Morning Bell: This Congress Has No Shame

Morning Bell: This Congress Has No Shame

Posted By Conn Carroll On May 27, 2010 @ 9:38 am In Ongoing Priorities | No Comments

On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said [1] on the House floor: “When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. … So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes.” That was the promise. But here is the reality [2]: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion [3].

And now with the U.S. Debt Clock [4] officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion [5]. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama’s original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.

The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years [6]. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas [7], a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships [6], and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production [6] that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending [8].

The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion [9], and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children’s credit card bill [9] in flagrant violation of Congress’ own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies [8], and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls [10].  Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post [11] that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. [11]

And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the “doc fix.” This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama’s claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the “doc fix” over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare’s already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the “doc fix” charade “one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.” [12] The House has cut this version of the “doc fix” down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.

Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars [13]. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.

Quick Hits:

  • The front page of USA TODAY [14] asks “Is oil spill becoming Obama’s Katrina?” and cites a new Gallup poll finding that 53% of adults say President Obama is doing a “poor” or “very poor” job of handling the spill.
  • Democrats Majority Whip Dick Durbin (IL) and Gov. Ed Rendell (PA) called on Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to detail his claim [15] that the White House offered him a job in exchange for dropping out of the PA Senate primary, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said if Sestak’s allegations are true, it is an impeachable [16] offense.
  • Judicial Watch filed suit against the Obama Justice Department yesterday seeking documents relating to the Obama administration’s decision to abandon a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party [17] for voter intimidation.
  • The Obama Justice Department has drafted a legal challenge [18] asserting that Arizona’s immigration enforcement law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government’s authority to police the nation’s borders.
  • The facts on Elena Kagan, Harvard, and the military. [19]
  •  

Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech, said: “I know, too,that Islam has always been a part of America ‘s story.”–AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE

 
Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech,  said:   “I know, too,

that Islam has always been a part of   America ‘s story.”
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE:
 
Dear Mr. Obama:
 
Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?  

Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
 
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day?  Sorry again,

those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
 
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
 
Declaration of Independence ?
 
Bill of Rights?
 
Didn’t think so.
 
Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England ?  No.
 
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ?  

No, they did not.  In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers

in human slavery.  Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates

slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black

Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.”  Says a lot of what the Muslim world really

thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?
 
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?  Not present.
 
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side

with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
 
Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era?  Again,

not present.  In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient

to men in the Islamic culture.  So much so, that often they are beaten for

not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family

member or their husband.  Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights,

aren’t they?
 
Where were Muslims during World War II?  They were aligned with

Adolf Hitler.  The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,

reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.
 
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?  If they

weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field

in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were

rejoicing in the Middle East .  No one can dispute the pictures shown from

all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and

other cable news networks that day.  Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims

who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th

were stone cold silent post 9-11.  To many Americans, their silence has meant

approval for the acts of that day.
 
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America .
 
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.  They were Muslim.
 
And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers

at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was

supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
 

That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America .
EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS !!
 
 
Be Sure to SEND IT to All .   Even Print it out and Send by Snail Mail !!
 

 
 

Tea Party Patriots is Standing with Arizona

Tea Party Patriots is Standing with Arizona

Join Tea Party Patriots Now
and
Stand with Arizona!

When: Saturday May 29th, 2010 6:00pm – 9:00pm
Where: Diablo Stadium, Tempe, Arizona
2200 West Alameda Tempe, AZ 85252
Come one come all! This event will allow you to stand and be counted among the supporters of Arizona’s fight at the border. Speakers will educate and performers will entertain in this family friendly venue. Spend your Memorial Day weekend in Arizona! Caravans of people from across the USA are encouraged to come and support Arizona tourism. 

Featuring


“America’s Toughest Sheriff”
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Also featuring:
Master of Ceremonies: Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio
Dr. Gina Loudon, founder and leader of the BUYcott campaign.
Marc Spencer, President, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.
…with many other great speakers in the lineup.
 

64% of Americans stand in favor of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law – NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

71 % of Arizonans stand in favor of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law – Rasmussen.

President Obama stands against Arizona for it’s new law, though he admits he hasn’t even read it.

President Calderon of Mexico stands against Arizona’s new law, and the Democrats in the House of Representatives give him a standing ovation.

Cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Boulder, Boston, St. Paul, Austin, El Paso, Oakland and San Diego stand against Arizona.

All of this, and yet Arizona citizens are standing strong.
We stand with the citizens of Arizona.
Do you stand with us?

 

Obama’s Cosmetic Border Security Plan Won’t Work, But These Ideas Will (and Have!)

Obama’s Cosmetic Border Security Plan Won’t Work, But These Ideas Will (and Have!)

Posted By Patrick Dorinson On May 26, 2010 @ 9:42 am In Column 2, Crime, Immigration, US News, Uncategorized | 20 Comments

President Obama has finally decided to take action against the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants on our southern border, announcing a plan [1] to mobilize 1,200 soldiers.

The president’s soothsayers must finally have noticed that Obama’s immigration non-policy and his kowtowing to Mexico’s president don’t sit well with the voters. Axelrod, et al must be worried, as there is no other explanation for this move — since it is purely political and cosmetic.

The president’s plan is a day late and a dollar short, wholly inadequate to get the job done.

In the late 19th century, the U.S. government built a series of forts in the American southwest with full complements of U.S. Cavalry. Some, like Fort Huachuca [2], established in 1877, are still active military posts. Huachuca was home to the famed all-black 10th Cavalry Regiment, better known as the “Buffalo Soldiers.” American icon Douglas MacArthur spent some of his youth in one of these forts — his father Arthur was the commanding officer.

The forts were designed to protect the settlers from the constant raids of the native Apaches, who didn’t take kindly to having their land taken.

It worked.

Anyone who has visited the border may have been surprised to find the Border Patrol is in fact stationed 20 miles north of it. Yes, we now cede 20 miles of our nation to illegal drug and immigration activity. This activity needs to be stopped at the border, not in Phoenix or Tucson.

Currently the Border Patrol behaves like cops in a city. They meet each morning at headquarters, receive their assignments, and then go out for the day to patrol. The Border Patrol also conducts night operations, but there is no 24-hour presence in force at the actual border.

One current effective tactic is the utilization of Forward Observation Bases (FOB). These stations are situated right along the border and staffed with Border Patrol agents, who live at the bases for days at a time, using horses and ATVs to patrol the area.

Human traffickers and drug smugglers avoid these places. It works.

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has written President Obama regarding building more FOBs on the border. She has also written to fellow Arizonan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. New Mexico’s two U.S. senators, Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall — both Democrats — have also urged that more FOBs be built in the boot heel of New Mexico.

The pleas of all three have been met with silence.

The Arizona Cattle Growers have released an 18-point plan [3] for securing the border. Among other things, the ranchers propose that these FOBs be expanded right at the border and spaced 12 miles apart. They would be fully staffed and provisioned year-round. The ranchers have agreed to help provide key logistical support — namely water. They already have stock tanks, wells, and pumps to provide water for their cattle, so this is not an insurmountable problem. According to Hugh Holub, an old-fashioned country lawyer and writer living in the war zone south of Tucson, the head of the Border Patrol in that area — Victor Manjarrez — is on the record saying he wants more FOBs because they are extremely effective.

The land on the border is very tough on vehicles, and some areas are simply unreachable on wheels. But how about horses? The Arizona cowboys use them in the area, just like the Buffalo Soldiers did over 100 years ago. Think it’s a crazy idea? Read Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton. He writers that the U.S. Special Forces used horses and mules to great effect in 2001 to topple the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom.

If we could make horses work in Afghanistan, we surely could do it at home in cowboy country. Time to sound the bugle call, “Boots and Saddles,” and bring back the U.S. Cavalry.

Where do I sign up?

The Sestak Stonewall

The Sestak Stonewall

Posted By Dick Morris On May 27, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

Rep. Joe Sestak [1], the winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, says quite openly and repeatedly that he was offered a job by the White House if he would drop out of the race against Sen. Arlen Specter. Having secured Specter’s conversion to the Democratic Party, thus giving the party a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Obama administration obviously sought to keep its word to Specter that it would do its utmost to deliver the Democratic nomination to him. According to Sestak, that included a job offer.

Who made the offer? What position was offered? And when did it happen? Sestak, who was nominated on a platform of “transparency” refuses to answer any of these questions. The White House [1] admits that a conversation took place but won’t provide any details and insists that an “internal investigation” revealed that “nothing inappropriate” took place.

Or did it?

It is unlikely that Sestak was offered a job interviewing people for the census. Only a high-level job offer — a Cabinet post or an ambassadorship to a key country — would have sufficient gravitas to conceivably induce him to drop his primary challenge. Some have speculated that Sestak, a retired admiral, might have been offered the post of secretary of the navy. Others wonder that, since he is fluent in Russian, he was to be tapped for ambassador to Moscow.

And, before an offer of that magnitude were tendered, it would have had to have been cleared with the higher levels of the White House [1]. How could an offer of a Cabinet post have been made without consultation with the chief of staff?

And how was the offer made? It would have to have been proffered by somebody who Sestak could reasonably assume was speaking for the president and could deliver on his end of the deal. A lower-level official wouldn’t have that kind of clout.

Could the offer have been tendered by Rahm Emanuel [1] himself? It’s clearly his style.

But, could Rahm or anyone else have made such an offer without consulting the president himself? You can’t go around passing out Cabinet posts or ambassadorships without consulting the boss. Whatever position of that level the White House dangled in front of him, it would have to have been approved by the president.

And Sestak must have probed the person who conveyed the offer to ascertain its bona fides. He would reasonably have asked, “Did you clear this with the president?” Otherwise, why would he even consider such an offer?

The White House and Sestak are stonewalling questions from the media, and obviously, a Democratic controlled Congress is not about to go poking around asking about the proposed deal.

So how could the Republicans break it open?

The weak link here is Sestak himself, who claims that he embraces “transparency.” Fueled by his primary victory and the momentum it generated, Rasmussen has him four points ahead of Pat Toomey [1], the GOP candidate. This lead won’t hold up for long in the face of a refusal to respond to questions the public is entitled to have answered.

Toomey or the Republican Party or other independent expenditure groups should run ads throughout Pennsylvania asking these basic questions. They should tell Sestak that he ran on a platform of transparency and that its time to reveal who offered what and when.

Either Sestak is lying and there was never an offer, or the White House has skirted very close to having committed a crime or may have stepped over the edge. And, considering the stakes and the nature of what the offer would have had to have been, this scandal could reach very high indeed.

Is it a high crime and misdemeanor to offer someone something of value in return for withdrawing from a U.S. Senate race? We may be about to find out.

Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’

Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’

May 26th, 2010

By Drew Zahn, WND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny9nfrrucNg&feature=player_embedded

If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there’s someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

“This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

“Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

“In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked.

“Absolutely,” said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

“This is a pretty extraordinary charge: ‘They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,’” he said on Greta Van Susteran’s “On the Record” program on the Fox News Channel. “Look, that’s a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

Read More:

Obama’s border band-aid (cartoon)

All 7 Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee Ask AG Holder to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged Sestak Job Offer

All 7 Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee Ask AG Holder to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged Sestak Job Offer

May 27th, 2010

By Jake Tapper, ABC

 Obama’s alleged bribery in support of Specter would be illegal

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee “urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter.”

The seven – Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,  John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma – allege that the offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”

Rep. Sestak, D-Penn., who defeated Specter in the primary last week, told Comcast’s Larry Kane in February that the White House had offered him a position in exchange for not challenging Specter. White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on Monday that White House lawyers had looked into it and judged everything “perfectly appropriate.”

CNN’s John King suggested to Axelrod that such a job offer “marches up into the gray area, perhaps into the red area of a felony. It is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job.”

“If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law,” Axelrod told CNN, “and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing”

That was not enough for the Republican Senators, who wrote to Holder that they “do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve ‘a serious breach of the law.’ The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.”

