It’s called “Net Neutrality.” Sounds fair, right? I mean — that’s what the liberal-socialist democrats are all about, right? Fairness is their utmost priority, right? Why, they’d never do anything to limit the freedom of Americans … riiiiight?

If you believe all that, then prepare yourself for a rude awakening.

When a political movement intends to takeover a nation’s government, one of the very first things it absolutely MUST DO … is take control of that nation’s communications networks. It must be able to control access to communications if it expects its efforts to be successful.

I began warning readers that the Obama Regime would make an effort to take over the Internet from the early days of the Obama reign. It was as plain as the nose on my face that to make the fundamental change in America that Obama swore he would make, then he would have to gain control of the nations communications. There have been very few successful revolutions in modern history in which the broadcasting stations, networks, and newspapers were not first compromised, or taken over completely by the revolutionaries — or just shut down.

The Internet is a “thorn in the flesh” of the liberal-socialists in the current American government. It gives them NIGHTMARES!

Conservative bloggers have been the cause of great consternation in the White House and the West Wing and even to those liberal-socialist senators and congresspersons on The Hill. They have been seething with anger at the ability of conservatives to get disseminate their message of Obama’s shadow government and his sub-rosa strategy to convert America to a European style socialist state, not only to Americans, but around the globe — at the click of a mouse.

Their embarrassment when confronted by fellow socialist leaders in countries they favor, such as Venezuela and Cuba, is overwhelming. And they can bear it no longer!

So, they have decided they must make the initial step to grab control of the Internet and bring it to heel as a servant of the socialist regime of Obama.

Never mind that the courts have already told them the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate the Internet. They are going to do it anyway. This is typical of the socialist Obama Regime. They have been ruling against the will of the American people since day one.

The National Journal reports, in an article by David Hatch and Eliza Krigman, the following: “The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission unveiled a new initiative today he said would preserve the openness of the Internet but that critics attacked on two fronts, with watchdog groups saying it watered down the Web’s egalitarian roots and conservatives saying it opened the door to excessive regulation.”

The report goes on to say: “The proposal split the agency along party lines, with the five-member commission’s two GOP members quickly condemning it and setting the stage for a partisan vote that could draw a backlash next year from the GOP-controlled House.

“I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation,” wrote Robert McDowell, the FCC’s senior Republican.

GOP member Meredith Attwell Baker warned: “We do not have authority to act. The new majority of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has asked the commission not to circulate this order, and a clear majority of all members of Congress has expressed concern with our Internet policies. Whether the Internet should be regulated is a decision best left to the directly elected representatives.”

The report continues: “The fight over “network neutrality” has been brewing for years and has divided much of the telecom industry and Congress, with many conservative Democrats joining Republicans in opposition. While the topic may seem technical and obscure, it boils down to a question of whether the Internet remains an open platform in which every website is on equal footing, or whether fast lanes are established that grant priority treatment to websites and online services willing to pay for such privileges.” (You may read the entire article (HERE).)

I am convinced this is the “foot in the door” for which the Obama Regime has been searching.

But it is all about “fairness” … right? Allow me to ask this: How are conservative bloggers going to feel when they are ORDERED by the FCC to place links to opposing viewpoints, espoused by some left-wing socialist, on their blogs? Oh, its coming if the new Congress doesn’t bring the FCC to heel … and fast!

We suggest the US House of Representatives shut off all funding to the FCC until they back off their socialist scheme to control this nation’s communications via the Internet. Plus, we ask for a bill to be introduced in the House to make it unlawful for the FCC, the FTC, or any other government agency, to regulate the Internet.

It is time to speak up for freedom of speech, once again. It is time to defend the Internet from those who intend to take it over and, ultimately use it to champion socialist, left wing causes and spread their liberal-socialist venom into practically every home in America.

As in every war victory comes by winning one battle at a time. Do not deceive yourself. We are at war for the freedom of Americans. One of our most effective weapons is the Internet. We cannot allow it to be taken from us. I am convinced that is exactly what the FCC, under the Obama Regime, intends to do.

To the barricades! The war continues!

J. D. Longstreet

 

WesternFront America

It is called “Net Neutrality.” On April 6^th, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Communications Commission has no regulating authority over how any Internet provider manages its network — period!

So what IS Net Neutrality? There is as good an explanaiona as I have found at the Wise Geek’s website. You’ll fine it HERE.

The importance of this issue is the protection of freedom. Will the Internet remain free, or will the government regulate it? That is the question. Obama’s minions are salivating at the opportunity to regulate the hell out of the Internet and shut up commentators such as “yours truly.”

The courts told the FCC this week to “stand back,” and keep their hands off the Internet. But, do not think, for one second, they are about to allow a little thing like the law to get in the way of a take over of the Internet — not for one second. Already, they are looking at regulating the Internet as a public utility.

Look, we warned and warned and warned that Obama’s Marxist buddies in the FCC and the Congress would come after free speech on the Internet. Well, here they come!

Socialist/Marxist/Progressive Congress persons and Senators are scrambling to get in line to do fulfill Obama’s wish to control the Internet and the free speech on it. They can see the Mid Term Election looming on the distant horizon of November and they know they have limited time to strangle free speech on the Internet with their Marxist chains. Think I’m blowing smoke? Think again. They are vowing to do whatever is necessary to see that the Federal Communications Commission is handed control over providers of Internet services.

“In the long run, we may need a new legal and regulatory framework for broadband,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. “I know the Congress did not intend for cable and telephone broadband Internet service providers to fall outside the authority of the FCC to protect consumers.”

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, later said the court’s decision “must not be the final word.” Markey went on to say that he would: “continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to provide the commission any additional authority it may need to ensure the openness of the Internet for consumers, innovators and investors.”

Obama’s cohorts have run into a wall of resistance, however from the republican side of the aisle. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said: “I hope the FCC Chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services in current proceedings before the agency.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said: “the 1996 Telecommunications Act explicitly directs the government to “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation.”

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, appointed by Obama with net neutrality as his top priority, has indicated he will try to reclassify broadband in the communications statute passed by Congress in 1996 to broaden the FCC’s authority over the service.

There is a MUST READ article concerning this topic at “The Hill.” We encouraged you to read it and digest it. You will find it HERE.

The dems will certainly claim this new power grab is to “protect the citizens” from the big corporations. You can see it coming. Don’t fall for it. It is, as we say, a power grab. The new socialist government in America is bound and determined to control the Internet. It scares the hell out of them — and with good reason.

The government controls the press in America today. The Mainstream Media may have voluntarily given themselves over to control of the government, but — in the long run — it makes no difference. Because, for the first time in America, we have a government controlled mainstream media.

On the other hand the citizen journalists on the Internet are disseminating the news, unedited and unfettered, and it has become an effective weapon against the socialists/marxists controlling the American government today.

Obama’s government MUST crush the Internet and they can, and WILL, do it through the FCC unless they are stopped.

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

 

WesternFront America

Cass Sunstein Advocates “Cognitive Infiltration” of Groups

My point about groups being infiltrated by trolls has taken another turn.  Apparently, Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, had suggested, in a 2008 paper, that government agents, or allied groups, infiltrate and undermine groups that spread “conspiracy theories.”

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.(Emphasis mine)

Now, while the particular article focuses on “truthers,” we have seen this before, have we not?  Also, isn’t it ironic that Mr. Sunstein discusses infiltrating a group, that among it’s members, was former fellow Czar Van Jones?

I think we also might consider that most of what we discuss on Conservative blogs and forums would be classified by the left as  “conspiracy theories.”  ClimateGate, the “Czars,” the lack of transparency, the public option being a trojan horse for single payer, the Porkulus money going to places that don’t exist…are all well documented, but because the left has to discredit them, they will be categorized as “conspiracies.”

Sunstein’s article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that “our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a ‘crippled epistemology,’ in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources.”

By “crippled epistemology” Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public — the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Crippled epistemology?  I wonder if Mr. Sunstein realizes that many of us regularly watch MSM news shows, visit sites and feeds from MSM newspapers, and visit left leaning web sites (or am I being redundant)?  I can’t be alone in that.  After all, how can one fight an ideological battle when one does not know what the opposition thinks and believes?

Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Hmm.  Using deceit to undermine online groups…I guess they would not be visiting the HuffPo or the Kossacks, would they?

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of “extremist” groups so that it undermines the groups’ confidence to the extent that “new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides.”

Discourage, undermine, and discredit…seems similar to the Alinsky Method, doesn’t it?  I’ve received comments here that I know were from trolls posing as conservatives.  It will get worse, especially since the left will grow increasingly desperate.  They are facing more organized and effective resistance.  They won’t stand for that.

My guess is that they will try to fragment us based on single issues, pitting Libertarians against Conservatives, and so on.

Sunstein has been the target of numerous “conspiracy theories” himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting “a second Bill of Rights” that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein’s recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as “a blueprint for online censorship.”

There we go.  We quote the guy, and he’s the victim?

Sunstein “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,’” wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

Now, let’s take a look at how this might play out.  For example, let’s say I write an article about an administration official or Congressman.  I use quotes and videos to document what the official stands for or is suggesting, and it doesn’t look to good for the official.  The lefties then have someone post a false or inflammatory comment.  Then, the public official might sue me, or has my web host shut me down.  Voila!  Dissent eliminated.

So what might the consequences of this be?  Bloggers might limit, or turn off comments, and thereby conversation on issues, for the fear of being sued.  Forget hosting a forum at all.  The lefties will infiltrate and lay waste to those completely.  I’ve seen that happen without the fear of being sued.  As time wears on, web hosts might not host blogs at all, rather than face penalties or harassment from the government or lefty groups.

The left would be perfectly happy with that.  We are a thorn in their side.  We have that pesky habit of resisting them, and posting quotes from liberals.  In the end, the chilling effect on free speech would be most effective.

But it doesn’t end there.  Remember that Mark Lloyd denied writing what he had written and saying what he said?  Well friends, forget that this is all documented in audio clips, videos, articles and books.   You might just get sued anyway.  Remember, for the left, the idea is NEVER to have a free exchange of ideas; it’s to silence anyone who disagrees with them.  If they have to file thousands of frivolous lawsuits or complaints to make bloggers stop, or ruin them…so be it.  The end goal is the elimination of dissent.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Ask Sarah Palin.  How many frivolous complaints and lawsuits were filed against her when she was still governor?  All were thrown out, but the amount of  money spent to fight them was massive.  That’s the idea, they don’t have to win; they just have to wear you down to the point that you just throw in the towel.

All the while, they’ll deny limiting free speech.  They won’t jail anyone.  They won’t make anyone disappear, but they will use more subtle means to silence bloggers, or anyone else that disagrees with them. And all the while, they’ll couch their fascism in kind terms.  That is what is makes it difficult to define.  Always remember that totalitarians never announce themselves, or their true intent.  They never tell you  the real agenda, and they will use terms like “civility, openness, and balance” to justify their censorship.

Related posts:

1. Czar Wars Profile: Cass Sunstein As time wears on, we find out more and more…
2. Czar Wars Profile: Kenneth Feinberg We’ve been warning the public for some time that…
3. Czar Wars: Mark Lloyd Denies What He Has Said Or Written Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s “Diversity Czar,” was caught in some…
4. Czar Wars: Kevin Jennings, This is What He Thinks Your Children Should be Reading This is NOT a family friendly post.  Do not let…
5. Czar Wars Update: Jennings Situation Heats Up I received this comment on the last post. Things we…

——————————

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

 

WesternFront America

The final text of the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (passed 12/18/’09) spans pages 67-72  of a 151 page pdf file: A/64/439/Add.2, part II. If you want to read it aloud, you’d better take breath control lessons, because the resolution is basically one long run on sentence.  It begins by recalling and reaffirming previous resolutions and documents.  The trip down the memory lane sewer is followed by a series of statements of  alarm and concern.

Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence…

Are they seriously concerned about the recent burning and looting of Christian churches, homes and  businesses in Egypt & Pakistan?  Of course not, that is not what concerns them.

as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist, xenophobic and ideological superiority platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,

No, their concern is about the Dutch Freedom Party and similar parties in Europe which express concern about Islamic encroachment & demographic conquest. But they are deeply concerned about:

the negative projection of certain religions in the media

Next they  progress to stressing:

the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Do they refer to these examples?

• 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
• 8:55. Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve , – so they shall not believe.
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).

Islamic scripture calumniates Jews, Christians and disbelievers in general, then it declares war and incites violence against them. Where is the U.N.’s concern about that prime exemplar of evil?  See what else they are stressing.

the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

What is defamation of religions; what constitutes incitement to hatred?  Who decides?  I direct your attention to  Ban Ki-moon’s egregious condemnation of the short documentary by Geert Wilders.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.

Demonstrating the intimate connection  (cause & effect) between Islam’s scripture and violence evidently constitutes hate speech and violence. Take a good long look at the incidents the OIC complains about in their Islamophobia report.  Here is what it all boils down to.

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Human rights violations?  Such as the right to life? How about the right to be secure in their person and property?  How are our rights affected by the declaration of war previously cited (9:29)?  How are our rights affected by Muhammad’s  complete denial of  them, as well as the sanctity of our  blood & property?
Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? Who  created that association? What did Allah say about terrorism?

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
• 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

Allah said that he would cast terror, Muslims must cast terror, and they did cast terror. What did Muhammad say?

• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 [...]  Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. [...]
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 [...]  I have been made victorious with terror [...]

Allah said he would cast terror, Moe said he was made victorious by it.  There is nothing wrong with the association of Islam with terrorism!  Lets look at the specific application of the wrongly associated meme.

Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of
religions;

Any association of  Islam with terrorism is defamatory by default. So I have defamed Islam by quoting from its own canon of scripture and tradition.  Yeah, right. What is the bottom line?

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

Do you remember what Ban said about Fitna (“incitement to violence”)?  They postulate a national obligation to criminalize documentaries such as Fitna and this blog post.

The Combating Defamation of Religious resolutions are propaganda, not law.  But they serve to add a false patina of legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other places where they are used to persecute adherents of minority religions.  They also create an atmosphere of support for the proposed protocol to ICERD which is slowly progressing in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. That protocol will become binding international law.

For an extensive bibliography  refer to: Defamation of Religions: Background Info. To find U.N. documents referenced in the  resolution’s  foot notes use this search engine.

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America

We warned this would happen many months ago. Yet, here we are today, and people are surprised by this blatant move to assert control over the Internet and, indirectly, over those who use it. That would be you and me! CNET NEWS has an article by Declan McCullagh titled: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You will find the article HERE.

In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors.” Mr. McCullagh goes on to say: “The new version would allow the president to “declare a Cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “Cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.”

In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called Cybersecurity emergency.” You’ll find an excerpt from Senate Bill S. 773 HERE.

Looking closely at this bill one soon understands that it is a strong-arm tactic to take responsibility for Cybersecurity from Homeland Security and give it to the White House and Obama’s minions. (Or, should I say Obama’s Praetorian Guard?)

At the risk of upsetting some of you, I must say I have not witnessed such power grabbing since the Nazis seized control of Germany before the Second World War. Of particular concern is Senate Bill 778, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack. What we are looking at, dear reader, is being referred to by those who oppose it as drastic federal Intervention! I must say, I agree.

There is another article found HERE and titled: “A Bill to Shift Cybersecurity to White House.” To get an even better understanding of the control the White House will have over the Internet we recommend you read this article, as well.

My friend, Texas Fred, has an excellent article on this very thing over at his site. The title of his article is: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You’ll find it HERE.

The question is… how much control is enough control for Obama’s White House? Or, how much control is TOO much control for the American people? When do we say ENOUGH and say it loud and clear so that those barricaded inside the White House hear us and understand that they are treading on some very tender toes, indeed.

It is not just our toes the Obama Administration is treading on it is, in my opinion, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution they are treading on, as well. The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. When one reads the proposed new law, one has to ask if Obama is intending to suspend the Fourth Amendment?

Little by little, day-by-day, as the Obama Regime grows new tentacles, their mad grab for power and absolute control becomes more expansive. They are quickly gaining control over every facet of our daily lives. Privacy is a thing of the past in Obama’s America.

All of this leads me to ask: When will the backlash begin?? When will the American people say enough of Obama and his socialist utopia agenda?

It is an awesome thing when the American public rises up in righteous anger as much of the world can attest. The tar is being heated, the chickens are being plucked, and the rails are being split. Washington had best prepare for a tsunami of American anger to surge through its marble halls sweeping the rot of socialism before it into the gutter of American history where it rightfully belongs.

© J. D. Longstreet

 

WesternFront America

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.

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

 

WesternFront America