Fairness Doctrine Officially Dead: Why That Means Absolutely Nothing

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Yesterday, the FCC officially killed the fairness doctrine.  While it hadn’t been enforced since the late 80’s, the left would occasionally state the desire to resurrect it, and the right always feared it.  Here is coverage from The Blaze…

The last nail was finally driven into the Fairness Doctrine’s coffin when the FCC eliminated more than 80 media industry rules, ending the obsolete post WWII-era regulation. The doctrine, that sought to ensure inclusiveness of different viewpoints broadcast on the airwaves, was officially erased by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday.

Conservative critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed the rule violated broadcasters’ rights to free speech and feared Democrats would try revive the regulation to silence conservative talk radio programs. While the doctrine was essentially abandoned in 1987 during the Reagan administration, it remained on the books until Monday.

Apparently, the FCC tossed over 80 old regulations, and you know what?

It doesn’t mean a single thing!

Yes, the statists had been periodically dragging out the corpse of the fairness doctrine, using it to get Conservatives in an uproar, but in reality, they never really intended to re-instate it.  Instead, they were looking at different ways to implement something similar, while calling it something else.  I have covered that quite a few times in the past.  Here is some more background…

Our “progressives” are no different in their desire to control the flow of information. Over the last several years, they have pressed on with various “packages” for controlling information, and therefore, us.  I think a review of the various agendas is in order, as they have evolved.  Following the tendency to “call it something else,” the “progressives” have been morphing and relabeling their narrative, seeking something that will resonate sufficiently to implement.

Since I started the CH, I have been covering these efforts, as have my blogging friends.  So I think reviewing the last two years is in order.

First, back in later 2008 and early 2009, Henry Waxman was discussing a new Fairness Doctrine.  Of course, they would “call it something else.”

According to The Prowler, Waxman and his staff are already looking at ways to police content on the web. (emphasis mine throughout)

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”

Waxman and his staff are also thinking about creating congressionally mandated advisory boards to police both radio and TV programming:

One idea Waxman’s committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place “advisory boards” that would act as watchdogs to ensure “community needs and opinions” are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

What about policing internet content?  According to The Prowler, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is already looking into this.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Then, I covered that the they were seeking different means to acheive a “fairness doctrine,” again, calling it something else.

To accomplish this piece of fascism, the messiah has created a “diversity committee” at the FCC to address the lack of minority and female ownership of radio stations.  Why is this important?  Well, according to a think tank put together by the messiah early in his campaign…

It also was reported when 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.

That report found 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,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Then, facts about the “regulatory Czar,” Cass Sunstein, were revealed.

Now comes a more insidious form of thought control a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and probable new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein (who recently married another long-time confidant of Barack Obama’s, foreign policy guru Samantha Power).  Kyle Smith writes in the New York Postabout one aspect of Sunstein’s ideology:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In “On Rumors,” Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which “people’s beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire.” That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. “We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet,” he writes. “We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?”

Sunstein’s book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading “rumors.”

Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be “proven”. The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth “won out”. The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.

This strikes me as interesting, as “progressives” tend not always ban activities.  Many times, they use regulations to make it so expensive, or so laborious, that the activity isn’t worth the time or expense.  This would be a prime example.

And, of course, a discussion on this matter would be incomplete without mention of Mark Lloyd.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “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,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

My general point is that if they had wanted the fairness doctrine back, they would have done it long ago.   Instead, they have spent considerable time and effort towards creating something that would accomplish the same thing, and would be called something else.  The result would be the same-the end of dissent, but it would be phrased and presented in a slightly different way.   So, while they have been busy scaring folks with the fairness doctrine, they have been working on other options to slide past us while we’re distracted.  Think of it this way, while one person is distracting us with something shiny, another is sneaking up behind us with a tire iron.

In other words, beware!  The “death” of something that was long dead anyway is nothing more than a distraction.  We need to be looking at what they ARE doing.

Share

In Case You Never Really Knew What the Fairness Doctrine was all About…

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Conservatives have long stated that the “fairness doctrine” was nothing more than a means to stifle debate on the airwaves.  And, in fact, with the doctrine in place-no one dared state too many “unliberal” opinions without getting complaints from liberal groups, threatening to have their FCC license yanked.  The result was one sided news.

Once the doctrine was removed under the Reagan administration, talk radio flourished, and is a dominating force today.  This has lead to the dissemination of Conservative ideas to millions of Americans.  The ideas of individual freedom, free markets, personal responsibility, as well as the ability to spread the word about big government failure have gained an audience of millions, much to the dismay of our would-be regressive overlords.

We also know that in any totalitarian form of government, the control of information is vital.  The elites in power do not want the people questioning their dictates, nor do they want information that displays their failure to be common knowledge.  Both of these weaken the power of the state.  We saw this in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, and any other nation where the state exerts near total control of the populace.

Of course, regressives would mock these points as some sort of “conspiracy theory.”  However, comparing some notes will show that it does not.

Note 1:  Liberal groups on campus attempt to shut down Conservative Speech.  We’ve long covered the pattern of censorship against Conservatives on campuses across the US.  It is both pervasive and entrenched.  It can go from Conservative speakers being shouted down, to outright death threats and violence against Conservative students. Obviously, the regressives seem to think that it is appropriate and necessary to silence people that disagree with them.

Note 2:  In 2007, John Kerry state the need to return to the fairness doctrine. 

In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said.

