WorldNetDaily is reporting that the FCC is taking the first official steps toward silencing dissenting speech by announcing an extremely liberal roster of 'advisers' whose aim is to achieve 'diversity' in talk radio.
Translation: Obama will tolerate only speech which agrees with his and this manipulation intends to crush the voice of the opposition, namely the voice of nation-wide conservative talk radio - OUR voice.
They had better bring more than advisers if they think that they are going to take our free speech away. And they had better understand that they will have to kill us all to silence our voices.
This is blatant tyranny and it WILL NOT REIGN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
8 comments:
.
RightHooks,
"And they had better understand that they will have to kill us all to silence our voices."
Why would any one? You take yourself wayyyy tooo seriously. Given how _NOTHING_ you have to say is taken seriously, who would bother?
You and the rest of the wacko RW bed wetters have not been right about anything! (Can you say, Sarah Palin?) Except for comic relief, who visits your blog?
Honestly, what have you to say? "The world is flat, the sun is in my eyes and it is too dark to see."
Look, you say you are a follower of Jesus Christ yet you want to torture people, you say you are a follower of Jesus Christ yet you want to kill people who follow Islam, you say you are a follower of Jesus Christ yet you want to use outdated, backward, and questionable books of the "old Testament" to tell "OTHERS" how to live.
Please keep postings your drivel. Should anyone ask you to stop, please, please; don't.
~@:o?
.
Ema, I'm glad that you find slicing innocent babies into little pieces funny and entertaining while at the same time you cry about a murdering terrorist getting his head wet.
There is no better display of utter hypocrisy that your own words and views.
You are so damn paranoid, RH. Just so you know, this advisory board has no legal power. And their mission statement says it is their goal to "further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."
Dear God... Enhancing the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries, communist takeover the next...
We're doomed!
PW,
Either I am paranoid, or you are naive and gullible...
Which is it?
Either this panel is what is says it is, or it is just a stepping stone.
If it is what it says it is, I am paranoid. If it is just a stepping stone, you are naive and gullible.
If it simply is what it is, then why have these Democrats done this:
-Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."
-In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine." "Yes," Pelosi answered.
When Gizzi further pressed her on whether she would permit a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, she answered, "No … the interest in my caucus is the reverse."
-And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back. "It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged. But I'm paranoid, right?
Well, if I am, so is the CURRENT
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who warns that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.
In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington in February, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label. "That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand." Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality. McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
So, ya, PW, he's paranoid and I'm paranoid and so are many Republican members of Congress...either that or you're naive and gullible.
Also, consider this:
A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.
In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.
"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."
The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."
To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.
And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."
In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."
Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.
Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "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."
The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word. So which is it? Is the right paranoid, or are you naive and gullible?
(italics from worldnetdaily)
yes, but the worldnetdaily does not provide a lot of context for the quotes. And the most damning sections of the report have no quotes at all. It's a lot of innuendo coming from a biased source.
Also, it cites Obama's support of "network neutrality" as a sign of his supposed secret plan to impose restrictions on talk radio.
Network neutrality has nothing to do with talk radio at all. In fact, network neutrality is a DEFENSE of free speech. Network neutrality is what allows you to update this website. Essentially, net neutrality prevents ISP's and telecom companies from charging individuals to allow access to their sites. If net neutrality was not preserved, then you would have to pay a telecom company a whole hell of a lot of money or they would block your site from their network and no one would ever see it.
So yes, it's possible that Obama is secretly trying to eradicate the first amendment. But apply Occam's Razor here and realize that it's just not the most reasonable conclusion.
Get a clue: Identity Politics.
Divide & conquer; Balkanize. United we stand, divided we fall.
If we are Americans, our skin color, gender & ethnicity should make no difference.
In a free market of ideas, the best will float to the top and the worst will sink. When the market was freed from artificial restrictions, Conservative opinion rose to the top and the sludge sank to the bottom.
Hightower, Daschal, Cuomo & Franken were unable to provide a popular mix of opinion, fact, entertainment and production values. They sank to the bottom of the tank because they had no facts, their opinion is shit and they could not cut the mustard.
So you don't like Limbaugh? Then turn the dial or the power switch. Better yet, start your own syndicated show and demonstrate to the world that you can do better.
.
Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul,
"If we are Americans, our skin color, gender & ethnicity should make no difference. "
Does this apply to liberal, jewish, christian, muslim lesbians too?
~@:o?
.
Its a melting pot, Ema. We are Americans, with common interests: peace, prosperity, maximal liberty for ourselves and future generations.
Post a Comment