Tucker Carlson Interview with Telegram Pavel Durov Just Arrested in France

The Globalists are unhappy about all this free speech nonsense. It is curious how they let Twitter fall into the hands of Elon Musk. After all they had all but locked up the rest of the popular social media’s platforms.

Tucker Carlson sat down with Durov last April. An interesting interview to say the least.

First the background:

During a previous interview with Tucker Carlson, Pavel Durov said said the US government secretly attempted to infiltrate Telegram.

Pavel Durov: But there’s this second part, which was probably more alarming there in the US. We got too much attention from the FBI, the security agencies, wherever we came to the US. To give an example, last time I was in the US, I brought an engineer that is working for Telegram, and there was an attempt to secretly hire my engineer behind my back by cyber security officers or agents, whatever they are called.

Tucker Carlson: The US government should hire your engineer engineer?

Pavel Durov: That’s my understanding. That’s what he told me.

Tucker Carlson: To write code for them or to break into Telegram?

Pavel Durov: They were curious to learn which open source libraries are integrated to the Telegram’s app on the client side, and they were trying to persuade him to use certain open-source tools that he would then integrate into the Telegram’s code that, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors.

Tucker Carlson: It would allow the US government to spy on people who use Telegram?

Pavel Durov: The US government or maybe any other government, because a backdoor is a backdoor regardless of who is using it. That’s right.

Pavel Durov left Russia when the government tried to control his social media company, Telegram. But in the end, it wasn’t Putin who arrested him for allowing the public to exercise free speech. It was a western country, a Biden administration ally and enthusiastic NATO member, that locked him away.

Pavel Durov sits in a French jail tonight, a living warning to any platform owner who refuses to censor the truth at the behest of governments and intel agencies. Darkness is descending fast on the formerly free world. Here’s our interview with Durov from several months ago:

The very worst of the swamp.

Did Free Speech Die With A Whimper in Latest Supreme Court Ruling?

The old try and true “We don’t have standing.” With the ruling by the Supreme court yesterday, we hear once again that the points raised are serious issues but….

The same excuse was used time after time in many of the court challenges with the concerns over voting fraud. The use exceeds our expectations.

This time Supreme Alito pipes up with this from the Daily Caller:

‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’: Justice Alito Writes Blistering Dissent In Biden Admin Censorship Case

Justice Samuel Alito excoriated the Supreme Court majority for “shirk[ing]” its duty to restrain the government’s coercive censorship efforts in “one of the most important free speech cases” to reach the high court in years.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided 6-3 with the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri, finding that two states and five individual plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction against the government’s wide-ranging efforts to suppress speech online.

The case concerned the federal government requesting social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter remove certain content related to COVID-19 and other hot-button issues; many of the posts that were censored were factual, and critics argued the Biden administration attempted to censor conservative viewpoints

In his dissent, Alito, who was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, argued that the majority’s decision “permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

Alito continues….“Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands,” he wrote, pointing to the White House’s many requests to remove “misinformation” related to COVID-19. “And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”

“Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster,” Alito wrote. “When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they ‘thought we were doing a better job’ but promised to do more going forward…And when denounced as ‘killing people,’ Facebook responded by expressing a desire to ‘work together collaboratively’ with its accuser.”

Read more

One can only wonder whether the Supremes are going “wobbly.” Is the constant pressure being put upon them starting to takes its toll?

This is the big one. And the statements that the issue can be revisited with a “proper challenger” is small comfort. Especially now as we conclude this election cycle.

One can only feel concern as we wait for the Trump case regarding immunity.

The very best of the swamp.

Robert Kennedy Jr House Hearing Turns Into A Roman Circus

After hours of hearings the past several weeks, this one on censorship will not be forgotten. Those of us who rode it out were witness to a circus the likes of which has not seen in a long time. Ostensibly the hearing was on censorship of which the Dems were clear that they were all in.

