Skip to comments.AIM: Congressional Liberals Bare Plan to Muzzle Conservative Speech
Posted on 01/15/2007 5:32:44 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Less than two weeks after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, Accuracy in Media has exposed a plan by congressional liberals to use the federal government to silence conservative voices in the media.
Reporting from a so-called National Conference on Media Reform, organized by "progressive" activists, AIM editor Cliff Kincaid has revealed, in an exclusive report now available on the AIM web site (http://www.aim.org), that liberals in the House and Senate intend to push legislation giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to monitor and restrict what conservatives in the media say and how they say it.
Kincaid quotes Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.) as saying that he wants to put an end to the influence of conservative media personalities he finds to be "neo-fascist" and "neo-con." Their legislative vehicle is revival of a "fairness doctrine" giving FCC bureaucrats the ability to grant liberal activists "equal access" to conservative programs on radio and television. Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, told the conference he would push such a measure in the Senate.
Kincaid calls the approach "authoritarian" and a threat to freedom of speech in the U.S.
In his Special Report on the conference, which featured Bill Moyers and Jesse Jackson and Hollywood celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Kincaid said that the event "turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more 'progressive' voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives."
At the same time, Kincaid noted that one conference speaker, freshman Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), pledged to protect or even increase taxpayer funding for public broadcasting that he admits is on the "left hand side of the dial."
Kincaid documents funding for the organizers of the conference from George Soros, who has made billions of dollars from secretive financial transactions, and notes evidence that participants were so far to the left that Senator Hillary Clinton was considered by them to be "too conservative." Kincaid also documents the active involvement in the conference by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Accuracy in Media (AIM), founded in 1969, is America's oldest media watchdog organization. For more information, please visit http://www.aim.org.
SOURCE Accuracy in Media
We've read this, but ping again, we need to be aware. This is NOT good.
"For that matter, how much confidence do you have that this Supreme Court?"
I have lost confidence in all of them...the President, Congress (both parties, in both houses), the whole judiciary, state government, local government.
To me, it looks like a sprawling, corrupt, short-sighted, self-interested mass. I see France 1937 here, and I don't see any prospect for improvement either. The foundations themselves of the country have rotted away.
I am pessimistic about outcomes in all directions.
We were ONE historic SCOTUS pick away from some major constitutional decisions swinging our way for a change and possibly avoiding much of the pain you now speak of.
Apathy, Pessimism and cultural diversity is what brought down the Roman Empire.
You are contributing to at least two of those dynamics.
that's what we have now--democrat tv that ignores conservatives or lies about conservatives.
retired people that i know that sit around 12 hours a day watching democrat tv foam at the mouth at president bush and iraq.
And that will fix things how again?
If this is what passes itself off as "conservative thought" these days, we are well and truly screwed.
How about this, find a candidate that can communicate. Instead of constantly drifting Leftward, see if we can't can't some motion going back our way.
Or is that just too difficult? Should we just surrender and BECOME Democrats?
Last conservative out the door, don't turn the lights off on me.
Republican filibuster from the likes of people that created CFR?
Well, that just wouldn't be very nice, now, would it?
I think this will be dangled in front of the true believers to encourage them to vote again in 2008.
The Dems need issues and the GOP is taking their bread-and-butter, minimum wage, off the table. I don't like it, but it seems the whole Samoan thing is making this Chinese finger cuffs for them.
What the heck do they think NPR and the rest of public television and radio is then?? They got that, and we go Rush et al.
We won't do that by compromising on our ideals either. We need people who can change the packaging, not the gift. Lately, we've had people running the GOP that are all packaging, no gift.
That needs to change.
Sorry, delayed double clutch... multitasking.
LOL, that was a LONG time between clutch moves!
Agreed. This will never pass the Congress, or the President's desk.. and even if it did, the Supreme Court will say "no way".
You're right, my friend. Ain't gonna happen. Period.
but zee democrat party only vants peezeful coexistance. Perhaps a compromize could be reached. Ze only vish a bit of ze airtime.
Hey, ROL, good to see you again. We haven't been on the same thread for quite awhile. I'm glad we're still thinking alike.
FreeRepublic is next.
What this country needs is a good 10 million person
conservative march on Washington. So, what's everyone
doing for their Summer vacation and is there enough
room in the D.C. mall for us all??....JJ61
I think the country wants a leader with vision and principles. If Democrats wnat to ban all guns and a RINO only wants to ban some but can't really articulate why some guns are more ban-worthy than others, an uninformed voter will perceive that the only reason the RINO is holding back progress is that he's in the pocket of the evil gun lobby.
By contrast, if a candidate took the position that the success of 39 states' CCW programs shows clearly that citizen armament is an asset to the country, even people who might otherwise be anti-gun would be more likely to rethink that position. They may or may not decide they agree with it, but in any case they'd be more likely to judge the candidate as having genuine beliefs rather than merely being a foot-dragger.
Sean Hannity has been warning about this for months.
God help us when they get the presidency, along with their control of the legislative branch. The only protection for conservative freedom of speech will be the legal industry, which is unreliable for conservatives at best.
Remember him saying he wouldn't be shut up.
He would start a 'pirate radio station' offshore.
I don't know what his possible actions would be now however.
That's Senate Bill 1. Call your senators and ask them to vote to remove Section 220. (The bill is actually about lobbying reform, but Section 220 tramples free speech.)
The problem is we aren't violent back. If you're a wimp, say "But we don't do things like that." Well, neither did the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Esperanto speakers, et al; they all went up in smoke.
You are making me nervous. Do the Republicans know how to filibuster? (The President knows how to vetohe has done it before, I believe.)
The reason that the 'Rats want to ban all guns is that they know that if there is a second American Revolution, they will be the redcoats.
We saw this coming, the march to silence conservative voices on Talk Radio in advance of a general silencing of Conservative ideals.
Yep, those conservatives who said that a Democratic takeover of congress would wake up the Republicans are what the left has been for decades, USEFUL IDIOTS!
Oh a filibuster might endanger the Republican Senators (no filibuster in the House) standing on the Washington cocktail circuit.
Bush didn't veto CFR, why would he veto this? But if he did, you never know what the RINOs in Congress will do, or actually you can pretty much predict they'll think it's peachy.
What do mean "next"?
bookmark and bump!
(Both the town and the actual site of the "Event" by the same name)
It appears as if the Senate is hanging lots of this kind of stuff on the Christmas tree of S. 1, "`Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007', as amendments.
It'll be a "Motherhood" bill, and anyone who even hints at opposition will be tarred and feathered by the Drive By Media, just as they were for McCain-Fiengold (CFR).
By the time they're done, even many FReepers will support the bill, not knowing the details. For one thing it supposedly eliminates "Earmarks", and restricts unrelated amendments in Conference Committee. Who wouldn't support that?
They appear to be using the proven formula of McCain-Fiengold.
One example of what's on the Christmas Tree, in the original, not as an amendment, is a section entitiled: SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING..
Which looks like it might affect FR, although without wading through the legalese and looking up the sections of current law which it modifies, it's a little hared to tell.
If they get the Presidency, they'll likely retain both Houses of Congress as well. They won't need to use executive authority. Laws are more permanent and harder to change, especially with regard to the enforcement bureaucracy they create.
That's already in Senate bill 1. You know what's most important over at the Upper House. Staying in the Upper House of course.
Specifically applies to government employees and journalists...
DOA, as long as the 41 vote GOP firewall holds up in the Senate.
Yea, that approach worked so well with the McCain-Fiengold Incumbent Protection Act, didn't it? This is really just more of the same.
And the mushy middle voted based on the main stream media lies and half truths about those issues. They did not report the full story, only the negative stuff, our casualites, not the enemies for instance, on the war. They also only reported, to great degree, on corrupt Republicans, while barely mentioning the "cold cash" in a certain Congressman's freezer (making the story about the warrant served on his office) or about the shady land deals of the current president pro-tem of the Senate.
That is almost word for word what I posted to Jim Robinson several years ago when the McCain-Feingold CFR bill was about to be signed by President Bush. Jim replied that he did not trust the Supreme Court. A short time later I had to eat my own words when the Supreme Court voted 5 - 4 to let the bulk of McCain-Feingold stand. Jim had been exactly right.
The point is that this kind of dangerous legislation needs to be stopped dead in its tracks long before it gets to the President's desk. The Supreme Court cannot be trusted. I, and a lot of other people, learned this lesson the hard way. "Fool me once....", etc.
There are two kinds of "compromise", one is giving up something you already have, the other is settling for getting less than you want, for now. Reagan practiced the second kind, we must not practice the first.
Once in six years. Federal funding for stem cell research. The media, and the Hollywierd elite, used that veto to portray Republicans as right wing religious nut cases that didn't give a hoot about paralyzed folks or people with Parkinson's.
Not that I disagree with the veto.
But package this up and sell it as anti-corruption, Motherhood and Apple pie, and he wont' veto it any more than he vetoed CRF, which was sold as that same bill of goods. The "Moderate Republicans" will advise against such a veto, because it would be used against Republicans in the next election.
I knew it was coming ,this is what you get with the diversity democrats . We are for diversity when you agree with us,otherwise shut up
That's Senate Bill 1. Call your senators and ask them to vote to remove Section 220. (The bill is actually about lobbying reform, but Section 220 tramples free speech.). . . except that his senators are Boxer and another Democratic woman, and my senators are Hillary and Chuck. And "actually about lobbying reform" pretty much is "trampling on free speech."You know what's most important over at the Upper House. Staying in the Upper House of course.They always have been for free speech...as long as the speech in question recites their talking points. And, they have the cojones to call OUR side of the aisle fascistic.Some would say that they are for their own free speech because they have "the mainstream media" on their side. I put it differently - in promoting itself, Big Journalism promotes cheap talk, and in promoting themselves Democratic politicians promote cheap talk. By "cheap talk" I mean what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said, "It is not the critic who counts . . . The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . ."
Journalism aspires to predominant influence, and yet journalism doesn't do anything. In order to arrogate to themselves more credit than those who produce and distribute our food, clothing and shelter and those who provide security, journalism criticizes the providers relentlessly - and Big Journalism fights against the freedom to publicize views in opposition to that.
Undoubtedly it would not be well for anyone to be totally immune to criticism, so in that sense people with the motive to nitpick no doubt have a role to play. The great problem is that
A move by this political force to muzzle opposition is dangerous; up until 1992 it had been forty years since the Republicans had a majority in the House, and sixty years since the Republicans had been politically dominant in the country. But at least it may get the issue of free speech and press back in front of SCOTUS, with Alito and Roberts on the bench in place of O'Connor and Rhenquist (whose 1-1 split allowed McCain to be upheld on a 5-4 vote).
- Journalism has coalesced into Big Journalism - an entity with a single, self-serving viewpoint organized around the sophistry of the claim that Big Journalism provides, and America must have, objective journalism. And,
- Many people, from the middle class (known as "the poor" but having a standard of living which is the envy of most of the world today and would have been the envy of the rich in 1800) through the strata to the wealthiest, put themselves on the side of Big Journalism and in opposition to those who "are actually in the arena." Even though most of them are themselves "actually in the arena" in some circumstances."It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithHalf the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
Great post. Thanks.
This new congress is and will be a disaster: from regulating free speech to throwing up the surrender flag. And now we have the ultimate control freak, RINO mayor Bloomberg, promoting Charles Rangel as a presidential candidate!