Obama's Newest Czar Wants To Quiet The Opposition
by Marcus Carey, BluegrassBulletin: Talk radio, cable news, the Internet and all modern technologies used to help the people of America exercise their Constitutionally protected right to assemble and petition the government for redress have started to get on Obama's last nerve.
Remember his arrogant declaration "I won" and his complaint that "I'm the President...I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talkin', I want them to just get out of the way?"
Well his latest move is designed to do just that, stop the talking and take control. This time, his newest czar is not the least bit timid about saying so.
Tags: Czar, diversity, FCC, free speech, Obama administration, Obama Czar, talk radio To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Remember his arrogant declaration "I won" and his complaint that "I'm the President...I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talkin', I want them to just get out of the way?"
Well his latest move is designed to do just that, stop the talking and take control. This time, his newest czar is not the least bit timid about saying so.
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.At least one source has identified this as a bold step toward silencing conservative talk radio.
Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “ “diverse views” and government activities.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. [CNSNews.com]
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.So this is the reaction to a nation of people freely expressing themselves trying to take back control of their government? Where in history have we seen this before, and shouldn't we take time to tell everyone what comes next, before it's too late?
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 voicesDid 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?
Tags: Czar, diversity, FCC, free speech, Obama administration, Obama Czar, talk radio To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 9:52 PM - Post Link
2 Comments:
BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION!
Dear Friend,
BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- IN FACT, THEY'RE TRYING TO REWRITE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- AND THEY'RE CLOSE TO SUCCEEDING!
What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?
What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)
"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...
Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?
IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!
One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.
That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.
BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.
In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!
The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.
We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.
We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!
And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?
Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?
My initial thought is to say that the meesiah is simply following the cue of his friend Hugo Chavez.
Since socialism is exposed as the fraud it is in an atmosphere of free speech, dissent must be banned. Their efforts to convert the country to a socialist state are being thwarted by the fact that people can expose their plans on line and on the radio. Additionally, resistance can be discussed and planned. For the statist, this is intolerable. I believe that Marx said that all forms of communication had to be controlled. So, this is not a surprise.
Also, I think that we have to remember that when they say diversity, it really means, "there are many ways in which to agree with us." If this goes through, there won't be any real dissent.
Post a Comment
<< Home