Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob

Michelle Malkin 

Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 28, 2009 04:59 AM

My syndicated column today (reprinted below) probes the FCC/left-wing church alliance to silence conservative critics of illegal immigration through “hate speech” regulation. Tip of the iceberg.

Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator first broke the story of how United Church of Christ officials met with kindred spirit/FCC Commissioner Michael Copps earlier this month before launching a nationwide campaign to pressure the FCC to crack down on cable TV and talk radio figures.

The motto of the “So We Might See” anti-”hate speech” campaign is: “Without media justice, there will be no social justice!” The same Marx-loving “social justice” crowd is behind the “media justice” mob — including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Media Democracy Fund, and Media Matters; the Ford Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; etc., etc., etc. Their goal: government redistribution of media wealth. As “The Media Justice Fund” put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” And there’s that phrase “transformative change” again:

* Media change of all kinds must expose and directly confront the mechanics of structural racism and systemic oppression.
* Leaders from historically marginalized communities must be developed as effective media activists and strategic movement communicators.
* Media policy advocacy and strategic communications are more effective when clearly relevant to the primary justice issues of the movement for racial justice, economic and gender equity, and youth rights.
* Compelling communications and media activism campaigns must be both rooted in critical issues and coordinated across issue, sector, and region for national impact.
* When justice sectors strengthen communications strategies, center the use of culture as a communications tool, employ winning frames and messages, and strengthen their influence over media rules and rights, the possibilities for transformative change skyrocket.

“Transformative change” = a media landscape purged of the Right’s most powerful voices.

The White House communications shop gives two thumbs up, no doubt.


How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you up
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.

Over the past week, an outfit called “So We Might See” has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” – specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions on illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?

The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the National Council of Churches. (The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied being a part of the campaign, despite being listed as a coalition member. So has the Methodist church.) These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment, and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.

Open-borders groups have sought to marginalize, criminalize, and demonize those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy on illegal alien amnesty opponents. During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” project to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” La Raza president Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to the NYTimes.

Now, the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House – and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves.”

Unsurprisingly, far Left billionaire George Soros’s money is backing the “So We Might See”/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.

Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with Obama FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the “So We Might See” campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging the congregants to take action on “media reform: ”We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening and we need to fix it.”

Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported in the American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: “As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.”

No word on when they’ll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free “hate speech” from the mouth of Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly,” likened health care problems to the “Holocaust,” and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”

Or when they’ll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.

But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of left-wing hate speech don’t have a prayer.

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims
to Homeland Security Posts  

(NOTE:  Has anyone ever heard a new
government official being identified as a
devout Catholic, Jew or Protestant…?
Just wondering)
Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??  
Obama and Janet Nappy Appoint Devout Muslim
to Homeland Security Post,
Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for

Policy Development.
Source for announcement:
Homeland Security Press Room  http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1240595153301.shtm


Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus,  Syria  
was appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano

on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)
Washington, DC
June 5, 2009
www.adc.org <http://www.adc.org/>
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
(ADC) is proud to announce that earlier today
at a ceremony held in   Albuquerque ,   New Mexico ,
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in
ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora
s a member of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC).
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?  

That should make our homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not men of the “Devout Muslim Faith” that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago.



Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story


Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story

Divulges Ann Dunham was ‘very young and very single’ at birth of U.S. president


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Jr.

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

Michelle Obama explained her husband understands the struggles of low-income families.

“He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother,” she said.

“Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister,” Michelle Obama said.

Her remarks about Dunham being “very single” when she gave birth to Barack Obama were also quoted last year on a blog posted at MSNBC.com. The remarks, however, contradicted previous claims President Obama made about the circumstances of his birth.

Obama Refuses To Send Reinforcements, So October Turns Into Deadliest Month Of The War

Obama Refuses To Send Reinforcements, So October Turns Into Deadliest Month Of The War

October 27th, 2009 Posted By Hardball1911.

KABUL (AP) – Eight American troops were killed in two separate insurgent attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

In one of the insurgent assaults, seven Americans were killed while patrolling in armored vehicles, U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said. He said an Afghan civilian died in the same attack. The eighth American was killed in a separate attack elsewhere in the south, also while patrolling in a military vehicle, he said.

The military issued a statement saying the deaths occurred during “multiple, complex” bomb strikes. It said several troops were wounded and evacuated to a nearby medical facility, but gave no other details.

Capt. Adam Weece, a spokesman for American forces in the south, said both attacks occurred in Kandahar province. In Washington, a U.S. defense official said at least one was followed by an intense firefight with insurgents who attacked after an initial bomb went off. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to release the information.

The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan. The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential elections amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

The deadliest month of the Iraq conflict for U.S. forces was November 2004, when 137 Americans were killed during the assault to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah.

“A loss like this is extremely difficult for the families as well as for those who served alongside these brave service members,” said Navy Capt. Jane Campbell, a military spokeswoman. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends who mourn their loss.”

The loss of life followed one of the worst days of the war for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since they launched air strikes in 2001 to oust the Taliban from power.

