Redistributing the Media
by Brian JenningsDuring his campaign Mr. Obama stated numerous times his desire to increase diversity of ownership of media. Minions on the FCC such as Commissioners Copps and Adelstein have also stated their desire to redistribute the media. The first step toward that goal has been announced. And, it threatens conservative talk in America.
Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps has set May 7th as the date for a meeting of the commission’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. Copps has been stating loudly that he wants to increase diversity in media ownership and that it will be a priority of the FCC. National hearings on the topic were held in 2007 and the FCC commissioners turned up their criticism of large media companies like Clear Channel and others. This will get the ball rolling on diversity before new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is confirmed by the Senate and seated at the FCC. They are deadly serious.
What does this mean for conservatives? The diversity move to break up large ownership of radio has been the goal of all the leftist public interest organizations such as Free Press, the Center for American Progress, and others – most of them funded by George Soros, the Democratic Party godfather. It is their goal that by forcing more diversity ownership they will move conservative voices aside.
The FCC has tremendous power over terrestrial broadcasters. The agency can regulate without Congressional approval and when Genachowski is seated, it will have a 3-2 Democrat majority. Mr. Copps is one of those Democrats and with this move, he has declared regulatory war on conservative talk radio. The FCC will look for ways to force many radio operators to give up those licenses. They can levy heavy fines, taxes, and other regulatory means that can force current broadcast holders to throw in the towel – then reassign those licenses to minorities or women.
Don’t count on these groups to keep conservative voices on their talk stations. Free speech? Only on their terms. Keep your eye on these hearings. Big brother is at work. The free marketplace be damned. Redistribute the wealth…..that’s good according to Obama. Redistributing the media is part of that plan. But, it is more forced socialism in America. Why are we not surprised? Free speech be damned.
Brian Jennings is author of Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio. It will be in bookstores nationwide on May 5th. www.censorshipbook.com.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
77 Comments
Will this mean that TNN, the Teabagging News Network could also get bigger?? Air America too? Reassigning licenses…as Morty Seinfeld would say, "I dont like the sound of that"
I am no fan of clear channel or the consolidation of radio, but this needs to be watched.
Also, haven't they been shaking down radio stations for years now with the existing "diversity" garbage? I thought that any minority group can already challenge a license, and that Jesse Jackas$$ and his peeps have been using that as a source of funds for a decade now?
Diversity = excellence, except when it = quotas, which is most of the time.
"Live from Airstrip One, here is the news…"
This is more than a little scary, it's downright dangerous.
Not really surprising. They've been testing the waters for a while now. With the majority of Congress signaling that "Fairness Doctrine" would die a painful death on the floor… the liberal powers that be have been getting creative. We'll have to keep a vigilant eye on this or they will slip it through the cracks virtually unnoticed.
But you have to have listeners to be stay on the air. My Oldies Rock station was #3 in NYC. Then the brainiacs that owned the station decided to get rid of the disk jockies and go to digital – Jack Radio. (I had another name for it, but I am too much of lady to say what that was) They dropped to 13th in 2 months. 6months later they were back to disk jockeys and Oldies and #3 again. There is hope…
I hope you're right. I think that the consolidation of radio has been one of the primary reasons that the music scene has grown so stale. The only place you find new music now is in commercials or in movie/tv soundtracks. I've given up on radio in fact and I listen to MP3s now exclusively.
do you listen to Mark Simone? I do when Im near the radio …. .I mainly like the older commericals and lingo if not the music.
This will only work if liberals figure out how to print money and socialize their losses.
The Dems are using agencies to accomplish what they're afraid to put to an open vote. Examples:
*The EPA has labeled CO2 a harmful pollutant that must be regulated, yet the Senate voted 88-9 on a resolution against the carbon tax if it raised gas and electricity prices. If the EPA does it on its own, Congress can deny responsibility for this tax on all Americans.
*The FCC doing the dirty work of the "Fairness Doctrine" without Congress taking the blame.
The Dems can thunder on against these attacks on free speech and energy, while unelected bureacrats decide enormous issues that affect all Americans.
“…this needs to be watched." “vigilant eye on them?” “it's downright dangerous."
Watching..waiting and hopen…swell, like that's going to work like it did for the last 40 years won't it?
Here’s the big ??? guys, just what the hell are we, as free citizens in this country, going to DO about these draconian methods to shut off our free speech, while the left uses these back door methods to silence our right to be heard and to speak freely.
It’s the FIRST amendment in the Bill of Rights for gobs sake. The one that our founders placed FIRST on our list of freedoms. (Gee, why they did that now I wonder? Hmmm?)
Once the leftists now in charge of our country successfully gag our fundamental freedom to be heard utilizing government interference, then it’s just a short jump to all other forms of soft and hard tyranny. (As if we’re not on that road now.)
If we, as a free people allow this to happen without a fight, then there are still a few million like minded folks, like me, that will be out in the streets screaming out asses off to be heard.
This will not end well…I for one, say, bring it. Just try it.
Do you hear that Berry, Eric and Janet? Up yours, and the shetlands you rode in on.
“Shoot low boy’s…they be aridin’ shetlands”
Not Over.
agreed. but what is meant by "diversity" here? Am I wrong reading this meaning as "anti-consolidation" as in, oops, we should not have allowed all of this consolidation, and now we're going to force it un-done?
Or is this diversity as in the PC sense, ie. more ethic-owned and ethic this and that? Because clear channel obviously supports ethic diversity. They own stations of all colors, so to speak. They are very "PC" in that regard.
To me, the anti-clear channel, anti-conglomerate reading of this should be something that cuts both ways, right/left. Why is this considered a threat to conservative radio? Small guy radio stations can be conservative too, right? What's wrong with that?
Where was it that the king wanted diversity of ownership for farms…South Africa? And the farms went to people who didn't now how to farm, and the people starved.
It was meant to be exactly as mushy as it came out. Diversity is one of those words used to support too many causes without the word having its simple original meaning. Diversity means nothing more than the quality of being diverse, or more than one or two things which are different from each other. Diversity has no "goodness" or "badness" of its own. It's used far too often to mean "different from you." I'm replying to your post solely to recognize your being the first (but I hope not the only) person to get precisely what I meant. Diversity is meaningless without context.
It was meant to be exactly as mushy as it came out. Diversity is one of those words used to support too many causes without the word having its simple original meaning. Diversity means nothing more than the quality of being diverse, or more than one or two things which are different from each other. Diversity has no "goodness" or "badness" of its own. It's used far too often to mean "different from you." I'm replying to your post solely to recognize your being the first (but I hope not the only) person to get precisely what I meant. Diversity is meaningless without context.
It works both ways – you are right. Diversity in ownership = more diversity of programming and the Democrats hope that will mean less conservative talk. HOWEVER…..they still will need ratings and revenue to succeed and that means they air what works. But, I have worked for both liberals and conservatives and liberals will program what they like even if it means failure. Air America is an example. Small guy radio can and often is conservative – this is just the Democrats hope and strategy. Good thoughts on your post and thank you.
And don't forget the other pincer of the Spring Offensive on the First Amendment – the Cyber Security act of 2009, introduced early this month by Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snow, and a couple of other DC freedom fighters whose names escape me at the moment. It would allow the President to, in effect, place the Internet under martial law during a national "emergency"; although it doesn't define "emergency"(a mere oversight, no doubt). It would also empower the Commerce Secretary to go snooping through "relevant networks" just about any time he or she felt like it, as long as they claim it's about security. This scares many on the Left, as well it should; they hate talk radio but they're just as addicted to the Internet as anyone on the Right. Good advice to both is: hold your nose but work together – some battles are too important to lose.
Except for talk radio, I hope. I am all for localism and any amount of diversity of ownership as long as it is done through the forces of the free marketplace. I just hate government regulation in the speech arena. Good thoughts, Andrew. Thank you.
Thanks Brian. I have zero tolerance with what the left is trying to do. Talk radio got to where it is because it attracts listeners. Not as part of some conspiracy. Talk radio is the ultimate example of free market capitalism filling a niche that no one else was satisfying. I can see NO valid reason for letting the government try to break that up. (Not to mention that we know the real reason they want to do this — to shut down opposition voices — and that is intolerable to me.)
My beef with Clear Channel and the others are in the pop music area. When you listen to pop stations, you literally hear only a handful of songs throughout the day and its always the same artists. I think this has styfled pop music because these companies are unwilling to play anything that is not guaranteed to be a hit. That gives artists less exposure, which means less creativity. I think this has resulted in a really flat period for pop over the past 10-15 years. As I said, I have to look to commercials or movies or the internet now to find good/interesting new music.
(cont)
Still, I would not say break up Clear Channel. But I would do anything I could to encourage competitors — like satellite radio, internet radio, etc. Either drop rules that prevent these competitors from entering markets, or even open up more radio bandwidth. If these guys won't provide better service, find a way to allow others to enter the market. Let competition reign.
I'm glad you clarified why you're talking to this troll.
I get your point on diversity and I agree completely. Diversity, i.e. increased options, is always the superior choice. Thus, it is a good that should be encouraged. Liberal "diversity" is a racial/sexual spoils system, i.e. apartheid, that should be opposed by all right thinking people.
It's sometimes difficult with the troll. But it's not always because of his insane ramblings. There have been times that in the midst of his effluvium I find myself agreeing, but it would start a whole new thread I have no desire to waste my time with. He made a comment about disliking the way government has become too large and intrusive, but if I had agreed with him in a reply, we'd have been off to the races again.
I saw below that Bev vouched for this troll? Are we keeping him?
By the way, did you get my message about Steve Mason's thread — it vanished several times. I think one of your comments vanished too (something about 20 years of law)? I saw it by accident on the intensedebate dash board, but it's not where it looks like it should have gone.
One thing the FCC can never mandate is market forces. Bad radio, lib talk are always in the toilet. The only way they could have a major impact is if they nationalized the stations, and provided the funding. It'll still suck and people will find alternatives to get what they want. And the net is too unwieldy to regulate – maybe only with the ISP's. Either way this is a fiasco in the making.
The posts are disappearing and reappearing in odd ways, but if you leave the site and return, the comment is usually there after all. Are you referring to the "we're the same person" post? If so, I've already responded. I just don't understand why they would compliment you so highly at my expense. The 20 years of law referred to the extra time I've had to develop my nasty side, which is time you'll never be able to overcome. I'll take a look at Bev's post, but I'm guessing she doesn't want to defend him anymore than I do.
Yeah, the disappearing posts is annoying. I can see them in the intense debate thing, but they seem to vanish from the site, only to show up later — and sometimes vanish again.
Yeah, the "we're the same person" thing — I saw your response already and replied. Couldn't stop myself, it's the legal training. . .
Bev's point was made in the middle of the BIG torture debate. Something about him being funny. Let me know what you think?
Yeah, suspicions confirmed, her defense related to one tiny bit of sanity in his sea of insanity, much like mine.
It's a good thing I found out quickly which post you were referring to. I was getting ready to do another post that would make last night's rant look like child's play.
It isn't the troll we hate, it's what he does.
Exactly. If a troll wants to put down trollish things and engage us in rational debate, I'm more than happy to debate with them. But I won't waste my time on dumships like Auntie Fascist and I won't deal with anyone who plays half-troll half-rational.
So what do you think about this one?
Also, what were you about to rant about?
I can do rocket science. That's a description of what it takes to find a simple post to reply to.
I agree about half-trolls, but I had a moment of weakness.
My rant was going to be about my non-existence. Then I was going to delete it since I don't exist.
Now I've lost the thread. Which newbie were you talking about as being well-behaved?
Your most recent post is lost in the ether, so I'll reply here. When this guy can go through an entire day without calling one or more of us a dummy, a wimp, or incapable of intelligent arguement [sic], I'll consider it. For now, he's all ad hominem attacks and cutesy nastiness with an occasional intelligent, coherent argument stuck in-between, so I will not be replying to him again in the foreseeable future. Bev can put him on "civilizing probation," but I don't have the patience. We've all used some of his crude epithets about an article or the subject of an article, but we don't use them with our fellow posters except after being insulted first by the troll. I just don't want to get into the whole "I know I am but what are you" nonsense.
Good enough for me.
Andrew,
That is an industry wide thing. The pirating of music andillegal downloads are affecting the ability of artists to make money. I have seen several articles explaining that there is a great deal of pressure on acts to become no one on the charts or the group will not make money. When you reduce the total revenue available to the industry you reduce the total number of acts that can make a living as artists.
Groups like Led Zepplin with several Platinum albums but who only ever had one song at no1 on the pop charts may well be a thing of the past. It is probably why country groups are becomng more commercial as well
Maybe redistributing the media will be the best thing for conservatives in the end. The idea is for the liberals to shut down conservative shows
Maybe redistributing the media will be the best thing for conservatives in the end. The idea is for the liberals to shut down conservative shows, or the show would have to give equal time to liberals. If we see this thing out, then the libs have to do the same thing. Since the propaganda media is liberal, can't the conservatives sue for equal rights and get equal time to tell the conservative side of stories? Sounds fair to me.
So let me get this straight.
If you are a financial banking institution with direct control over the lending and investment of capital then conglomeration and monopolization are a good thing because it is easier for the government to control the effects of the economy of financial decisions.
But the meia outlets despite the increase in HD RAdio, Satellite Radio and the Internet these need to be demonopolized especially if this is through local control of licenses by senators and congressmen.
'fraid that that is what they have in mind.
"If we see this thing out, then the libs have to do the same thing." Since when?
Can you say, "selective enforcement?"
"Mainstream media"–that includes Chris Matthews and Keith Olbetrman–will be given the same free pass as they currently receive.
I understand your thinking, but if conservatives carried this out all the way to the US Supreme Court I can't see even a 100% liberal court saying the liberals have free speech rights over conservatives.
That is one time I feel they would have to say either the propaganda media has to allow ALL sides of a story being told, or say we go back the way it is now and each show can say what they want without having to ALLOW the other side to respond.
Please let me live in my part time fantasy wold sometimes.
Has anyone thought to protest the meeting? Yes, I know the idea of protesting is sort of new to us. Yes, I realize it is on a Thursday and we have jobs. It's running late in the game, but the fact we have not been in the streets showing that we are mad has meant that we have been ignored. The Tea Parties suprised The Left because they did not think we would do that. Smack them with it again.
Get the Lawyers involved NOW! Start writing up your complaints on the lack of diversity on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and Air America. Give specific examples. Let these companies know that you are prepared to send these off if they do not diversify according to the new regulations. Media companies are still companies. They exist to make a profit. If you threaten thier bottom line with fines they will react. The Left thinks this we won't use this to harm them because "Conservatives don't do that". Let them know were tired of them and we can use their tools as well.
You protest when you don't watch these networks or read their newspapers and magazines. That is why they are going broke. Sometimes the silent protest is more effective than the loud ones. The loud ones give them something to report.
You protest when you don't watch these networks or read their newspapers and magazines. That is why they are going broke. Sometimes the silent protest is more effective than the loud ones. The loud ones give them something to report.
The goal is not to change the liberal networks. If they want to let FOX have a monopoly on conservative content while they fight amonst themselves for the other half that is their business model for them to worry about. I do not think they want the government telling them how to run thier networks either and will have their pet pundits react accordingly. The idea is to prevent enforcement from being selective by using their rules against them. Give them the choice between, firing Keith Olebrman, hiring Ann Coulter, or fighting the government. George Soros's head explodes! Pictures! At eleven!
I understand what you are saying, but the libs want it both ways. They want to spread their liberalism through THEIR media AND the conservative media. And they want to be on the conservative media for fee, since they can't get advertisers to pay for their shows. Has Air America had an advertiser yet?
The good thing is Air America is draining the donors of a lot of their money. I hope they keep thinking it is worth investing more and more money.
I understand what you are saying, but the libs want it both ways. They want to spread their liberalism through THEIR media AND the conservative media. And they want to be on the conservative media for fee, since they can't get advertisers to pay for their shows. Has Air America had an advertiser yet?
The good thing is Air America is draining the donors of a lot of their money. I hope they keep thinking it is worth investing more and more money.
Fascism in full bloom.
I hope they try this. They really have no idea who they are f*cking with. Do they think these guys will go down quietly? And not say exactly what's happening? As for Rush… "Strike me down, and you will make me more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
a thousand years of darkness…..it has already begun.
The filthy maggot pigs enable this swill.
Which "filthy maggot pigs", are you referring too?
Please explain.
Thanks.
Not Over.
They're a rock band.
The putrid stench of evil that passes themselves off as "Law Enforcement" in this country. The ones who take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" who then can't bother to protect the First Amendment against these bastards. "Freedom of the Press" is not a right reserved for the "approved" media. It is an individual right that applies just as much to Billy Joe Bubba Bob writing the Eufaula Mobile Home Park Gazette as it does to Helen Thomas spewing her garbage for whoever employs it these days. But "Law Enforcement" has made a mockery of that right, as they have done with so many other rights. They bow and scrape before their Masters, and then do whatever they're damn well told. Just like the good ol' German cops in the 30's and 40's. Hell, they can't even be bothered to make sure that the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are met! But they'll be glad to enthusiastically shut down free speech whenever they're told to do so.
THOSE filthy maggot pigs!
They will fund this the same way they do NPR. With OUR tax dollars. It doesn't matter that you don't want to give money to NPR or even PBS, you have it forcibly taken from you. This is more of the same. And if you stand up against the "diversity," then you will be shouted down as a racist. How to win?
Well…that about covers it I guess. "Eric the Holder" would fall into that category without much question.
Thanks.
Not Over.
This is (yet another) one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto!
Control communications!
Now: How to inform (i.e. get through to) the clueless, the ones who really would want to know and who really need to know what is happening? (at lightspeed, I might add)
Diversity also equals division – destroying our American identity. Hypenating us into an unmelting pot.
You are absolutely right, Smorgasbord.
However, the federal government would put itself in charge of determining and defining the perameters of the perspectives of all media. A First Amendment nightmare.
Thanks for the info, Brian Jennings. Important column.
The "diversity" mantra in politics is the exact opposite of e pluribus unum. The great Latin scholar, Al Gore, quoted it as "out of one, many" which is bad Latin, but good diversity trash. For a couple of years recently, everywhere you looked in town you saw "celebrate diversity" bumper stickers, which actually meant "I vote Democrat." It's another way of saying "I love racial and ethnic division." Surprisingly, I did see a couple of bumper stickers that said "respect diversity, celebrate unity." Now that's a thought I can support enthusiastically.
You're right. "Celebrate diversity" sounds too much like "English? English? We don't need no stinking English," or "Sharia is good for you." Not enough like "come now and let us reason together" or "and your people shall be my people."
if they nationalized the stations, and provided the funding
I think they call it NPR
uh . . . that should say "Hyphenating"!
(I really can spell!)
(press "one" for English . . .)
As a bumper-sticker disliker, I almost could appreciate that "respect diversity, celebrate unity" one.
And full disclosure, I must admit that I came late to the realization of the "Diversify and Conquer" strategy. So much celebration of diversity never felt quite right, but I didn't know why and did not dare express that perception.
It's great to see grass-roots thinking here. Too many people say they are for free markets, but don't get what that means. Consolidation in media has not been good, in my opinion. The idea of cross lateral monopolies, where media outlets and content providers become one and the same(in practice) has had a negative impact on most forms of media. Ownership Diversity doesn't equate with the end of Conservative Talk, Progarmming in multiple markets will just require dealing with numerous smaller entities, rather than a giant conglomerate.
Bravo Laserhawk and Bjennings for getting it right.
"Diversity" is just another word this corrupt administration is using to squelch Free Speech. It won't work, he'll p*ss off so many people in this country that the Liberals will be relegated to the back of the bus for the next 50 years. We are going to start in 2010!!
Have you ever tried swill. I found out if I put a little ketchup on it that it tastes pretty good. Don't knock something you haven't tried.
I like your enthusiasm, Sunny, but I would almost be willing to bet this goes through with very little fuss. Look at how Crap in Trade is coming up on us, and the Dems in Congress refused to even let the opposition speak on Climate Change. Look for this, and Socialized Medicine in your future. As Obama said, I won. They will push through as much as thye can before the 2010 elections just because they know historically they lose seats.
Step back and look at what we have going on. Today Algore in a congressional hearing outright lies about global warming making laughable claims and the democrats refused to allow a high ranking British climate expert to speak because they didn’t want to embarrass Algore. B. Hussein has memos regarding “torture” released but does not release memos which reveal the critical information gathered by such techniques. B. Hussein lies about the Mexican drug cartels getting their weapons from the US. Pelosi and other democrat filth lie about not knowing what interrogation techniques were being used.
cont………
B. Hussein via Janet Napolitano lies about returning vets being recruited by rightwing groups. B. Hussein via Janet Napolitano lies about the 9/11 terrorists entering through Canada. B. Hussein via Janet Napolitano releases a watch list of dissenting groups. For all intents and purposes we have a state run media. Nationalization is occurring in different industries and oil execs have been threatened with nationalization by (D) Maxine Waters. The census has been criminally taken over by the Hussein admin and given to Holder who will manipulate it, which is why the power grab was made in the first place. Title 13 of the U.S. Code says the Census Bureau must be administered “within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.”
Legislation is being drawn up that will greatly limit our freedoms under the guise of energy reform and healthcare reform. Soon the green goose-steppers will deliver us a Kristallnacht; this time the victims will not be Jews but dissenters- their homes and businesses.
Witness the birth of American Fascism.
I agree with you. I see our only hope is the 2012 elections. I have posted this before about Obama. I am guessing you will agree:
All of the conservative blogs seem surprised when Obama does something that will heart the USA. You either haven't figured out, or have forgotten, Obama does not want the USA to succeed. If nothing else will convince you of this, him wanting a civilian police force UNDER HIS CONTROL that has as many members as the military, and funded equal to the military, should convince you he wants to take over the country. What did Adolph Hitler call his civilian police force? Obama can't activate the Nation Guard, governors have to do that. With his civilian police force that is as strong as the military he could easily take over the country.
I honestly believe Obama wants to be King, not president. He knows he can't be king in a republic (we are not a democracy), so he is aligning himself with those who will help make him king. Since a person can only be king in a dictatorship, Obama is friends of dictatorships since he wants to have one of his own. Using this logic it is easy to see why he wants to be friends with Venezuela and Cuba.
Remember, he had to have a title BEFORE he was president, so he CREATED the title of "Office Of The President Elect." How long will it be before he DEMANDS to be called "Your Magisty?"
He bowed to the Saudi King because the king is like the Godfather to Obama. You only bow down to those you are in allegiance to. In that simple act Obama showed the world who he is subject to, and who he honors the most.
I think Obama's plan is to turn the USA over to other countries, and he figures he will be crowned king over it, or a part of it. Now I understand why he couldn't keep from laughing during his 60 Minutes interview. He knows they are helping him become king, and he will be ruling over them as their king some day.
This is why we all need to ask the libs we know to go to this blog, The Drudge Report, and Little Green Footballs.
Little Green Footballs has become a leftwing cesspit.
I am guessing you are referring to his rant about creation or evolution. I call myself a neutralist because I don't belong to any political party or religion. I don't read any articles about that stuff. I figure both sides have made up their minds on the subject and ain't going to be swayed the other way. It's like the truck driver joke:
Question: Why is arguing with a truck driver like wrestling with a pig in the mud?
Answer: After a while, you figure out the pig likes it.
===I am guessing you are referring to his rant about creation or evolution.===
I wasn't aware of this. I checked out LGF a few days ago after a few commenter’s mentioned it was now a left leaning site and that was the impression I had. Regarding creation or evolution I just agree to disagree; I’m a believer and through the good the bad and the ugly I will believe in God.
Supposedly Saul Alinsky has thoughts on dealing with the "Counterrevolution" in Rules for Radicals.
I think I am going to have to break down and get the book to undestand it.
Maybe I'll get it from the library so I don't have to buy it and give libs any money.
COPYRIGHT YOUR FACE (copyrightyourface dot com)
Do you know Banking Institutions profit from selling your private personal data? Do you know Banking Institutions are now selling and profiting from YOUR geometrical digital facial data recorded from their Face Recognition Cameras?
Please read: copyrightyourface dot com
Email: mark at copyrightyourface dot com
I AM NOT SELLING ANYTHING!
[...] Radio.” Check out what he has to say about the state of free speech at CensorshipBook.com. Click here for further commentary. He has a lot to say about Rep. Henry Waxman’s [...]
Since the conversations are going the way they are, I feel I should post something I have before because I think this is what Obama wants:
All of the conservative blogs seem surprised when Obama does something that will hurt the USA. You either haven't figured out, or have forgotten, Obama does not want the USA to succeed. If nothing else will convince you of this, him wanting a civilian police force UNDER HIS CONTROL that has as many members as the military, and funded equal to the military, should convince you he wants to take over the country. What did Adolph Hitler call his civilian police force? Obama can't activate the Nation Guard, governors have to do that. With his civilian police force that is as strong as the military he could easily take over the country.
I honestly believe Obama wants to be King, not president. He knows he can't be king in a republic (we are not a democracy), so he is aligning himself with those who will help make him king. Since a person can only be king in a dictatorship, Obama is friends of dictatorships since he wants to have one of his own. Using this logic it is easy to see why he wants to be friends with Venezuela and Cuba.
Remember, he had to have a title BEFORE he was president, so he CREATED the title of "Office Of The President Elect." How long will it be before he DEMANDS to be called "Your Majesty?"
He bowed to the Saudi King because the king is like the Godfather to Obama. You only bow down to those you are in allegiance to. In that simple act Obama showed the world who he is subject to, and who he honors the most.
I think Obama's plan is to turn the USA over to other countries, and he figures he will be crowned king over it, or a part of it. Now I understand why he couldn't keep from laughing during his 60 Minutes interview. He knows they are helping him become king, and he will be ruling over them as their king some day.
[...] First Tweet Apr 25, 2009 cheapshades Richard Woitowitz Damn the Public full speed ahead, advance the agenda http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bjennings/2009/04/24/redistributing-the-media/ view retweet [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.