The Democrats have some more weapons aimed at silencing dissent from The Anointed One’s agenda.
First is the establishment of local community boards to monitor the content of radio stations. The local community boards will be created by the FCC and will consist of the usual suspects and will be pressured by the usual suspects: community organizers such as ACORN — the Association of Corrupted Organizations Registering Non-eligible voters — and union thugs from AFSCME, SEIU, the teachers union, etc., and other assorted leftwing fruitcakes intent on shutting down talk radio. All zealous disciples of Our Lord and Savior Barack Hussein Obama.
A Zogby poll showed 82 percent of Americans in opposition to this idea with only five percent in favor.
Says Roger Hedgecock, a radio talk show host based in San Diego:
I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions.
I believe the strategy is to make the current state of compliant journalism that prevails in the mainstream media the norm as well on the Internet and in talk radio.
I think in the next 90 days we will see the imposition of the local advisory boards. They will immediately become complaint departments staffed by the Left on all local and nationally syndicate talk programs.
The threats of those complaints to the viability of the underlying station licenses will be immediate and will force corporations that own these stations into a very defensive posture.
Talk about a chilling effect on free speech, this will be an Arctic blast of restraint on opinion based on the threat to take the license away.
Here’s more on the blueprint for The Messiah’s plan to silence dissent in the form of talk radio:
WASHINGTON – As popular opposition to the reinstitution of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” mounts, Barack Obama and the Democrat-dominated Congress will end-run critics with legislation that will curb dissent on talk radio through the imposition of “localism” rules and community watchdog boards across America …
It’s chilling. They don’t need the (Un)Fairness Doctrine to silence dissent. That’s why they haven’t bothered to pursue it, and the Chocolate Jesus has expressed opposition to its reimposition. he has other ways to silence those who disagree.
Says Brad O’Leary, author of the book Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech:
Far-left groups such as ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] stand at the ready to pressure these boards into silencing conservative talk radio programs, either through intimidation or the loss of broadcast licenses.
What’s more, Cass Sunstein, Obama’s choice of regulatory czar, supports a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”
Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for the Net. These “sidewalks” would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”
“Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires,” Thierer wrote.
Perhaps Sunstein’s most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book “Nudge,” written with Richard Thaler, for a “Civility Check” for e-mails and other online communications.
“The modern world suffers from insufficient civility,” they wrote. “Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month.”
That’s where the “Civility Check” comes in.
“We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you’re about to send is angry and caution you, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?’” they wrote. “(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.’
Says O’Leary, who revealed Sunstein’s background in his book:
It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein. Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.
Once again, the Left shows its true colors as anti-free speech and anti-freedom of expression with views that aren’t in line with its own.
Next comes the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which will allow the Second Coming of Christ to shut down and take control of the Internet in case of national emergency, and He would the One to determine what qualifies as a “national emergency.”
As written, the Act would provide the President or his designees with a lot of authority, particularly in terms of shutting down all or parts of the Internet. Take a look at these key provisions:
The President–
…may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;
…shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration…
…shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;
Note that this gives the federal government the authority to shut down privately owned Internet networks; for example, any portion of the networks or cable systems owned by large corporations like Comcast or ATT.
This on top of His desire stated during the 2008 campaign to bring about nationalized broadband, which would allow the government to regulate speech in a medium it controls.
The only way His agenda of collectivist totalitarianism can advance is by controlling the debate and not allowing dissent. He already has His acolytes in the Drive By Media; now He needs to shut down the dissenters.
Suddenly, the need for the six regional detention centers proposed by Rep. Alcee Hastings (Crook-Fla.) becomes crystal clear. They’re for the dissenters that can’t or won’t be silenced.