The Dems had Stacey Plaskett, delegate from the Virgin Islands, as Ranking Member. One would never know she can’t even vote in regular session. Debbie Wasserman Schultz forced a vote to send the hearing into executive session, thus closing it down. Fortunately there were enough GOPers hanging around. As I recall the vote was 10-8 to continue open session. Included here are a few minutes of Kennedy’s remarks in response to the attacks. A comment:

“Dear liberal voters, wanna see what the beginning of a dystopian America looks like? Watch Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz smear RFK Jr as a racist and antisemite! The FACT IS, different ethnicities DO respond differently to diseases! Truth is now banned?” (Just take a course in Medical Anthropology, which was my interest, the facts are well documented)

Update: This NYPost article most clearly explains the incident
https://nypost.com/2023/07/16/rfk-jr-defends-his-ethnically-targeted-covid-19-comments/
with a link to the NIH report
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/

And the infamous so-called racist statement was taken out of context and in fact he was citing a NIH Study done by the Cleveland Clinic. But facts are troublesome things.

Here we go with a great start to the hearing.At today’s House Weaponization Committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI)

Here she goes:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz And RFK Jr. Clash When She Confronts Him Over Anti-Semitic Statements

Continuing not necessarily in order.

One more shot:

This sums it up.

In trying to put together these clips and looking at dozens, most testimony was embedded within news casts. Sadly, what was left of this poor fellow’s testimony was scant. Most clips included the strident remarks off target of the purpose of the hearing. Censorship. And in fact turned into a prime example of exactly what the Dems did yesterday. Destroy someone who is a threat to the machine. Censor him forever by calling him a racist and a bigot.

The very worst of the swamp I have witnessed in a very long time.

Facebook ‘whistleblower’ plant wants to fool the GOP at hearing

When former Facebook Haugen  a “whistle blower” is represented by Jen Psaki’s PR firm and Eric Ciaramella’s legal team you are definitely on the Dems page.

Isn’t it amazing how a Facebook “whistleblower” can appear on 60 Minutes, Facebook has a worldwide outage, “whistleblower” gets a congressional hearing, and Facebook agrees to censor more after the hearing – All in 48 hours.

Isn’t it amazing she now moves on to the E.U. to shop her censorship wares? What a coincidence. 

When the Dems and the GOP appear on the same page on a subject, Houston, we have a problem.

Image

 

The Facebook civic integrity team that leftist activist whistleblower Frances Haugen was a member of, worked to counter misinformation about the 2020 election.

Which in October of last year meant making the decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and the New York Post’s reporting on it.

…Along with mentioning that Frances Haugen is represented by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s PR firm, and is traveling to Europe soon to testify for the EU parliament.

Her views on free speech aside, the issue is worth exploring deeper.

On Tuesday, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection about the situation inside the company.

Read more

 

Glen Greenwald at Substack has a good read on this as well:

And that is Facebook’s only real political problem: not that they are too powerful but that they are not using that power to censor enough content from the internet that offends the sensibilities and beliefs of Democratic Party leaders and their liberal followers, who now control the White House, the entire executive branch and both houses of Congress. Haugen herself, now guided by long-time Obama operative Bill Burton, has made explicitly clear that her grievance with her former employer is its refusal to censor more of what she regards as “hate, violence and misinformation.” In a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night, Haugen summarized her complaint about CEO Mark Zuckerberg this way: he “has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful and polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.” Haugen, gushed The New York Times’ censorship-desperate tech unit as she testified on Tuesday, is “calling for regulation of the technology and business model that amplifies hate and she’s not shy about comparing Facebook to tobacco.”

Agitating for more online censorship has been a leading priority for the Democratic Party ever since they blamed social media platforms (along with WikiLeaks, Russia, Jill Stein, James Comey, The New York Times, and Bernie Bros) for the 2016 defeat of the rightful heir to the White House throne, Hillary Clinton. And this craving for censorship has been elevated into an even more urgent priority for their corporate media allies, due to the same belief that Facebook helped elect Trump but also because free speech on social media prevents them from maintaining a stranglehold on the flow of information by allowing ordinary, uncredentialed serfs to challenge, question and dispute their decrees or build a large audience that they cannot control.

…A Pew survey from August shows that Democrats now overwhelmingly support internet censorship not only by tech giants but also by the government which their party now controls. In the name of “restricting misinformation,” more than 3/4 of Democrats want tech companies “to restrict false info online, even if it limits freedom of information,” and just under 2/3 of Democrats want the U.S. Government to control that flow of information over the internet.

Read more

Best of the swamp today.

For the best in news push the button

 

Aussies go full Orwellian – require ID to use social media?

 

The government could require you to hand over your passport to tech companies before posting online in a move that’s been slammed by experts.

The Australian government is mulling a proposal which would require citizens to provide at least two forms of identification if they want to use social media, under the guise of ‘battling online bullying and more easily report users to authorities.

I thought the Aussies had more sense. But then again they were more than happy to give up their guns.

“Are we turning into North Korea? This is Orwellian,” one user wrote on Twitter after reading the recommendation.

 

 

Under the guise of preventing online bullying, the Morrison government’s plan would require ‘100 points of identification’ in order to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram – and online dating platforms such as Tinder, according to news.com.au. To satisfy the ‘100 points’ requirement, citizens would need to combine ‘Category 1’ methods of identification (birth certificate, passport, citizenship papers) with ‘Category 2’ ID (Valid government-issued license, public employee photo ID, doctor’s note).

 

Hard to believe:

H/T: Zero Hedge

We already have had the experience with Parler. Recall?

Hacker Archives Every Deleted Parler Post -“Very Incriminating” UPDATE

We thought that by wandering over to Parler we could breathe easy with our comments.  After all we thought we would not be censored for the most part and it appeared it was going to be live and let live. No data mining. (Chuckle time)

We are in for a nasty shock.

We could fire off a comment feeling free as a twitter bird.. 

Now we find that all of our comments and videos are identifiable to us, most including our location, have been harvested from Parler.

Coming to our swamp soon.

Norway Criminalizes Certain Hate Speech in Private Homes and Conversations

 

This is like a bad movie. Speech control leading to thought control. We already are being encouraged to rat out our neighbor if they are not “obeying” the Masters demand for correct behavior. Now to the point of discussions with our spouse? Tell me they have to be kidding. Biden is all in with this:

The move to criminalize speech has led to an insatiable appetite for new limitations and broader prosecutions. Norway is an example of this headlong plunge into speech controls and crimes in the West. This week the legislature adopted (without even a vote) a new criminal law that punishes people for saying anything deemed hate speech toward transgender people in their own home or private conversations.

People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.

….

Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland  declared victory because speech regulation must be “adapted to the practical situations that arise.” The “practical situation” includes speaking to your own spouse or family.

….

The most chilling fact is that European-style speech controls have become a core value in the Democratic Party. Once a party that fought for free speech, it has become the party demanding Internet censorship and hate speech laws. President-Elect Joe Biden has called for speech controls and recently appointed a transition head for agency media issues that is one of the most pronounced anti-free speech figures in the United States.

 

 

From Jonathan Turley:

The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. As I previously addressed in a column, Stengel has been one of the most controversial figures calling for censorship and speech controls. For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many.  Since it would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.  This is not the first Biden aide to indicate a crackdown on free speech in the new Administration and Biden himself has called for greater censorship on the Internet.

Last year, Stengel wrote a chilling Washington Post op-ed that denounced free speech as a threat to social and political harmony.  Like a number of liberal and Democratic figures, Stengel struggled to convince readers that what they need is less freedom:  “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

More at  Zero Hedge

 

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Scottish Hate Crime Bill Would Criminalize Offensive Dinner Table Conversations

 

“Stirring up hate” is the operative phrase. Looks like Scotland’s holiday meals and family get togethers will be subdued events. After all, one could go to jail according to the new hate crime bill.

That includes off-color dinner table conversations with friends and family. Asked whether people would be allowed to speak freely within their own homes, Yousaf said he disagreed “in terms of principle and policy” with the idea of keeping the law out of the living room.

“Let’s just give an example, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against Muslims,” he said. “Are we saying that that is justified because it is in the home?”

Humza Yousaf

 

Here is a look into the gazing ball of what our future here in America soon will look like:

Scotland’s new odious hate crime bill would go so far as to criminalize dinner table conversations if their ‘offensive’ content is reported to police.

“Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law,” reports the Times.

Such conversations were previously protected under the Public Order Act 1986, which includes a “dwelling defense” that shields conversations that take place in private homes from being prosecuted, however that would be removed under the new law.

The new bill would add an additional crime of “stirring up hate” against a protected group by “behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person,” as well as the crime of possessing “inflammatory material.”

Critics have argued that the vague term “stirring up hate” could be broadly interpreted and could lead to people like JK Rowling facing criminal charges and up to seven years in prison for expressing views about transgender issues.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said journalists, writers and theater directors could also be dragged into the courts if their work is deemed to have stirred up “prejudice.”

To get an idea of Yousaf’s mentality, he previously gave a speech to the Scottish Parliament in which he complained that the vast majority of senior positions in Scottish authorities were filled by white people.

Demographically, Scotland is 96% white.

Humza Yousaf says Scotland is Too White

 

 

H/T: Summit News

The best of the world’s swamp.

Oxford students want University to ban clapping

 

Just when you think it cannot get more absurd it does. Oxford University no less. The next generation’s leaders will now become mute little automatons. Silent drones carrying out their master’s orders. It’s all about control – the hint I give you on a Friday.

The Oxford University student council is lobbying the prestigious British university to end applause, arguing that it could trigger anxiety and was unfair to disabled students.

The Oxford Student reported Wednesday that the council had passed a motion to “mandate the Sabbatical Officers to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) clapping, otherwise known as ‘silent jazz hands’ at Student Council meetings and other official SU events,” and to “lobby the University” to make similar changes.

“Loud noises, including whooping and traditional applause, are argued to present an access issue for some disabled students who have anxiety disorders, sensory sensitivity, and/or those who use hearing impairment aids,” the university newspaper said.

The students’ decision comes a year after the University of Manchester Students’ Union made the same move to “avoid triggering anxiety and improve accessibility.” More at

Free Beacon

Yes, let’s have a joyless useless life. Welcome to 1984 and then some. From my stash of old stuff:

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures. A reminder from George Orwell.  This is where we are.

 

 

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge push the button.

New Rules! YouTube Banning anything critical of illegal immigration UPDATE!

 

There is no slowing down the loss of our rights to free speech when in the hands of a corporation. The latest in determination of what “hate Speech” is. Now a new protected class: Immigration Status.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, said it’s removing thousands of channels that violate the new policies.

Ethnicity? Nothing critical permitted opposing the suppression of Muslim women?

Immigration? Wall jumpers banned?

 

 

YouTube’s new policies will take effect immediately. Specifically, the service is banning videos “alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion.” The ban applies to a range of characteristics, including race, sexual orientation and veteran status.

YouTube’s changes follow moves from Facebook to prohibit not only white supremacy , but also white nationalism and white separatism.

Read more at Time

 

UPDATE:   Looks like YouTube got the hint on this one.

Liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizes SPLC content

Daily Caller: Liberal activists are crying foul after YouTube’s demonetizing frenzy slammed the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization known for labeling conservative groups as hate groups. A video SPLC [Read More]

 

They have been doing YouTube’s dirty work! Is this just a distraction?

You got it. The same group that said Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center 

Here is their map to their so-called “Hate Groups” –  Hate Map

Here is a list of the various groups including Christian identities – Catholics and Oath Keepers: SPLC Groups Monitored

Last August, a guest post by Mustang, filled you in on the SPLC group and what they are about – Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

 

The left-wing nonprofit SPLC— which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Snip…

First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

More at  Daily Caller

BONUS: SPLC Revisited … Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

Double Bonus:

Ca Dems trys to pass law against “fake news” creates Ministry of Truth

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 We already have “censors” concerning social media. Now California wants to legislate the truth and chose who does this? The left has been working on this for years. They never rest.

“California’s version of the Ministry of Truth isn’t forward-thinking, it’s akin to something out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.

 

Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

Flashback: Obama’s government intrusion into media content

 

Many are wondering just how the news media fell off the rails and became the democrat sycophants that they are today. I thought I would wander through my old stash of posts for a Saturday flashback and see what we could discern.

Ah yes, the glory days of the Obama administration when we started that long miserable road of “fundamentally transforming America.”  Those were the days of us wearing tin foil. So they said.

 

FEC moving to control and regulate Internet, blogs, News media

The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech by the everyday Joe and Jane.

Via Washington Examiner:

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Keep reading…

 

FCC to police and question media, websites regarding content

November 1, 2013

The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across  media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment  concerns.

The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which  is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a  comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of  information on demographics, point of view, news topic  selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and  out of the FCC’s traditional purview.

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers,  web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell,  who served as a FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller.  “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been  privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one  should be concerned.”

The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to  invasive questioning about their work and content.

FCC Wants to Regulate Internet’s ‘On/Off Ramps,’ Commissioner Says

June 13, 2011 — bunkerville

 

 

Judicial Watch Documents Radical Group Consulted with FCC to Push Obama’s Internet Takeover

June 5, 2011

McChesney strongly believes in government control of the medium and the message.

In a 2000 article — titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle”  in Review, McChesney laid out his goal of using media as a tool for socialist change:

Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism…

In 2009, McChesney said the following about capitalism and the media:

  • “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”
  • “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
  • “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

FCC Orders Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits

February 4, 2011

Under the terms of the FCC order approving Comcast’s takeover of NBCU, at least half of NBC’s 10 O&Os have to find a nonprofit news center with which to work within the next year. The order cites the KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org alliance as the model for what it would like to see in other NBC markets.

Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBC’s FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners.

There’s just one problem with this: Voice of San Diego is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. Full Story at Big Journalism

 

NBC, Universal, Comcast cave to FCC Diversity

January 14, 2011 — bunkerville

NBCU will strive to ensure the presentation of diverse viewpoints by seeking the expanded participation of minorities on its news and public affairs programming,” the companies promised in writing to black leaders. “To advance this goal, NBCU will consider suggestions from the African American Advisory Council of individuals who could be considered for such participation.”

The media giants also agreed to allow black leaders to have influence over NBC’s news programming. In addition to programming “diversity,” the Comcast and NBC Universal Memorandums of Understanding with different race-specific civil rights groups promise “diversity” in company employment, in supplier and vendor procurement and in “philanthropy and community investment.”

FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station

December 3, 2010

This is an abbreviated portion found over at CNS:

American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.

In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.

“If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”

Ever since Barack Obama became president, prominent conservatives have warned about liberal efforts to squelch conservative and Christian talk-radio.

NPR Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

October 26, 2010 — bunkerville

     Schiller, a New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”

With now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News, Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the government in general and NPR in particular. Keep Apologizing Vivian, we got your number , who explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio’s responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television stations and newspapers

FCC Chairman Ducks Question About FCC Official’s First Amendment Views

November 5, 2009 — bunkerville

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, after testifying at a congressional hearing on texting while driving Wednesday, was asked whether he agreed with Mark Lloyd’s views on the First Amendment. He refused to say if he agrees with the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Czar Mark Lloyd that freedom of speech is an “exaggeration” and that concerns about free speech serve only as a “distraction” from policy debates.

Instead of answering the question, Genachowski said he would rather focus on drivers who are distracted by text-messaging.

CNSNews.com: Your Chief Diversity Office, Mark Lloyd, wrote in 2006 that freedom of speech had become an exaggeration and that free speech concerns served to distract from policy debates. Do you agree with those statements?Genachowski: We’re here today to talk about distracted driving, and today is a day to focus attention on that issue and that’s what we’ve done.

In his book, Mark Lloyd said his approach to communications was inspired by left-wing radical Saul Alinsky.

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance,” Lloyd wrote.

Alinksy, author of the book “Rules for Radicals,” wrote that his methods were intended to guide people intent on overturning the American system.

“’The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” Alinsky explained. “’Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

 

Other than this, all is well in the swamp.