Kerry joins what appears to be a growing Democratic push-back against conservative talk radio, which flowered after the FCC in 1987 declared that the doctrine was unconsititutional. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has called for the doctrine’s return, and Senator Diane Feinstein (9D-Calif,) says she is looking into it.

Note that the video linked in the excerpt has been removed.

While this is typical regressive calls for censorship, we have to laugh at the comment suggesting that NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN were not, and still are not, completely in control of regressives that two the party line.

Note 3:  This past Friday, Kerry called upon the MSM to censor politicians allied with the Tea Parties…

Once again, this is laughable.  At first, the MSM ignored the Tea Party movement.  Then, when they no longer had a choice but to cover it, they spent the next two plus years accusing them of racism, and (insert insult here). Kerry, following the regressive playbook, has repeated the same smug and condescending attitudes in the segment.

Here’s the overall point:  All the above examples show that the regressives are willing to enthusiastically censor or otherwise silence their political    opponents.    Again, with any totalitarian form of government, information must be controlled, and dissent must be silenced.   Some have even suggested that Kerry has reversed himself.  He has not.  The fairness doctrine was about censorship.  His statements from Friday are completely consistent with that same concept of censorship.

Share

Cognitive Dissonance Revisited: The Key to Defeating the Progressives

Share

”The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.”

-Encyclopedia Britannica

My post last year about kids defying the ACLU brought me back to a point I have been making for several years.  Socialism collapses in the presence of doubt.  In the examples of the fallen Soviet Bloc dictatorships, we see that once the people no longer “believed in” the state, and that their doubt overcame the fear of the state, the state collapsed.  When rhetoric and propaganda of the state and party were so completely disconnected from what the people could observe, they lost faith in the system.  This is instructive because it shows us the path towards defeating the POTUS and his socialist policies.

By my estimation, socialist states rely on three methods to control their populations.  The first is indoctrination.  In the US, they took over the public schools some time ago.  At each stage, children are exposed to, tested on, and pressured to exhibit, liberal ideology.  As many examples have shown, via lawsuits, students have been ridiculed, threatened with failing grades, and otherwise degraded if they deviate from the liberal mantra. Eventually, the children themselves are turned into a self-monitoring mob that reports, belittles, or attacks dissenters.   Using the peer pressure that makes children so susceptible, the left is very effective in “brainwashing” our youth.   These minions then go to the university, where they are further inculcated into socialism, and are then sent out to convert more minions.  If you wish to explore this further, look into how public school teachers and social workers are educated.  I believe that the idea here is to create an environment of “no resort.”  Either the child/student accepts and regurgitates the liberal mantra at every turn, or punishment will be swift and sure.  Those that have different ideas, or can see through the liberal point of view, are effectively silenced and rendered ineffective.

Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages.  Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.

–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

–Joseph Stalin

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child.  Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all.  Knowledge and facts are secondary to that of the intended ideology.  If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents marginalized and punished.  Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion.  Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed.  This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less.  Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the “progressives” hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.

To prevent their newly minted minions from hearing anything contrary to state approved messages, the elimination of dissent becomes necessary.  This is the second method to control populations.  Outlets and individuals that discuss “competing ideologies” are to be silenced.  In socialist and fascist states, strong-arm tactics usually accomplished this.  In the current age, regulation, ridicule, and punishment are used.  A bit softer to be sure, but the results are much the same.  One needs to look no further than Hugo Chavez to see this in operation in the 21st century, or, for that matter, the actions of the left in this country.

The fairness doctrine, the effort to implement it and call it something else is a case in point.  As covered here, a board was appointed and given the task of making recommendation for broadcast regulations.  The board is stacked with leftist organizations.  Administration officials have been quoted as stating that the goal is…

It also was reported when 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.

That report found 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,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Knowing that the ‘Fairness Doctrine” is a loaded term, the liberals resort to “slight of hand” by calling it something else.  The desired result, however, is the same.

Going along with banning dissent is the control of the media.   The most convenient way to manage the people is to control the flow of information available to the public.  In totalitarian states, movies, music, print, radio, television, and even the Internet (with varying levels of success) are tightly controlled.  Everything that is read, heard, and seen is carefully presented to not only convey what the government wants the public to believe, but to also ridicule the opposition, and discredit any other ideas.  Information that might “confuse” or “discourage” (ie, the truth) the public is not permitted.

In the more openly totalitarian states, this is accomplished by direct ownership and control.  In the US, it has been achieved ideologically, by the same educational indoctrination scheme I described earlier.  As so many of us have observed, the MSM often ignores gaffes, crimes, inconsistent statements, lies, and failures of the left.  If the story is reported, it will often be minimized or misrepresented.   Many times, a person exposing a story or whistle blowing will be attacked, causing their character or motivations to be called into question.  Other times, individuals on the right will be openly ridiculed.  The entertainment industry is also involved, with TV shows, movies, and music echoing “progressive” political and cultural messages, all with the intent of providing the citizen with their regularly scheduled does of indoctrination.  The idea, of course, is to promote the agenda, as well as to marginalize dissenters, and at the same time, their messages.

A significant effect of banning dissent is to cause the individual to become discouraged, and eventually “give up,” reluctantly joining the “new order.”  The validation that one receives from knowing that they are not alone in their beliefs cannot be underestimated.  A group with shared beliefs is more powerful than an isolated individual.  Fear not friends, I am not talking about collectivism here.  This is simple psychology.   Besides the obvious benefits of “strength in numbers,” groups validate and empower their individual members.  If one knows that others will stand with him, he is more likely to make a stand.

This is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for the left’s attempts to silence the right.  If they can stop people from receiving the validation of the larger group, the right can be reduced into smaller groups that are easily ostracized, or into isolated individuals that will be no “threat” to the “progressive” state.  They want you to give up and become silent.   They know that if they can indoctrinate the next generation in the absence of dissenting opinions that have more worth, they will win.  They therefore want us to be silent and discouraged.

The third technique consists of the simple thug tactics used by the left.  As I, and others, have discussed, the left uses intimidation to silence dissent, attack other ideologies, and to punish those that speak out.   People are threatened, their employers are threatened (unless they terminate the target), and “protesters” show up at the schools of the children of those that have “sinned” against the left.  As Alinski put it, the plan is to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate activities towards the target.  Frivolous lawsuits will be filed; false allegations made, private documents will be made public, all in an attempt to punish the target. This is harassment and intimidation, as well as an attempt to ruin the lives and reputations of the targeted individuals.

This intimidation is also meant to send a message to anyone else that might speak out or otherwise resist.  “Unless you want this to happen to you and your family, you best keep your mouth shut!”

So, where does Cognitive Dissonance come into this?  It goes back to my first paragraph.  Many of the people in the middle – those that perhaps pay little attention to the news or current political situation – are about to experience more of the “progressivism” from the POTUS.  They will see more lies and deceit.  They will see more and more if their fellow citizens ridiculed.  If either Cap and Trade or the ObamaCare passes, the economy will be devastated.  Individuals that voted for the POTUS without examining his actual motivations, or people on the left that still have the ability to think (there are some), will experience a great deal of Cognitive Dissonance.  Also, kids and college students that have been spoon-fed the liberal mantra will experience discomfort when the plans that they have supported cascade the economy into failure.  This is the time that we, as Conservatives or Libertarians, will need to capitalize on this “theory colliding headlong into reality.”

How do we do this?

  • Continue blogging, and share your blog with others.
  • Contact friends and family that may have voted for the POTUS.  Show them the evidence.
  • Collect evidence by download to show others.  I recently showed a liberal co-worker the video montage made by Verum Serum on ObamaCare.  I thought the person’s jaw would hit the floor.  Then, I showed her Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsberg quotes.  She became upset.  If this continues, she will eventually question her beliefs.  All it takes is enough evidence.
  • Download and store videos and articles that make our points.  If the POTUS ever does manage to control Internet content, a lot of the evidence against him will disappear.  Unless, that is, we save it!

This is starting to work.  Majorities now stand against ObamaCare.  The amount of people that think the Porkulus is helping is within the margin of error in the poll!  The discussion of ClimateGate is causing more and more people to question the AGW fraud.

It’s working because to promote their agenda, the “progressives” must lie at every turn.  They must create crises.  They have to fudge numbers, bribe officials, and contradict themselves on a regular basis.  To defeat the agenda, we simply must point out observable facts.  They may have the House, Senate, the White House, film, TV, music, the newspapers, the broadcast news, and millions of useful idiots; but we have the truth.  That, my friends, is the nuclear weapon in our arsenal.

I wrote this because I became a Conservative in this fashion.  I came out of grad school with a brain full of liberal ideology.  When I started working, I noticed that much of what I was taught simply didn’t match reality.  As time wore on, I became discouraged.  When some friends started introducing me to Conservatism, I initially resisted.  After all, Conservatives are all fascists, right?  I started to read, and listened to talk radio.  As time wore on, I educated myself.  No coercion, threats, intimidation, or indoctrination were required.  I simply saw that Conservatism matches reality.  If we can help others when Cognitive Dissonance hits, and it WILL, we can help defeat the left.  I find it ironic, and encouraging, that the billions that the left spends on public and college education can be undone by simple truths.

There are many people on the left that will never see reality.  While that is unfortunate, there is nothing that will convince them.  Either that, or they are “higher – ups” in the left that know that the policies are meant to cause a crisis.  I humbly suggest that they be left alone.  Their shrill and increasingly irrational reactions to the truth will serve our purpose well.

I have more on this topic, I’ll post it in a day or two.

Share

Czar Wars: Mark Lloyd Denies What He Has Said Or Written

Share

Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s “Diversity Czar,” was caught in some substantial lies regarding what he has written or said.  He was quoted at Media Access Project as saying the following statements that are clearly not true.

Allow me to clear away some mud: I am not a Czar appointed by President Obama. I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host. I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez. The right wing smear campaign has been, in a word – incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And I do support free speech.

So, the Media Research Center used Lloyd’s own words against him.

LLOYD LIE: That the “right-wing smear campaign” was “distorting my views about the First Amendment.”

TRUTH: From Lloyd’s 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America:

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

Excerpt: http://ow.ly/M5TI

LLOYD LIE: That the “right-wing smear campaign” incorrectly asserted that Lloyd is “a supporter of Hugo Chavez.”

TRUTH: Lloyd as the head of the Leadership Council for Civil Rights participating in a panel discussion:

“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.”

Video: http://ow.ly/M5UE

LLOYD LIE: “I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power.”

TRUTH: Lloyd at the May of 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.”

Audio: http://ow.ly/M5VX

So Mr. Lloyd, I think we have to change your title to “Lie Czar.”

Seriously though, did you actually think that we would let that pass?

Also, I would condemn any one making threats against Mr. Lloyd.  He may be a liar, but he doesn’t deserve to be threatened.  We have elections to change things in this country.  Mr. Lloyd will be back to making his radical statements in a different position before too long.  Maybe he can move to Chavezluala and help Hugo make sure that free speech never happens there again.

Share

Censorship and Isolation

Share

I saw this on Beck last week.  The topic isn’t the most important thing.  Kindly pay close attention at around 1:25, and again at about 3:05.

The comments about being feeling alone and being empowered, are, in my opinion, why the left wants to ban talk radio, eliminate FOX News, and eventually regulate blogs out of existence.   If a person has an idea, sometimes even vague, that something is amiss in society, they may shrug it off.  If that same person makes observations that the government isn’t being truthful, or that the promised change isn’t changing a thing, they may let it go.  However, if a person reads a blog, watches a news broadcast, or listens to a radio show that explains those observations, and notions, they may hold onto those beliefs.  How many of us have had an “OMG” moment when we first read a Conservatively oriented book or blog, or heard a talk-radio or TV program?   It’s the idea that they are not alone in their beliefs that encourages people to delve further, to read more, to look into events and policies.  We are social beings, and knowing that others believe as we do strengthens those beliefs.  Then, the evidence that the right has to support our claims “seals the deal.”  (A sense of belonging can go far, but having the truth serves to keep things going for the long term.)

It does not stop there.  Ideas are strengthened by social consensus (Not the belonging to a group type of approval, but the validation of what one see’s hears, and thinks).  These ideas are confirmed, tested, and debated.  Once they are accepted as accurate, they can also be taken to action.  A person who knows that others believe as they do will find the strength to speak out, write a blog, show up at a protest, write their elected officials, and otherwise become a thorn in the side of the left.  As time wears on, people compare notes, share information, and eventually form movements.  As more and more people find that their observations fit what they are hearing, the movement(s) gain momentum, and eventually can change the balance of power.

This is intolerable to the left.  Since their success relies upon the elimination of dissent, unsanctioned media must be controlled and eliminated.   It happened in the Communist countries, Nazi Germany, is happening now in Venezuela, and will happen soon in this nation-if the POTUS and his Czars are able to pull it off.

Why?  The answer is simple.  They want us to be disconnected, isolated, discouraged, and (especially) silent.  By removing the means to exchange information, they seek to disconnect us from our sense of belonging, and more importantly, real news.  They mean to isolate us from information that proves what we see and think.  Obviously, this post, or the Conservative Hideout for that matter, wouldn’t be here to allow me to make these observations, or for you to read them…that’s the idea.  They want us silent, uninformed, and inactive.  That would end our ability to disrupt their takeover of America.

I think this takes me back to some ideas I presented in the past.  We need to save videos, quotes, screencaptures, and the like.  We may need to move to foreign servers to host blogs or forums.   The intrusions will come, perhaps slowly at first, but eventually they will come.  We need to be prepared.

H/T: The Classic Liberal, which is on the blogroll here, helped inspire me.  Of course, FOX News for covering things the MSM would rather us not know.

Share

Free Speech for we, but not for Thee

Share

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the state. (emphasis mine)

Karl Marx- Communist Manifesto

With so many of the President’s advisers being either avowed communists, or at least functional communists, it was only a matter of time before I ended up quoting Marx.  Up for discussion today, is the “Diversity officer” of the FCC, Mark Lloyd.  He seems to have some interesting ideas about media.  To illustrate this, here are some quotes from CNS News:

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

“Citizen access to popular information?”  Like the fact that millions of people choose to listen to Conservative talk shows?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  The phrase “popular information”  likely means something very different.

Here’s some more…

“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.
Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”

Sounds all “touchy-feely” and somewhat harmless, doesn’t it?  This is loaded with liberal catchphrases that have a whole other meaning.  For example, when he mentions “equality,” it has nothing to do with equal opportunity.  He’ talking about equal outcomes, which is an entirely different concept.  He’s talking about there being an equality of results and outcome, which is Marxist in nature.  The idea is to bypass the citizen’s ability to choose what media they consume, as well as attempt to force feed leftist media to the people.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Take a look at some more…

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:

1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. …  Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “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,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

I think this man’s plans speaks for itself.

So, when he talks about “equal ability to communicate,” he is talking about changing the concept of media.  It will go from hosts and personalities being able to say what they think, and the listener being able to watch what he or she wishes, to everyone doing what the government tells them to do.  Additionally, he discusses “democratic deliberation,” which, in his way of thinking, completely undemocratic.  Here’s why-in the free market, the people vote with their remote controls, radio dials, computer keyboards, ipod playlists, by which newspaper or magazines they buy (if they do it at all), and so on.  The people get to choose what media they consume.   That’s about as democratic as you can get…right?  Not so, according to the diversity czar!  According to him, the fact that people CHOOSE to watch FoxNews, CHOOSE to listen to Rush Limbaugh and the others, and are TURNING OFF the MSM in massive numbers is UNFAIR!  He believes that Conservative media should be silenced, and that Public Broadcasting should be fully funded at the expense of the private sector. That’s real democratic, isn’t it?  Would this put most, if not all,  private broadcasters out of business?  That would seem to be the goal.  And what does that leave us with,  a “public option” for media?  What kind of programming would be carried by this newly expanded Public Broadcasting?  I think we all know the answer to that.

Now, this czar likes to blame major corporations for the his perceived problems with major media. This is little more than a smokescreen.  For example, if the major news/entertainment corporations were all powerful, and manipulating the masses, every movie they make would be a blockbuster… Every TV show would be a runaway hit…  Every CD would go platinum…right? No, the fact  that people choose to consume right  media, and are doing so in ever increasing numbers,  is the issue for the left.  The corporations are irrelevant, because if the left had huge audiences, the corporations would go where the advertising revenues are! Now, if the this situation were reversed, and the MSM owned both the broadcast and cable/satellite arena, I doubt there would be much of a complaint from the left.  You see, that would be fair! Just like it would be fair to the left once they ban any dissent.

This also neglects that the left has had a highly funded radio network, Air America.  The DNC and the Unions funded it, and the result?  No one listened!  People demonstrated, with the radio dials, that they weren’t interested, and advertisers followed suit.   Now that they have failed in the marketplace of ideas, they will attempt to force their ways into our homes, cars, computers and offices.  He specifically says that he doesn’t care for freedom of speech, and attempts to discredit it.  This is a classic Marxist attack.  Their claim usually runs along the lines that the rich hide behind freedom of speech to exploit the little folks.  They then use that as a justification to ban any ideas other than their own.

Now, if the left controlled all means of communication, would there have been Tea Parties?   Maybe, but they would have been small, and the only thing we would have heard from the state owned media would be how terrible they were and how great it was when the government took them away.  Would we already have single payer?  YES!  How else would the people have known what is in HR3200?  How would we know that “public option” is meant to lead to single payer?  How would we know what the President and so many others have said about single payer?  Will rationing be covered, or just spun to suit the government?  The right wing  media is the only  one covering the true agenda of this administration.  Without it, we would be stuck with leftist cheerleaders that can be seen daily on MSNBC.

For the left, there is a functional aspect to controlling the means of communication.  For the state to become all powerful, and for the socialist system to function “smoothly,” dissent must be banned.  Since socialism creates such misery, such waste, such corruption, so much death, and “screws down everyone equally,” people discussing alternatives might be very appealing to the populace.  Additionally, the left attempts to indoctrinate all citizens with public education from the earliest age possible.  They have no desire to see all of that indoctrination be undone by someone talking about observable facts, pointing out corruption, and talking about a way of life that is not completely managed by the government.  This causes the glue that holds the socialist state together, force, to melt away.  Once the people loose faith, and in particular, their fear of the state, it collapses like the house of cards that it is.

Share

Time to Take on the Legion of Doom?

Share

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m getting a bit fed up with the MSM (AKA the Legion of Doom).  All that one has to do is look at the Newsbusters website and see the daily set of lies being generated to support the messiah and his policies.  Here is what I consider to be a list of their offenses against the American people:

1.  Since we disagree with the POTUS, we’re racists.

2.  We’re an “angry mob” and  terrorists.

3.  We’re ignorant (after all, many of us have ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE LEGISLATION!)

4.  We’re paid for by the insurance companies, lobbyists, and the RNC

5.  At the same time, they refuse to cover that the left is paying people to show up at town hall meetings.

6.  They refuse to cover or show the video of Conservatives being assaulted by members of the SEIU.

7.  They claim that we are bussed to events, yet show no evidence.

8.  They do not air still photos and video of ACORN and SEIU being bussed to events.

9.  They accuse people of showing up in Nazi uniforms, yet show no photos or video of this.

10.  They refuse to air the comments of the POTUS, Barney Frank, and the others regarding their support for single payer, nor do they discuss what is actually in HR 3200.

11.  They refuse to cover the near constant contradictions of the POTUS.

12.  They refuse to cover the fact that the POTUS and other Democrats have had “plants” in their audiences, with one in particular claiming to be a doctor when she was a Obama delegate.

13.  They refused to cover worse behavior, including violence, committed by the left.

13.  Their coverage is slanted, one sided, and clearly in favor of the current administration.

The “free” press has a duty in our Constitutional Republic.  Here is another list:

University of Massachusetts, Boston, Mar. 29, 2007
… four essential roles that a Free Press serves:

1. holding government leaders accountable to the people,
2. publicizing issues that need attention,
3. educating citizens so they can make informed decisions, and
4. connecting people with each other in civil society.

Is the MSM fulfilling these roles?  Are they even trying?  I think we all know the answer to that.  The question then is, what do we do about this?  Let’s face it, the MSM is dying.  Their ratings continues to plummet.  FOX News now has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined!  Talk radio has increased it’s audience, and the Internet has become an ever increasing source of information.  The reason is simple, the people are fed up with the lies and bias.  It’s getting to be “too big” to ignore.

Also, we need to consider the fact that the Government is readying plans to try to silence the “alternative media.”

Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.

Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “ “diverse views” and government activities.

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd.

So this is the “(un)fairness doctrine” all over again.  I don’t think I have to extensively discuss  the fact that diversity means, “Agree with us as much as you want!”  Obviously, this is an attempt to silence Conservative hosts.  Forget the fact that millions of people listen to these shows regularly, they disagree with the state, so they have to go.

So, what of the question?  I think it might be a significant gesture if we boycotted the MSM.  What if the major broadcast networks, CNN, and MSNBC got several MILLION emails from outraged Americans?  What if their sponsors got the same number?  Many of us are trying to send our “leaders” a message.  What if we also sent a similar message to their mouthpieces?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that they MSM not cover issues, or even any flaws on our side, however, we should insist on balance.  We do demand both sides of an issue.  We demand an unbiased media.  This might be a way to stop the propaganda made against us by our supposedly “objective” media.  It won’t stop them from being leftists. but maybe they’ll think twice about their role in our society.

I’m going to ask for suggestions and feedback on this issue.

Share

Legion of Doom Losing Viewers: I Lol

Share

Well then, it seems that the Legion of Doom is losing viewers at ever-higher rates.  Mind you, this current rate is higher than at the same time last year!  I guess when your entire newscast consists of “OMG the messiah leik rulez,” viewers go somewhere else.  Better get the (un)fairness Doctrine passed before too many people figure out whats going on!

I guess it bears repeating the FoxNews has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED!

Did I mention that Limbaugh’s  ratings went up 30% when the demonrats were attacking him?

Yes libtards, ban it.  Ban it all, and ban it quick.  If you let people listen to what they want, it won’t be to your minions!

How ya likin’ that change?

Share

New Poll Item

Share

If you haven’t noticed, there is a new poll item.  I’m testing a theory.  It’s not scientific in any way, but i thought it might be interesting to see what people think.

My theory is that without Conservative talk radio, AM radio will pretty much collapse,  costing the economy jobs and eliminating a valuable community resource. I believe that once the only talk radio is libtard talk radio, viewers will just turn off the radios and go to the internet, satelite radio, or do podcasts from Conservative hosts. Until, that is, the libtards try to control those outlets as well.  I also think that the libtards know that, and that the collapse of the AM radio “industry” represents an “acceptable loss” to them.  Getting Rush and the others off the air is the goal.  Any other impact is a secondary concern.

So, hit a button and vote.  As with the Uselful Idiot of the Month Poll, it’s set up so ACORN zombies can’t vote 50 times each!

Share

Cracks in the Demonrats Armor?

Share

One has to ask the question, “do all demonrats like the thuggery of the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS and his minions?”  Maybe not, as this letter published on American Thinker might suggest (I’m displaying some excerpts).

I didn’t know any better. I thought the whole world lived in areas where the streets are filthy, aggressive street behavior is allowed because the perps are victims of capitalism, and where you can easily get mugged walking down a street or eating in a restaurant at noon. (By the way, with the Left in charge, expect gangs, crime, indoctrination of 5 year olds and general anarchy to be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.)

Given that the media is pretty much censored (good luck finding a conservative book in your local “independent” book store or hearing a Republican speak anywhere), you didn’t know that a party of grown ups even existed that didn’t advocate screaming at others as the preferred mode of communication. So to my dear Robin, apologies for what I put you through, what I deprived you of, and my pledge to do better.

Cousin Joe, Sam, et al, you may be wondering how I did a l80 in 1 1/2 years. How did I go from a rabid, sanctimonious liberal whom you steadfastly avoided at family gatherings to a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage? Recovery encourages us to share our story, so here’s mine:

In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.

We both suddenly became aware that something had grown really dark in the Democratic Party. I started hearing about many other incidents where loyal Democrats were being physically and emotionally threatened for supporting Hillary. A woman in Berkeley had her front window broken because it displayed a poster of Hillary. Randi Rhodes, an Air America talk show leftist, called Hillary a f______ witch. (Rhodes was recently promoted to a national talk radio show, illustrating another disturbing trend: the deafening silence about what Rush Limbaugh has dubbed the new “thug-ocracy.)

An acquaintance had her car broken into, and the only item stolen was a NoObama bumper sticker. A South Park episode featured an episode where a nuclear weapon was being aimed at Hillary’s genitals. My local greeting card store sold very flattering cards about Obama, insulting ones about Hillary, and a Hillary “nutcracker.” When I complained, the young male manager literally laughed in my face.

Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale “wilding” ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.

Actress Sarah Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her. When Palin’s church was torched with children inside, the press was missing in action (somehow I imagine the press would have been all over this if Obama’s church were torched). Not only was the misogyny disgusting, but the classism was abhorrent. The Democrats, by ridiculing Palin’s voice and her education, were acting like arrogant snobs. The party had changed, I had changed, and the differences looked irreconcilable.

The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn’t supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.

Suddenly a light went on. The peace and love and flower power of the old left was dead and gone (if it even existed to begin with except in my imagination). The Democrats had morphed into a power hungry Thought Police, and I was done with them. My new motto in life: don’t PC on me.

So this is my letter of amends, and I hope that I can be forgiven by all whom I’ve offended. I knew not what the heck I was doing. But now the problem is: how in the world does one be a conservative these days? How to stay brave and committed when conservatives are being targeted, punished, and shunned on a daily basis? How to sleep at night knowing that the country I have finally come to love may be destroyed from within by a massive Big Brother government?

I guess I’ll just have to do a step one, as we 12 stepper’s call it, and turn it all over to my Higher Power.

Love,

Robin

Well Robin, let me welcome you to the “right side.”

What does this mean though?  Well, it could be indicative of some sheeple waking up!  The messiah won the election by winning over many mainstream sheeple who were unaware of, or ignored, the messiah’s past, as well as the true meaning of his intentions.  That’s what you deserve for getting your information from the Legion of Doom!

Now that the messiah and his minions are showing their true nature, they risk alienating much of the traditional demonrat base.  The far lefty crowd will always stay with the messiah, as many of them are in his army of useful idiots.  However, the useful idiots are far from the majority.  To get a better picture of the situation, let’s look at some of the challenges that the messiah is facing.

1.  He’s had to re-brand cap and slave, because too many people recognize what it means.  Will CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE work?

2.  Over 20 states have passed, or are deliberating sovereignty laws.

3.  People are starting to find out what his health care plans mean.

4.  Tea Parties are a problem, especially if the July 4th protests are larger than the Tax Day events. The Legion of Doom will have a harder time trying to ridicule them the second time around.  They may try to ignore them again.

5.  Nancy Pelosi getting Pelosied.  It’s jamming up the efforts to attack Bush and his former staff in order to distract from the messiah’s plans.  The Legion of Doom continues to cover the Pelosi story, leading me to believe that they intend to throw her under the bus.  Myself, I’d throw water on her and watch her melt, but that’s just me!  Also, the CIA isn’t playing ball.  They’re releasing more and more documents showing how many demonrats were aware of all the things that they now describe as “war crimes.”  I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

6.  ACORN is being investigated, or indicted, in over a dozen states.  That’s making his plans to use them in faking the census a bit sticky.

7.  The messiah’s more affluent supporters are finding out that “OMG, he REALLY IS a socialist!”

8.  More and more people are taken back by his intimidation of lenders and auto executives, as well as his dictating of salaries and benefits.

9.  His minions in the Legion of Doom continue to lose in the ratings and circulation.  Fox News, on the contrary, now has more viewers that CNN and MSNBC combined! Are more and more people not “buying” the message of the messiah?

10.  The MIAC and DHS reports have caused a public outrage, and Napolitano has thoroughly discredited herself.  You can’t marginalize the opposition if your mouthpiece is an idiot (NOT the useful variety).

That’s a pretty full plate, if you ask me.  By nature, the messiah will likely respond to any of these will more and more threats, intimidation, lies, manipulation, and so on.  As he does so, more and more people will refuse to play ball.  History shows that even the most repressive governments can fall if the people decide not to play along.  Might that happen here?  It’s an interesting question.

This also brings me back to the point I made last week; does the messiah have enough minions, goons, lawyers, rent-a-mob, and other resources to go at all of these problems in a short time frame?  Let’s face it, the guy’s a community organizer.  They’re used to using strong armed tactics in a community or city, not an entire country.  It’s a question of scale.  I actually think that he may get a bit over-extended if he tries all of this at once.  After all, he hasn’t been able to ban talk radio yet.  He hasn’t been able to censor the internet.  He doesn’t have his national defense force, AKA, his army of useful idiots.  He will likely get the Thought Crimes Act, but will the sheeple play along once preachers get arrested for reading from the Bible, or people get hauled in for praying in public? (I don’t think that they’ll do that right away, they’ll let the sheeple get used to the law first, but that’s another post entirely!)  With people still being able to communicate and get information outside of the Legion of Doom, can he clamp down on the truth enough to keep the sheeple asleep?

In the end, the messiah is playing a risky game.  His history shows that he’ll resort to thug tactics in the face of resistance, but doing so threatens to expose his true intentions.  That exposure cannot be hidden by the Legion of Doom forever.  The greater the exposure, the greater to potential loss among the demonrat base.  The longer this continues, the more I think the messiah is in over his head.  He’s a little fish in a big sea, and he’s trying to fight out of his weight.

Sorry if you were expecting another parody.  There will be more!  I have to be honest, I like going over the  facts  and try to figure out what might happen next.  It’s fun!

Share

Re-Named "Unfairness Doctrine" Set to Begin

Share

The messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS has kept one of his pledges!  He did not revive the “unfairness doctrine.”  That title, dear reader, has been retired.  The messiah has simply decided to proceed anyway, and CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE!!  This is a great set up for the messiah, he get’s to ban dissent, alienate millions of Americans that CHOOSE to listen to Conservative talk radio, and silence people that point out his lies and destructive policies.  Horray for the messiah!

To accomplish this peice of fascim, the messiah has created a “diversity committee” at the FCC to address the lack of minority and female ownership of radio stations.  Why is this important?  Well, according to a think tank put together by the messiah early in his campaign…

It also was reported when 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.

That report found 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,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Oh, I see, they’ll just CALL IT SOME THING ELSE!  So, when libtard talk radio can’t compete, because NO ONE LISTENS TO IT, the libtards will simply manipulate ownership so stations will broadcast libtard messages.  There is a question though…what will these owners/managers do when NO ONE LISTENS???  Radio is a BUISNESS!!!  If no advertisers pay, because no one listens, how will the stations stay in business?  Do the libtards even care?  Personally, I doubt it.  As long as they can get Conservative talkers off the air, they could care less if stations go under.

The members, who represent groups such as the National Urban League, the Asian American Justice Center and One World Economy, were told by Copps:

“Be bold. Take these issues and run with them. This is not a ceremonial appointment. This is your chance to make a real and lasting difference. I hope that you will set an aggressive agenda for yourselves and that you will not hesitate to propose aggressive solutions,” the report said.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: BAN CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO!

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?”

Uh, “tolerance and diversity” means that people are free to agree with liberalism in any way they want.  Disagree?  Well then, there are going to be some problems for you, aren’t there?

At no time during the committee meeting was mention made of a recent Zogby poll that showed 66 percent of American voters opposed the creation of advisory committees designed to promote diversity in the broadcast industry.

The libtards don’t care about the people, or what they want.  The sheeple are a herd to be managed, manipulated, and guided.  Banning dissent is part of that.

Rivera’s statements were no less ominous than Copps’.

“The public is here and the press is here so you might want to keep that in mind as you formulate your thoughts,” he warned.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Don’t slip and mention that we’re here to BAN CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO!

Nowhere was the process of selecting committee members explained, nor was there an explanation why conservative groups were not included.

Again, “diversity” is all about liberalism and marginalizing any other point of view.  Google “tolerant repression” to get the full idea.  The condensed version is this:  True tolerance and diversity of ideas leaves the dominant culture intact.   So, ideas such as individual freedom, free markets, the ability to own property, and so on, keep their status in the culture.  For the libtards, this is not good.  They can’t eliminate those concepts in an environment of true tolerance, so, they CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE, and marginalize the right and promote the left.  This idea is the father of political correctness, speech codes, hate speech, and so on.  To be accused of hate, all you have to do is disagree!  Check out most of my Fascist Friday posts, and you’ll see what I mean.

Well, let’s see where this goes.  They’ll continue to engage in fascism, call it something else, and have the Legion of Doom tell us all how great it is.

How ya likin’ that change?

Source:  WND

Share

And the Winner is….

Share

In spite of the recent addition of the much maligned Treasury Secretary, the winner of the Useful Idiot of the Month for March 2009 is none other than Henry Waxpaper!  Apparently, threatening to regulate the internet, and specifically, bloggers, was enough to pull him through.  Congratulations Henry!  You earned it!

Share

Rush Limbaugh and the Space Aliens

Share
The Startling Evidence Revealed!
The Startling Evidence Revealed!

If I were a journalist,  I would like to interview a Democrat US senator.

Me:  Thank you for sitting down with me Senator.  I’d like to ask you some questions on the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

Senator:  Thank you Mr. Evil Matt for having me on.  I think that the Amerikan people deserve diversity on the airwaves.  We, in both houses of Congress are very concerned with the influence that Rush Limbaugh has on the people.  The people need to hear progressive messages.

Me:  Well Senator, interesting that you say that.  Do you realize that between Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, there are between 30-40 million listeners a week?

Senator:  That’s a big problem here in DC.  These hosts have a monopoly on listeners.  Their listeners get all sort of crazy ideas about Amerika.

Me: Crazy ideas?  You mean like freedom?

Senator:  ABSOLUTELY!  These bastards are mystifying the proletariat with their talk of individual freedom and personal responsibility.  Those ideas are SOOO 18th century.  We’re in Washington working on change, and these hosts are interfering.  The people should only hear things that we approve.

Me: So, the (un)Fairness Doctrine IS about getting Conservative talk off the air?

Senator: Yes it is, we have a responsibility to the sheeple to insure that they have no independent thoughts.  The messiah, has assured us that we will have change, so we have to eliminate any competing ideologies.

Me: But Senator, those millions of people choose to listen to those programs.

Senator:  No they don’t!  Rush Limbaugh has created millions of tiny robots with laser eyes.  They walk into people’s ears and tell them if they don’t tune in, it’s goodbye brain stem!!!  It’s a vast right wing conspiracy!!  No one would ever go against the messiah, not without some evil influence.

Me: I see, then how do you explain the failure of AirAmerica?  That was a fully funded radio network, wasn’t it?  Then nobody listened to it, right?

Senator:  Well, you see, lots of people listened, but Rush Limbaugh had them killed!  It’s all about this Rush Limbaugh!   He personally killed the listeners, and he had space aliens use mind control on advertisers so they wouldn’t buy ads on AirAmerica!

Me:  Mmkay  (I’m getting away from this nutball before he tries to kill me.)

All right, parody ends here.  The (un) Fairness Doctrine is intended to eliminate Conservative talk radio.  If it were to be reinstated, libs all over the US would file complaints with the FCC about any station or networked that carried a conservative host.  The FCC, currently run under the Obama administration, would be more than happy to act on these complaints, and broadcasters would have a choice; get rid of the conservative talk shows, or lose their licenses.  I know that they would have the option of adding lib talk shows, but on average, they don’t do nearly as well as the Conservative shows that would have to be displaced, and even Art Bell’s old show (still on the air with another host), would destroy a liberal talker in the late night hours.  So, station managers would have a difficult option, try to “balance” their broadcast days and lose ratings, as well as advertising revenue, or go to programming that avoids discussing anything political, relevant, entertaining, or informative.  I guess gardening and sports would still be OK.

The (un)Fairness Doctrine is not intended to end a monopoly, but to create one.  The libs already have the big broadcast networks, as well as most of the cable news networks.  Talk radio is the major old media outlet for Conservatives.  Shut that down, and the airwaves will again belong to the libs exclusively.  After all, complaints about liberal bias in media would be conveniently ignored by the Obama administration.

My parody only attempts to show the irrational nature of the libs to Conservative talk radio.  They DO ignore the fact that people want to listen to Limbaugh and the others.  If they did not, there would be no shows or hosts to ban.  It is a business, and it is successful because the message resonates with a large audience.  Therein lies the problems for the libs.  It’s the fact that Conservative talk radio presents a dissenting view is the libs true issue.  For socialism to succeed, all other ideologies must be eliminated.  Systems based on control cannot tolerate dissent, especially if that dissent shows the lies and flaws of the socialist system.

Disclaimer:  No Democratic Senators were harmed in the writing of this blog post.

Share