You Pay $1.5 Million for Public Radio to Air Al-Jazeera “News”

You Pay $1.5 Million for Public Radio to Air Al-Jazeera “News”

December 7th, 2010

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

One of the Obama administration’s top priorities is “diversifying” the nation’s airwaves. Its commitment to public broadcasting and outreach to Muslims has made the unthinkable possible: This week, publicly funded Pacifica Radio will begin airing an hour of “news” from the radio affiliate of Al-Jazeera television. AJE news will be heard early in the morning in three of the network’s   five markets — including New York City. The network’s remaining two   affiliates — including WPFW in Washington, D.C.– will pick up the AJE   broadcast early next year.

By 2011, the voice of Osama bin  Laden’s preferred network will be  heard in two of the three 9/11 attack  sites at taxpayer expense.

According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s 2009 Annual Report,  taxpayers gave Pacifica Radio’s five stations nearly $1.6 million last  year alone, down slightly from $1.75 million in 2008….

Read more.

Obama’s Blind Spot

December 07, 2010

Obama’s Blind Spot

By Janice Shaw Crouse

 

Despite the Democratic Party’s 2010 election “shellacking,” President Obama
recently
asserted
that the election had nothing to do with ideology. He said, “It
would be unwise to assume [that American voters] prefer one way of thinking over
another.” This attitude is consistent with the president’s previous actions and
statements. He still doesn’t understand that the public is outraged at what
Victor Davis Hanson, in National Review, called his “EU-socialist
agenda
.” The people’s anger stems from Obama’s so-called solutions, radical
political appointees, and his health care reform program that threatens to
bankrupt the nation, not — as he famously contends — from him not delivering
“change” as fast as he promised. In fact, Obama views the election primarily as
a message to Republicans to be more bipartisan and cooperative; to date, he has
never acknowledged that voters repudiated his policies and the direction in
which he wants to take the country.
However, John Podhoretz points out in his Commentary article,
“The Liberal Crisis,” that “[m]ore than 750 elected Democrats (or positions held
by elected Democrats) from the House to the Senate to governors’ mansions to
state legislatures were ousted from office in the largest and deepest partisan
rout in American history.” He adds, “You have to go back 37 national elections
to find a larger number of Republicans in the House.  You have to go back 82
years to find as many Republicans in state legislatures.”
The president pretends not to notice the harsh realities of election 2010;
he chooses, instead, to interpret the colossal rebuke of his administration’s
policies as a communication problem that produced a “misunderstanding” of what
he has “accomplished” in his first two years in office. The bottom line is that
the president’s blind spot keeps him from seeing what those outside his
administration find obvious: The majority of the American public views his
liberal progressive agenda, radical presidential appointments, and newly minted
czars as far out of the nation’s political mainstream. People are especially
angry at the health care reform package that only Obama and his sycophants in
the media wanted and that nobody read or fully understood. A large segment of
the public also blames the president for the devastating effects that his
policies — the stimulus plan and the bailouts — have had on the nation’s
economy. In short, the Tea Party movement and town hall meetings reflect and
embody a groundswell of grassroots opposition to the “wrong direction” that the
president, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have taken the nation.
Clearly, most people got the message: The public objects to having an
ideology so far removed from middle-American thinking and policy proposals —
which attendees at town hall meeting after town hall meeting expressly rejected
— jammed down its throat, and the people fear for the future of America. Peter
Heck, in American Thinker, argues that there is an
electoral divide in the nation that clearly delineates the left from the right
in terms of political philosophy and positions on contemporary issues. That
electoral divide was exacerbated by Obama’s policies and what the media called
his “rhetorical brilliance” — which the public saw as condescension and
elitism. The angle of Obama’s head as he read the ever-present teleprompter and
his patronizing tone have contributed to the public’s perception of him as
someone who is very much out of touch with America. It didn’t help that the
president lamely continued to “blame Bush” a whole two years into his
presidency.
The man who repeatedly called for bipartisanship and a post-racial society
presided over an administration that excluded the GOP from health care
negotiations, viewed members of the other party as the enemy, and flat-out told
Republicans that their place was at the back of the bus. No wonder the nation is
divided. But the division is not equal; the maps showing the divide are stunning
in pinpointing largely the bi-coastal, big-city areas of the nation that are
“blue,” in contrast to the vast flyover country that is “red.” In other words,
mainstream middle-America solidly opposes the leftist takeover of the nation,
and these Americans do not “blame Bush.” Instead, they blame the two-year
runaway train wreck that is Obama’s “EU-Socialist agenda.”
It is past time for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate to understand how
soundly the American public rejected their vision for “hope and change.” The
fact that they continue to blindly rush forward is evidence of how clueless they
are as to the public’s desires and attendant and political realities. What
voters had in mind in 2008 was that the first African-American president might
profitably go to work on the pitiful performance of public schools, the
future-destroying budget deficits, the bloated and inefficient federal
bureaucracy, the bloated entitlement programs that are feeding poverty, and the
mind-boggling red-tape/regulations that are choking entrepreneurs. But that is
not what the top three Democrats see as top priorities, then or now. So they
continue plunging ahead, pursuing the same destructive agenda, completely blind
to the ramifications of the midterm elections.
Perhaps Peter Heck is right that 2010 shows that the last two years have
“jolted awake a generation of apathetic and passive citizens just in time to
save the republic.” Certainly, he is right in his claim that public apathy has
been “inexcusable.” With the continuation of the Obama administration’s
obstructionism and the progressive left (Pelosi and the lame-stream media)’s
blind advocacy of radical policies, it is impossible to misconstrue the
president’s motivating vision and his divisive use of “class warfare” rhetoric.
Americans are getting a sharper and sharper focus on the differences between
Obama’s America and the America they want for their families and their
children’s children.
There is open talk about Democratic challenges to Barack Obama in the 2012
presidential primaries. John Podhoretz said,
“The scale of the Democratic Party’s defeat and the parlous condition of the
country’s finances inevitably raise the specter of a challenge to a first-term
president from within his own party.” Podhoretz notes that four of the eight
presidents who faced reelection opponents within their own party were challenged
because they were charged with “betraying the party’s core principles,” and
subsequently, the challenged president lost in the general election. He
identifies the primary reason for these challenges as simply because the sitting
president was “beginning to look like a loser.” Ironically, even the left is
viewing Obama as a loser for not being leftist enough. The indisputable facts of
the 2010 election show the degree to which Obama has lost those in the center,
where elections are won or lost. His blind spot about the message of 2010 — if
not corrected, and it is a very big “if” — will cost him the election in
2012.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., author of Children at
Risk (Transaction, 2010), is Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute,
Concerned Women for America’s think-tank.

Page
Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/obamas_blind_spot.html

at December 07, 2010 – 01:11:40 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Proof for Chris Matthews That Sarah Palin Isn’t Illiterate

Proof for Chris Matthews That Sarah Palin Isn’t Illiterate

By Doug Powers  •  November 4, 2010 09:51 AM
**Written by Doug Powers
Late on election night, as bad news for Democrats continued to dump water on the electric thrill that used to run up Chris Matthews’ leg before it was short-circuited, a nightmarish thought obviously started gnawing at him: President Sarah Palin.
Matthews then went on to dispute Palin’s stance on trade, taxes, national security and abortion. Just kidding — all he did was call her stupid, even going as far as questioning whether or not she’s even literate:
“Have you ever been an eyewitness to her actually reading something?” Matthews badgered. “Have you seen her – no, I’m dead serious about this. Have you ever seen her reading words on a piece of paper? A newspaper, magazine, anything? Have you ever seen her read something?”
Well, yes I have as a matter of fact, and so have you, Chris. Remember this?
null
Matthews has obviously put this out of his mind because of what it said:
null
I have seen Sarah Palin reading books, too — it’s just that Matthews doesn’t like what she reads:
null
**Written by Doug Powers

Remembering Pearl Harbor: 69 years

Remembering Pearl Harbor: 69 years

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 7, 2010 09:23 AM

Never forget:

1pearl.jpg

1pearl002.jpg

1pearl003.jpg

A newsreel of the Day of Infamy:

http://www.youtube.com/v/HAnOtWm5OrM?fs=1&hl=en_USA survivor on the USS Maryland remembers:

Charlie Webb was shaving aboard the USS Maryland on Dec. 7, 1941, when the call to report to general stations went out.

The Maryland was on Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was being attacked by Japanese forces.

Webb, 92, who lives at the Holy Comforter House, said he didn’t even have time to finish shaving.

“I got one side of the face shaved,” Webb said, “and it was a week before I got through with the other.”

He said he heard machine gun fire just before the call to general quarters went out.

Webb said he thought since it was Sunday morning, “Somebody’s in trouble. They don’t fire on Sunday.”

He later found out the sailor firing the machine gun was the first to shoot down a Japanese torpedo plane. The man had been at his station reading a comic book when he saw a plane with the Rising Sun insignia diving in and began firing…

And a survivor on the USS Arizona reflects:

Navy veteran Louis Conter was a young sailor standing watch on the quarterdeck of the USS Arizona when Japanese bombers swarmed the skies over Oahu and attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor 69 years ago.

Within minutes that Sunday morning, the Arizona itself had exploded in flames, smoke and pandemonium. Conter was among the fortunate few hundred men to get off alive as the battleship crumpled and sank at its berth, taking 1,177 of its 1,400-member crew to their deaths.

The loss of life aboard the Arizona accounted for nearly half of the 2,390 Americans who perished at Pearl Harbor and other attack sites on the island on December 7, 1941, the day that drew the United States’ into World War Two.

On Tuesday, as he has for 10 years on every anniversary of the surprise attack, Conter, now 89, will lay a wreath at the shrine built over the Arizona in memory of the dead, including the sailor with whom he was standing watch that morning.

…Conter is part of an aging and ever-dwindling contingent of survivors still attending the annual commemorations. About 200 of the estimated 2,000-4,000 Pearl Harbor veterans alive today are expected to return on Tuesday.

There are only about 20 survivors left from the USS Arizona, and just five are healthy enough to travel, he said.

***

Flashback: Obama Gaffemaster Alert: The Pearl Harbor Bomb; Update: Video added

Obama 2010: Official White House Proclamation on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day

FCC Commissioner Wants to Control the Content of Broadcast Media

December 07, 2010

FCC Commissioner Wants to Control the Content of Broadcast
Media

By Chuck
Rogér

 

The First Amendment forbids Congress from infringing on
Americans’ right to free speech. But the Federal Communications Commission is
not Congress. And Michael Copps, one of four FCC
commissioners
reporting to Chairman Julius Genachowski, seems intent on
ignoring that pesky part of the First Amendment about “abridging the freedom of
speech” when that speech is sent out over the airwaves.

In two
American Thinker articles earlier this year, I discussed possible FCC attempts
to force progressive programming into broadcast media. Now, in addition to a
nasty Christmas present that Genachowski wants to give Americans on December 21
(Net Neutrality), Copps wants government to control
private-sector broadcast content.

In a December 2 speech, Copps proposed that the FCC conduct a “public value
test” of commercial broadcast stations.
If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license
it has earned to use the people’s airwaves. If not, it goes on probation for a
year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress.
If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve
the public interest.
Stations that don’t comply with FCC demands would lose their licenses to
organizations willing to do the agency’s bidding.

The “Public Value Test”
didn’t fly extemporaneously from Copps’s lips. Since Barack Obama became
president, there have been growing noises about reinstituting the effects of the
repealed Fairness Doctrine without calling any new regulation by that name. Progressives long to stop the resurgence of traditional American values that has taken place after two years of economy-killing, freedom-robbing Obama rule. Republicans blew out Democrats in the midterm election. Lefties are in quite a state, desperate to shut down opposition speech.

Silencing
opponents is precisely what one 2007 Center for American Progress study was about. The study, conducted by a group of
progressive ideologues including FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd, complained of 91
percent of talk radio being conservative. Lloyd and company praised the “more
balanced” programming “in markets such as New York and Chicago.” The authors’
choice to call two of America’s bluest cities demographically “balanced” is an
indicator of the study’s dishonesty.

Copps seems to have read Lloyd’s study. In his December 2 speech, the
commissioner focused on seven areas in which the Public Value Test could be applied.
Many of the proposed tactics would force the progressive voice over the airwaves
and reduce the presence of conservative and libertarian voices.
Copps offers programs which allegedly wouldn’t intervene in “issues of
content,” but then he calls for federal “human and financial resources going
into news.” No clear thinker believes that once federal money and employees
start prowling the innards of broadcast stations, federal dictates on media
content would not follow.
FCC efforts aimed at “Reflecting Diversity,” according to Copps, would
not be used to explore “how poorly America’s minorities, women and
other diversity groups are faring on our broadcast media.” But then the
commissioner instantly complains that “people of color own only about 3.6% of
full-power commercial television stations.” Americans are supposed to trust that
the man doesn’t want the FCC to enforce “diverse” station
ownership?
Yet more revealing of intent, Copps maintains that diversity encompasses
“how groups are depicted in the media — too often stereotyped and caricatured
— and to what roles minorities and women have in owning and managing media
companies.” So will the FCC try to force broadcast media to depict minorities
differently? Copps says:

The FCC’s Diversity Advisory Committee has spent years providing
us with specific, targeted recommendations to correct this injustice. How sad it
is that most of these recommendations have not been put to a Commission vote. It
is time to right this awful wrong.

There is little doubt as to the objectives. Copps’s remarks scream “social
justice.” The commissioner essentially prescribes that the FCC supervise the
remolding of the image of minorities and people of color. It would be naïve to
think that if the tactic were implemented, affirmative action on station
ownership would not come to pass.
Copps complains that “minorities are ignored, and local self-expression
becomes the exception” when stations are run by “mega companies” with “absentee
owners” who devalue programming diversity. Stations up for relicensing should
have to “take the public pulse.”
Progressives like Copps cannot help themselves. Contempt for the free
market runs strong in the social engineer’s psyche. No one with business sense
runs an enterprise that has no hope of making money. Enacted, Copps’s plan to
force “minority” programming into communities is a guaranteed broadcast station
and job killer. FCC regulations would join EPA regulations as tools for pushing
prosperity-murdering progressivism.
Mr. Copps isn’t done yet. The FCC should force more “local programming”
into broadcast markets, says the commissioner. Why? “Homogenized music and
entertainment from huge conglomerates constrains [sic] creativity,
suppresses [sic] local talent, and detracts [sic] from the
great tapestry of our nation’s cultural diversity.” If Houstonians won’t listen
to a radio station that plays the music of the Taigana tribe from Mongolia’s
Hovsgol region in consideration of transplanted tribe members living in the
area, then the FCC would presumably insist that one or more stations broadcast
sheep bladder wind instrument melodies anyway. Advertisers won’t buy ad time.
But progressives have no use for sound economics.
What will “local programming” guidelines look like? Copps’s
words:
We should be working toward a solution wherein a certain percentage of
prime-time programming — I have suggested 25 percent — is locally or
independently-produced. Public Service Announcements should also be more
localized and more of them aired in prime-time, too.
“Independently-produced” is code for ideologically tuned messages aimed at
voters. “Public service announcements” will conform to FCC specifications —
indoctrination kicked up a notch.
One of the lowest points in the Copps speech came when the commissioner
called today’s left-wing public broadcasting “the jewel of our media landscape.”
But two still lower points occurred before Copps even opened his mouth. The
venue for the speech was the Columbia University School of Journalism. And Copps
was introduced by left-wing PBS icon Bill Moyers.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck
Rogér invites you to visit his website,
www.chuckroger.com.
E-mail Chuck at
swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

Page
Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/fcc_commissioner_wants_to_cont.html

at December 07, 2010 – 09:36:45 AM CST

//