…the king’s interest in religious tolerance has everything to do with western countries being more accepting of Sharia law and nothing to do with his country changing in any way.

BINGO!

Or you can Imagine this….

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/vfile/libertyapes.jpg

Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals.

I worked at a local radio station for a minute or two some years ago. I cannot imagine any Station Manager giving up the copious profits resulting from the heavy hitter conservative talkers. Those little AM stations have seen ad revenues blow through the roof thanks to Rush, Hannity et al.

November 17, 2008

Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio

By Jim Boulet, Jr.

Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign. Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio.

Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.

The late community organizer Saul Alinsky taught his followers to strike hard from an unexpected direction, an approach known as Alinsky jujitsu.

Obama himself not only worked as an organizer for an Alinsky offshoot organization, Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, but would go on to teach classes in Alinsky’s beliefs and methods.

“Alinsky jujitsu” as applied to conservative talk radio means using vague rules already on the books to threaten any station which dares to air conservative programs with the loss of its valuable broadcast license.

Team Obama and the “localism” weapon

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.” Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent. The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council. This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station. Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman. Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations. According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”

FCC complaints as politics by other means

Remember that an FCC license is required for any radio or television station to legally operate in the United States. A single complaint from anyone can significantly hinder a station’s license renewal process or even cost the station its FCC license entirely.

There have been some attempts to utilize the FCC complaint process for partisan political ends, most memorably in 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting agreed to air a documentary questioning Senator John Kerry’s war record:

Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.

Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company’s willingness to respect “localism,” a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.

One group, The Leftcoaster, went further:

But what isn’t done a lot which requires the broadcaster to rack up expensive legal fees, is to challenge every one of their affiliates’ FCC license renewals as they come up this year and next. … [T]here still is time to organize and file Petitions or objections by November 1, 2004 for Sinclair stations in North Carolina and South Carolina, and for Florida by January 1, 2005.

More recently, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium issued a “fill in the blanks” official FCC complaint form which begins “Anything that you feel is offensive is worth reporting.”

Community advisory boards as permanent complaint departments

These random efforts could be far more effective at silencing conservatives if they could only be systematized and institutionalized. That is exactly what the FCC proposed on January 24th. Every radio and television station would be required to create:

[P]ermanent advisory boards comprised of local officials and other community leaders, to periodically advise them of local needs and issues, and seek comment on the matter. …

To ensure that these discussions include representatives of all community elements, these boards would be made up of leaders of various segments of the community, including underserved groups.

The “community advisory board as permanent complaint department” model may well be based upon the 1995 revisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, as described by Howard Husock in City Journal:

[T]the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. … [F]or advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. …

By intervening-even just threatening to intervene-in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York…[emphasis in original].

Understand that even allowing conservatives to be radio talk show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint. Just ask “right wing hatchet man” Stanley Kurtz.

For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.

Can localism be stopped?

FCC observers agree that the outpouring of complaints from groups like the National Religious Broadcasters during the original comment period helped delay matters.

However, Kevin Martin’s determination to enact a localism regulation has led him to ask the broadcast industry to accept a voluntary standard that the FCC would then enact. If industry failed to agree now, Martin warned, “a future FCC may be less willing to compromise than the current one.”

This scare tactic — agree to our demands today or suffer dire consequences tomorrow — is having an impact.

What broadcasters need to do: speak up now

Radio and television station owners need to become engaged in the localism issue and then take the time to educate their own Congressman and Senators about the dangers of the FCC’s proposals.

If broadcasters get involved, it just may be possible to block implementation of any localism rules during the few months remaining of the Bush Administration.

This delay is critical, since once it is the Obama Administration leading the fight for rules which would shut down conservative talk radio, Republican Congressmen and Senators will find it easier to fight back.

The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism

While President Obama will have the authority to name Commissioners as their terms end, these nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

A few pointed questions on localism to FCC nominees during their confirmation hearings would be useful. A filibuster of any and all pro-localism FCC nominees would be even better.

Any Senator leading such a filibuster would earn the gratitude of millions of fans of talk radio as well as everyone who believes in free speech..

That’s DISGUSTING. The President is here to protect and uphold the Constitution. NOT CHANGE IT. I’m not going to stand for this. And there are 50 Million people who didn’t vote for his freak, many of whom will join in the dissent against this jackazz altering our Constitution. What a jerk.

Anyway, do you really believe if he hadn’t been for 10 million republicans staying home this election, Obama would have still won? Obama and these New Party Democrats do believe that they have a mandate from the people. Rahm Emmanuel is not what one would call moderate.

What about the transplanting of the DNC to Chicago? The first time election history the party headquarters were moved.

Obama doesn’t think he is a socialist, and neither do the Dems. They just believe that the ends justifies the means and as long as they have the power it will work out just fine. They really aren’t considering the effects of these policies. Much like what happened when the Republicans tried to bring up the cooked books of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac under Raines. They virulently proclaimed nothing was wrong and that it was a public lynching of Raines. They simply refused to look at the problem because they assumed that there was none.

That is the problem with this Obama administration as I see it.

Bush & Cheney worked hard to put in place most of the measures needed to control the population. The population can be controlled — by either the extreme left or the extreme right — depending on which party steals enough votes.

Saudis use Islamic law to control and impose their will on the people.

Different methods — similar outcome.

All Clintonites.

He’s going to be moderate, guys.

He’s not looking to blow this.

I’m optimistic.

I’m still horribly disappointed in the DNC.

Horribly.

But…..I don’t think Obama is the enemy.

No wonder he can’t stand Bill Clinton, who had a “bring it on” attitude when dealing with the press. He simply loved talking with and proving to them what his policies would do, not shun them if they asked tough questions (like we saw Obama do during the election season).

The desire for control of the media in addition to the strengthening of the localities in deciding what media should be on their airwaves also shows Obama’s hatred of contrary opinion, since it would be a slow march to the end of conservative talk radio. He doesn’t talk about ADDING liberal talk to the airwaves just the SUBTRACTING of what a locality doesn’t approve of.

I’m in MIlwaukee, which is the city of the sewer socialists. They did some good things here under Frank Zeidler. But these were people who believed in pay as you go and working with fundamental structures, not their complete overhaul. In retrospect, he was probably socialist-lite.

Personally, I am more concerned with Obama’s comments about the constitution. Not the “living breathing document” argument, but the fact he believed it is a tragedy that some sort of economic reparations were not included for slaves, and that it doesn’t go far enough entailing what govt should do for you. The fact that he didn’t mention the greatness of the Bill of Rights which is evidence of govt giving us something is particularly bothersome. He simply doesn’t believe that the Constitution designates positive liberties, or believes that negative liberties is much more prevalent. Either way, we will see a restructuring of the constitution under Obama.

I love the way ignorant folk toss around terms like “women’s liberation” as if the LIFE of women is worthless.

Human rights are women’s rights — it is that simple.

but hell — if the Saudi have oil — we’ll even allow Shariah law to creep into to the US — just like it is happening in the UK.

Under Shariah law — women are pretty much non humans.

And this is why Obama is dangerous to women — during his formative years he learned that women are less than human. That is one of his core beliefs — deduced from his attitude toward Clinton & Palin — and women in general (hey sweetie…)

I do NOT appreciate this BS of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, the GUN BAN, the CIVILIAN MILITARY FORCE

The Fairness Doctrine may not be all there is to worry about, 0bama uses FCC loophole to squash dissent.

Keep your eye on the birdie, people!