Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/27/2025 1:36:59 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
FCC licensees would have to disclose ties to China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a rule aimed at exposing any communications license or authorization held by entities controlled by a foreign adversary.
The four-member commission voted unanimously on May 22 to issue the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released to the public on May 27.
Under the plan, carriers, broadcasters, satellite operators, spectrum lessees, test labs, antenna owners, and other FCC-regulated entities would have to certify whether a foreign adversary—defined as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—owns, controls, or directs them.
The agency said the resulting disclosures would give regulators and the public “a new and comprehensive view of threats from foreign adversaries” inside U.S. networks.
“The U.S. Government has long recognized that foreign adversaries have been engaged in a widespread and coordinated effort to exploit, attack, and otherwise compromise the integrity of U.S. communications networks,” an FCC announcement of the rule stated.
The notice builds on earlier FCC efforts such as a ban on gear from Chinese tech companies such as Huawei and ZTE, the revocation of authorizations held by China Telecom and other state-linked carriers, and the creation of a Council for National Security in March.
The council was created to “leverage the full range of the Commission’s regulatory, investigatory, and enforcement authorities to protect Americans and counter foreign adversaries, particularly the threats posed by China and the Chinese Communist Party,” according to the agency.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said that visibility is essential.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he wrote, noting that current collections leave “gaps” that mask how Beijing and others might exert control.
“Foreign adversaries like China are engaged in a multi-pronged effort to identify and exploit any vulnerabilities in our communications...”
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
It’s all of them.
And the judiciary as well. But I guess the FCC can’t do anythign about that.
Does that include George Soros?
Dual citizens of ANY nation (”ally” or enemy) should either not be allowed to have places of influence over US policy or they should at a very minimum be required to publicly and regularly disclose their dual citizenship.
I propose that this should extend to all media, especially the news media, including our own.
Like food that is required to have the ingredients listed, the media should be required to disclose who their true owners are, what nation they are based out of, if they are a private or public entity based on where their money comes from.
Even our propaganda, is propaganda.
There should simply be a required label for print, Internet and TV, or required verbal disclosure for radio every 4 hours on the hour, that gives some basic information to the reader.
Anyone with half a brain would put Mexico and Carlos Slim Helu at the top of that list! He was thick with Obama/Biden..he owned TracFone that supplied all the Obama phones and was the world’s richest person several times because he’s a communications mogul.
He is the cartels and he hates Donald Trump. He lost billions the morning Trump won in 2016 because he was assured HRC would win.
https://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2020/08/who-pulls-democrat-strings-who-is.html?m=1
How about just ban it?
How does this apply to publicly traded companies? Anyone can buy the stock today, and sell it tomorrow.
Not all dual citizens have split loyalties.
I think, many “dual citizens” are not in that status because of split loyalties, rather because that allows them to see family and relatives in places that are hostile to us.
I know of Persians (they are not on board with today’s Iran and fled when the Shah fell) that still hold that passport because it allows them to travel back and see the family still in that country. They usually go to some third party Middle East country and catch a flight from there into Iran, denying they came from the US. It’s a bit of a risky situation, but what are you going to do when your mother is on her death bed and you want to go see her?
A US passport would not work in such situations.
I also have an issue with people that have split loyalties. I question if the dual citizen should really have a government position of any sort, elected office, or hold a clearance. But as often is the case, life is complex and messy. The problems presented are not easy with black and white solutions.
You make a good point about Travel. I’m still opposed to dual citizenship. No one should vote in more than one country’s elections. Anyone running for offers in the USA should have to disclose their dual citizenship prior to the election.
Oops. Runs for OFFICE.
Totally off topic.
One of the things for which I love Trump is that he manages to somehow always carve out common sense solutions, or partial solutions in even the most messy of problems.
He or his staff always find some aspect to a problem, where even if he does not solve it completely, he identifies some aspect that can be worked constructively / improved upon, and if people are fair (they are not, many just want to hate the guy), they should be saying “that was a good idea.”
His prescription drug cost solutions, deporting criminal illegal aliens... and and and. Even if you’re a Latino, do you really want a neighbor that is a rapist or pedophile? Even if you’re a hard core Democrat, can you really say that Trumps ideas regards drug costs and pricing are a bad idea? No. They’re frigging awesome ideas.
Trump isn’t a politician or bureaucrat.
He’s a business man that makes things happen, he’s results oriented, creative, a negotiator, ROI focused but with a keen understanding of how to manage risk. I don’t think you want to be part of his staff and not deliver - “You’re fired” (The Apprentice).
The MSM tears into Trump relentlessly. They spin his every word into being sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, mean, and vulgar. They interpret and speculate from the position of the glass half empty on everything that man touches. But in all reality, if you read what he actually has done, you go: “wow, that’s an improvement, a step in the right direction” even if it does not entirely solve the problem.
“ One of the things for which I love Trump is that he manages to somehow always carve out common sense solutions, or partial solutions in even the most messy of problems”
There are so many things to love about Trump. This is why the majority of Americans believe that the country is moving in the right direction.
The left focuses only on the few things that IMHO are not lovable such as selling coins, etc.. They are so minor compared to the great things that he is doing for our country. Unfortunately, they leave Trump open to criticism, which the leftist media is happy to do. They are the only things that people who consume only the propaganda media know about.
So why should the FCC allow anyone who is not a loyal American in good standing own a broadcasting station?
It shouldn't, obviously.
This is just one of thousands of leaks, holes, stupidities, screw-ups, etc., that have been built into the deep state and the Federal Government.
It is a cluster from top to bottom. So there is no surprise that anyone, America-haters and enemies especially, would be allowed to buy and own broadcasting stations with robust encouragement from our government.
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.