Control Of What You See, Watch or Hear on the Horizon. Nanny State Control Coming To a Media Near YOU!



First, if you haven’t read my post on “Warning From a Cuban-American Patriot”, please do so now, then return here.

The White House is stepping up its attacks on Fox News a la Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod.  Read this:

White House Escalates War on Fox News

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop “following Fox” and instead join the administration’s attempt to marginalize the channel.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.”

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”

“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

On Sunday, Fox’s Chris Wallace retorted: “We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they’ve done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to ‘FOX News Sunday’ to talk about this or anything else.”

The White House stopped providing guests to ‘Fox News Sunday’ after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was “something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do.”

“She criticized ‘FOX News Sunday’ last week for fact-checking — fact-checking — an administration official,” Wallace said Sunday. “They didn’t say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.”

“Let’s fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign,” Wallace added. “A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn’s facts were just plain wrong.”

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: “Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.”

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House’s decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: “I don’t always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree.”

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: “I totally agree with Donna Brazile.” Gergen added that White House officials have “gotten themselves into a fight they don’t necessarily want to be in. I don’t think it’s in their best interest.”

“The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox,” Gergen said on CNN. “I mean, for goodness sakes — you know, you engage in the debate.

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett.”

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of “my favorite political philosophers.”

“Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it’s a big thing,” Bennett said on CNN. “When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she’s deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that — I mean, that is crazy.”

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: “This is an administration that’s getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they’re going to come hard at you and they’re going to cut your legs off.”

“This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do,” Rove added. “That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon.”

Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox “may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling.”


Read the entire article HERE.

**We know that George Soros [money bag man] has funded the left wing media;, Media Matters, etc.  NBC is “in” the White House with Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE and connected to Obama by being on his Economic Recovery Advisory Board (include MSNBC).  ABC is “in” with George Stephanopoulos (producer of his Sunday program Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama’s UN Ambassador) who just so happens to be connected to the “6:30 am call” including Paul Begala (CNN), James Carville(political commentator), Rahm Emanuel to discuss the “shill” of the day.

Ever wonder when you watch the other networks, you are watching “controlled media”?


Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules


WASHINGTON (AP) – With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called “net neutrality” rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing over their networks.

These rules – at the heart of a five-year policy debate – are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want. Phone and cable companies, for instance, wouldn’t be able to block subscribers from using cheaper Internet calling services or accessing online video sites that compete with their core businesses.

Yet making that happen is proving thorny – and it’s likely that the courts and perhaps even Congress will ultimately get involved.

The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a proposal by the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, to begin crafting regulations to prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet traffic.

Although Genachowski has the support of the other two Democrats on the five-member commission, his proposal has run into strong opposition from the large phone, cable and wireless companies that provide the bulk of U.S. high-speed Internet connections.

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on their investments.

Genachowski’s proposal has also encountered misgivings among Republicans on the FCC and in Congress, who fear network neutrality rules could discourage broadband providers from continuing to expand and upgrade their systems.

“The risk of regulation really inhibits investment,” said Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Noting the agency’s estimated price tag of up to $350 billion to bring broadband connections to all Americans, he added: “How do we pay for all that?”

One thing everyone agrees on is that the FCC will have to sort through some tricky issues as Genachowski’s plan moves forward.

One question is how much flexibility broadband providers should have to keep their networks running smoothly by ensuring that high-bandwidth applications such as YouTube videos don’t hog too much capacity and impede other traffic like e-mail and online searches. In other words, when does legitimate network management cross the line to become discrimination?

Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, a think tank that promotes free-market approaches, fears the FCC could hurt small, rural carriers that face higher costs to build out their systems. Without the ability to manage traffic, he said, these companies could be forced to make expensive network upgrades they cannot afford.

The FCC also needs to sort out how the rules would apply to wireless systems, which have less bandwidth capacity than wire-based networks and might have greater need for traffic management. AT&T, the exclusive U.S. carrier for Apple Inc.’s iPhone, already is running into capacity challenges given the popularity of the gadget and its scores of bandwidth-consuming applications.

“There could be unintended consequences of applying net neutrality to wireless,” said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group.

Genachowski’s plan calls for the agency to formally adopt four broadband principles that have guided the FCC’s enforcement of communications laws on a case-by-case basis. Those principles state that network operators must allow subscribers to access all online content, applications, services and devices as long as they are legal.

The FCC relied on those guidelines last year when it ordered Comcast to stop blocking subscribers from using an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which is used to transfer large files such as online video. Comcast is challenging the FCC ruling in court.

Genachowski also wants the FCC to adopt two more principles. One would make it clear that broadband providers couldn’t discriminate against particular content or applications, either by blocking them completely or by letting other traffic jump ahead in the queue. The other would require providers to disclose network management practices.

He is also seeking to extend all six principles to wireless systems, which have been largely unregulated.

Thursday’s vote will launch a proceeding to draft rules based on those principles and open them to public comment. The agency would likely adopt formal regulations by next summer.

Supporters of net neutrality regulations want to prevent broadband companies from becoming online gatekeepers by abusing their control over Internet networks. They warn that a startup like YouTube or Facebook might never have a shot if broadband providers can prioritize their own online services or those of business partners.

“If bandwidth is disproportionately consumed by those who can pay, it would destroy the Internet as a level playing field,” said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press.

Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Genachowski, described regulations as “sensible rules of the road to preserve a free and open Internet, which has been an economic and innovation engine for the nation.”

But the service providers, along with many Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress, say the FCC chairman has not shown a need for more regulation given the few known examples of discrimination.

Besides Comcast’s actions last year, the other major incident occurred in 2005, when a small telecom company in North Carolina blocked subscribers from accessing Vonage Holding Corp.’s Internet phone service. The company reversed course after the FCC stepped in.

“The FCC has a responsibility to prove a market failure before intervening in the market,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the top Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees communications and technology. “I don’t think they have proven that.”

McDowell, the Republican commissioner, argues that antitrust laws – which aim to prevent companies from abusing their market power – already provide a clear framework to handle such incidents.

Meanwhile, looming over the entire FCC proceeding are questions of jurisdiction. In challenging the BitTorrent ruling, Comcast argued that based on the FCC’s deregulation of Internet service in 2002 – a move the Supreme Court upheld three years later – the agency doesn’t have authority to mandate nondiscrimination rules.

A decision in the Comcast case is expected next year and if the court rules in the company’s favor, it could undermine the net neutrality proceeding at the FCC – forcing the agency to reverse course on deregulation or drawing Congress into the debate.


End note:

If Mark Lloyd, Obama’s “Chief Diversity Czar” who is at the FCC has his way, America will only hear from Obama, Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio


Videos and Photos of Operation Can You Hear Us Now Events (Updated)

By Proud American

For those who are not yet aware, Operation Can You Hear Us Now is a nationwide event that has been designed to protest major media networks who have chosen to provide a biased reporting of tea party events, if they reported on them at all.

A number of networks have chosen to provide high quality coverage for anti-war protests, sexual preference marches, and many other liberally operated protests and marches.  These same networks choose to provide little if any coverage of tea party events and if they do cover them, it is coverage that is filled with lies and hatred towards the many patriots attending such events.  One such lie took place after the National 9/12 March on DC, where ABC chose to put out false reports of only 60,000-70,000 being in attendance, when more accurate estimates, produced through the use of aerial photography, have shown an attendance of around the two million mark.

It is because of reports like this that a patriot decided to do something and started a website called, which has now seen a large team of people come together to help spread the word and to form rally’s in front of major media outlets all across the nation.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: