascist authorities seized control of some newspapers on the grounds that they published false information likely to incite class hatred or express contempt for the government. In contrast, pro-fascist periodicals were subsidized. By 1926, government permission was needed for a publication to operate. From 1937 to 1944, the Italian Ministry of Culture exercised control of all channels of communication in Italy, both print and broadcast.

Fascist dictator Mussolini personally chose all newspaper editors in Italy, and those who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could not practice journalism. Though Mussolini created the illusion of a “free press,” no such freedom existed.

Even more repressive control of the media existed in fascist Italy’s sister state, Nazi Germany, where censorship was implemented by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Under Goebbels, newspapers, radio, and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Radios capable of receiving uncensored broadcasts from outside Germany were confiscated.

The U.S. government’s interest in regulating the broadcast media began with commercial radio broadcasting itself. The Radio Act of 1912, which mandated that all radio transmissions be licensed, was superseded by The Radio Act of 1927, which transferred most of the responsibility for regulating radio to the newly created Federal Radio Commission (FRC). The five-person FRC was given the power to grant and deny licenses, and to assign frequencies and power levels for each licensee. The Commission was not given any official power of censorship, but programming could not include “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

The first commercially licensed radio station in the United States, KDKA in Pittsburgh, began broadcasting in 1920. The March 1, 1922 issue of the Commerce Department’s Radio Service Bulletin listed 67 stations, but by the end of that year that number would increase to more than 500. (Today there are around 15,000 commercial radio stations in the United States.)

The FRC was replaced by the FCC when the Communications Act of 1934 was passed. The proliferation of radio stations was used as a rationale for federal policing of the airwaves to prevent radio signals from overlapping and interfering with each other. But what is the rationale for federal regulation of broadcast content?

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Does not freedom of speech and the press apply to radio and TV broadcasting as well?

Allow me to tie the Obama IRS thug scandal to the Obama FCC thug scandal.  Jay Sekulow who represents many of the tea party groups who were politically targeted by the Obama thug IRS has pointed out that the questions journalists are now being asked are the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS that the Obama thug IRS was asking of tea party groups as our nation’s tax agency got turned into a rabid Obama enforcement agency.

The FCC – which under Obama has becomes the Fascist Communications Commission – is trying to strong arm its way into dictating the coverage of the media.  Even when it is a now-thoroughly documented FACT that the media is overwhelmingly biased to the leftMedia bias is a real fact and it is from the left.  But with a naked fascist like Obama, all voices of opposition must be silenced.

Here’s the Democrat New York Mayor de Blasio blatantly disregarding traffic laws on his way to the gym just yesterday.  The Democrat Party is the party of entitlement to naked power and the abuse of that power.  Democrats seized control of our entire health care system why?  To “control the people,” that’s why.  Democrats crave totalitarian power so that they can get to decide who wins and who loses and now even who wins and who dies.  They want to have the power to “punish their enemies and reward their friends,” in Obama’s words.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Hussein Obama is his useful idiot.

Advertisements

Anti-Free Press Obama Demagogue Anita Dunn A Self-Admitted Marxist

October 16, 2009

Anita Dunn is Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director, anti-Fox News demagogue — and a self-acknowledged Maoist Communist.

Glenn Beck provided the stunning video of Anita Dunn speaking on June 5 of this year:

Speaking to an audience of high school students, Barack Obama’s Communications Director said the following:

“A lot of you have a great deal of ability.  A lot of you work hard.  Put them together, and that answers the ‘why not?’ question.  There’s usually not a good reason.

And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Tse-Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side.  And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Tse-Tung said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second.

You know, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”

Well, that’s just great.

For what it’s worth, Adolf Hitler also laid out his own path.  He too figured out what was “right for him.”  He certainly didn’t let any “external definitions define how good he was internally.”  Oh, did he ever fight his war.  And Adolf Hitler most definitely had his own path.

And Hitler actually murdered fewer than Anita Dunn’s political hero.

Anita Dunn joins fellow Marxist and Obama-handpicked FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Nothing wrong with a little Marxism and a little crusade to attack and destroy media critics.  Unless you have a functioning moral compass, anyway.

And we have to mentioned Van Jones, who departed (literally) in the night after his extreme radicalism was revealed.  Van Jones said:

[Van] Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

If Barack Obama isn’t a communist, then why on earth does he keep intentionally surrounding himself with them?

It’s readily apparent that Obama has always sought out communist mentors.  In Dreams of My Father, Obama described his circle whom he intentionally surrounded himself with:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

And before those Marxist professors, Obama was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

I bring that out lest anyone try to disassociate Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and others from Barack Obama.  These people aren’t a bunch of individual anomalies; they are part of a very clear pattern of Marxism having invaded the VERY highest level of the White House.

You know, my own favorite political philosophers are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and great political thinkers such as Cicero and Alexis de Tocqueville.  My list most certainly does not include Mao Tse-Tung, who was without question one of the worst monsters in human history.

Mao Tse-Tung, Anita Dunn’s favorite political philosopher, murdered 70 million of his own people during peacetime to secure and consolidate his power.

Annie Dillard underscored both the evil heart of Mao Tse-Tung and the inherent moral insanity of affirming both Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa in her article “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998:

Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view?  “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population. Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million?

An English journalist, observing the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, reasoned: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”

Mao Tse-Tung was a fundamentally evil man.  And Anita Dunn – Barack Obama’s handpicked demagogue who is working on his behalf to undermine the free press that her “favorite political philosopher” Mao likewise destroyed in China – is a moral idiot.  She connects and embraces the world’s greatest taker of human life with the world’s greatest saver of human life.  And cannot comprehend the insanity of doing so.

One of the things that her “other” favorite political philosopher, Mother Teresa, said should make Anita Dunn a fierce opponent of abortion:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

But I think we can all see which “favorite” political philosopher is more “favorite” for Anita Dunn.  But then, this political demagogue, this liberal witch-hunter, is morally incapable of seeing the fundamental irrationality of the Mother who fought for the lives of children, versus the Chairman who created a system that imposed forced abortion.

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both saw the truly graphic evil represented by communism.  How they must be turning over in their graves knowing that the White House has come to embrace everything they fought to protect this country from.

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Pursue New War On Fox News

October 12, 2009

Up until the exaltation of The One – may socialist Scandinavians place golden medallions around his neck forever – the Democrats’ spiel on Afghanistan was that it was the right war, the top priority war, the just war, the necessary war, but that the devil Bush ignored Afghanistan while he focused on Iraq.

Iraq, of course, was the unwinnable war (even after Bush won it), and the surge strategy was bound to be a costly failure (even after it worked).

Well, now that Obama – in the words of a leftist “journalist” – “stands above the country” and “above the world” as “sort of God,” well, the “change” the left kept blathering about resulted in a change of focus:

Afghanistan is no longer the “war of necessity,” or the “top priority,” or the “cause that could not be more just.”  Nope.  That war morphed into the war that the White House has declared on Fox News.

White House communications director, Anita Dunn:

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director.

And:

“The reality of it is that Fox often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

And:

“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Mind you, every major totalitarian dictator in the world is more “legitimate” than Fox News, as far as the White House is concerned:

White House communications director Anita Dunn also said this:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Yes, that’s right.  Dunn is referring to CNN — the same CNN that demonstrated that it is so completely in the tank for the Obama agenda that it actually “FACT-CHECKED” a Saturday Night Live skit.

That’s the criteria for “a news network”: complete ideological loyalty.

Obama pretty much pointed that out himself when he addressed White House correspondents:

“Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.  Apologies to the Fox table.”

Unlike all the other media, Fox correspondents didn’t vote for Obama.  And that’s enough to declare war.  For all must love The OneNo dissension can be tolerated.

Mind you, while the White House asserts that Fox News is evil because it – alone by itself – is not in the tank with Obama, it’s interesting to see that Obama himself is in the tank for SEIU and the hard-core union agenda as he vows to “paint the nation purple.”

We’ve seen this reaction to media criticism by a president before – from the darkest and most evil days of Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t pretty, and it didn’t end well.

Is Fox the media arm of the Republican Party?  Viewers who are flocking to Fox News in droves don’t seem to think so:

Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009’s first quarter was FNC’s 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network’s history — just behind Q4 ’08 and Q3 ’05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

The hardly right-wing UCLA seems to find plenty of bias from all of those journalists that Obama boasted voted for him, rather than Fox:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

To the extent that Fox News is biased to the right, every single other news outlet is biased toward the left.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs’ study concluded that Fox News was in fact the most fair and balanced network, concluding:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly — 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates — 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

Sacred Heart University’s media study discovered that Fox News was the most trusted in the nation:

Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.

Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).

In fact, it didn’t come all that far from being TWICE as trusted as the runner-up, CNN (the network that fact-checks SNL sketches that are negative to Obama).

So this war – that again seems to be replacing the “just war of necessity” that Afghanistan was SUPPOSED to be is just ridiculous.

It merely shows just how dramatically ideological this administration truly is.

It also explains why former longtime ABC correspondent Chris Wallace said of the Obama administration:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Let’s just take a second to consider what Obama seems to think about the media, as evidenced by his selection of Mark Lloyd to be his FCC Diversity Czar.  Remember that cartoon of dictators that Obama has met with?  Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd admiringly said this of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Just as Obama is now taking Fox News seriously in this country.

But how did Hugo Chavez “take very seriously the media”?

Newsbusters answers that by simply pointing to the facts in Venezuela:

NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law

Associated Press – May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

Chavez clamps down on broadcast media

Irish Examiner – Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez’s government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela’s cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

Report: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Miami Herald – August 14, 2009

An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

How’s that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

And Obama’s choice for FCC Diversity Czar also had this to say:

[From a 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice]: “Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.  And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

It’s nice of Mark Lloyd to acknowledge that there are “good white people” around – just before he announces the need to have a purge of white people from the media.  But Mark Lloyd is a racist who has also said:

“There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.”

And Barack Obama also showed what he thought about free speech rights when his selection for FCC Diversity Czar said:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

So we pretty much know where the Obama White House is coming from: the media should be the exclusive tool of leftist propaganda to advance the Obama agenda.  Only Obama voters need apply to be considered as “journalists.”  Free speech is a terribly overrated thing, which needs to be “reinterpreted” to exclude ANYONE who has ANYTHING but a far-leftist revolutionary agenda.  And Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has provided the American left with the model as to how to proceed in that direction.

Obama is dithering around in Afghanistan while our soldiers languish and die for lack of support.  But he seems all to willing to pursue his war on Fox News with a gusto.

In both the war in Afghanistan and the war on Fox News, the threat is to freedom itself.

And Behold: Obama’s FCC Unveils New Fairness Doctrine

May 2, 2009

Obama said he was opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.  Then again, he also promised he wouldn’t run for president until he completed his term as Senator and promised he wouldn’t renege on his pledge to accept public campaign funding.

Obama’s “saying something” really doesn’t mean squat.

From Newsbusters:

FCC Announces May 7 ‘Diversity Committee’ Meeting – Behold a New ‘Fairness’ Doctrine

By Seton Motley       May 1, 2009 – 14:15 ET

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.

—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.

Keith Olbermann and his many liberal carbon copies in television media won’t have to worry, of course.  Nor will musicians like Bruce Springstein, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, etc. etc.  Or movie stars like Sean Penn and, well, pretty much any of them.  Or newspapers like the New York Times.  This “fairness” only applies to conservatives.

At some point Americans will recognize that they elected a hard-core leftwing ideologue.  It’s only a matter of time before Obama becomes the next Carter (who was more popular than Obama after his first hundred days in office).

Schumer Compares Conservative Speech To Porn In Fairness Doctrine Ploy

November 9, 2008

I came across this from an email and said, “No way.”

I fact checked it, both because I always try to be honest and because I don’t like looking like an idiot.

It sounded too preposterous, too disturbingly fascist, to possibly be true.  No way Senator Chuck Schumer said that, right?

Wrong.  (and at this point I’d do a Sarah Palin impression and ask, “You don’t mind if I call you ‘Schmuck,’ do you?

In an interview that occurred on November 4 – you know, election day, when people ostensibly get to celebrate one of their precious rights to free speech in the form of voting for whom they choose – Sen. Schmuck Schumer (D-NY) had this little bit to say:

As The Hill reported:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

Let’s try to take this fascist idiocy in order, shall we?

1) Sen. Schumer defended the Fairness Doctrine  saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Well, yes I do, Schmuck.  That’s why I demand that every television program likewise be forced to embrace the fairness doctrine.  That means that conservatives have a voice during the broadcasts of ABC‘s Charles Gibson, CBS‘ Katie Couric, and NBC‘s Brian Williams.  Remember how all three anchors accompanied Barack Obama on his foreign trip, but refused to accompany John McCain on any of his three foreign trips?  That sort of “unfairness” will be ended by law.  “Fairness” means equal time for both candidates.

It also means equal POSITIVE and NEGATIVE time for both candidates, doesn’t it?  DOESN’T IT???

The Center for Media and Public Affairs demonstrated that the “Big 3 networks [are] still fixated on ‘first love’ Obama“:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

That doesn’t seem “fair,” does it, Schmuck?  The Media Research Center adds to that sad state of affairs for the mainstream media:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama got nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain got nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound “fair” to you?  How was McCain supposed to run against that kind of media onslaught?

Why not take a look at the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Schmuck?  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.” That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

And there was outright deception going on.  Remember that reporter who literally invented “hate speech” allegedly by a McCain supporter against Barack Obama?  It took a Secret Service investigation to prove that the reporter was lying.  And the media consistently portrayed the McCain campaign as being “more negative” than the Obama campaign, when a study revealed that the exact opposite was the case.  Does THAT seem “fair” to you, Schmuck?

And did ABC journalist Michael Malone’s damning description of a dangerous liberal bias that literally threatens the Constitution serve to prove to you that the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to be applied to liberal media, or was it just one more expression of formerly-free speech that you’d like to stamp out, Schmuck?

If none of that sunk in, just let me say two more words: Chris Matthews.

Nothing would be better for conservatives if a “Fairness Doctrine” were actually applied consistently across the media spectrum.  But that isn’t what you want, is it, Schmuck?  No – you want to stifle the ONE media outlet of radio that has a larger conservative presence while utterly ignoring the vastly larger television media presence that totally caters to liberals?

It’s too bad we don’t force the Fairness Doctrine on you, Schmuck.  Because you’d be gone.

2) Then we come to Schmuck Schumer’s simply staggeringly fascist statement: “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Let us consider the man’s progression of thought.  Schmuck is in favor of limiting pornography on the air.  And conservative thought is analogous to pornography.  Therefore he is in favor of limiting conservative thought on the air.

So we have a moral equivalence between pornography and conservative viewpoints.  Cover your child’s ears, because I’m going to say the word “Republican!”

This is the kind of reasoning the Taliban and the most fanatic totalitarian Muslim thugs use to kill and imprison Christians for making mention of their Christianity.  They simply declare it evil, and ban it.  This is a totalitarian tactic.  It is a giant step toward the ugliest political philosophies that the human mind has ever envisioned.

Schmuck is something of a fascist, plain and simple.  He wants to crush his opposition by declaring anything that opposes his political ideology as “pornography” and “limiting” it right off the airwaves.

I’ve had a couple people upset that I use the word “Nazi.”  Let me tell you something: if liberals would only stop acting like Nazis, I’d gladly quit using the term.

When Republicans were in charge, do you remember them using their political power to attempt to crush their opposition?  Do you remember a “Fairness Doctrine” that was geared to pin ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and other mainstream media outlets like bugs to the wall, while simultarnously protecting racio advocates such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham?  Republicans would never even conceive of something so fundamentally unconstitutional, undemocratic, or so blatantly totalitarian.  So why are so many Democrats doing it?

There is something terribly wrong, here.

I remember encountering a crazy person on the sidewalk.  She just went off on me and started ranting in my face.  I immediately realized that she was mentally unhinged, and that there was no point attempting to reason with her.  I simply stood there and waited for her to finish her tirade and move off.

That’s what it’s like trying to reason with too many liberals nowadays.

Anyone who thinks like Schmuck Schumer is morally insane, pure and simple.