Obama: Trust Only Me, America

Obama: Trust Only Me, America

May 17th, 2010

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama

 and don’t speak against meh

Always the smooth operator, Obama is urging the American people to tune out other voices and listen only to the sound of their dear leader’s voice. He bemoans the growth of new media during his commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia: “You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter…With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation…All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

It is less than slightly ironic to hear our Blackberry-toting president proclaim he is unable to operate modern technology, but the content of his new media criticism is downright chilling. Obama’s political career has been built on a narrative that he and his close associates carefully crafted. The only biographical information we know about the president comes from his two autobiographies, both of which contain large embellishments and historical inaccuracies. These inaccuracies were virtually censored in the formerly dominant old media. Only the new media have dared to challenge Obama’s narrative.

Obama laments the role cable news plays in the political discourse because they dare discuss issues he doesn’t want covered. This would be an interesting academic topic, were it not for attempts by his underlings to restrict the flow of information on the Internet and over the airwaves. While he demonizes blogs, talk radio and cable news, his czars and his recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the U.S. government restricting free speech.

Free-flowing information is a vital part of any free society. If the public is unable to get information unfiltered by the government they will never hear a fair and open debate.

Obama wants to withhold conflicting versions of the public narrative from the American people, and the old-line media are willingly going along with Obama’s desires. Were it not for alternative sources of media such as blogs, talk radio and cable news, Obama and his radical friends wouldn’t have to defend their agenda. That’s why team Obama is seeking to restrict these alternative forms of media. Obama’s recent attack on new media is part of a strategic assault on free speech.

Susan Crawford, Obama’s former Internet czar, has been pushing tirelessly for so-called “net neutrality,” which if made into law will transform the Internet and ultimately give the government power to regulate content. Despite its high-sounding name, “net neutrality” is nothing but another government regulation that will inevitably have unintended consequences that could reach into every individual’s home connection. Proponents of neutrality should be more concerned with government intrusion than with any limitations imposed by the marketplace. As Timothy B. Lee of the Cato Institute has stated, the regulation inherent in “net neutrality” is not needed because “network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.”

Efforts to regulate the Internet, coupled with the efforts of FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to silence talk radio, constitute two grave threats to free speech and access to independent ideas. Lloyd believes the most effective method for controlling talk radio is through local and racially diverse media ownership requirements which could effectively force ownership changes at many conservative talk and Christian radio stations.

The final part of this triple threat to speech is Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Kagan, in one of her few public statements on any issue, stated in the University of Chicago Law Review: “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.” So in Kagan’s view the government can determine what the ideal level and content of free speech and public debate is, and it can regulate or block anything above that level. Under this view Obama’s own administration could determine that there is too much criticism of him and regulate the offending media outlets.

Obama’s assault on free speech is threatening the very core of our Republic. If the government can silence its critics, the American people may never know the truth. Blogs, talk radio, and cable are an integral part of our democracy. Patriotic Americans must stand up and defend the right to consume and disseminate unfiltered information

Barack Obama’s FCC Information Police

Barack Obama’s FCC Information Police

By Chuck Rogér

The President warns us that Americans must beware of “the craziest claims” and “arguments” in which “information becomes a distraction” that puts “pressures” on “our democracy.” What was behind Barack Obama’s recent remarks to the graduating class of Hampton University? What “information” must Americans fear?

FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd foretold Obama’s meaning in a coauthored 2007 Center for American Progress (CAP) report. The report complained that 91 percent of talk radio was conservative and praised the “more balanced” programming “in markets such as New York and Chicago.” The deep blue demographics of two of the bluest American cities betray a deceitful usage of the term “more balanced.”
To further corrupt the meaning of “balance,” even after admitting that “no matter how the data is analyzed” conservative talk dominates “over and over again,” the CAP report implied that talk radio balance means half conservative, half progressive programming. This is instructive. Although twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative versus liberal, the liberal meaning of balance mutates from allotment according to real-life proportions to equal market share. Armed with any redefinitions required, FCC Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is now in a position to rebalance political talk radio.
To understand how “balance” could be achieved, we refer again to President Obama’s warning that Hampton graduates must avoid information that becomes distracting. Precisely how can one recognize distracting information? A clue lies in the CAP report’s insistence that broadcast companies serve “the listening needs of all Americans.” The key word is “needs.” Liberals assume that people should need only the information that liberals want people to have. Other information constitutes “distraction.”
But when huge majorities of customers support existing talk radio programming, there exists only imaginary distraction. Only the most microscopic gap could exist between demand and supply. Such unpleasantness doesn’t faze progressive know-it-alls unable to accept that customers recoil from force-fed progressive talk.
Undeterred, Lloyd and the other coauthors of the 2007 CAP report recommended a force-feeding technique that requires “diversity” in radio station ownership in order to inflict repeatedly rejected progressive viewpoints on the people. As I reported last August, diversity would be achieved through three actions.
1) Legal discrimination: “caps” on the proportions of various types of people who can own stations.
2) “Greater local accountability over radio licensing.”
3) Forcing broadcasters not meeting “public interest obligations” to fund public broadcasting. Stations would have to do what liberals say or else pay to be ridiculed by liberals on competitor stations.
With fixes for talk radio “imbalance” in place, high-minded government bureaucrats would be well on the way to addressing the high consumer preference for conservative shows over progressive shows. But the high preference points out a truth that won’t go away: Emotionally healthy Americans embrace wholesome values, self-reliance, small government, traditional America, and a traditional family structure. Just more antagonistic reality to taunt progressives who seem hell-bent on imposing progressive radio on traditional Americans.
To bolster the imposition, Mark Lloyd and company didn’t stop at three recommendations. The CAP report called for the public to have a periodic say in whether licensed broadcast companies should be allowed to continue to broadcast. Such meddling would be akin to the feds controlling people’s earnings, restricting government contracts to unionized companies, ordering financial institutions to lend to specific borrowers, or giving preference to certain people for entry into jobs or schools. Decades ago, the intrusions into free markets wouldn’t have been tolerated. Today, interference is common.
Interference is about to be turbo-charged. Three years after private citizen Lloyd proposed that government force progressive radio programming into conservative markets, the FCC where Lloyd now works appears poised to consider the Diversity Czar’s force-feeding recommendations. The agency has launched “an examination of the future of media and the information needs of communities in a digital age.” Media “diversity” plays a role in “examination.” The FCC explains:
The objective of this review is to assess whether all Americans have access to vibrant, diverse sources of news and information that will enable them to enrich their lives, their communities and our democracy.
The Future of Media project will produce a report providing a clear, precise assessment of the current media landscape, analyze policy options and, as appropriate, make policy recommendations to the FCC, other government entities, and other parties.
The statement reads like a rehash of the Lloyd-and-company Center for American Progress report. In order to soothe Obama’s worries over excess “information,” after the FCC “examine[s]” the “information needs of communities,” it’s a safe bet that the agency will recommend regulating information flow into said communities. The FCC’s wording runs faithfully parallel to Obama’s wording:
The digital age is creating an information and communications renaissance.  But it is not serving all Americans and their local communities equally. It is not yet serving democracy fully.
Witness the creation of yet another contrived “right” — the right of all members of all communities to equal access to all communications media. Also, it’s impossible to ignore Obama’s and the FCC’s misleading use of the term “democracy” to depict America’s representative democratic republic. Exactly what does the “communications renaissance… serving democracy fully” mean? The FCC may have in mind the public’s participation in station licensing as proposed by Lloyd in 2007. America could be headed into a state of affairs in which popular vote determines who can operate private sector radio stations. Voters could be “nudged” in specific directions using specific government freebies funneled into specific communities.
Another factor motivating Obama administration focus on information flow is the demise of the massively liberal “dinosaur” media — mainly newspapers and broadcast TV. Stir in the downward spiral of liberal cable news outlets like MSNBC as well as the embarrassing face-plant of progressive talk radio’s Air America, and it becomes clear why Obama and the FCC are nervous. Nerves are frying over how “the layoff of thousands of journalists” might result in “fewer ‘informed communities.'” As liberal-dominated media continue to atrophy, progressive propaganda will less reliably reach communities that get progressive “helping” programs that convince voters to elect progressives to keep the help flowing.
Losing the iron grip that progressives have on “oppressed” and “disadvantaged” American voters is not something that Barack Obama can bear. Media filters must be tightened. According to the President, only certain “information” should reach the people. Perhaps soon, the noble FCC will save Americans from bad information, the information that “has become a distraction.”
A physicist and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, chuckroger.com. Email Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

It’s Because They Want To Kill Us, Stupid

2010 May 6

The night the NYC car bomb attempt went down, I was so grateful that, once again, the diligence of the public and the swift action of the NYC Police thwarted yet another potential attack. Shortly thereafter, while still incredibly grateful obviously, I became angry. I’ve had it. Firstly, because the current strategy of homeland security seems to be “Hey, guys, we’ve totally unclenched our fists. We can haz cookie now?” Secondly, because the left and their media lackeys are not only dangerously naive, but also purposefully misleading.

They are so deeply invested in both political correctness and in their violent, racist “tea baggers” meme, it clouds all else. Even common sense and the security of our country. It was swiftly apparent that they were *wishing* that the failed bomber was a tea partier, so that they could further their lame narrative and continue to try to excuse Obama and his administration for their failures and utter incompetence. Gee, Obama, how is that “unclenching of fists” deal working out for you?

That night, Attorney General Holder said “It’s important that American people remain vigilant.” Sadly, it’s quite clear that the administration and many on the left refuse to do the same; unless it’s remaining vigilant in their pursuit of demagoguing Republicans. It’s gotten to the point where I was honestly waiting for the release of a statement from Obama, consisting of a sternly worded apology and claims that he inherited the bomber, Faisal Shahzad, from Bush.

Michael Bloomberg started the insane blame the Republicans at all costs narrative off with a bang. When asked by the elfin Katie Couric for a guess as to who the bomber could be, Bloomberg offered this:

“If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything,” he said.

Oh, yes, Bloomberg. Those violent, hateful health care bill deniers! Man, someone has to stop those dangerously radical thugs! What’s next? The singing of the National Anthem?! Maybe finding photographs of Obama and fiendishly drawing mustaches and devil horns on them in a frenzied rage of rightwing extremism? I’m only surprised that Bloomberg didn’t also suggest that it was probably an evil smoker or salt eater.

When the information was released that the attempted bomber’s name was Faisal Shahzad, the delusional spin intensified. All across (alleged) newsrooms, thoughts of ” Wait; this whole Faisal Shahzad thing must be inaccurate. That doesn’t sound like a health care-hating, “tea bag-y” name” abounded. CNN quickly hypothesized that perhaps Shahzad was a victim of post home foreclosure traumatic syndrome , as a way to mitigate their sorrow over him not being a tea partier. Most tried to do it stealthily and keep the full extent of their sorrow to themselves, but not Contessa Brewer!

I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined.

No, really. It’s on video. I think that Contessa Brewer should be more frustrated and oh-so-sad by the fact that she’s, you know, Contessa Brewer. I also think she should just stop talking. Now. I’m certain the two people who watch her network can somehow manage to muddle through without her “insight.” This was all topped off by the CBS/AP headline today:

Faisal Shahzad’s Motive Shrouded in Mystery

Hey, media, you know what might help uncover the shrouded mystery? How about you try mentioning the word “Muslim” or “Islam”? Even just once. Note, it doesn’t appear anywhere in that entire article. And the omission of either word has been glaring in all accounts. Well, except for one. When that bastion of stupidity, Mayor Bloomberg, spoke out, not against the perpetrator of the crime, but pre-emptively against American citizens; the potential victims of a terrorist attack. (Via allahpundit)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says New York City “will not tolerate any bias” following the arrest of a U.S. citizen from Pakistan in the Times Square car bombing attempt.

Bloomberg said Tuesday that also applies to potential backlash against Muslim New Yorkers.

Sigh. Listen, everyone has the right to be stupid, but you, Mayor Bloomberg, totally abuse the privilege. It is rather telling that the only time the word Muslim or Islam is even acknowledged is when the rest of us are being accused of being racist half-wits.

Andrew Breitbart summed it up, in a nutshell, in his response to Contessa Brewer who, while personally astoundingly mockable, really just epitomizes leftist thought as a whole. He asked if she was aware that “tea baggers” would save her life, while Islamists want to take it.

That’s the crux of their willful ignorance right there; sometimes, being an Islamic terrorist IS the motive itself. As Leon de Winter wrote at Pajamas Media, “Faisal Shahzad is a Muslim terrorist motivated to kill by his religion, not by the loss of his house to the bank.”

 Instead of busily demonizing American citizens, apologizing to those who wish to kill us, and frantically avoiding perceived “profiling” out of the insane fear of looking non-politically correct, they should learn that lesson.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Political correctness is no longer just annoying. It’s deadly.

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

Judge asks feds to show militia did more than talk

Judge asks feds to show militia did more than talk


Apr 28, 8:35 PM (ET)


DETROIT (AP) – A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts heard nearly 10 hours of testimony and arguments over two days. She did not make a decision about whether the nine will remain in custody, saying only that a ruling would come soon.

The members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree have been in custody for a month. An indictment accuses them of weapons violations and a rare crime: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government by first killing police officers.

Prosecutors say the public would be at risk if the nine are released. But defense lawyers claim the government has overreached with a criminal case based mostly on hateful speech.

An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly made recordings that have been played in court. While there is talk about killing police, it’s not specific. In one conversation, there are many people talking over each other and laughing.

Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn’t hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent.

“Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. … How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?” Roberts said.

Waterstreet said the government is not required to show all its evidence at this early stage of the case. He referred to the words of militia leader David Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., who was recorded by the undercover agent while they drove to Kentucky earlier this year.

“It’s now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up,” Waterstreet said, quoting a transcript.

Later, putting the transcript aside, the prosecutor said: “The theme is the brotherhood is the enemy – all law enforcement.”

Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.

“‘What if’ is not the standard. … None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime,” said Stone’s attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.

Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to what’s said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

“Millions of people” are talking about “taking our country back,” Weiss said.

The judge also heard from relatives of some of the defendants who pledged to be responsible for them if they were released from jail.

Dictator Uses SEC As Political Weapon: Wall Street Suspects Goldman Charges ‘Not Coincidental’ To Financial Reform Effort

Dictator Uses SEC As Political Weapon: Wall Street Suspects Goldman Charges ‘Not Coincidental’ To Financial Reform Effort

April 17th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

Obama Economy

New York Post:

Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of today’s charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk mortgages securities it sold to clients.

Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as “a well-timed, and perhaps not coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans” to get tough on financial reform.

“Targeting GS, given the flurry of anti-Wall Street press that has centered around that firm, offers the publicity that the administration needs at this critical juncture,” Freeman says in a note to clients today.

He says Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has targeted a vote on the Senate bill for April 26, “and given the short span of time between now and the end of the month, we are not surprised to see the stepped up support for the bill.”