Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts

Friday, February 21, 2014

It’s Talk Show Radio the FCC is REALLY After

Don’t get too many shudders from the government monitors of the FCC arriving any time soon at the television newsrooms. They've been there for the last five years.


Canada Free Press, by Judi McLeod, Friday, February 21, 2014 

Dress newsroom monitors of the Obama Regime’s FCC in jackboots and military caps when they come to invade because the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” (CINS) they proposed last May is truly all about image.

Why are they sending monitors into the newsrooms at this particular juncture of the Fundamental Transformation of America?

Because it shores up Obama’s Marxist fear factor.  We’ve got ObamaCare, ready to be propped up with pictures of dogs, cats and other pets in a $1 million advertising campaign aimed at the same young people, dubbed “knuckleheads” by Michelle Obama.  We’ve got ‘Braggadocio Barry’s increasingly loud boasts that he’s got a pen and a phone with which to circumvent Congress.

The Marxist march through all of America’s public institutions is now ready to place a jackbooted-presence down at your local radio and television station.
Here’s the hidden message: Run, hide, cower under the nearest desk, CINS is on the way.
When the KGB and the Stasi invaded the news rooms of Russia and Germany, they killed off any who showed resistance.  In their mad, unquenchable thirst for power the Obama Regime thinks its people are already dead.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

GOP Rep. says Obama has founding fathers 'turning over in their graves' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) said recent executive actions by President Obama, including a plan to extend high-speed Internet connections to virtually every school in the nation, demonstrate a "blatant" attempt to subvert the will of the American people.

"It's just a flagrant, you know, arrogant disregard not just for the current Congress," Grimm said in an interview with Fox News. "Look, it's not about me personally. That's not what this is about. You think about who is the Congress? It really — it is the voice of the people."
Obama has asked the  Federal Communications Commission to hike a telecommunications fee to help pay for the ConnectEd program, which is estimated to cost between $4 billion and $6 billion. According to The Washington Post, that could translate into an increase of about $12 spread over three years in cell phone users' bills. 




Wednesday, November 2, 2011

WEB OF CONTROL

If you're reading this, there's still hope. TheDC's Josh Peterson reports: "Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said Tuesday that a Senate vote to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules might come as early as next week. The vote would happen just days ahead of November 20, when the rules are scheduled to take effect.

Hutchison said the necessary number of senators' signatures have been obtained for the petition — the Resolution of Disapproval — to consider the FCC's net neutrality regulations under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA, which gives Congress the authority to review every new regulation issued by federal agencies, would allow opponents of the FCC's rules to force a vote and overrule the regulation.

'We are hoping that next week we will be able to get the Resolution of Disapproval on the floor,' said Hutchison. 'We have over 40 signatures to have the expedited Congressional authority to take this resolution up, and the House has already passed it. It now rests in the Senate.'

Supporters of net neutrality argue that Internet service providers should not be allowed to favor some content over others; opponents argue that the FCC is trying to fix a non-problem. 'The Internet is not broken and does not need fixing,' Hutchison told the audience at The Heritage Foundation's blogger’s briefing. Hutchison said that there should have at least been a congressional debate about the matter."

Debate? Everybody knows that debate is merely the process by which a normal person gives up trying to reason with a Democrat. Well, the Internet will be a lot better once the government controls it. You know, like TV and radio? The things you used to rely on before the Internet?

CONTINUED: 
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/01/hutchison-senate-may-vote-on-net-neutrality-next-week/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=TheDC+Morning&utm_campaign=The+DC+Morning+&utm_term=4__29+Web+of+control

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

THE "POWERS" OF THIS PRESIDENT...... WILL THE U.S. SUPREME COURT EVER INTERVENE????

March 07, 2011

By Jack Curtis

Not all the powers President Obama has wielded or claimed seem clearly identifiable in the U.S. Constitution. Whether that is tolerable or even desirable appears to require consideration since the entire point of having a constitution is to limit government in the hope of fending off tyranny.

Our President wouldn't be the first to act extra-constitutionally; the pattern goes far back into U.S. history. The famous slippery slope describes that history; earlier events made smaller blips on the power horizon and later ones loom larger. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has stepped in, as exemplified by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.

President Obama though, may have outdone any of his predecessors in exerting such powers and in avoiding much juridical or public reaction in so doing. In effect, if that observation is correct, the Constitution might be decreasingly interesting history.

Some of the actions we'll examine have occurred with the formal support of a compliant Democratic Congress; others have been done by the President or his officers on their own.

The Constitution provides the President these powers:

1.To command the military (but not to declare war).
2.With Senate consent, to appoint U.S. officials and judges.
3.To appoint officials created in law as the law provides and to commission officers.
4.With Senate ratification, to make treaties.
5.To fill vacancies during Senate recess and to receive ambassadors.
6.To pardon convicts and convene or adjourn Congress in certain cases.
7.To demand formal opinions from department heads.
8.To faithfully execute the laws.

So, what has this President done to merit our attention? Here are a few examples:

•He orders the killing of selected individuals (and any others nearby) located in foreign countries at will, usually using drone aircraft. In a lawsuit by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Government challenging this, The federal attorney told the court that the Administration has the power to kill, without review, any American it decides is a threat, per the Center for Constitutional Government's November, 8th, 2010 news release.


•The President has appointed Czars in charge of a number of important functions. The questionable offices are those not established in law, causing critics to question the legality of both their considerable authority and their invisibility to Congress.


•Presidential and Congressional actions assuming control of GM and Chrysler and providing a pre-designed, non-standard bankruptcy that arbitrarily favored the auto unions at the expense of share and bondholders are considered by many to violate the Constitutional protections of property as well as Presidential authority.


•The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assumed regulatory authority over the internet and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumed regulatory authority over greenhouse gases though Congress had not empowered either to do so.

Other examples are available but these will support discussion. Killing citizens at presidential will without review seems pretty far from constitutionally limited government; that claim appears absolutely scary. The fact that it originated with killings mostly located in the backwoods of Pakistan offers no assurance of future locations. This court case bears watching (and has received remarkably little news coverage). Is this power on the list above?

Czars have been appointed without Senate approval and provided substantial authority over large segments of the economy. Car Czar Steven Rattner was appointed in the Treasury, set up the disposal of GM and Chrysler in a few months before resigning ahead of the sheriff in a corruption investigation and was replaced by a career union representative. Critics say the empowerment of czars obscures government operation since they aren't vetted by the Senate nor must they report to Congress. A number of them hold positions created by the Obama Administration, not by Congress in law, so it's argued that those are extra-constitutional.

Various Presidents have seized businesses and industries during emergencies; President Truman intervened with the railroads and meat packers to maintain production during the Korean War. His nationalization of the steel industry for the same reason however, was ruled out by the Supreme Court as beyond his authority. Historically, such interventions have been very short term. The Obama Administration's intervention with GM and Chrysler arbitrarily nationalized the businesses then repeatedly changed the management, stiffed the bondholders who were owed money and essentially used the assets to protect the unions. The government maintains its influence two years later. Whether this falls under the: nor be deprived of ... property without due process of law and nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation of the Constitution is part of this issue along with presidential power. Is this on the list above?

Finally, it seems inarguable that the regulatory departments of the Obama Administration are in practice going well beyond existing authority by expanding their regulatory reach into fields that didn't exist when the laws authorizing regulation were passed. Some in Congress evidently share this view; legislative moves to block these actions are under way.

Until the Supreme Court speaks to these issues, we will have to form our own opinions of the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's various actions. The ObamaCare legislation demanded by the President and passed by Congress appears to be headed toward that disposition at the moment. President Truman was more popular during his railroad and meat packers actions; much less so when he reached for the steel industry. Often, that factor has done more to determine the level of opposition aroused by a presidential power grab than has its conformance to the Constitution.

Much of what is today accepted Presidential activity might horrify the Founders, particularly in Presidential use of the military. It's safe to say that many presidents have enlarged presidential power during their terms of office and halfway through his first term, President Obama may be headed toward leadership among them. Power being a zero-sum game, increases in Presidential power are losses to somebody and ultimately per the Constitution, to the citizens. In the end, it takes the citizens to reverse them.

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A3334600&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Herman Cain: Blacks Finally Hearing Truth on GOP

Sat, January 15, 2011

By Henry J. Reske and Ashley Martella

African-American voters are finally getting the facts about the Republican Party and beginning to turn away from their traditional pattern of voting for Democrats, Atlanta talk radio host Herman Cain tells Newsmax.TV. The former CEO said talk radio has been key to this transformation and that is why liberals are seeking to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.

“I’ve had a lot of people tell me, and they would call my show and volunteer information as to the fact they were black, they were American and they were starting to see the light,” Cain said. “You see when people have the right information they will make the right decision. This is one of the reasons that the liberals continue to want to try to promote this unfair Fairness Doctrine.”

Cain, an African-American who recently formed a presidential campaign exploratory committee, said that liberals do not want blacks and minorities to know the truth about the Democratic Party or to know the truth about the Republican Party.

See video:  http://www.newsmax.com/video/

Talk show host Herman Cain, who is considering a run for president, reacts to the attacks on conservative talk hosts from the left in the wake of the Arizona shootings. He outlines his main issues if he does make a White House bid.

“Now that people are listening to talk radio and they’re getting the right facts about what the Republican Party stands for more and more people are beginning to vote Republican and align themselves with Republican values,” he said.

The Fairness Doctrine dates back to 1949 and required broadcasters to present a balanced view of both sides of a controversial issue. The Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the doctrine in 1987 is often credited with the rise of talk radio. The Tucson shooting that killed six and wounded more than a dozen, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, coupled with the recent harsh political rhetoric, has sparked a renewed call for the doctrine’s reinstatement.

Cain, who went to Arizona to do broadcasts of his show, called claims that conservative talk radio somehow contributed to the tragedy silly and disrespectful.

“I say that is just silly, silly, silly, is what I say,” he said. “It has been well established that the deranged young man was in fact deranged that committed that terrible tragedy on the people that died as well as Congresswoman Giffords. It’s silly to try to spin a tragedy into liberal talking points against a conservative talk show host or anybody that’s conservative. I think it’s just a silly argument and disrespectful to the families of those that lost their lives.”

He said that efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine had no chance of success in Congress and any attempt to do it through regulation would be met by public opposition. “The American people are going to be very aware of these backdoor regulations that are going to try and silence people like me and others who are simply telling people the truth.”

As to his presidential exploratory committee, Cain said it allows him to test two things.

“One, the level of voter support for an unconventional candidate like myself, meaning I’m not a politician; I’m a businessman, a problem solver. And secondly, it will allow me to test how much financial support I will be able to garner. … The early indications as well as what we’ve already done have exceeded our expectations.”

f he should become a candidate, Cain said he would focus on the issues of strengthening national security, unleashing the full economic potential in our economy, cutting spending, fixing the immigration problems and developing an energy independence strategy.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/