Read More:

Escalating problem of terrorist infiltration via the southern border

Escalating problem of terrorist infiltration via the southern border

Eileen F. Toplansky

As an adjunct instructor at a number of colleges and universities, I am privy to many stories, essays, and academic papers.  Right after 9-11, students were asked to respond to the New York Times piece entitled “Once Appalled by Race Profiling, Many Find Themselves Doing It” by Sam Howe Verhovek. It reflects the ambivalence of many who find profiling distasteful but necessary in the new age of terrorism.

Fast forward to 2010 and we find ourselves in the immigration quagmire but with a twist.  Evidence has emerged that people bent on our literal destruction are using our porous southern borders to enter illegally.  Justin Farmer of Action News 2 from Atlanta aired the following segment  which highlights the escalating problem of terrorists coming into the country.  J.D. Hayworth, former Arizona Congressman and Representative Paul Brown both speak to the issue.  Most shocking is the fact that Brown, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, never saw the now-censored list of all the countries where illegals are coming from until it was given to him by News 2.

The frightening evidence is staggering and the best response of our commander-in-chief is to send 1,200 National Guard troops to provide intelligence and surveillance support; they will not be manning the border.  Once again, Obama does his too-little-too-late modus operandi. The outcry to the potential “epidemic” of H1N1 was greater from this president than the absolute proof that terrorists are entering our country, leaving their footprints by way of prayer blankets and other tokens of their beliefs, and, yet, Obama dawdles.

Thus, while we dilly-dally about profiling suspicious conduct, this very behavior is being used as a combat methodology.  It is the terrorists who are profiling us as they intend to impose shariah law, destroy dissenters and wreck our country.  Because of our political correctness, the terrorists are using protective coloration to mingle in our society.  They are being trained in Spanish as they enter through the southern border.  It is akin to pundit Caroline Glick’s incredibly incisive point that the nineteen homicide bombers actually trained in the United States in order to destroy the United States! 

The rules of warfare have changed immensely and while “profiling is not congenial to our tender postmodern sensibilities” as Andrew McCarthy has written, the security of our country is supposed to be the number one priority of the President of the United States.  The chickens don’t invite the fox into their coop ~ why should we encourage terrorists into our country?

 
 Active in the 1970s writing campaign to free Russian Jewish refuseniks, Eileen continues to speak out against tyranny.  She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

 

 

The FCC’s Covert Mission to ‘Balance’ Broadcast Media Ownership

The FCC’s Covert Mission to ‘Balance’ Broadcast Media Ownership

By Chuck Rogér

Should Americans be concerned about a Federal Communications Commission official having once suggested that if government doesn’t help minorities reduce white ownership of broadcast media, then only violence would assure the protection of minorities’ civil rights [1]? In the little-noticed 2007 publication “The Erosion of Civil Rights,” Mark Lloyd attempted to make a case for Washington controlling media ownership. At the time, Lloyd — now FCC Chief Diversity Officer — was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Lloyd’s contribution, “Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006,” is saturated with straw man arguments.

Ideologues use two predominant straw man templates. Type I declares the existence of nonexistent problems in order to draw implications that bolster ideological talking points. Type II offers imagined evidence against imagined problems to strengthen talking points.
Mark Lloyd depended on Type I straw men in “Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006.” He wrote, “Communications policy determines who gets to speak to whom, how soon and at what cost.” Bad policy “enhances one group’s ability to communicate and limits another group,” violates the limited group’s civil rights, and “perpetuates the stereotypes one group holds about the other.” There is no proof of a “communications policy” that either benefits or hurts certain “groups,” and yet Lloyd stated the contention as fact. Indeed, there’s no proof that Americans communicate according to any “policy” at all. The very idea of government-controlled communications violates the First Amendment. Lloyd’s follow-on points depend on the reader not noticing the hocus-pocus.
But all the magic in the world cannot assign value to specifics based on worthless generalities. Lloyd offered three gems.
If a white teacher believes it will be difficult to teach a brown child, her expectations for that child will be limited. If a white police officer believes black men to be threatening, he will tend to shoot first. If a white citizen believes women of color are lazy, he will be less inclined to support laws that aid the poor.
Essentially admitting the flimsiness of the claims, Lloyd then fell back on an old, reliable “The evidence to support these assertions is compelling.” But no relevant evidence was revealed. Instead, revealed was an obsession with white-bashing. Lloyd’s racial divisiveness presaged the dramatic rise in liberals’ use of the practice since Barack Obama became president.
Insistent on viewing the world through a divisive lens, Lloyd complained that because of an “important and unique role in community discourse,” broadcasters must “act as a public trustee, providing free over the air service for the public good of all segments of their community of license.” Operative phrase: “all segments.” Never has American government forced an industry to donate a product “for the public good.” Yet Lloyd wants to force broadcasters to forgo profits in order to serve the needs of racially and ethnically segregated markets.
Lloyd pushed the same kind of anti-free market, First Amendment-ignoring heavy-handedness in a more well-known 2007 Center for American Progress report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” In the report, Lloyd called for legalizing racial discrimination by placing “caps” on white ownership of radio stations.
But in Lloyd’s mind, serving segregated markets is only half the battle. To make life truly fair, government must force affirmative action in broadcast industry employment and ownership. Returning to Lloyd’s “Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006,” we find the czar-to-be using yet another straw man to demand the reenergizing of a 1970s “battle for rules to promote minority ownership.” The justification is that white ownership hurts minorities. Lack of proof for the claim exposes Lloyd’s prescription as ideologically motivated hysterics.
Hysterics inspire various degrees of action. In the case of the communications industry, Lloyd wanted the FCC to investigate using “race-based measures to advance equal employment opportunity regulations and efforts to increase minority ownership[.]” Lloyd now works for a government agency that could force a fix for the “diversity problem.”
To be sure, the FCC is in the process of acting on Mark Lloyd’s recommendations from both 2007 Center for American Progress documents discussed here. A new FCC program will “assess whether all Americans have access to vibrant, diverse sources of news and information[.]” Look for “diverse sources” to translate into “diverse” industry ownership.
Obama’s FCC, intent on diversifying talk radio, could be aiming to marginalize administration opponents. For camouflage, the FCC bent the truth in a reply to a CNS News FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for records of communications “to and from” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that contained references to conservative media personalities. The FCC denied the existence of communications fitting the specified parameters, but CNSNews.com reports that in the fall of 2009, the left-wing So We Might See Coalition sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski concerning “hate speech in the media” by personalities like Rush Limbaugh. And the withholding of evidence of media tampering doesn’t end with the CNS episode.
FCC Administrative Law Chief Joel Kaufman, the official whose letter didn’t report the existence of the CNS-requested document, also responded to a Judicial Watch FOIA request for information on Lloyd’s staffing and budget. Kaufman claimed that the FCC “could locate no records” showing anyone hired “specifically to support [Lloyd] in his work” and that Lloyd “has no separate budget for operation and administration.”
The mushiness surrounding Lloyd’s mission makes another portion of the FCC response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request more curious still. Kaufman’s letter containing the “no records” claim states that the FCC
… did locate internal briefing materials for the Chairman concerning “media ownership” that we are withholding in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5,5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). FOIA Exemption 5 permits the withholding of materials in order to encourage open, frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors.
The FCC has basically admitted to a plan to conceal from Americans the content of “media ownership” discussions that are occurring. Mark Lloyd may fulfill a dream expressed in 2007. The Diversity Czar can now work to correct “the structural imbalance of political talk radio” without worrying about bothersome interference from the American people.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

[1] Mark Lloyd’s exact words: “Absent a repeat of the dramatic injustices that reached Americans on their television screens in the 60s it will be difficult, if not impossible, to advance a civil rights agenda on any front in the current communications environment.” From chapter titled, “Civil Rights and Communications Policy-2006″ in “The Erosion of Civil Rights,” Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights and Center for American Progress, 2007, p.87.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers