PC Crowd was a first assalt on free speech. What next?

[rushmc 23]

Oh, and for the technical on this site, this is an op ed article




Kuhner: Liberal totalitarianism
Commentary by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.



Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters. The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York. The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content. The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.



The real force behind the effort to censor conservative talk radio is the progressive–philanthropist, George Soros. The radical leftist billionaire has made no secret of his hatred for conservatives. He says President Bush has transformed America into a militaristic, “fascist” empire. Moreover, Soros champions many of liberalism’s chic causes: abortion on demand, legalization of drugs, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, unlimited Third World immigration, open borders, and one-world government anchored in the United Nations. He advocates all the issues that are anathema to popular radio talk-show hosts like Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity. Hence, he wants these commentators to be exiled to the political wilderness.



At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, Hinchey laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired.



"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.



In the Senate, the legislation is being supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. A self-styled “social democrat,” Sanders is forming a media caucus with the explicit goal of ending conservative hegemony on talk radio.



"Now is the time to begin asking that if networks provide their listeners with 99 percent of talk shows being with right-wing extremists, whether that really is what public trust is about," Sanders said in an address in January. "Now is the time to open the question of the Fairness Doctrine again."



However, this begs the question of why do radio networks have most of their shows hosted by conservatives? The answer is a simple one: They’re popular with listeners. Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-leaning because it satisfies the public’s growing appetite for alternative news and commentary to the liberal media establishment. If the Democrats don’t like the opinions of Savage, Limbaugh or Hannity, then all they need to do is go to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times or The Washington Post. There are countless outlets peddling the anti-war, anti-Bush mantras of the left.



The liberal media and political class have tried to marginalize conservative talk radio for years—first by ignoring it, then by demonizing it, and finally by attempting to compete with it. Air America, with hosts such as Al Franken, was supposed to be the great liberal alternative to conservative talk radio. But, in spite of all the puff stories in The Times, The Post and CNN, Air America failed dismally to attract a large audience. When Hinchey, Sanders, Soros and their liberal Democratic allies complain about the need to “give equal time” to left-leaning views on radio, they forget one important fact: The radio audience is not interested. Now, after the failure of Air America, the Democrats are attempting to implement the final solution to their conservative problem: censorship.



Eastern European conservatives have faced similar oppression for the last 15 years. From Georgia to Croatia, Serbia to Slovakia, Soros’ media empire has relentlessly sought to marginalize patriotic and conservative journalists. In many countries in the former communist bloc, there are hardly any conservative voices left in the mainstream media. In fact, the billionaire activist openly brags that the former Soviet empire has become “the Soros empire.” He is now bent on destroying his ideological enemies in the belly of the beast—America.



What Soros understands—like all ambitious leftists before him, such as Lenin, Trotsky, FDR—is that attaining cultural power is the necessary precondition to achieving political power. The brilliant Italian Leninist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, outlined this strategy in his theory of cultural hegemony. Gramsci argued that once the left captures the commanding organs of culture and the media, the “state will simply fall into our hands.” He understood that, by dominating culture and stifling all voices of opposition, the left would be free to manipulate and mold public opinion, thereby paving the way to permanent political dominance. This is why Soros and his Democratic allies are determined to smash talk radio, the main bastion of cultural/media resistance to the liberal regime.



The attempt to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” represents a direct assault on freedom of speech. It is a concession by liberals that they are losing the battle in the marketplace of ideas. Unable to compete with conservatives in the arena of rhetoric, facts and reasoned argument, Democrats are resorting to the Stalinist method of stifling all dissenting points of view. Unable to out-argue and out-debate Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity, liberals are hoping to silence them—once and for all.



More importantly, the war on talk radio reveals the totalitarian impulse at the heart of modern liberalism. Above all, liberalism is an ideology based on radical social engineering. Its ultimate goal is to transform America into a society characterized by economic collectivism, personal—and especially, sexual—liberation and multilateral globalism. To accomplish these goals, the left must fundamentally restructure the economy, the family unit, traditional bourgeois values, and even the nation itself.



This is why liberals ultimately rely on coercion to pass much of their agenda. They must raise taxes and propose new entitlement programs (like universal health care) to keep expanding the power of the state; they must push for homosexual marriage and abortion to keep undermining the nuclear family; they must expunge religion and the Ten Commandments from the public square to keep rolling back traditional morality; and they must insist on amnesty for illegal immigrants and subordinating foreign policy to the United Nations to keep subverting America’s national sovereignty and distinct cultural identity. Their favorite tools of coercion are usually judicial activism and bureaucratic decrees. Now, however, riding high after the November midterm elections, they are going for the jugular—the outright silencing of their ideological opponents.



Conservatives must form a united front to prevent this blatant power grab by the Soros Democrats. If not, the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” will not only be a great victory for the forces of censorship, but a watershed moment in the continuing march of liberalism against everything that is good, decent and virtuous in America.



- Jeffrey T. Kuhner is the editor of Insight

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GQ_jumper 4]

Hey this is america, land of the free and stuff, so long as that free speech agrees with what congress wants.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[DFWAJG 4]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate whiney republican crap.

[Guest]

That's a pretty good piece. Nice argument with decent rhetoric, but it overlooks the fact that despite liberal attacks, conservative media outlets are stronger than ever. Liberals also forget that the "Fariness Doctrine" sword cuts both ways.

Not only that, but the Internet has made even conservative talk radio a thing of the past.

It's still alarming that liberals aren't satisfied with the tiny size of the slice of the media spectrum that conservatives control - they want to stamp out all dissent, or tolerate a token amount so that they can point to it and say "here is diversity of opinion".

However, there is a certain amount of alarmist "This Guy Is Falling!" rhetoric in the piece that is setting off my Critical Thinking BS-O-Meter(tm).

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[quade 4]

The ramblings of a paranoid . . .

Quote

More importantly, the war on talk radio reveals the totalitarian impulse at the heart of modern liberalism. Above all, liberalism is an ideology based on radical social engineering. Its ultimate goal is to transform America into a society characterized by economic collectivism, personal—and especially, sexual—liberation and multilateral globalism. To accomplish these goals, the left must fundamentally restructure the economy, the family unit, traditional bourgeois values, and even the nation itself.

Wow . . .

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

What a bunch of crap

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What a bunch of crap

How so?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

What a bunch of crap

How so?

Because it’s a bunch of crap that bares no truth to the realities of U.S politics and power.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What a bunch of crap

How so?

Because it’s a bunch of crap that bares no truth to the realities of U.S politics and power.

Really!??

Well that helps me understand where you are coming from

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Oh, the poor babies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

The war on conservative talk radio is a terrible mistake. It only diverts valuable resources from the war on the family, the war on Christmas, the war to promote flag burning, and the war to force every woman to have at least 1 abortion.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The war on conservative talk radio is a terrible mistake. It only diverts valuable resources from the war on the family, the war on Christmas, the war to promote flag burning, and the war to force every woman to have at least 1 abortion.

Interesting way of making the point. I get a kick out of kallend who is usually making a fuss about losing rights. I guess it only matters depending on WHOS rights it is. Saddly, in the end it would be everybodies.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GQ_jumper 4]

What a bunch of crap

Quote

I agree that a few of the tnagents that story went off on were far-fetched, but at the same time the basis for the story brings up a good point. No conservative power is FORCING these media outlets to show things in a pro-conservative light, it's their own choice. They are exercising their freedom of speech, so who are the liberals to say they can't just because they don't think they are as popular with the media. I highly doubt they woul be pushing this if they were the ones on all of the cited media sources good side.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union

Words of imminent garbage. I didn't bother to read the rest.

Is there a communist equivalent to Godwin's law? Seems to be a rule that when some righty is ranting about liberals the commy accusations sprout up sooner or later.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union

Words of imminent garbage. I didn't bother to read the rest.

Is there a communist equivalent to Godwin's law? Seems to be a rule that when some righty is ranting about liberals the commy accusations sprout up sooner or later.

When the left gets ceptic about a topic? I know it is very close to home

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union

Words of imminent garbage. I didn't bother to read the rest.

Is there a communist equivalent to Godwin's law? Seems to be a rule that when some righty is ranting about liberals the commy accusations sprout up sooner or later.

When the left gets ceptic about a topic? I know it is very close to home

Trying to make something out of your completely vacuous response. Mind defining "ceptic?" Couldn't find it in the dictionary.

New Bushism perhaps?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[nerdgirl 0]

For the primary data addicts out there: see http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

My reading of the old draft text (it was introduced in 2004 & 2005 as well) is that it may have the effect of increasing the range of opinions available by increasing the local-originated content. Nothing on low-power FM, however.

Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Look:

Th article does have a "sky is falling" character to it. Think Al Gore and the environment. But, like Al Gore, there is some underlying stuff that is accurate. I myself am of the opinion that there are segments of the population that are out to silence opposing thought.

This is true on both sides. However, the left seem to have retained - and maintained - the advantage with regard to good-hearted intentions. They can get indignant and blow up about "offensive" words, remarks, etc. They can silence people, destroy people, and they will have done so for good and benevolent purpose.

Tammy Bruce, the former head of NOW in Los Angeles, has said that there IS a network of people out there who seek to silence opposing voices, and she has used it.

The best way to obtain political power is to control the media. Once the propoganda can be limited to your viewpoint, or at least turn down the opposing voices, then the balance of power will move to your favor.

Issues such as this will be why seemingly unconstitutional laws get passed. By the time the statute is overturned, the destruction has occurred.

As an aside, the left are masterful political warriors. If I were to ask people to stereotype a Republican, what would the stereotype be? White, male, rich, racist, sexist, homophobic, Christian, cold-hearted... Is this a stereotype forwarded by the Republicans? Nope.

Republicans had managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word for a few years in the mid to late 80's, but since then, have no response. Why? Because of the left's mastery of political war and homicide. Speak out against black leaders and inner city culture? You're a racist, even if you are Bill Cosby. Speak out against immigration? Racist xenophobe. Mention how many women are opting for sacrifice of professional life in order to be "family women?" Sexist.

A culture of fear of speaking out has occurred. Presently, the right wing has the police. The left has the thought police. Both can freakign ruin you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the right wing has the police. The left has the thought police. Both can freakign ruin you.

Don't forget about the spelling police.

[rushmc 23]

Opps Septic, my bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Look:

Th article does have a "sky is falling" character to it. Think Al Gore and the environment. But, like Al Gore, there is some underlying stuff that is accurate. I myself am of the opinion that there are segments of the population that are out to silence opposing thought.

This is true on both sides. However, the left seem to have retained - and maintained - the advantage with regard to good-hearted intentions. They can get indignant and blow up about "offensive" words, remarks, etc. They can silence people, destroy people, and they will have done so for good and benevolent purpose.

Tammy Bruce, the former head of NOW in Los Angeles, has said that there IS a network of people out there who seek to silence opposing voices, and she has used it.

The best way to obtain political power is to control the media. Once the propoganda can be limited to your viewpoint, or at least turn down the opposing voices, then the balance of power will move to your favor.

Issues such as this will be why seemingly unconstitutional laws get passed. By the time the statute is overturned, the destruction has occurred.

As an aside, the left are masterful political warriors. If I were to ask people to stereotype a Republican, what would the stereotype be? White, male, rich, racist, sexist, homophobic, Christian, cold-hearted... Is this a stereotype forwarded by the Republicans? Nope.

Republicans had managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word for a few years in the mid to late 80's, but since then, have no response. Why? Because of the left's mastery of political war and homicide. Speak out against black leaders and inner city culture? You're a racist, even if you are Bill Cosby. Speak out against immigration? Racist xenophobe. Mention how many women are opting for sacrifice of professional life in order to be "family women?" Sexist.

A culture of fear of speaking out has occurred. Presently, the right wing has the police. The left has the thought police. Both can freakign ruin you.

I agree with nearly all of your points! I never took a side as I just posted it. The responses by some have been a little scary. And as you point out, both sides a spewing some crap.

As for the culture of fear comment. I think this is being used the same as many other critics devices. The only goal being to silence the other side.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>No conservative power is FORCING these media outlets to show things in a
>pro-conservative light, it's their own choice.

Interesting that when media outlets have a conservative slant, it's freedom of speech in action. But when they have a liberal slant, it's a conspiracy of the lying liberal media, who are no doubt in bed with the democratic party.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>No conservative power is FORCING these media outlets to show things in a
>pro-conservative light, it's their own choice.

Interesting that when media outlets have a conservative slant, it's freedom of speech in action. But when they have a liberal slant, it's a conspiracy of the lying liberal media, who are no doubt in bed with the democratic party.

Of course! And when the media outlets have a liberal slant, it is freedom of speech in action. But when they have a conservative slant, it's a conspiracy of the evil corporations, who are no doubt lackeys of the Christian right-wing Republicans, and there shoul dbe a law.

As an aside, who is going to determine "balance?" How is this goign to be determined? Through coutners, etc? What if Rush Limbaugh makes a statement agreeing with Obama's stance on an issue versus Clinton's and Edwards's stance? Will there be a time for a counterpoint?

Will it be a matter of judging, "This talk show host is conservative, so we'll put on a liberal." Will it be, "Pat Robertson is hosting this show, and he's conservative, so we'll put on Al Franken" or will it be, "Don Imus is on, and he's liberal, if anything, so to balance him we'll put on G. Gordon Liddy."

What about a running commentary voiced over the radio, with Limbaugh on the air and Franken running a commentary over the show, and vice versa?

This is where policing thought becomes so freakign idiotic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>As an aside, who is going to determine "balance?"

The market for media is going to determine who succeeds and who fails. That is not the same as "balance" but it is the only regulatory mechanism we have. Fortunately we can choose which outlet we want to listen to.

[quade 4]

Quote

>As an aside, who is going to determine "balance?"

The market for media is going to determine who succeeds and who fails. That is not the same as "balance" but it is the only regulatory mechanism we have. Fortunately we can choose which outlet we want to listen to.

So the side with the most entertaining clown wins?

I'm sorry, but that don't make no sense at all.

No. Here's my proposal. We require identification of content. Make certain that coming out of and going into commercial breaks there are disclaimers so that people don't confuse the clowns with the real news.

This would be similar to what they have to do with children's programming. Unfortunately, it would probably be just as effective; that is to say, not at all.

FFS, there are ADULTS, in Congress, that don't seem to understand that when somebody from The Daily Show walks into their office, they're going to get roasted; big time. There are people that go on Colbert and actually think they can "win" against a professional smart ass.

If that's the leadership, then WTF is their constituency like?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver