Showing posts with label Fairness Doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fairness Doctrine. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2011

Obama Proposes Harsh New Copyright Laws for Internet

blinking_eyef_lash
Obama Proposes Harsh New Copyright Laws for Internet

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Tuesday, the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration’s recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.  Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses.

The White Paper is the product of the IP Czar’s review of “existing laws to ensure that they were effective and to identify deficiencies that could hinder enforcement.”  The review was conducted in conjunction with a group of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the State Department.

These new proposals, as well as the Obama Administration’s recent questionable domain seizures and previous controversial proposed laws, such as COICA, have raised questions about what Obama’s legacy will end up being with regard to internet issues.

In the White Paper, Espinel attempts to camouflage some of the potentially controversial recommendations behind lofty goals like health risks, national security, counterfeit drugs and combating criminal gangs.  However, many of the key measures, such as the new wiretapping powers and increased sentencing for repeat offenders, appear to be potentially applicable to any website operator and not limited to any one group or purpose.

Several points of the White Paper also still need to be investigated and clarified.  For example, it requests that Congress change the law to clarify that “infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony.”  However, there is no attempt to clarify what activities fall into the category of “other similar new technology.”  Does this only refer to technology that has not been invented yet?  Are search engines that list streaming sites the type of “other similar new technology” that will be subject to felony charges?

Around the web, the initial reaction to the White Paper is mixed.  CNET hints that we should question the motives behind the Obama Administration’s crackdown on copyright infringement by pointing out that “No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.”

Techdirt is more direct with its criticism, pointing out:

The thing is, every time the government ratchets up IP laws in ways that don’t match with the way most people view the world, the less respected those laws become. Rather than actually increasing enforcement, these moves decrease respect for those laws.

On the other hand, Ars Technica applauds the fact that “The list largely avoids big controversies—Web censorship, ‘three strikes’ rules—in favor of a focus on health, safety, and serious criminal activity.”

While I agree that these proposals could be worse, I believe the White Paper’s potential to arm the United States government with another powerful new set of weapons aimed at websites demands more analysis than I can do in a single article.  Therefore, this will be the introductory post of a multi-part analysis that I will roll out over the course of the next few days that will provide a more detailed review of the recommendations in the White Paper, as well as what these recommendations tell us about the Obama Administration’s intellectual property philosophy and agenda.

Part II will review the Government’s proposed new wiretap authority for copyright offenses.

David Makarewicz is an attorney practicing internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs. Visit Dave at Sites and Blogs to keep up with breaking Internet news.

Fed Instructs Teachers to Facebook Creep Student

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Government to decide its role in U.S. media

According to Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman-CA, the government needs to step in and reshape the way America gets its news.

Now that the elections are over, many news outlets are struggling to make a profit and the plethora of websites that provide news has put a dent in the traditional main stream media, many of which are now begging for a government bailout.

Waxman claims that quality journalism is an essential process for U.S. democracy and argued that it was the duty of government to step in and prop up failing newspapers. However, many disagree with Waxman’s assessment of lagging newspapers, namely Fox News and talk radio in general. If one believes in the free-market capitalism model and a product no longer wanted by the public at large - the product fails.

Nobody will argue the media leans left in overwhelming numbers and since the country is a center right crowd, perhaps news organizations should tweak their product to reflect a true American market.

“Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues,” Waxman told a U.S. Federal Trade Commission conference on the future of journalism.

Free Press, a public interest organization, said “the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity.”

Keep reading:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political...

There will be a 2-day meeting on the governments role in media. According to the Constitution they have no role.

We need to revoke Net-Neutrality, stop localism in media, stop the Fairness Doctrine and all other legislation that gives them any kind of in to the way Americans read and receive information… radio, TV, printed news, emails, books, Internet… Government stay out!

Glenn on the government on the Media, TARP, Spending Money etc

Saturday, September 12, 2009

FCC Official Comes Under Fire for Past Statements

WASHINGTON -- New Federal Communications Commission chief Julius Genachowski says he wants to promote diversity in media ownership, but his recent decision to hire Mark Lloyd, a civil-rights attorney critical of corporate-owned media, to help with that effort has riled some talk-radio hosts who fear the agency is planning to go after them.

The criticism comes as another Obama administration appointee, environmental jobs adviser Van Jones, resigned over the weekend following an outcry over things he said before joining the government.

[Mark Lloyd at a 2008 conference]

Jumpkari/YouTube - Mark Lloyd at a 2008 conference.

Mr. Lloyd was named in July to the new FCC post of chief diversity officer as part of what agency Chairman Julius Genachowski called an effort to "expand opportunities for women, minorities and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace."

FCC chief of staff Edward Lazarus said Mr. Lloyd is currently working, for example, on how to increase broadband adoption in minority communities and by small businesses. Through an FCC spokeswoman, Mr. Lloyd declined to comment.

But Mr. Lloyd in the past has criticized corporate ownership of media outlets, saying it has led to conservative dominance of talk radio, among other things. He has called for a broader range of voices in the media and advocated taxing station owners to subsidize public broadcasters and local media.

"If we as a nation...fully funded a broadcaster like the British citizens fund BBC, we might have an impact on what they cover and have more power to demand that they cover everything," Mr. Lloyd said at a 2008 media conference.

In 2007, while a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, Mr. Lloyd co-authored a report that proposed ways the FCC could change the balance of conservatives to progressives on talk radio by imposing new rules on the radio industry, such as more frequent license renewals and a national radio-ownership cap.

Mr. Lloyd has no authority to set policy at the FCC, and his appointment has drawn little reaction so far from companies. Nevertheless, his past statements have fueled an outcry among conservative commentators and lawmakers concerned that Mr. Lloyd's hiring signals the FCC will change rules to make it easier for interest groups unhappy with a local station's programming to threaten its license.

The administration "is trying to stifle dissenting voices," said radio host Rush Limbaugh, discussing Mr. Lloyd with Fox News host Glenn Beck last month. (Fox News is owned by News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.)

"He doesn't like corporate ownership of media," said Seton Motley, communications director of the Media Research Center, a conservative interest group that has been critical of Mr. Lloyd. "He wants to use the vast power of the FCC to hammerlock the radio industry."

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley in a letter last month to Mr. Genachowski said that "given the appointment of Mr. Lloyd," he was concerned that the FCC chairman was moving away from pledges not to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a policy abandoned in 1987 that required licensed broadcasters to give equal time to differing political views.

Mr. Lloyd has said there is no reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but his critics fear a similar policy under a different name. Mr. Genachowski told Mr. Grassley that he does "not support policies intended to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine through a back door or otherwise," and Mr. Lazarus said that Mr. Lloyd's work at the FCC "has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine or the content of radio or television broadcasting."

The uproar over Mr. Lloyd's appointment foreshadows what could be a messy fight next year when the FCC launches a broad review of media-ownership rules.

Broadcasters helped derail the FCC's attempt last year to impose new requirements on stations to make sure they are serving local communities' needs, and they are prepared to fight any effort to impose new fees on stations.

Companies "support a strong public broadcasting system. However, we would oppose efforts to fund that system through fees on free and local broadcast stations now emerging from one of the more challenging advertising recessions in history," said National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton.

Some contend the concerns about Mr. Lloyd are overblown.

"His writings, while tending to be liberal, aren't anything anyone regarded as radical or outside the mainstream," said David Honig, executive director of the nonpartisan group Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. "He's a midlevel staff member at the FCC. It doesn't come with a big corner office. He certainly doesn't set policy."

By: Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A4

Monday, August 31, 2009

Meet Obama’s New FCC Chief Diversity Officer (Distribution of Wealth Czar) Mark Lloyd - He Admires Hugo Chavez & Wants To Emulate Venezuela's

FCC Diversity Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh

Mark Lloyd is a former senior fellow at George Soros’s Center for American Progress and a consultant to Soros’s Open Society Institute — and his plans at the FCC for equalizing air time for public with that of private radio with Seton Motley with the Media Research Center are frightening. Lloyd admires Hugo Chavez and his revolution in Venezuela. Mark Lloyd says that the first amendment (Freedom of Speech) is a distraction; localism is the way to go.

    The FCC’s new chief diversity officer laid out a battle plan two years ago for liberal activists to target conservative talk radio stations, and critics say they are concerned that he now will want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.”
    But now Lloyd has a plan that is more insidious than the “Fairness Doctrine”. First of all he realizes that people would watching for that and therefore it wouldn’t pass.

In his June 2007 report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, “and a subsequent essay,” Lloyd wrote: “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

Fox News quotes Motley:

    Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, said Lloyd instructed liberals to file complaints against conservative stations in “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

    “What he lays out is a battle plan to use the FCC to threaten stations’ licenses with whom they do not agree with politically, and now he’s at the FCC waiting to take their calls,” Motley told FOXNews.com. “This is not about serving the local interest, it’s about political opposition.”

Apparently Hugo Chavez's glorious revolution is something to be admired in the Obama Administration. Obama seems to have no problem having Socialists and Communists in his Administration. So if you take Obama at his word with what he said during last years Presidential campaign, which was that you would be able know how he will govern on any one issue by the people that he surrounds himself with.

So does that mean that Obama will strike up a loving relationship with Hugo Chavez? (I guess that book sharing moment between Obama and Chavez was no accident.)

Fox continues:

    [Lloyd] said the rise and influence of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts were traced to “relaxed ownership rules” and other pro-business regulation that destroyed localism.

    While he said he was not interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, he called for “equal opportunity employment practices,” “local engagement” and “license challenges” to rectify the that perceived imbalance. “Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine,” he wrote.

    “The other part of our proposal that gets the ‘dittoheads’ upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.”

Matt Cover at CNSNews.com adds that in the report Lloyd “concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is ‘progressive.’”

    The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.

George Fallon writes at RightPundits:

    In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America . In the book he presents the idea the private broadcasters (private business) should pay a licensing [fee] which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting [stations] can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. By doing so he hopes to improve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently at $400 Million for 2009.

    Not only does he want to redistribute private profits, he wants to regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views) and government activities. I am all for that when I see on PBS a conservative voice next to Bill Moyers. And when I hear a conservative voice on NRP or just voice on NRP that sounds excited with some passion.

    He suggests that large corporate broadcasting networks have driven liberals off of radio. His idea is that having diversity ownership will reflect diversity in programming. That is not true. Liberals drove themselves of radio because they have no ideas except doom and gloom and business owners do not want to be a part of that. Plus broadcast, like primetime television lives or dies based on ratings. Get low ratings and you are off the air.

Fallon gives us this April 26, 2006, video of Lloyd, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former NBC and CNN producer, talking about the death of investigative TV news reporting — and his hopes for building an independent alternative.

Mark Lloyd proposes that conservative radio be taxed 100% of their operating budget, and if the can’t pay it, their license will be pulled and given to a progressive left-wing station. Then even if someone would be willing to pay their entire operating budget to run a station, there is a back-up plan, a series of fines to bankrupt the station. Is this America??

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Posts:

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Radio Under Attack for Political Purposes… Obama Appoints Talk Radio Czar

Radio Under Attack for Political Purposes

Fairness Doctrine Raises Its Ugly Head Under New FCC “Diversity Czar”

What’s a poor liberal progressive to do when the radio airwaves are dominated by conservative talk and they can’t seem to “get a word in”? Why not diversify it? After Dan Rather got hammered recently for suggesting the news media needs a public handout, now on the horizon is an FCC Diversity Czar calling for private broadcasting companies to fund public broadcasting companies their total operating cost. Matt Cover at CNSNEWS.COM files this report:

(CNSNews.com) - 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. LINK

Lloyd not only wants the money to come from private companies, he is planning on regulating the content:

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming. (see link above for complete story)

Pravda anyone?

Lloyd wrote a book back in 2006 that must have caught someone in the Obama administration’s eye titled Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press. Matt Cover explains that “Lloyd wrote Prologue to a Farce while a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”

The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices

Did you catch that? These unfortunate liberals have been “driven” off the radio. Why wait for the liberals to produce a fairness doctrine when you’ve got a Diversity Czar under the White House’s thumb?

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

------------

Obama has ANOTHER unelected person in a powerful position that will make rules we all have to live with and he reports only to Obama.

This latest of a long line of czars will have the power to assess any radio station 100% of their gross operating expenses if he does not like their content. Further, if any of the talk show hosts say anything he doesn't like, he can refuse to renew that station's license for the following year. He can, at will, give the license to ACORN or any other group or person he chooses.

More communist action from a communist president. Can anyone say "state-run media"?

OK, Bush-haters, where are your Hitlerian signs now? Who is the real Hitler here folks? Do any of you CARE? Are you Obama worshippers so totally enamored with this guy that you can't see who and what he is?

How does Obama rationalize all this power-grabbing, all these take-overs, this entire slide into communism? "I won".

Source: FOX4KC

Obama-Linked Activists Targeting Glenn Beck in Boycott Campaign - (Part 2)

Is a left-wing attempt to scare off advertisers from Fox News host Glenn Beck’s highly rated cable news show being orchestrated with some high level help from the Obama White House?

Perhaps.

Newsmax has learned that the co-founder of the African-American political organization Color of Change, which is calling for Beck's ouster, is civil rights attorney Van Jones.

In March, President Obama appointed Jones to serve as his so-called "green-jobs czar," responsible for stimulating job growth in the environmental sector.

"I don’t have proof that the White House asked Color of Change to help it fight back against Glenn Beck," Matthew Vadum, the Capitol Research Center senior editor who has written extensively about Jones' activities, tells Newsmax. "But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn it had. Van Jones has the president’s ear. It’s a few hundred feet from his office at the Council on Environmental Quality to the Oval Office."

The other co-founder of Color of Change, James Rucker, confirmed to Newsmax that Jones' formal association with Color Of Change ended in December 2007. He states however that the organization continued to use Jones' name on their e-mails until May 2008.

Jones and Beck have had their run-ins before. Beck has described Jones as "a black nationalist who is also an avowed communist."

Color Of Change claims that it has pressured a growing roster of companies into pulling their ads from Beck's program: Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, RadioShack, GEICO, Progressive Insurance, Men's Wearhouse, State Farm, Sargento, Lawyers.com, and Procter & Gamble.

One company — SC Johnson of Racine, Wis. — is disputing statements that it has pulled its ads from the Beck show.

"There is misinformation out there on the Web," Chris Beard, SC Johnson's director of public affairs, tells Newsmax. "We have not directed advertising toward the Glenn Beck show. Consequently, we have not pulled any advertising from the Glenn Beck show. Actually, that is misinformation."

The campaign against Beck stems from remarks he made on the July 28 Fox & Friends program, following Obama's assertion that the Cambridge Police Department had acted "stupidly" in its arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama later backed off from those words, and invited Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, to join him at the White House for a beer.

"This president I think has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again, who has a deep seated hatred for . . . white people? Or the white culture?" Beck asked. "I don't know what it is, but you can't sit in a pew with [former Obama pastor] Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff, have it wash over."

The show's co-host, Brian Kilmeade, replied to Beck: "But listen, you can't say he doesn't like white people. David Axelrod's white, Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff is white. I think 70 percent of the people we see every day are white. Robert Gibbs is white."

"I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people," Beck said. "I'm saying he has a problem. This guy, I believe, is a racist. Look at the things that he has been surrounded by."

Predictably, Beck’s off hand remarks created a storm of controversy in the leftwing blogosphere, the same group that had been apologists for the Rev. Wright’s statements of hate against whites and Jews.

Color of Change, which claims to be the largest African-American political organization online with 600,000 members, has seized on Beck's comment to mount a campaign to discourage companies from advertising on the program.

Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker spoke with Newsmax, and made clear his organization's goal is for Beck's voice to be silenced.

"It's preposterous and absurd," Rucker says of Beck's opinion. "It's insulting to black Americans; and it corrupts honest debate. Anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air, and we at Color Of Change would use every resource available to us to remove corporate sponsorship from their platform."

The group is asking its member to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Beck's program to pull their ads from the show, and claims that 150,000 members have signed the petition. And it says its anti-Beck campaign is working.

In a Tuesday press release, Color of Change quoted an e-mail sent to the group from GEICO: "On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on Fox TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program. As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck's program."

A Fox spokesman confirmed that GEICO is dropping its ads from the show, Brandweek reported, but noted: "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost."

It's not the first time Color of Change, which was founded in 2005, has sought to quell political speech from the right. It lobbied the Congressional Black Caucus not to host a Democratic presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox, arguing that it "consistently marginalizes . . . black leaders and the black community." Marching in lockstep, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shunned the debate.

Grass-roots leaders find news of the group's ties to the Obama administration alarming, however.

They see the anti-Beck campaign as part of a clear pattern of Democratic efforts to stifle free expression from the right, ranging from the recent labeling of town hall protesters as "un-American," to openly mocking talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, to flirting with back-door ways of reinstating federal controls over radio content, such as "localism" and the Fairness Doctrine.

Now they are answering back.

"We have put out the word among our grass-roots members," Everett Wilkinson, a national leader of the Tea Party Patriots, tells Newsmax.

Wilkinson tells Newsmax that the Tea Party Patriots have joined forces with a similar group, the National 912 Coalition, to beseech their members to contact Beck's sponsors, and encourage them to continue underwriting The Glenn Beck Program.

He says members are even hosting Glenn Beck popcorn nights to watch the program together and have an open debate about its topics.

"It's about principles not parties," Wilkinson says. "Perhaps you disagree with him, but at least we're getting America to talk."

Wilkinson says Tea Party Patriots holds Beck "in high regard as a journalist" adding, "We also understand a large amount of his show is entertainment. But we support any kind of independent journalist, be it Glenn Beck, Cavuto, Hannity. And we see that anyone who is independent or who puts out an independent perspective is being attacked by the liberal left."

Rich Noyes, research director for the Media Research Center, points out there wasn't much hue and cry when President Bush was labeled a racist in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But the political left is far more inclined than the rest of America's body politic, he says, to attack and punish individuals for their views.

"If the left wants to clean up hate speech, they can start in their own ranks," Noyes says. "We had a syndicated radio host Mike Malloy go on the air after this, and say he hoped Glenn Beck would commit suicide on live TV. A few days later he said he hoped Rush Limbaugh choked to death on his own fat. There are hate-filled things coming out of the left-wing media all the time, but it doesn't seem to get the left riled up or upset."

Newsmax made several attempts to reach some of the companies that reportedly dropped their support for the Beck program. As of Tuesday evening, those calls had not been returned. One thing that's clear is the controversial hasn't dented the popularity of Beck's program. On Tuesday, for example, overnight Nielsen's showed The Glenn Beck Program attracted over 2.3 million viewers — more than CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined.

Beck supporters are distributing the contact information for officials at two companies that have stopped their advertising. They are:

Progressive Insurance

Mr. Glenn Renwick, President & CEO

440-461-5000

Ms. Linda Harris, Advertising & Sponsorships

E-mail: linda_j._harris@progressive.com

GEICO

Mr. Tony Nicely

Chairman, President & CEO, Insurance Operations

E-mail: tnicely@geico.com

301-986-2462

Chris Tasher, GEICO Media Relations

301-986-3271

E-mail: ctasher@geico.com

Some Beck supporters say they're also calling his current advertisers, encouraging them to continue supporting the program.

Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:10 PM
By: David A. Patten

© 2009 Newsmax

Related Resources:

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

America… This is another stealth attempt at the Fairness Doctrine; to control information and decent. This is not an issue of whether you agree with Glenn Beck or conservatives in general. This is a question of the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Information and the Freedom of the Press.

Do not ever think that if someone that you disagree with is silenced that next time if won’t be you or someone you agree with.

I live in a senior community 55+, just moved here. (For those of you are between 55 and 65, like my husband and I, it is the greatest way to feel young. We are the “kids” on the block and the richness of information of the people around you if you take he time time to listen is amazing!!) We had a meeting here, a couple weeks ago, about healthcare reform (ObamaCare). With less than 2-full days notice we had over 300 people attend and most to them had at least begun to read HR 3200 if not finished it in its entirety… and so have I. The discussion was amazing… We had a combination of 10 still practicing or retired physicians and attorneys in the crowd; and everyone of them was pro reform but absolutely against the present bills. And more than a handful of people in the group volunteered that they had voted for Obama.

At the end of the meeting a little lady, 100-years old, who still drives to the local store, lives alone and had gotten up to read something to the group came up to me and a couple gals who were cleaning up and said, “Thank you for helping to put this together today! And please do not stop standing up. There is something very scary happening in our Country… I know!!” she added as she point to the faded concentration camp number on her arm.

Write and call Rupert Murdoch and Fox News and write to all the advertisers that are being threatened by Obama’s Green Czar to pull their advertisement from Glenn Beck’s show. You are not just fighting for Glenn Beck… you are fighting for freedom of speech, freedom information, freedom of the press… your Country and yourself and your family!!

Beware My Friends… First The Came Poem~

In Germany...

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
I did not protest;
I was a Protestant.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin_Niemoeller - They Came First - 800px_thumb[1] Stand-up my friends… for Glenn Beck, for Freedom… for America!!

Tomorrow it could be you…

Friday, August 14, 2009

Obama Official Linked to Racially Charged Boycott of Glenn Beck - Updated

A racially charged activist group called “Color of Change” founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers.

On July 28th, Beck made a comment on the Fox & Friends morning show about Obama’s reaction to the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. During the discussion of “Professor-Gate,” Beck connected the President’s past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama’s comment that Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, acted stupidly. Though Beck acknowledged most of the Obama administration is in fact white, he concluded that the President’s world experience made him a “racist.”

Now “Color of Change” has bullied at least five of Beck’s big advertisers -- SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gamble and Nexus Lexis -- to pull their ads from Beck’s national cable program. Jones, the founder of “Color of Change,” was named Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- a key administrative post -- this past March.

Putting tax-payer dollars to dubious use, the not-for-profit organization has hired well-heeled Hollywood publicist Ken Sunshine to further instigate the boycott.

Developing…

Michelle Oddis by: Michelle Oddis - Human Events - 08/13/2009

Barack Obama's administration is seeking to track and suppress its political opponents.

Related Resources:

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

America… This is another stealth attempt at the Fairness Doctrine; to control information and decent. This is not an issue of whether you agree with Glenn Beck or conservatives in general. This is a question of the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Information and the Freedom of the Press.

Do not ever think that if someone that you disagree with is silenced that next time if won’t be you or someone you agree with.

I live in a senior community 55+, just moved here. (For those of you are between 55 and 65, like my husband and I, it is the greatest way to feel young. We are the “kids” on the block and the richness of information of the people around you if you take he time time to listen is amazing!!) We had a meeting here, a couple weeks ago, about healthcare reform (ObamaCare). With less than 2-full days notice we had over 300 people attend and most to them had at least begun to read HR 3200 if not finished it in its entirety… and so have I. The discussion was amazing… We had a combination of 10 still practicing or retired physicians and attorneys in the crowd; and everyone of them was pro reform but absolutely against the present bills. And more than a handful of people in the group volunteered that they had voted for Obama.

At the end of the meeting a little lady, 100-years old, who still drives to the local store, lives alone and had gotten up to read something to the group came up to me and a couple gals who were cleaning up and said, “Thank you for helping to put this together today! And please do not stop standing up. There is something very scary happening in our Country… I know!!” she added as she point to the faded concentration camp number on her arm.

Write and call Rupert Murdoch and Fox News and write to all the advertisers that are being threatened by Obama’s Green Czar to pull their advertisement from Glenn Beck’s show. You are not just fighting for Glenn Beck… you are fighting for freedom of speech, freedom information, freedom of the press… your Country and yourself and your family!!

Beware My Friends… First The Came~

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
I did not protest;
I was a Protestant.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin_Niemoeller - They Came First - 800px Stand-up my friends… for Glenn Beck, for Freedom… for America!!

Tomorrow it could be you…

Obama Official Linked to Racially Charged Boycott of Glenn Beck

A racially charged activist group called “Color of Change” founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers.
On July 28th, Beck made a comment on the Fox & Friends morning show about Obama’s reaction to the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. During the discussion of “Professor-Gate,” Beck connected the President’s past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama’s comment that Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, acted stupidly. Though Beck acknowledged most of the Obama administration is in fact white, he concluded that the President’s world experience made him a “racist.”

Now “Color of Change” has bullied at least five of Beck’s big advertisers -- SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gamble and Nexus Lexis -- to pull their ads from Beck’s national cable program. Jones, the founder of “Color of Change,” was named Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- a key administrative post -- this past March.

Putting tax-payer dollars to dubious use, the not-for-profit organization has hired well-heeled Hollywood publicist Ken Sunshine to further instigate the boycott.

Developing…

Michelle Oddis by: Michelle Oddis - Human Events - 08/13/2009

Related Resources:

Barack Obama's administration is seeking to track and suppress its political opponents.

Related Resources:

Thursday, August 13, 2009

CNN Bans Talk Radio Hosts… As Guests

Does anybody want to say? Fairness Doctrine Step-1? Transparency Anyone? Freedom of Speech? Variety of Opinion?

Or is it just part of being in the bag?

Jonathan Klein

Jonathan Klein

No More Talk Radio Hosts on CNN?

Exclusive: TVNewser has learned, and a CNN spokesperson confirms, that in his morning editorial meeting yesterday, CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts. "Complex issues require world class reporting," Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is "all too predictable."

One of CNN's longtime show hosts, Lou Dobbs, hosts a daily radio show. A few political contributors also host radio shows including Bill Bennett and Roland Martin. They are presumably not affected by this, at least for now… Although, the next thing will probably be the firing of Lou Dobbs because he offers a different opinion or spin on a network that pretty much marches in lock step in the same direction.

But this means other talk radio hosts who appear regularly on CNN, probably won't in the near future including names like Stephanie Miller, Michael Medved, and Ben Ferguson.

> Update: Roland Martin stopped hosting his show on WVON last October when he became senior analyst for the "Tom Joyner Morning Show.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Community Organizer In Chief Suddenly Silences Free Speech

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Now they are its fiercest opponents. foxnews_190x107AP

Once upon a time our president wasn't always down on dissent. After all, he was a community organizer way before he ever became a politician.

"Go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," Senator Obama told his supporters on the campaign trail in fall of 2008.

So I suppose he was for bickering before he was against it?

The left has always loved community organizing-when it's their interest. Heck, they are being lead by an expert in the field. But when regular folks gather to express unhappiness in the form of a dissenting opinion to their progressive agenda, they despise it, delegitimize it and seek to stop it all costs. Grassroots are bad when the roots aren't firmly planted in the liberal ground. Apparently bills in Congress aren't the only thing Democrats haven't read in a while -- how about the Constitution? Remember that? Isn't this enshrined in the Constitution -- freedom of Assembly? Isn't this one of the foundations of our democracy, organizing, getting like-minded people with the same views to come together, whether they're in Birkenstocks or Brooks Brothers? Last time I looked there was nothing "manufactured" about organizing for or against a cause.

The White House has called the uproar at recent town halls on health care "manufactured outrage." Senator Harry Reid calls the concerned citizens speaking their minds "loud, shrill voices." Nancy Pelosi called protesters Nazis, who are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." There is no evidence on this whatsoever.

And Senator Barbara Senator Boxer Senator (not to be outdone on insanity by Speaker Pelosi) has objected to the dress code of protesters. (Did I mention she was a Senator??) She claims they're "too well dressed" to be legit. You just can't have a real protest without some tie dye, marijuana and a flaming brassiere, huh.

Ma'am, this is what people with jobs look like. I guess one needs to strip to his or her tighty whities to be taken seriously.

But the polling discredits their charges. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, on Obama's effort to overhaul of the health-care system, 52 percent disapprove of his handling of the issue while 39 percent approve. Disapproval jumped 10 points in the last month alone, and 60 percent of Independents - a key voting block - disapprove of the plan. Bottom line: the outrage is real.

Despite the legitimacy of the public's concern, demonizing democracy has become pretty common these days for the left. They wrote off the tea parties as fabricated and claimed they were funded by FOX News . Most of the mainstream media took their cue from them and refused to report on the gatherings. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters in order to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. And the administration has already tried to label anyone who speaks up as a "radical right wing extremist."

By dismissing the anger of conservatives, moderates, libertarians, conservative democrats and independents the administration looks out of touch and appallingly arrogant. In fact, it will hurt them even more because Obama promised to listen to the concerns of the citizens, not operate with a tin ear.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Now they are its fiercest opponents. In case they have forgotten, the root of the word "democrat" means power to the people. That means ALL people. Even when they aren't wearing tie dye.

By: Andrea Tantaros - a conservative commentator and columnist for FOXNews.com. Read more from Andrea at www.andreatantaros.com.

Who Knew Phase 1 of Fairness Doctrine (censorship) was going to be called Michael JacksonWho Knew That Phase I of the Fairness Doctrine Was Going to be Called Michael Jackson?

--------------

Cynthia Tucker: Town Hall Protesters Are Racists

See Video: Cynthia Tucker: Town Hall Protesters Are Racists | The FOX Nation

Wow… when all else fails, yell racism. I have never heard single person oppose healthcare because of racism or dislike Obama because they are racists. And to resort to using the race card when people don’t like your policies really is a low blow! Obviously Cynthia Tucker and Paul Krugman are the ones obsessed with race!

Are you opposed to ObamaCare? Willing to attend a town hall to express your disapproval? Odds are good you're a racist. Just ask Cynthia Tucker. As Clay Waters has noted, Paul Krugman alleges that racist motives are at the heart of the town hall protests against ObamaCare. On this evening's Hardball, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was willing to get specific, estimating that "45 to 65%" of the protesters are motivated by racism.

Related Resources:

Sunday, June 28, 2009

We Heard . . .

THAT Pepsi Cola is the code name for a Zionist plot — if you believe several extremist Muslims.

Egyptian cleric Hazem Abu Ismail, speaking recently to a Muslim religious channel in his country, claimed that Pepsi is an acronym for "Pay Every Penny Saving Israel."

"In other words, pay every small coin you receive in order to save Israel," he said, according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

He echoed a statement made last year by a Hamas leader in Gaza. Salem Salamah, a member of parliament, said: "There are companies established by the colonialists and occupiers — large companies with branches all over the world, like Pepsi, Pepsi Cola. This is a well-known company. Pepsi is an acronym — Pay Every Pence to Save Israel."

THAT Democrats in Congress have again thwarted efforts by Rep. Steve King to bar the activist group ACORN from receiving taxpayer funds.

The Iowa Republican on Thursday introduced an amendment that would have made the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and its affiliates ineligible to receive taxpayer dollars under a new grant program intended to increase participation in the Small Business Innovation Research program.

All but one Democrat on the Small Business Committee voted the amendment down, King said in a release.

Last week the Insider Report disclosed that King had introduced an amendment barring the Census Bureau from disbursing taxpayer funds to ACORN, but Democrats immediately squelched that measure as well.

King told Newsmax in early June that he believes ACORN "has completely the face of a criminal enterprise."

THAT David Letterman beat Conan O'Brien in the ratings race for the first week since O'Brien took over for Jay Leno as host of "The Tonight Show."

"Late Show With David Letterman" on CBS averaged 3.46 million viewers per night in the week ending June 19, while "The Tonight Show" on NBC averaged 3.32 million, according to Nielsen Co. data.

O'Brien replaced Leno on June 1.

THAT the Senate on Thursday unanimously approved Julius Genachowski as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Genachowski is a Democrat and served as Barack Obama's technology adviser during the campaign.

He recently told a Senate panel that he does not support reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views.

Senators also approved Robert McDowell, a Republican, to serve a second term as FCC commissioner.

Conyers: 'The Powers That Be' Made Me Back Off ACORN Probe

Source:  Newsmax.com/Fox Nation

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources”

Don't Be Deceived

Bill O'Reilly :: Townhall.com Columnist

It seems every day there is another example of media deception in America. With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges. They wanted journalists to report honestly, to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power. Many of the Founders, like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, didn't much like the press, but they understood that, for a democratic Republic to work, voters need honest information.

Unfortunately, the vision of a free and honest press is fast disappearing in America. Let me give you yet another vivid example. This week a poll by The New York Times asked: "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance?

Fifty-seven percent said they were willing, 37 percent were not willing, and 6 percent had no opinion.

So, according to the Times, Americans overwhelmingly want government financed health care. That's what the poll says, right?

But if you read all the way down to the bottom of the poll, you see another question. "Who did you vote for (in the presidential election)?"

Forty-eight percent said Barack Obama, and just 25 percent answered John McCain. The rest, 19 percent, did not vote. Wow, that's almost two to one for Obama.

But the popular vote tally in the election last November was 53 percent for Obama and 46 percent for McCain. Wait a minute. That's a lot closer than two to one. Apparently The New York Times skewed the polling by offering the questions to mostly Obama voters. I'm shocked they supported higher taxes for federal health care, aren't you?

This kind of dishonesty is not uncommon in the media. The Times says its poll is "scientific." Sure it is. Scientifically stacking the deck.

I believe very few people read the entire poll before digesting the health care headline. The result is a flawed perception of what the American public really wants. The folks may indeed support Uncle Sam paying some heavy medical bills, but this poll is not a reflection of anything other than a New York Times deception.

By the way, CBS News also had its name on that poll.

As a media guy who wants accurate information, that kind of stuff tees me off. As soon as the pollsters learned that most of the respondents were Obama people, they should have thrown the results out. But the Times ardently favors national health care and a huge federal government. So the con played out.

The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.

It is true that the Times and some other media outlets, most committed left, are on the brink of bankruptcy. The liberal papers say the Internet is to blame, and that's partly true.

But the folks are beginning to understand that the informational fix is in. What good is "all the news that's fit to print" if the news is bogus?

The Times might want to poll that question.

by Bill O'Reilly

-------------

Press Finally draws first blood on their turf

President Barack Obama made news at a press conference last week – by planting a question with a blogger, not by offering anything new in spite of taking his sharpest questions to date.

The sharper edge of reporters’ questions had much to do with the setting, one White House press corps member said afterward: “It was our turf, in our seats … no formality of the East Room or even (the) Rose Garden. So I think when we're comfortable, we're more likely to fire back at him for follow-ups.”

Obama coming unarmed with news led to more probing, analytical-style questions which can always tie up presidents.

The planted query (the White House denies it being planted) came from Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney; an administration official phoned him ahead of time to suggest that Obama would take a particular question from him.

“Planted questions undermine the integrity of the process,” says Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University.

If the president wanted to offer a response to a communication from an Iranian citizen, Rozell explains, that would have been fine. “But citizens are led to believe that the questions in the press conferences are not known in advance by the president and his staff and that the process has some degree of spontaneity.”

To be sure, presidents and their staffs spend serious time anticipating likely questions and preparing answers. They have a really good record of being able to anticipate most of what a president is asked by reporters; not a lot of surprises occur.

Every so often, in response to an unanticipated question, a president will give a candid answer – and then the press conference becomes especially newsworthy.

But if “the questions are planted, then what is the point, really?” Rozell asks.

Presidential historian Joel Goldstein says the press should play an independent role and its independence is compromised if reporters simply serve up questions provided to them.

“I think there are real concerns regarding the future of the media,” he says. “Bloggers provide access to many (readers), yet much of what then passes for journalism lacks the professionalism of the good political reporters and columnists, whose experience provides a context in which to present current events.”

Part of the problem, though, is with Americans. Just look at our obsession this news cycle regarding the Gov. Mark Sanford story.

“Surely the Sanford story has many tragic dimensions, but was it really the most important story last week to justify the sort of coverage it got on CNN and MSNBC?” Goldstein wonders.

“For my money, the Senate's cloture vote on Harold Koh's nomination, Iran, health care, Korean threats, (Cap-and-Trade… ah Cap-and-Tax) etc., will have more impact on our lives than the fact that yet another ‘family values’ politician has acted in a manner which is inconsistent with what he preaches.”  And as big the loss of Ed McMahan, Farrah Faucet and the the King of Pop, Michael Jackson… virtually ignoring the House’s latest snow job of slipping in another unread bill on Cap-and-Tax that will change America’s way of life forever if not stopped in the Senate is deplorable!!

Villanova University’s Lara Brown offers two reasons why this particular press conference is just the beginning of what we can expect between the press and the president: Obama’s slipping popularity numbers, and the roughing-up of his policies on Capitol Hill.

Obama and his staff, she says, may be increasingly concerned about too many substantive questions from reporters who may smell blood.

Perhaps it is not so surprising that Team Obama might create a diversion at a press conference, to get everyone talking about the diversion instead of reporting on substantive issues – health care, energy, the economy, the budget deficit, Iran, the president's lack of engagement on many of these issues – that do not reflect well on Obama.

It’s a political strategy that can be summed up as “Look at my right hand, so you don't watch what my left one is doing.”

Remember that old song, “Smooth Operator?” Obama is just that – the smoothest operator that Purdue’s Rockman says he has ever seen.

While such tricks may not jeopardize a free press, Rockman is “worried about the decline of traditional media and reporters without axes to bear.

“There is no doubt that the ‘new media’ is actually leading us back to a 19th-century party-press, where we read only what we agree with,” he says. And that “is a genuine concern.”

Since last week’s press conference, three things have emerged that will probably change how Obama approaches a microphone.

First, there definitely will be more scrutiny of blogger questions from Obama-friendly websites. Second, since first-blood has been drawn, the press will engage in a frenzied feeding.

Salena Zito :: Townhall.com ColumnistAnd third, that probably was the last time Obama will step to the podium without real news to take queries about.

by Salena Zito

Source:  TownHall.com

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Obama Régime Is Coming After YOU AND ME

ALERT: By now, you probably already know that your own government considers you to be a “rightwing extremist.”

As an informed conservative, you probably already know that that same government wants to cut off your ability to respond to its accusations against you; you probably already know that that same government is trying to take over the Internet and shut down conservative talk radio in order to accomplish that goal.

You’ve already heard all this… but now, the Left has kicked into HIGH GEAR against conservatives. Now, because a single late-term abortionist was shot, they want to use it as an excuse to take away ALL of your rights to protest, or even voice your own opinion!

IT’S TRUE!

As everyone has heard by now, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to law enforcement officials a few weeks ago about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as “rightwing extremists” and associating them with white supremacists and violent anti-government groups.

It was right there in black and white — and it made it obvious that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it’s no big surprise who is directly in their crosshairs: CONSERVATIVES, including anyone who is “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.”

Oh, and throw in anyone who rejects “federal authority in favor of state or local authority,” “the expansion of social programs to minorities,” or is “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” And don’t forget the always-to-be-feared “disgruntled military veterans”!

TODAY, thanks to the new “crisis” of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, pro-lifers are in the crosshairs. TOMORROW, it will be everyone else!

This calls for grassroots action, on a HUGE scale!

TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT AMERICANS WHO ARE ON BARACK OBAMA’S NEW “ENEMIES LIST”:

Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said this not long ago: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Hillary Clinton agreed with him just afterward, saying, “Never waste a good crisis.”

They meant it. According to LifeNews.com, “The apparent shooter of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller was never involved in a pro-life group and, by his own actions, wasn’t pro-life. But abortion advocates are quickly taking to calling the majority of Americans who are pro-life, ‘terrorists,’ in the first day following his death.”

Kim Gandy, the head of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, was first: “Bringing the killers to justice is not enough,” said Gandy, “the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded criminal acts for decades.”

She went on to say the pro-life movement was guilty of “politically-motivated domestic terrorism” and called on the Obama administration to aggressively target pro-life Americans.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri also used the term: “We’re not going to let the terrorists win,” he told the Kansas City Star newspaper.

The Huffington Post wrote, “Tiller was the subject of assassination attempts, violence, and, by definition, terrorism in the past,” and Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic labeled the death “Christianist terrorism.”

Bonnie Erbe, of U.S. News and World Report, titled her blog response, “Tiller Murder Is Terrorism, and All Pro-Life Extremists Are to Blame.” She said anyone who describes abortion as the killing of babies “ought to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, as well as for partaking in domestic terrorism.”

Do you get it? If you are opposed to abortion, you are a terrorist, because some whacko who wasn’t connected to ANY pro-life group shot and killed an abortionist who killed 60,000 babies in their eighth month in the womb.

Whatever your stand on the abortion issue… even if you just don’t want your tax dollars to pay for abortion… YOU are a right-wing extremist, and they’re going to do all they can now to “not waste this crisis” and come against YOUR rights to protest and speak out.

This is only the LATEST attack by the Left on conservatives who disagree with them! As if that first DHS report wasn’t bad enough… the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis — the same unit that produced the report on right-wing extremists — then released a NEW report, titled the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” meant to define terms used when analyzing dozens of supposedly “extremist ideologies” inside the United States.

So what did this “dictionary” of extremist groups cover? Well, for starters: Jewish extremists, animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatism extremists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists, anti-technology extremists, Cuban independence extremists and tax resistance extremists, to name a few.

That’s right: Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans, are ALL in DHS’ “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.”

The first DHS report also said that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make “extremist groups” suspicious and give them a rallying cry:

“It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,” the report said.

Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals “weapons stockpiling,” buying ammo equals “hoarding of ammunition,” and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an “extremist group.”

Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

  • Oppose restrictions on firearms
  • Oppose lax immigration
  • Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
  • Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
  • Oppose same-sex marriage
  • Has paranoia of foreign regimes
  • Fear Communist regimes
  • Oppose one world government
  • Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
  • Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
  • Participate in Anti-Tax Tea Party events
  • And the list goes on…

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

This report was released “hot on the heels” of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.” In this horrific “law enforcement sensitive” secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone “militia members.”

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous “militia member”:

• The United Nations
• The New World Order
• Gun Control
• The violation of Posse Comitatus
• The Federal Reserve
• The Income Tax
• The Ammunition and Accountability Act
• A possible Constitutional Convention
• The North American Union
• Universal Service Program
• Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
• Abortion
• Illegal Immigration

Well, there you have it! You see? You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist!

As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn’t until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.

Now, it’s happened again — but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!

Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified in the first report. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding “conservative” or “right-wing” philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security “assessment.”

This shouldn’t be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored “Fusion Centers.” MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!

So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

PLEASE, don’t think we’re making a “big deal” out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, “This is nothing unusual,” and added that the Homeland Security Department did this “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The authors of the DHS assessment are pushing an “Us against Them” philosophy. You and I are being marginalized — labeled as fringe kooks, “rightwing extremists,” so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our political rights in the future.

Think of it: The Obama administration is quickly developing its own “Enemies List” of who it needs to target, to shut down opposition to its radical socialist agenda.

So how do Obama’s leftist minions propose to shut us down?

SIMPLE: Cut off our ability to respond to such accusations and official “assessments,” by TAKING OVER THE INTERNET and SHUTTING DOWN CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO.

For example, according to news reports, two new Senate bills — S. 773 and S. 778 – “would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared ‘cyber emergency.’”

These two new bills are both part of what’s being called the “Cyber security Act of 2009.” The Act would create a new bureaucracy, the “Office of the National Cyber security Advisor,” which would be charged with “defending the country from cyber attack”… and would report directly to Barack Obama.

But that’s not all it would do: it would also grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be “critical” to the nation’s infrastructure, “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.”

Did you read that? The Secretary of Commerce, reporting directly to Mr. Obama, would be able to snoop through ANYTHING connected to the Internet that a President decides is “critical” to look at. And it doesn’t matter what the law says — they get to do this whenever and wherever a President wants them to.

Talk about UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We MUST NOT let Barack Obama’s cronies in Congress get away with this!

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It’s clear: giving the U.S. Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks — like banking records — would give the federal government access to confidential, private information obtained without cause or warrant, which is a CLEAR violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure!

What exactly are these “critical infrastructure networks” that Barack Obama would have the power to “take offline” whenever he wants to? The examples they give are things like “banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, and telecommunications.”

WHAT??? Exactly HOW do you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet, when that’s what the Internet is comprised of? And if YOUR bank gets taken offline, don’t you think you might go into your branch and ask for all of your deposits in cash? Don’t you think EVERYONE might do that?

According to one Senate document that attempts to “explain” the bills, this Act “addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, liberal Democratic West Virginia U. S. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, a liberal Republican from Maine who is co-sponsoring the bill, gave us this dire warning: “If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

In other words, we need to give up our freedoms and liberties in order for the government to give us “security.”

What was it that Benjamin Franklin once said? “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

WE MUST NOT GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THESE ABSOLUTE POWERS!

Why would anyone push such a bill? Because if Obama controls the Internet, he can cut off our ability to respond to his administration’s attacks on YOU, ME and every other conservative in America!

NO, we’re not paranoid — because you’re not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you!

You see, it doesn’t stop there — also on Obama’s “Enemies List” is one more form of alternative media that he is otherwise powerless to stop: Conservative Talk Radio. And they’re very clear about HOW they’re going to shut it down:

The Fairness Doctrine.

The “Fairness Doctrine” — a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of any “controversial” issue — was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1949 to 1987. The FCC adopted it as a regulation, but it was never a law enacted by Congress.

When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face huge fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing “equal time” to opposing viewpoints. The result was self-censorship by broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.

When this rule was dropped in 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, it led directly to the rise of conservative talk radio that enabled average citizens to have their voices heard across America. If it weren’t for the Reagan administration dropping the “Fairness Doctrine,” we would never have heard of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Martha Zoller, Neal Boortz, Janet Folger, or the hundreds of other conservative talk radio hosts that dot the land and expose the lies and misdeeds of the Left.

And THAT is why Barack Obama and his left-wing friends want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” — this time, as a LAW. Because if they can get it passed as a LAW, they can cut off one of our biggest means of responding to their attacks, and disproving their LIES!

Up until 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a “controversial” public issue, it also had to air the opposing viewpoint. Sounds “fair,” right?

WRONG. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” did nothing but stifle any real public debate on the airwaves. What station manager in his right mind would air a (profitable) conservative talk radio show for two or three hours every day, if it meant he had to also air liberal shows as well — shows that have consistently LOST money whenever they’ve been tried?

Repealed by an FCC vote of 4-0, it was concluded that the “Fairness Doctrine” had begun to inhibit political discourse, rather than enhance it.

The Democrat Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed their attempt. Again, in 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when President George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.

Now, with Barack Obama in the White House, and with liberal Democrats Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reigning over a Democrat-controlled Congress, they’re already talking about trying to SHUT US DOWN AGAIN — and this time, they might succeed… unless YOU AND I take action to stop them NOW, before they are able to mobilize support for this insidious attempt to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!

Nothing frightens those who peddle lies more than the cold hard light of TRUTH. They react to exposure of their deceits the way vampires react to a crucifix held up in front of them.

Ever since the birth of conservative talk radio and the Internet ended the liberals’ total monopoly over the news, the left has been simmering with rage — because of the loss of their absolute control over what Americans are allowed to see and hear, and their inability to do anything about it!

Time and time again, liberal attempts to sell the nation their shoddy goods have been frustrated when talk-radio hosts have taken to the airwaves and warned their millions of listeners that they were about to be taken to the cleaners.

It wasn’t until McCain/Kennedy’s fatally flawed “immigration reform” AMNESTY bill — that seemed destined for passage — was derailed by an army of angry voters recruited by talk radio hosts and conservative Internet websites, that the left understood both the incredible power of the new media, and their utter helplessness in the face of it.

Clearly, they felt that something had do be done. And that’s when they came up with the idea to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” — but this time, as a LAW.

Really, what they’re trying to do shows just how desperate the liberals have become. Without conservative talk radio, and conservative internet websites, to keep an eye on them, the Left’s failure to accomplish their stated goals since winning control of the Congress would have been covered up by the liberal controlled “mainstream media.”

Conservative voices on talk radio and the Internet are the left’s worst nightmare — their monitoring of the liberals’ activities have been shining the light of truth on the Left’s attempts to deceive the nation, so now the Left is trying to do whatever it takes to silence us.

Like all Marxists, the liberals won’t stop trying to LIE their way into power. As a result, they won’t stop trying to destroy conservative talk radio, conservative internet sites, and groups like ours — those of us who are more than willing to ACTIVATE the grassroots to help EXPOSE their lies. You can be certain that they’ll push HARD for a new “Fairness Doctrine” or some other way to silence the voices of common sense and truth in America.

But you can be just as certain that we will NOT let them succeed!

As grassroots conservatives, we MUST take action to stop them NOW, before they are able to mobilize support for this insidious attempt to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!

Just piece the whole puzzle together: the Obama administration releases reports that label any Conservative as a potential “rightwing extremist”… the Obama administration wants to be able to completely take over the Internet during whatever he proclaims is an “emergency”… the Obama administration wants to shut down talk radio to silence its strongest critics… the Obama administration and their supporters view pro-lifers as “domestic terrorists”…

It’s plain to see: Conservatives like YOU and ME are on Obama’s ENEMIES LIST!

The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.

And don’t be fooled by phony “apologies” issued by Secretary Napolitano or others for those leaked reports. When American veterans expressed understandable outrage at the report’s targeting of vets as being susceptible recruitment by terrorist groups, her response was, “I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended.” In other words, “I’m sorry you were offended — it’s YOUR fault for taking it the wrong way!”

The Executive Branch of the U.S. government is coming after us. As patriotic Americans, we need to seek relief from the other branches of government – first of all, by DEMANDING that these outrageous DHS reports be CONDEMNED by our Representatives in Congress, and RETRACTED by the Obama administration; by demanding that the U.S. government REPUDIATE any person or organization that refers to pro-life individuals and groups as “terrorists”; and by demanding that Congress REJECT any attempt to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Please, CLICK HERE NOW to send Blast Faxes to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, telling them to take action on these issues TODAY!

Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com PAC

Tags: Obama anti-American, Obama anti-christian, Obama anti-life //

2 Responses to “Obama Régime Is Coming After YOU AND ME - By William Greene”
  1. MoniQue // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:09 am

    Let’s just cut to the chase, fast forward to the near future where Obama WILL bring us:

    Revelation 13:5-8:
    The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

    and

    Rev. 13:16-17
    “He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is 666.”

    ***********************************************
    Now folks, what would be necessary to do in order to attain this status? Why of course, get rid of our guns, our vets, our God-fearing folks, and more.

    These are all their ultimate shop set-up.

    But do not be dismayed, we’ve all known this was coming for a very long time.

  2. Lynn Dartez // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:15 am

    It’s time to rise and shine America.. The Usurper is the threat and his bilderberg buddies and all his cronies.. Never in my life and I’m 51yrs young. Have i seen something like this come so true to what God says in the Bible.. We can still win. But it’s up to every red blooded American now. I will proudly fight for my Country.
    Give me Liberty or give death..

    Lynn Dartez

By William Greene

Posted on June 9th, 2009 by David-Crockett

John Pierre-Benoist on ResistNet.com – published

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources: