Beck's not the only one who's made this argument. In fact, it does small harm to the argument to cite Beck for it.
People on both sides of the aisle, including some liberals and civil libertarians, are very uncomfortable with Obama's decision to scale back civil liberties by blurring the line between terrorist and criminal.
Historically, the government has provided criminal court constitutional rights to U.S. citizens and denied them the "enemy combatants" or "prisoners of war." Bush was criticized for continuing that trend.
Now, Obama is actually going farther than Bush did. He's actually pondering creating a situation where U.S. citizens (not enemy combatants) can lose their rights simply by being charged as a "terrorist." .
FTC officials began a project in May 2009 to consider the challenges the journalism industry faces in the digital age. The federal agency recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism," a 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000.
Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are:
-- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually;
-- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed;
-- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice;
-- increased funding for public radio and television;
-- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism;
-- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals;
-- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding.
But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism.
"I find it dangerous for government to have a role in speech because the government gives and the government taketh away," Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, said.
"Most of the ideas examined in this are politically untenable," Jarvis said. "The problem with this is that the FTC is trying to set an agenda here, that some sort of government intervention is necessary. It's a power grab by the FTC and it's also an example of one old power structure circling its wagons around another."
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed to the argument Kagan's office made before the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC, a controversial campaign finance case.
"Solicitor Kagan's office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books," McConnell said. "And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.
"I think that's very troubling, and this whole area of her view of the First Amendment and political speech is something that ought to be explored by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate," McConnell said.
In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for by a corporation or labor union.
“If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'and so vote for x,' the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
"We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.
In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
"And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Roberts asked.
“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded.
Shortly after McConnell's comments, his office highlighted the case in an e-mail to reporters, suggesting famous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan's logic.
Looking thought the Sarah Palin thread I noticed Matter-eater Man was upset that Palin possibly tried to ban books, I wonder where his outrage is now?
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
After General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt told a private dinner of Italian business executives that ...the Obama Administration's heavy regulatory approach was not conducive to helping the U.S. economy, senior White House officials, upon hearing about the comments, went into bully mode.
Immelt made his comments at dinner in Rome earlier this week and they were later reported by the Financial Times. The remarks about the Obama Administration did not include any disparagement of the president himself.
Yet, according to a contracting lobbyist for GE in Washington, senior White House officials and senior members of the Commerce and Energy Departments called Washington GE officials and corporate officers in New York.
"They [the Obama Administration] weren't happy, and wanted to know why a GE official would be making those comments," said the lobbyist. "The underlying message was that GE has dealings with the federal government. It wasn't a threat, but these folks are from Chicago."
Within hours GE released an official statement saying Immelt's comments didn't reflect the company's views. The lobbyist says he does not know if the White House demanded the statement.
The lobbyist would not identify who in the administration made the calls, but in the past senior officials like Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel and deputy Jim Messina have been known to make such calls to business executives.
"It's fairly common with this crowd," says another lobbyist, who is employed by a Fortune 50 company in Washington. "The second my boss says something that could be interpreted as anti-Obama administration, we get phone calls. They are very thin skinned. Add to that the fact that they just hate the business community, and you have a tense relationship."
After General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt told a private dinner of Italian business executives that ...the Obama Administration's heavy regulatory approach was not conducive to helping the U.S. economy, senior White House officials, upon hearing about the comments, went into bully mode.
Immelt made his comments at dinner in Rome earlier this week and they were later reported by the Financial Times. The remarks about the Obama Administration did not include any disparagement of the president himself.
Yet, according to a contracting lobbyist for GE in Washington, senior White House officials and senior members of the Commerce and Energy Departments called Washington GE officials and corporate officers in New York.
"They [the Obama Administration] weren't happy, and wanted to know why a GE official would be making those comments," said the lobbyist. "The underlying message was that GE has dealings with the federal government. It wasn't a threat, but these folks are from Chicago."
Within hours GE released an official statement saying Immelt's comments didn't reflect the company's views. The lobbyist says he does not know if the White House demanded the statement.
The lobbyist would not identify who in the administration made the calls, but in the past senior officials like Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel and deputy Jim Messina have been known to make such calls to business executives.
"It's fairly common with this crowd," says another lobbyist, who is employed by a Fortune 50 company in Washington. "The second my boss says something that could be interpreted as anti-Obama administration, we get phone calls. They are very thin skinned. Add to that the fact that they just hate the business community, and you have a tense relationship."
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.
The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.
It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."
The categories include:
Chat/Messaging
Controversial opinion
Criminal activity
Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
Gaming
The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
There would really be nothing wrong with banning computer use that is non work related. What you seem to have missed is the fact that the Obama administration has appointed itself as the sole decider on what is "controversial opinion". Sites that they deem uncontroversial will be allowed.
I'm guessing that the following will be sites deemed to have controversial opinions: Fox News, National Review, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tea Parties, Sarah Palin 2012.
I'm guessing that the following will NOT be deemed sites expressing controversial opinions: The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Raw Story, Al Jazeera, the Facebook page of William Ayers
WTKK posts a clip of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick responding to a question about the Glenn Beck rally by noting that it’s a free country — and then that he’s not terribly happy about that:
Sebelius as "Speech Czar": President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is still threatening to bankrupt insurance companies who tell their customers that ObamaCare‘s mandates will increase premiums by more than 2 percent, even though her [own] department's projections show that.
Pres. Obama's newly appointed [head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau went on MSNBC today and in effect proclaimed that the right to petition government for the redress of government "scares" her. More disturbingly, Warren suggested we need to work on "dialing back" that right.
I want to say that I am shocked by the President's latest utterance about FOX News, but I fear that we have moved past shock into numbness. Mister Obama, in a chatty colloquy with the publisher of Rolling Stone, while being treated with deference befitting a royal, thought it sporting to hound FOX. That network is destructive to America, he said....
To use the Presidential bully pulpit as a blunt instrument against a news organization, to label its approach destructive, to label its content destructive, that is -- to coin a phrase -- destructive. Think back to our first clue that Hugo Chavez was an autocrat, bent on subverting those national institutions which did not refract his glory. It was when he came out against various newspapers and television stations, saying much the same things as our own El Presidente.
This President has again set a bad precedent. When I meet him next, in the polling booth in 2012, I hope it will not be too late to tell him what I think: "Hugo!"
Damn...I can't wait to see MEM's defense of that. My top choice is that he says it was only directed at supposed "astro-turf" groups.
And by "astro-turf", the Democrats mean individual citizens who voice their opinion in peaceful demonstrations and town hall meetings, who have gradually evolved into the Tea Party. And, y'know, definitely not the SEIU or other union members who are organized and bussed into events to intimidate and stifle free speech of anti-Obama protestors.
Fox News' Viewpoint "Destructive" for U.S. Growth, Obama Says Posted by Lucy Madison 436 comments Share 6060diggsdigg Share E-mail Print Font President Obama weighed in on Fox News in a recent interview with Rolling Stone (Credit: CBS) In this month's cover story for Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama weighs in on the cable network Fox News, saying that while he can't object to the network carrying out its constitutional right to freedom of the press, he thinks it promotes a perspective that is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of America.
"Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press," Obama laughed, in response to a question from Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner about whether or not Fox News was "a good institution for America and for democracy."
"We've got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints," Mr. Obama said. "I think Fox is part of that tradition -- it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view." ...
SACRAMENTO, CA - An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.
The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.
He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.
Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.
At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.
A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.
The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.
"As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It's only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here," the pilot narrates.
Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. "I would say a two-foot crash ax looks a lot more formidable than a box cutter," the pilot remarked.
A letter from the TSA dated Dec. 6 informed the pilot that "an administrative review into your deputation status as a Federal Flight Deck Officer has been initiated."
According to the letter, the review was directly related to the discovery by TSA staff of the YouTube videos. "The content and subject of these videos may have violated regulations concerning disclosure of sensitive security information," the letter said.
The pilot's attorney, Don Werno of Santa Ana, said he believed the federal government sent six people to the house to send a message.
"And the message was you've angered us by telling the truth and by showing America that there are major security problems despite the fact that we've spent billions of dollars allegedly to improve airline safety," Werno said.
The pilot said he is not in trouble with his airline, but a supervisor asked him to remove public access to the YouTube videos.
He does, however, face potential civil penalties from the TSA. He said he would likely go public when it becomes clear what the government plans to do with him.
A public access television crew complained of police mistreatment Thursday, after trying to get a picture of President Barrack Obama.
Just after dawn Wednesday, the three-woman crew for a Big Island public access program called "We Are Change Hawaii" drove up to the barricade near the president's vacation home in Kailua.
Host B.J. Hampton was told they couldn't stay, so she spoke into the video camera as she returned to the car.
"OK, you know it Obama we're OK with you, you OK with us,” Hampton said on the tape, provided to KITV. “We just wanted to get a glimpse of you but we're moving on because this is a private street and we don't want to make anybody nervous. Aloha!” She waved to the Secret Service agents at the barricade as she climbed back into the car.
The crew was video-taping vehicle searches along the potential motorcade route as they left the neighborhood. They noticed a van behind them.
At this point Sherri Kane, who describes herself as an investigative journalist, looked into the camera and said, “Behind us we have the Secret Service following us now so this is kind of exciting.”
Exciting turned to scary after they pulled into a gas station. On their video, a police officer approached the car and said, “Stay in the car. Put that camera off of me.”
Producer Sativa Jones can be heard saying “OK.”
The women said police vehicles and up to five officers surrounded the car, demanded IDs and registration without explanation. Then without warning an officer reached into the car and grabbed Jones’ camera.
“He grabbed it out of my hand and then he slammed it on top of the car,” Jones said. She said the camera was damaged – the automatic lens cover no longer worked.
Jones’ fingers were gashed by the sharp edge on the camera mount. She said the officer appeared shaken by what he'd done and courteously showed her how to complain, writing his name and badge number on a card with contact information for the Honolulu Police Commission.
Kane said other officers on the scene would not let them make a criminal complaint against the officer who grabbed the camera.
“What went down was something that should not happen here in the United States of America,” Kane said. “You have all of these police officers that could be looking at legitimate or people who are really trying to harm the president. Instead, you have so many of them on us.”
Police would not comment on the specific incident but a spokesman said in protecting the President suspicious vehicles are taken very seriously.
Asked if it was legal for police officers to stop someone from videotaping an officer in a public place, the department said citizens are allowed to video in public places.
The Secret Service Office in Honolulu did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment.
A local blogger who was critical of Rep. Billy Long during last year's congressional campaign has been interviewed by the FBI about his encounters with the congressman.
Clay Bowler, who lives in Christian County, says he was shocked to find an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at his doorstep. Accompanying the agent was Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott.
While it's tempting for conservatives to cheer the terminationof the liberal blowhard {Keith Olbermann} from MSNBC, I have a bad feeling that the Obama administration will try and use this to ram through some of their proposals for regulating broadcast content and the internet.
Despite the fact that MSNBC will still feature liberals Matthews, Maddow, O'Donnell and Schultz as their big "stars," and despite the center-left bent to the big three networks and CNN, liberals are already using the Olbermann firing to advance the myth that there is nothing out there to balance against "Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the vast network of right-wing talk radio."
That sort of rhetoric typically comes shortly before the left takes another stab at censoring conservative media outlets. And with the Olbermann news coming on the heels of liberals trying to blame free speech for the Giffords shooting one can easily envision yet another attempt at censorship.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
of the liberal blowhard {Keith Olbermann} from MSNBC, I have a bad feeling that the Obama administration will try and use this to ram through some of their proposals for