VIDEO: The biggest loser liberal Democrat says Fox News lies

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: The FCC News Police plan is derailed, but for how long?

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

I think I can tell Greta where the idea came from... Maybe, like, the White House?  Just a thought...

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: Profoundly stupid or just plain malevolent?

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: Chilling news story of the FCC News Police

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Big Brother tightens choke hold on Internet ~ By Jerome Corsi

What? The U.N. has something to do with this? Jerome Corsi brings this report on the highly controversial moves to "censure" the internet to prevent us from getting our news from anywhere but government controlled or regulated news media.

Big Brother tightens choke hold on Internet

JEROME CORSI

By Jerome Corsi

December 19, 2010 ~ 9:12 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert (requires free registration) the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and senior managing director of the Financial Services Group at Gilford Securities.

The United Nations is now joining the Obama administration and Democratic commissioners on the FCC in an attempt to regulate the Internet, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

"The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets," Corsi wrote.

"What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Hands off the 1st Amendment! ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb discusses the reality of people in the federal government actually suggesting regulations on broadcasters that "dictate the content broadcasters are required to air." And of course, he's talking Obama appointees, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and regulatory information czar, Cass Sunstein.

As Henry writes:

In a free society, it is not the job of government to decide what people should hear. In a socialist, communist or other dictatorial society, deciding what people should hear is the first priority of government.

That would seem to be a no-brainer, but what is even more obvious to us that love America and freedom is the last few lines of Henry's column:

It's hard to imagine a more effective way to destroy a free society than to empower government to control the flow of information available to its citizens. The crowd now in power in Washington seems to want this power – badly. They will take it, unless they are stopped. They can be stopped only by making sure that the president who appoints these bureaucrats honors, respects and abides by the Constitution. (emphasis my own)

Hands off the 1st Amendment!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

December 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …," but the progressives on the Federal Communications Commission think their job is to do just that – regulate the speech of individuals and of the press. Speaking to the Columbia School of Journalism, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spelled out his idea for a "community values test" to be applied to media outlets with every license-renewal application.

This is not a new idea from Copps. In 2007, at a Walter Cronkite Awards dinner, he told journalists that license holders should be required to meet a laundry list of standards the FCC dictates. What happened to the idea that in a free market, consumers set the standards? If the market does not like what the broadcaster is producing, the broadcaster will soon be out of business.

The FCC's only legitimate function is to see that broadcasters comply with laws enacted by Congress. It is certainly not the function of the FCC to dictate the content broadcasters are required to air. Copps is also bent out of shape because there are not as many black and Latino owners of broadcast stations as he thinks there should be. He wants the licensing process to insure that the distribution of ownership opportunities meets his requirements, even if it means taxing successful broadcast stations to provide a subsidy for new minority operators.

Could it be that Copps believes that the FCC is not limited by the First Amendment? Could it be that Copps thinks that requiring broadcast outlets to present content dictated by the FCC is not really "abridging" the freedom of the press? Or, could it be that he just doesn't give a damn what the Constitution says?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The relentless effort to control the news ~ By Henry Lamb

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Henry on this subject. Barack Obama and his minions desperately desire to find a way to silence their critics. One way to do that, as Henry points out, would be to control the "news market" as a public good, and the government is now exploring that option. If they were able to provide subsidies to the press to keep them in business, the government, and low-lifes like regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, can then regulate the press - which may even include the internet - in ways that gives me the chills. Just sayin'...

The real problem being addressed by this administration and academic doublespeak is this: "The media are producing more information to a broader audience about ideas that are not supportive of our progressive-Marxist philosophy, and we have to find a way to stop it."

This administration and congressional majority have already demonstrated their commitment to expand government control over the market and over the lives of the people. Control over the flow of information is essential, if they are to be successful. Control over the flow of information is a critical step in the construction of a dictatorial regime. The only way to prevent it is to replace the Democratic majority in Congress with people who honor the Constitution, instead of trying to find ways to ignore it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Constitution is quite clear: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. …" This treasured principle of freedom is unknown in most of the world and greatly compromised in many nations. Canada, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Ireland, Slovenia, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Australia and France all provide subsidies to the press ranging from $7 billion to $35 billion per year.

The Obama administration, and some in Congress, are looking for ways that government might exert more control over free speech, and particularly over the press.

Since 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the Federal Communications Commission, every Democratic majority in Congress has tried to restore it. Through its power to license broadcast stations, the FCC, through the Fairness Doctrine, gave the federal government the power to force radio and television stations to air content that countered opinions and points of view the government didn't like. The sad result of the Fairness Doctrine was a chilling effect on all controversial opinions. Broadcasters simply chose to avoid controversial programming that might invoke an FCC-required Fairness Doctrine response.

A more sophisticated effort is now under way to give government control of the information available to the public.

"News" is what newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet deliver to the public. "News," it is argued, is what provides the information needed for a free people to make intelligent public-policy decisions. Therefore, "news" is a public good, in much the same way the national defense and highways are public goods. Consider the reasoning of University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney in a paper prepared for a Federal Trade Commission workshop:

The starting point for exiting this dead-end street is the recognition that journalism is best understood as increasingly having the attributes of a public good, not a private good. It is like military defense, physical infrastructure, education, public health and basic research in that regard. It is something society requires, and people want, but the market cannot generate in sufficient quantity or quality. It requires government leadership to exist. There may be an important role for the private sector, but with public goods the government plays quarterback, or the game never starts.

If it is appropriate for government to pay for national defense and highways, then it must be equally appropriate for government to pay for "news." This is the logic that prevails in Europe and is being advanced here.

The argument is reinforced by the fact that the Internet is having a devastating effect on the news-gathering capability of both newspapers and television. Plummeting advertising revenues have forced dramatic newsroom layoffs across all media. The Obama administration and some members of Congress are looking for ways government can save the republic by assuring that there is an abundance of the right kind of news available to the public.

The Federal Trade Commission, for example, is holding the third in a series of workshops on "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The event will be held June 15 at the National Press Club. In preparation for the day-long event, the FTC released a 47-page "Discussion Draft" that provides a variety of ideas about how the government may insure the continuation of a healthy news media.

Cass Sunstein,
Regulatory Czar

Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also published a lengthy argument for government involvement in the news media. Some of the ideas he advances are quite consistent with those offered by the FTC.

What part of "Shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …" do these people not understand?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's hope to control the Net ~ By Phil Elmore

It is important for you to read this commentary, as Phil explains the problems with net "neutrality." It isn't a good thing, as you will see.

Obama's FCC wants to protect you from yourself and from the onerous freedom of choice. Obama's appointed staff of Marxist czars wants to stop ISPs from managing their own property on the assumption that the equipment owned by these service providers belongs to everyone. This is collectivism. This is Marxism. This is your government grinding your civil liberties underfoot in the name of freedom. This is your president urging that you be controlled in the name of setting you free. This is those in power further deepening that power in the name of protecting the powerless.

This is countless lesser tyrannies, and this is wrong.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: April 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Advocates of smaller government received some rare good news this week concerning government regulation of the Internet. Where your government is concerned, however, there is no shortage of alternate paths to the same regulated, restricted and controlled future. Almost before the news had broken, statist supporters of government Internet control were already scheming to circumvent a legal ruling that has erected the smallest of roadblocks in their collective path.

Tuesday, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that, as written by CNET's Declan McCullagh, the "Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers." McCullagh went on to point out that "Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of net neutrality rules – even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. ... Net neutrality proponents responded ... by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates."

Price regulation. Service controls. Mandates. Do these terms disturb you? Do they disturb you further because they come on the heels of an autocratic federal agency being told it does not have the authority to control what it is attempting to control? Reporters covering the "net neutrality" ruling have blithely speculated as to whether the government might reclassify broadband Internet services as telecommunications services, giving the FCC the authority to enact price controls. This would be the first step in destroying the free market Internet Service Providers (ISPs) serve.

Price controls destroy the normal, natural, practical exchange of value for value among consumers and providers, invariably inviting further government intervention. This is socialism. This is collectivism. Barack Hussein Obama's supporters hate it when the president's critics point this out, but this is why his administration is bad for our country, for our economy and for our liberties.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's totalitarian plans for the Net ~ By Phil Elmore

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: February 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The Internet, the network of networks through which we communicate and transfer data worldwide, is an integral part of modern society. Any threat to the Internet, and to the free exchange of information thereon, arguably threatens American society and American security. A threat to the Internet silences the voices of millions of people engaged in free speech in the largest public square imaginable. A threat to the Internet endangers commerce domestically and internationally. A threat to the Internet is now a threat to the fabric of our technologically saturated world. While some might welcome the disconnection of the countless plugs running from the World Wide Web to the phones in our pockets and to the brains in our skulls, they are the minority. When the Internet became infrastructure, we became its dependents as surely as we continue to create its content. Previously in Technocracy, we called Barack Hussein Obama "our technology dictator," in recognition of his initially shrewd and subsequently overexposed use of multiple media to inflict his visage on us. Obama's omnipresence on every flickering screen and in every possible venue competed only with his steadfast refusal to give up his personal data device, flouting years of White House security tradition and forcing the people who take care of such things to provide him with a specially prepared PDA hardened against hacking. Obama has, from the first days of his presidency, displayed a distinct technological savvy – which has, in his every word and deed, quickly manifested itself as a desire to control every technological venue in which Americans might conceivably find utility, entertainment or employment. Mr. Obama has wasted no time implementing this destructive, invasive, oppressive worldview where the Internet is concerned. He is, after all, the man who previously sought the power of a collective "off" switch for the Web – in the form of a Senate bill that would give the White House "the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet." We covered the dangers of "net neutrality" in October after first, perhaps optimistically, suggesting that an Internet controlled by the United States and its commitment to individual rights would prevent the establishment of thoughtcrime. It has become clear that a government empowered to enforce its vision of net neutrality will only do harm, interfering in commerce while opening the door to the institution of the very thoughtcrime the concept of "net neutrality" is intended, idealistically, to prevent. Should we be surprised, then, that Barack Hussein Obama is an ardent supporter of this most recent evolution of a once high-minded principle? Obama has said, "I'm a big believer in net neutrality," and he wants to empower the unelected, unaccountable autocrats at the FCC to force you and your Internet Service Provider to toe his totalitarian line. Even if they lose the court battle over whether Obama can impose new government rules on the Internet, they intend to do it anyway. The overlords at the Federal Communications Commission are even now plotting and scheming to find a way around the law and our court system, inflicting their controls on us regardless of what we want, what our judges say or what the Constitution might contain. READ FULL STORY >

Washington To Close Internet To Bloggers, End Open Internet Freedom ~ By Capt. Karl

From The Liberty Tree Lantern

By Capt. Karl October 20, 2009 Phil Kerpen, who this Capt. Karl was honored to meet with and discuss liberty and economic issues in the town of Howard, WI (near Green Bay) as part of an Americans for Prosperity town hall meeting last year, sent the following letter in grave concern of our freedom and liberty with regards to our usage of the Internet. This is just another in a long series of very serious concerns with the mounting oppression and despotism through Socialist and Communistic principles of control and manipulation of our society and even our communication, news and information sources. As so many things these behaviors by the U.S. Government are really getting serious and certainly approaching a line in the sand if not over it already. Please read Phil’s letter to me, which I am sharing with you below, and get active in stopping the additional loss of our rights and freedoms:

Dear Karl, As important as all the fights are that we’re in right now, perhaps the biggest of all is the fight over whether the government will take over the Internet. That’s because as long as the Internet is free, we can use it to communicate, educate, and organize. Tea parties, townhalls, and AFP events would be very difficult to organize if government owned and controlled the Internet and chose to interfere with it. That’s what’s at stake this week as the Federal Communications Commission decides on Thursday whether to move forward with so-called “net neutrality” regulations. The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country’s communications systems. I discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement last night on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. I’ll be on with Glenn again tonight to discuss net neutrality specifically. ... (You can see the video of Phil Kerpen on Glenn Beck below)

[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Glenn Beck Clips 10-20-09 Seg5- Phil Kerpen; Obama Says He Is FOR Net Neutrality

FCC not only agency seeking media regulation

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief Sunstein drew up 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine' Posted: October 23, 2009 ~ 11:07 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily The Federal Communications Commission's unanimous support yesterday for a rule that would open the door to government regulation of the Internet has raised the concern of free speech advocates, but there are other members of the Obama administration who support similar measures. The president's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves. Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation. Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and little scrutiny. In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Scary times for free speech ~ By Joseph Farah

There's a real war against free speech in America. That war is being waged on many fronts, orchestrated by government, cheered by brain-dead ideological zealots and fought in the gutter with mud-slinging intimidation tactics. What are those people afraid of? Debate, dissenting opinions, reasoned discussion, and most of all, the fear of the truth. read more | digg story

31 horsemen of talk radio's apocalypse? ~ By Drew Zahn

FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission: The Federal Communications Commission has announced the roster of a new advisory committee on "diversity" in communications, a move many critics have warned would mark the beginning of government regulation of talk radio and a reinstallation of the "Fairness Doctrine" by another name. read more | digg story

Obama's war on free speech ~ By Joseph Farah

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are intent on nationalizing media in the U.S. They want to create "community advisory boards" of community activists to monitor the content of talk-radio programs, give billions to public broadcasting networks, and give bailouts of failing newspapers perceived as essential propaganda tools for the party. read more | digg story

Demonize and censor - By Roger Hedgecock

The triumphant left now denies any intention of re-imposing a "Fairness Doctrine" to strangle talk radio. Don't you believe it. There will still be a fight for free speech on talk radio. It just may be done in a different way than a "Fairness Doctrine." Either way, talk radio continues to be demonized, and calls for censorship are getting louder. read more | digg story

Obama aims to silence conservatives on talk radio

Democrat Henry Rivera, a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, is expected to head President-elect Barack Obama's FCC transition team, a move that has sparked fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine may return to silence conservative talk radio. UPDATE! Related story! Be sure to watch the following video:

read more | digg story