Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villiany
Re: They are watching facebook, twitter, youtube...
Originally Posted by PPK 32
Anything thats sent via the "air" waves is public, think of your cell, email, internet as public domain. This is not news to me. But if some dumb @s- wants to monitor my boring life--go for it. If they want my hardware, thats gonna be a problem.
You don't know the half of it. Here's a nice tidbit from our new Regulatory Czar, Sunstein
Boy, it sure didn't take him long to start his whackadoo crap, did it?
WND Exclusive CZAR WARS
Cass Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Asserts government should regulate broadcasting as it imposed end to segregation
Posted: September 15, 2009
9:30 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
(Story continues below)
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the fairness doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
Note: Media wishing to interview Aaron Klein, please e-mail WND
All this anger is exactly what The Hussein wants. He WANTS us to get pissed. He WANTS us so angry we can't see straight or think. He WANTS someone to get get so pissed off that they start a "problem." That way, he has an excuse to declare martial law, invoke the Patriot Act, rule by decree without the consent of Congress, and let his Czars take over for Congress. I bet the vast majority of those a**clowns on those Obama boards are actually on Uncle Sugar's payroll, TRYING to stir crap up. A few years ago, the FBI was actually PAYING a guy to operate a "right-wing extremist" blog calling for the murder of members of Congress and for an armed insurrection, all so Freddie the Fed could make a few arrests to grab headlines and justify more funding (kind of like what BATFE does when they pick someone to make an example of
If Freddie the Fed or King-Emperor Barack I His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter don't like what I say, oh well, that's there problem. I don't say anything on here that I won't say in person. So does that mean I'm on a watchlist, probably. All because I won't partake of the tasty Barry-flavored Kenyan Kool-aid. You know, the same Jim Jones Kool-aid that many people seem to be barfing back up.
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever.
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams