Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.
Posted on 04/29/2009 8:39:13 AM PDT by Delacon
Most Americans are sleepwalking right now through the early reign of Obama the Magnificant. He tells them he is cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting the deficit, and they believe him. When they find in 2010 and 2011 that he deliberately misled them and has been doing just the opposite, and they are deep in the soup as a result, public opinion will turn decisively against him.
Meanwhile, our "mainstream media," which should be called the Party Controlled Press, are quite successfully maintaining the smokescreen in promoting the Obama propaganda line, acting as slavishly as Pravda and Izvestia did towards the Kremlin in the old Soviet Union. This is the beginning of the end of free speech in America.
Next is to target the remaining holdouts, primarily conservative talk radio and the Christian broadcasters. Then the Internet. And if Fox News doesn't stop airing independent voices, and learn to toe the party line, the Obaman Left will further browbeat them.
Now is the time for true patriots to stand up and fight for the survival of free speech in America. Grassroots activism is needed here. If the Left shuts down free speech, we will no longer have a free country.
Property Rights: The Foundation of All Other Rights
The airwaves, meaning the broadcast spectrum, are already publicly owned. That means we already have socialism in radio and TV broadcasting. This is the root of the gathering threat to free speech. Because the airwaves are publicly owned, government control and regulation of speech on those airwaves is considered justified.
This public ownership is at the root of the Fairness Doctrine. It was considered permissible for the government to regulate the "fairness" of broadcast speech because the airwaves are publicly owned. No one ever talks about regulating the fairness of print
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
ping
What is this addressing? Democrats are not proposing the Fairness Doctrine but have come up with a less visible ‘Local Community representation” that supposedly would sell the licences to liberals.
I thought this might be about the hate crimes bill that is going go pass soon...if your words incite a crime, you could be held liable also. Criminalizing thought and opinion.
ping
That will be a cold day in hell! The cult freeloaders and bailout types will never go against King Obama. We have to stop this wishful thinking. America may never recover since the communists have used the MSM, Hollywierd, and have successfully used our Constitution to destroy itself.
Well the tea parties are a sign of a growing PUSHBACK!
We are fighting back and not wishful thinking.
I could see the handwriting on the wall during the first 72 hours, hence my tagline.
Freedom of speech is one battleground, but the other will be property rights. Liberals, including Obama, don't believe in property rights, and are now vigorously trying to stamp them out. These battles definitely need to be fought, otherwise America as we truly knew it will indeed disappear.
“Party Controlled Press - I like that one. PCP for short”.
Yeah, I liked that one too. Since the media have dropped any pretense of objectivity, “MSM” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
How about “Government Media?”
BO and the Libs complained vociferously after our actions on April 15. This is something they fear.
Its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
I like to call it the Ministry of Truth, or sometimes MINITRUE.
Incrementalization. Just one more piece of the constitution that the left has to destroy. By keeping the masses ignorant, who is left after the internet and talk radio are abolished? The main stream media(Pravda).
successfully used our Constitution to destroy itself.
They'd like you to think that. What they have actually done is to distort people's perceptions of the meanings of words until it is actually difficult to express truth, including constitutional truth.One of the mainstays in their Newspeak campaign is the word "liberal." The Newspeak definition with which we are all familiar is, "the opposite of conservative, right wing, and fascist." Where "right wing" is defined as "the opposite of socialist." In reality, Lenin used the term "right wing" to describe his opposition within the socialist movement in Russia - and fascism (nationalist, rather than internationalist, socialism) was "right wing" socialism (Mussolini himself, founder of Italy's Fascist Party, was a Communist before starting his own movement).
Liberalism is indeed opposite to fascism, and to all other flavors of socialism, including not only Communism but also what is being called "liberalism" in America (and nowhere else) today. At the start of the Twentieth Century he term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.
But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us. And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation just as surely as marketers love to boldly proclaim that the product which they are flogging is NEW!
That insight is due to FA Hayek, and he is surely correct. I see no possibility that that situation can ever be ameliorated, short of the success of the fond and lively hope which abb expresses in his "Dinosaur Media Death Watch."
BTTT
One of the theorems I’m developing is that with ‘broadcast’ (one to many) it is relatively easy for a central authority to corrupt and control the ‘one’ who distributes information.
That is becoming more difficult to accomplish with the ‘multicast’ (many to many) of the world wide web.
Freedom will win. It always does.
The man who calls himself president again showed his disdain for free speech ridiculing the people speaking out - people of the nation - calling them “tea bags” - mocking a civil organized demonstration which is the basis and foundation of the nation.
This non-citizen - puppet of evil - should be removed - while there is still some semblance of conscience among the people. There is little left in Washington.
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language.Here Hayek nails the "Orwellian" (Hayek's notes have Orwell reviewing Serfdom, in late '44, and Orwell chose the date 1984 by inverting the last two digits of the year of publication - 1948. So Orwell cannot be said to have invented the concept of word-meaning inversion - or at least not as late as the publication date of 1984) "Newspeak."The worst sufferer in this respect is the word ‘liberty’. It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a ‘collective freedom’, which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. ‘Collective freedom’ is not the freedom of the members of society, but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme.
It is however ironic that Hayek, in a preface to a later edition of the full Serfdom text, discusses the American inversion of the word "liberalism" defensively. He mentions there his 'regret' at using so liberally a word which was perfectly understood in Britain at that time but which in America at that same time meant "very nearly its opposite" of the old British meaning.
It will take you a long way in translating leftist Newspeak if, whenever you hear the word "social" as a word or the root of a word, or you hear the word "public," you mentally pencil in the word "government" as a possible replacement. Thus "socialism" is accurately translated into "governmentism" - which is, aptly a synonym for "tyranny." And thus when the leftist says, "society should feed its children" no one can seriously question that someone in society should and must - but the leftist actually means nothing other than that the government should do it. "The public sector" is a circumlocution for "the government," too - and (as Milton Friedman vigorously asserts) a "public school" is a government school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.