On Monday, a U.S. military helicopter crashed returning from the scene of a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including three DEA agents. In a separate crash the same day, four more U.S. troops were killed when two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan.

U.S. military officials insisted neither crash was the result of hostile fire, although the Taliban claimed they shot down a U.S. helicopter in the western province of Badghis. The U.S. did not say where in western Afghanistan its helicopter went down, and no other aircraft were reported missing.

Those casualties marked the Drug Enforcement Administration’s first deaths since it began operations here in 2005. Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium—the raw ingredient in heroin—and the illicit drug trade is a major source of funding for insurgent groups.

Obama’s Dumb Energy Plan

Obama’s Dumb Energy Plan

October 28th, 2009

By Eve Zibel, Fox News

Obama touts solar plant that costs $1.5 million to power 3,000 homes

President Obama visited the small town of Arcadia, Florida today, population 6, 671, to tout solar energy and efforts of the Economic Recovery Act to bring jobs to Florida, but Republicans on the hill say the President’s proposals for energy and in particular solar energy, won’t do enough for the 11.2% unemployed people in Florida.

The President visited DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy center, billed as the largest solar photovoltaic center in the country. The company’s 90,500 solar panels are able to generate about 42,000 megawatt hours each year, but the project cost $150 million to build and only provides power to 3000 homes, prompting critics to say the administration doesn’t have an overall energy strategy.

In remarks after a tour of the plant, the President blasted his opponents on energy reform, saying, “The closer we get to this new energy future, the harder the opposition’s going to fight. The more we’re going to hear from special interests and lobbyists in Washington whose interests are contrary to the interests of the American people, ” Obama said. “There are those who are also going to suggest that moving toward a clean energy future is going to somehow harm the economy or lead to fewer jobs. And they’re going to argue that we should do nothing, stand pat, do less or delay action yet again. I just want to point out, we’ve heard such arguments before. We’ve engaged in this same type of debate a lot of times through our history. People don’t like change, and they get nervous about it.”

But, Washington Representative Doc Hastings, the Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources committee said it’s not nerves that are causing pause on Capitol Hill. It’s the plan itself, and the taxes it will impose on Americans that are the real problem. “Another day, another empty promise from the President to support ‘comprehensive’ energy development,” Hastings said in a statement to Fox News.

Read More:

Narcissistic Rage in the White House

Narcissistic Rage in the White House

By James Lewis

The term “narcissistic rage” gets 26,000 citations in Google Scholar. It is a common feature of extreme or pathological narcissism.

While psychiatrists often say they can’t do long-distance diagnosis, it really isn’t that hard if you have a lot of information about a person and can watch how he operates from day to day. Intelligence agencies around the world have psychiatric staffs for exactly that purpose.
While most people are pretty hard to predict, extreme narcissists are comparatively simple. They constantly hunger for ego gratification, they are immature, constantly need to demonstrate their own superiority, often need endless sexual conquests (like Bill Clinton), are manipulative, constant liars, are completely cold about the human beings they harm (like John Edwards), and they deal with frustration by uncontrollable fits of rage.
I think that’s what we saw last week with the White House lashing out at Fox News.
According to the New York Times,
“Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel S. Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times,
President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the (Fox) network, according to people briefed on the conversation… ” (italics added).
So Obama didn’t even keep this thing on background. He allowed himself to be quoted in his favorite rag, the New York Times. Dowd, Maddow, Herbert, and Rich did their part by going into attack-dog mode against conservatives. They know exactly what Obama needs and wants, and to keep in good stead with this White House, they feed that hungry ego with the most outrageous flattery and imitation.
It is a perfect symbiosis. Obama is easy to manipulate, and liberal commentators are used to demonizing the opposition. They’ve all been raised on Rules for Radicals.
Obama’s thin skin is shared by his coterie. US News and World Report wrote:
Team Obama was pushed over the brink by a growing list of what it considered outrageous anti-Obama conduct by Fox that showed no sign of stopping. Obama’s advisers say that they seethed while Fox commentators used their shows to encourage protests against Obama’s healthcare proposals last summer. Team Obama fumed as Fox personalities tried to pressure some controversial Obama advisers to resign.
White House officials say that Fox has continued to stir the pot against Obama in a regular pattern — raising a criticism, having Republican congressional leaders comment on it, and then using those comments to keep the criticism alive.
A break point came when Fox tried to create the impression that angry anti-Obama protesters at congressional town hall meetings last summer signaled that Obama’s healthcare proposals were dying, a story line that other news organization picked up. White House officials say this was untrue, that those proposals were not dying at all.
Another break point came when Fox commentator Chris Wallace called White House officials “crybabies.” A senior Obama adviser tells U.S. News that White House staffers developed “a growing realization” that the president would never get a fair shake from Fox.
Notice the need to have total obedience from the whole press. Fox News is a small part of the total media, but they’ve driven the Obees into a fit. Of course, every single president in American history has been targeted by the media, and generally much, much worse than Obama has. Take George W. Bush, for example. (But I forgot…Bush was Evil, and Obama is Good.  Well, that explains it.)
Last week’s coordinated Obama attack on Fox News made no PR sense. Fox increased its viewership by 10%. Obama lost points in the polls; you can give the American people only so many demonstrations of the Chicago Way before they figure out you aren’t the Great Healer after all.
Obama is far and away the biggest and most naïve narcissist in living memory to occupy the White House. He hasn’t been smoothed and polished by years of deal-making in the Senate like LBJ. The outrage looks like it was just an uncontrollable expression of who Obama and his crew are. If we get more of this, Obama’s carefully buffed sheen will be permanently damaged for the saner 70% of the population. The other 30% will always fall for him anyway.
Pathological narcissism is a reflection of weakness, not strength. Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics points out how much of it has been happening in less than a year of this administration, including months of a honeymoon period. Obama constantly uses wild and irresponsible accusations against his perceived enemies. Bevan writes:
In the first nine months in office President Obama and/or members of his administration have accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit; demonized bond holders as ‘speculators’; produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists; attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution; ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium; dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters; maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case; launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country’s biggest pro-business group; and publicly declared war on a news organization.
When Obama runs into brick walls, he seems to reflexively go into a state of rage. Bill Clinton was the same way, and so was LBJ. But Clinton and LBJ had a lot of time to learn to moderate their own worst instincts. The best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton as president was the election of the Gingrich Congress in 1994, which forced him to deal with reality. Jimmy Carter has been on a constant narcissistic revenge campaign since he lost to Ronald Reagan and never got a second term. It explains a lot about Jimmy’s amazing destructiveness against his favorite whipping boy, Israel.
The same thing will happen to Obama if and when he loses the election in 2012. Since narcissists in power keep people around them in a constant state of fear — everybody gets targeted and feels insecure — you can expect a ton of dirty tricks in elections to come. But then Democrats constantly use dirty tricks.
I fear two things with Obama. One is if the GOP fails to elect a House majority in 2010 to keep Obama within the bounds of sanity. A GOP majority is essential for the safety of the country and the world. But even if Obama is defeated in 2012, he will just turn into an angrier version of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. He will haunt the political future of this country as long as he is alive, because that famished ego never gets enough. Malignant narcissism often gets worse over time. And on the Left and among blacks, Obama will still have love and adoration enough to keep him supplied. He is an easy target for flattery by the Saudis, even the Iranians — in fact, by all the real enemies we have.
So even if the voters throw out this very dangerous cult-like administration, you can expect Obama to be popping up in our politics for years to come. He will haunt the Democrats, which might be a good thing. But he will haunt the United States as well, even if he is defeated in 2012.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html at October 28, 2009 – 09:43:26 AM EDT

‘Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar’ That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar’   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

This, from the president’s chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Scott Johnson goes to town, in response.

Rocco’s Modern Life

October 27, 2009 Posted by Scott at 5:37 AM

Rocco Landesman is President Obama’s handpicked chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Last week he gave the keynote address to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference. Those of us concerned about the politicization of life and art in the Age of Obama will not be consoled by a reading of Landesman’s speech. The speech bears examination in its entirety, but Landesman’s tribute to Obama is especially worth a look:

This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.

Landesman compares Obama favorably with Julius Caesar as “a powerful writer.” Landesman is not referring to Obama’s skills as a writer, but rather to the power he holds by virtue of his office. Some might think that the literary comparison sells Obama short. Caesar was something of a self-promoter and propagandist in his writing.

Yet Landesman knows Obama is like Caesar, somehow — a friend asks, is it in the transformation of a republic into an empire with a divine ruler? Perhaps if Landesman had his wits about him, he would note instead that Obama is the most powerful speaker since the other JC.

Well, so what if Landesman is a bootlicker? Landesman is also an idiot. Lincoln never wrote a book, although I believe he did compile the texts of his 1858 debates with Douglas for publication in book form. And Landesman misses a few presidential authors since Theodore Roosevelt.

Woodrow Wilson wrote several influential books as a Princeton professor. Herbert Hoover wrote books including, I am reliably advised, a classic book on fishing. Richard Nixon wrote books before and after his presidency. And even Bill Clinton wrote his apologia pro vita sua.

Landesman leaves JFK unmentioned by name. JFK was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Profiles in Courage in 1957. My guess is that JFK and Obama share the attribute of authorship in roughly equal measure.

One reader of Landesman’s speech wonders: “Isn’t Obama the first president since Jefferson to more than double the size of the country? The first since Lincoln to free the slavers? The first since FDR to win a war against fascism?” Betraying the spirit of Rocco Landesman, however, the reader injects a note of caution: “I might be wrong. Can any of you fact check that?”

It would be hard to pack so much ignorance into one short paragraph if one were really trying. We can deduce that Landesman doesn’t even have to try.

UPDATE: John Miller notes a few other “powerful writers” missed by Landesman, and one more here.