The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance

SILENCE!!!

Governor Orders: No Talk Radio

by Eric Shawn | January 13, 2011

 

No talk radio.

That is the order from Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who has banned state officials from conducting interviews on talk radio, except in emergencies.

A spokesman for the Governor's office says the decision is not related to the Tucson shootings and was considered before the tragedy.

Some have blamed talk radio for the deadly shooting in Arizona, even though talk radio defenders say there is no evidence that it influenced the suspect at all, or even if Jared Loughner listened.

Chafee, a former Republican Senator who is now an Independent, barred state employees, including himself, from appearing on what he calls "for-profit entertainment" radio programs, saying they are more entertainment than journalism. He will go on NPR, public radio though.

The Governor's spokesman told us "This is a brand new administration facing a mammoth deficit. We are looking in every way to be efficient. We do not think it's appropriate to invest taxpayer resources... To support what we see as an entertainment format not a news format."

But during the snow storm yesterday, officials did go on talk radio to discuss their handling of it.

Some are slamming Chafee's policy, but his office says it is getting some praise.

One critic is former Providence Mayor turned radio talk show host Buddy Cianci, a Rhode Island legend.

He served time in federal prison for racketeering, and now hosts his own talk radio program on Providence's WPRO 630AM and says the Governor is way off base.

"He's the loser in this situation," Cianci told Fox News. "The Governor did the wrong thing...the fact is when you say, 'I will not be available and my staff and my cabinet won't be available,' I think that just breeds a tremendous amount of discontent in the community. People cannot ask questions of those who are serving them, and those who have been put in office to straighten out some of the problems that we have."

Cicanci says talk radio is a place for public dialogue and that he tries to make his show entertaining and witty, as well as informative.

"It's a public conversation," says Cianci. "We're a small state and talk radio has really been a staple. In Texas they have football as a sport, in Rhode Island we have politics as kind of a blood sport and the fact is people want to be part of that conversation."

An estimated 30 million Americans listen to talk radio across the country every day.

Well, considering this IDIOT is an Obama-worshiper, is it any wonder he would ban freedom of speech in state government? If I were in Rhode Island state government, I would go out of my way to go on as many "Talk Radio" shows just to "thumb my nose" at him and DARE HIM to do something. There is a growing tide among the Socialist-ilk to try to "shut up" the opposition. Which only goes to show, just how dangerous this hoard of Obama-loving scum are!

Free Speech---Socialists In North America Have In Their "Crosshairs"

Dire Straits' 'Money for Nothing' Deemed Offensive In Canada, Can't Air

 

Published January 13, 2011

| TVGuide

 

Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" can no longer be played in Canada in its original form since the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has deemed the song offensive.

Watch the "Money for Nothing" music video

The decision stems from a listener's complaint last year calling the lyrics — which contain the word "f----t" — extremely offensive to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The song, which has been a classic rock staple for 25 years, earned the band a Grammy for best rock performance. The then state-of-the-art computer-animation video was also the first music video to air on MTV Europe.

The council said: "The societal values at issue a quarter-century later have shifted and the broadcast of the song in 2010 must reflect those values, rather than those of 1985."
 

Another day and another attempt to censor. In Canada, at least, the Socialists don't hide behind a false monika as they do in the USA. Be that as it may. Does anybody really need to go after a song that is a quarter of a century old? As the article said,  a "classic rock staple for 25 years." A song you do not hear much anymore. But yet, there is a rush to ban it? 

 

Ban everything!

              Glen shows how stupid the "Left" has been sounding with their moronic comments following the shooting of a Congresswoman from Arizona that also resulted in the murder of 6 others by a MENTALLY ILL MARXIST!

When all Else Fails.....Just Take Away Their "Rights"

FCC Should Clamp Down on Inflammatory Rhetoric Says Dem Lawmaker

by John Brandt | January 10, 2011

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said in a Monday afternoon conference call that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should work harder to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.

"No one owns the airwaves," Slaughter said, "They are owned by the people."

Noting that she was not up on the current state of FCC regulations, Slaughter thought that during the recent health care debate, "she really heard" exhortations to violence in the nation's political dialogue.

"I think that the dialogue has changed," Slaughter said, "Don't retreat, reload. Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There's only one way to read this."

Slaughter also voiced concerns about James Lee Loughner's ability to purchase a firearm in the state of Arizona. Loughner is accused of killing six and wounding fourteen people at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday. The host of that event, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., remains in the University of Arizona Medical Center with a gunshot wound to the head.

"He was dismissed from a community college for not being well," Slaughter noted, "Yet he was able to go to a store in Tucson in November and buy a Glock 9 (millimeter handgun) which he put an extender on that allowed him to shoot 30 times."

 

Notice the going trend of when something bad is reported in the news, how the Socialists(def: A member of the Democratic Party who preach government control of everything and wealth redistribution. ex: Barack Obama) take that as a reason to call for the Rights of Americans to be taken away? After the incidents of this past weekend, 2 Socialists have called for the Rights given to Americans in both the First and Second Ammements to be stripped away. In the above story, this one called for the FCC to infringe upon the First Amemment. Yesterday, the Second Amemment was the "target du jour". This is the reason for the rise of groups like the Tea Party and the taking back of the House of Representatives by the Republicans. 

The "Mark Of The Beast" ........

Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

Published January 08, 2011

 Cnet via FoxNews.com 

STANFORD, Calif.--President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil-liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)

"We are not talking about a national ID card," Locke said at the Stanford event. "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

The Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project, Locke said.

Details about the "trusted identity" project are remarkably scarce. Last year's announcement referenced a possible forthcoming smart card or digital certificate that would prove that online users are who they say they are. These digital IDs would be offered to consumers by online vendors for financial transactions.

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential, if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who spoke later at the event, said any Internet ID must be created by the private sector--and also voluntary and competitive.

"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Dempsey said. "If it tried to, it wouldn't be trusted."

Inter-agency rivalries to claim authority over cybersecurity have existed ever since many responsibilities were centralized in the Department of Homeland Security as part of its creation nine years ago. Three years ago, proposals were circulating in Washington to transfer authority to the secretive NSA, which is part of the U.S. Defense Department.

In March 2009, Rod Beckström, director of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity Center, resigned through a letter that gave a rare public glimpse into the competition for budgetary dollars and cybersecurity authority. Beckstrom said at the time that the NSA "effectively controls DHS cyberefforts through detailees, technology insertions," and has proposed moving some functions to the agency's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters.

One of the NSA's missions is, of course, information assurance. But its normally lustrous star in the political firmament has dimmed a bit due to Wikileaks-related revelations.

Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private who is accused of liberating hundreds of thousands of confidential government documents from military networks and sending them to Wikileaks, apparently joked about the NSA's incompetence in an online chat last spring.

"I even asked the NSA guy if he could find any suspicious activity coming out of local networks," Manning reportedly said in a chat transcript provided by ex-hacker Adrian Lamo. "He shrugged and said, 'It's not a priority.'"

It would seem, that anyone closing watching this, could very easily come to the conclusion this will be a way for "government monitoring" of activity on the internet. Their will be others (as I inferred in the title of this post) who will see this as something far more sinister. Of course, the very nieve, i.e. Obama-worshippers, will rejoice how their savior (notice the small "s") has "blessed" them (can you hear the sarcasm?) and "saved them" from the "evil" of the world (of course they will say all of which comes from the Republican Party). So, am I saying Obama is "the Beast"? No, I'm sure that statement would give Satan a good laugh. No, Obama is just an arrogant jerk and pompous asshole  who is on a "power trip". Nothing more then a "2 bit, corrupt Chicago politican" who is trying to wear "the big boys pants" and is proving he is nothing more then "a pant load". 

 

Do As I Say, Not As I do

Posted on Wed, Jan. 5, 2011

Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word

By Michael Klein

Inquirer Staff Writer

A federal jury will be asked to decide whether it is acceptable for an African American person, but not a white person, to use the "n" word in a workplace.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick has ruled that former Fox29 reporter-anchor Tom Burlington's lawsuit against the station, claiming a double standard and alleging that he was the victim of racial discrimination, may go to trial. However, Surrick denied Burlington's claim of a hostile work environment.

Burlington, who is white, was fired after using the "n" word during a June 2007 staff meeting at which reporters and producers were discussing reporter Robin Taylor's story about the symbolic burial of the word by the Philadelphia Youth Council of the NAACP.

Burlington, who began work at the station in 2004 and is now working as a real estate agent, was suspended within days and fired after an account of the incident was published in the Philadelphia Daily News. He alleges that he "was discriminated against because of his race," according to court documents. He claims in his lawsuit that at least two African American employees at Fox29 had used the word in the workplace and were not disciplined.

The dispute began after Taylor, who is white, used the phrase the "n" word during the 2007 staff meeting. She said participants at the burial had said the full word "at least a hundred times or more," according to court records.

"Does this mean we can finally say the wordn-?" Burlington asked colleagues, according to depositions.

Nicole Wolfe, a producer and one of the three African American employees among the nine people at the meeting, exclaimed: "I can't believe you just said that!"

Burlington told Taylor that although he did not necessarily expect her to use the word in her story, he thought that doing so gave the story more credence.

Burlington says he used the word only once and approached several attendees after the meeting to explain himself. The Daily News account said he had used the word more than a dozen times.

Surrick, in denying Fox's request to have the suit dismissed, said that federal courts had not determined whether a double standard, if true in this case, would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with equal opportunity in employment.

On the one hand, he wrote in a memorandum Dec. 23, the word is "considered by many to be the most offensive in the English language" and "has been used by whites as a tool to belittle, oppress, or dehumanize African Americans. When viewed in its historical context, one can see how people in general, and African Americans in particular, might react differently when a white person uses the word than if an African American uses it.

"Nevertheless, we are unable to conclude that this is a justifiable reason for permitting the station to draw race-based distinctions between employees."

Surrick wrote that "there is evidence in this case to suggest that at least two African Americans said the word in the workplace with no consequences."

Surrick wrote that a jury would have to decide whether Burlington was a "victim of political correctness run amok" - as Burlington's suit contends - or a victim of "his own poor judgment."

On Dec. 30, Surrick denied Burlington's attempt to prevent Fox from mentioning at trial that after the meeting, he told his former coanchor Joyce Evans that someone had referred to her as a "n- bitch."

Burlington had said he was simply illustrating what he considered to be an unacceptable use of the word, court filings say. Evans was not at the staff meeting.

The trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 18.

A Fox spokeswoman on Tuesday said the station disagreed with the judge's decision about the disparate treatment and looked forward to presenting its case to the jury.

 Here we have another case of selective freedom of speech. This tactic of the left is becoming a very popular ploy. Now, only certain people can say certain things. So, do you think we will see the release of a new book, "The Obama Rules of Order and Speech", anytime soon? The way its going, we will ALL need something like that so we can stay out of the Obama "Gulag". 

 

The Democrats Are Becoming The New Soviets

FCC push to regulate news draws fire

By Sara Jerome - 12/06/10 02:33 PM ET

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pushed back on Monday against a contention by a Democratic FCC commissioner that the government should create new regulations to promote diversity in news programming.

Barton was reacting to a proposal made last week by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who in a speech suggested that broadcasters be subject to a new "public values test" every four years.

"I hope … that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the [FCC], to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” Barton wrote Monday in a letter to Copps.

Copps had suggested that the test would make a broadcaster's license renewal contingent upon proof that they meet a prospective set of federal criteria.

He said outlets should be mandated to do the following: prove they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming, prove they are committed to diversity programming (for instance, by showing that they depict women and minorities), report more to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25 percent of their prime-time coverage to local news.

The regulations would apply to all news outlets operating on the public airwaves.

In his letter, Barton questioned whether Copps believes the government should reinstate the defunct Fairness Doctrine, a controversial standard that required broadcast licensees to offer "balanced" coverage. Critics saw it as an affront to free speech.

Barton also asked whether "five commissioners can do a better job of ensuring that Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints than Americans can themselves by expressing their preferences ... in the vigorously competitive marketplace."

The Federal Communications Commission has an ongoing project about media diversity that promises to issue a report on whether Americans have access to adequate sources of news, but the effort has come under strong criticism and the FCC has not stated when the report will be released.

Well, it is becoming very clear that the Democrats want NOTHING TO DO with an open society and free speech is only for those who spew their doctrine. They are "outraged" that a news organization-Fox News, dare not to fall at the feet of their liberal "gods" and worship socialism. They are so determined, that the recent ousting of numerous Democrats from the House of Representatives, has not dissuaded them one iota.They grumbled when the Republicans decided they would open the new Congress with a reading of our Constitution. They acted like vampires at the sight of a crucifix, or having had holy water thrown on them.They are so stubborn in their quest to impose control over everything we say or do, that nothing short of bloodshed will get them to stop. It can be said, the reason they are so adamant about gun control is because they know, one day, those guns will be the only thing stopping them from imposing their NAZI-ism on us all.