Hundreds of Airmen and at least one other General applauded the actions of Air Force General William Shelton, who told a congressional committee back on September 15th that the White House attempted to get him to change his testimony about the potential threat to national security relative to the plans of a company called LightSquared. Gen. Shelton's view was that if LightSquared was granted the bandwidth it was requesting, its technology would encroach upon the GPS bandwidth necessary for military communications operations.
Military.com is reporting that Shelton was given resounding support by his colleagues and hundreds of Airmen at a recent forum:
During a forum of senior officers at the Air Force Association conference in Washington on Wednesday, the moderator complimented Shelton for giving his "unvarnished" testimony before Congress.
The applause of hundreds of Airmen and others broke out, interrupted only when Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz interrupted to make a comment of his own.
Schwartz acknowledged Shelton's candid testimony in the face of the purported White House pressure.
"Will Shelton, I salute your courage."
The White House has reportedly said it offered only guidance to Shelton. Meanwhile, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee has launched an investigation into contacts between administration officials and LightSquared, according to the website NextGov.com.
The committee's chairman Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, and the six other Republican lawmakers allege the administration sought to muzzle and soften the testimony Shelton and other experts on how the planned multibillion-dollar network could interfere with GPS receivers, according to the report.
It seems like everywhere you look these days, there's a hunger for true leadership.
The charges levied against the Obama administration by Four Star Air Force General William Shelton are very serious indeed. If true, they would not be out of character for Obama's boys either, especially in light of what's coming out about Solyndra getting more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars it squandered in little more than two years. The newest fiery controversy is about a company called LightSquared, which has wireless broadband technology it would like to get on the retail market. LightSquad's majority owner is a major Democratic donor named Philip Falcone and Shelton is adamant that if LightSquad gets its way, its technology would interfere with our military's GPS capabilities and severely harm national security but that's not all.
The four-star Air Force general who oversees Air Force Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.
That Democratic donor is Falcone.
According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company. And the White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, officials said.
“There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his testimony,” Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said in an interview. “The only people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office Management and Budget.”
Again, if Shelton is telling the truth (based on this administration's track record, why shouldn't Shelton be believed?), giving LightSquared its way would significantly damage the one thing our Commander-in-Chief is supposed to protect the most - national security.
Shelton finally gave his testimony Thursday, and made clear the Pentagon's concern about LightSquared's project.
The general told Turner's committee that preliminary tests of a new LightSquared proposal to use only a portion of the band that it was licensed originally in 2004 would cause significant disruptions to GPS.
He said the GPS spectrum was supposed to originally be a “quiet neighborhood,” meaning that lower strength signals could exist near the GPS spectrum. Speaking of the LightSquared plan, he said, “If you put a rock band in the middle of that quiet neighborhood, that’s a different circumstance.”
Want further evidence of Shelton's credibility in this matter? How about the White House's reaction to his charges?
The White House confirmed Wednesday that its Office of Management and Budget suggested changes to the general’s testimony but insisted such reviews are routine and not influenced by politics. And it said Shelton was permitted to give the testimony he wants, without any pressure.
The administration could not deny it altered Shelton's testimony. The only thing left to ascertain is how they wanted it altered and why. It's already known that Falcone is a huge Democratic donor.
While appearing on MSNBC's Ed Schultz show, Al Sharpton provides the quintessential example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking - allow the free market to determine winners and losers. Liberals can't win in that arena because they're liars so their strategy is to silence the other side. That is exactly what Sharpton is calling for the FCC to do with Rush Limbaugh.
Sharpton's argument - if you can call it that - is to get the FCC to protect the pubic from the offensive speech of Limbaugh. The irony here is that it was just yesterday that we learned one FCC Commissioner (Mignon Clyburn), indignantly referred to little girls as "nappy headed."
I also enjoyed Sharpton's line of distinction between first amendment protected speech and unprotected speech. The difference between the two is that unprotected speech is "over the top." Uh, Al, can you show us that part of the First Amendment? Assuming our founding fathers had that phrase in their lexicon, they probably would have included it with all CAPS, bold font, and underlined as precisely the kind of speech they wanted to protect.
Notice too that Schultz leads the segment by calling Limbaugh's speech racist and hateful. Compared to the things Schultz has said in the past, Rush's speech is the equivalent of elevator music. Schultz is obviously supportive of the position. I find that ironic in light of his response to Jay Rockefeller's contention not too long ago that Fox News and MSNBC - Schultz's own network - should be shut down.
What Schultz obviously doesn't get is that if conservative talk radio and Fox News were ever shut down, those behind it will have no further use for the likes of Ed Schultz.
Hey Ed, see if you can finish this sentence: "First they came for the......"
To put this in the proper context, Don Imus was forced off the air because he referred to female basketball players at Rutgers University as 'nappy headed hoes.' His apology didn't prevent his firing. He did not use the term maliciously and he was not in a position of power, being paid with taxpayer dollars to help set Communications policy. Now, let's contrast that with the words of FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn, who is also the daughter of House Majority Whip - though not for long - James Clyburn.
Mignon used the phrase that would define the twilight of Imus' career while indignantly recalling a story from her childhood. She was angry - unlike Imus. Clyburn said these words while holding a position of significant power - unlike Imus. In fact, Clyburn appeared so indignant, that an apology is not to be expected or demanded from the likes of Al Sharpton - unlike Imus. Also, unlike Imus, Clyburn seems to be channeling her anger toward implementation of a policy - net neutrality - that will negatively impact the taxpayers who pay her salary.
This woman is very angry and seems to want America to pay. She was appointed as commissioner during the Obama administration. Does that remind you of someone else who doesn't like America? Via The Blaze:
The motivation for Senator Jay Rockefeller (D) wanting the FCC to shut down Fox News and MSNBC should be obvious. He doesn't like the newfound power the people of this country have acquired. He apparently doesn't like the notion of transparency and the government being held accountable to its people. He also says that eliminating the two cable channels would be a 'big favor to political discourse' and would allow politicians to do their work in congress.
Uh, you mean allow you to continue running roughshod over the Constitution without consequence?
CLICK HERE to see Rockefeller advocate the elimination of a free press.
I wonder what MSNBC's Ed Schultz thinks about this? He'd love nothing better than to shut up conservative news outlets but here is a Democrat Senator calling for putting the muzzle on Schultz too. Make no mistake. The reason Rockefeller lumped Fox and MSNBC together is to show that he's not showing bias. This should be a signal to leftwing media that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant. If a Democrat politician is willing to throw them under the bus for the sake of eliminating Fox News Channel, that speaks more to how ineffective MSNBC is becoming and more to how effective Fox is.
This is yet another sign that the political establishment continues to remain on defense, even after the recent elections. It is beginning to fear the American people, as it should.
Speaking of Ed Schultz, how about Al Sharpton's appearance on that show, whereby the biggest race baiter around (Sharpton) accuses Limbaugh of race-baiting and calls on the FCC to shut him down. And you thought the race card was the last arrow in the left's quiver.
The Daily Caller is really coming out with some hard hitting stories lately. Tucker Carlson's website is almost breathing life back into the concept of real journalism. Last month, they broke the story about hundreds of left wing journalists conspiring with each other to come up with ways to quash stories that would be harmful to their candidate and presidential pick, Barack Obama. The Journolist emails obtained by the Caller reveal what has long been suspected - proof of media bias.
The Daily Caller may have done it again with its two-part series on Robert McChesney (pictured) and Free Press apparently failing to be transparent with its lobbying efforts with the FCC over Net Neutrality. This should be a very big deal.
From Part 1:
Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, direct lobbying is defined as “any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official” made with regards to “the formulation, modification, or adoption of a Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other program, policy, or position of the United States Government.”
Free Press’s LDA filings mention only one instance of direct lobbying of the FCC: Free Press’s Joseph Torres, who met with FCC staffers during the 4th quarter of 2009.
But according to ex parte data (documentation of an argument or policy proposal made to the FCC absent another party, i.e., in private) obtained by The Daily Caller, as well as data from the FCC’s visitor logs, multiple employees of the Free Press Action Fund have lobbied FCC staffers on net neutrality regulations more than two dozen times since January 2009:
On February 18, 2010, Free Press policy advisor Chris Riley and Free Press legal advisor Aparna Sridhar met with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Legal Advisor, David Goldman, to discuss net neutrality. On February 3, 2010, Chris Riley of Free Press participated in two meetings with FCC staff. On January 29, 2010, Ben Scott of Free Press met with Blair Levin of the FCC’s National Broadband Task Force. On January 22, 2010, Ben Scott of Free Press met with Genachowski and four of the Chairman’s advisors. On January 12, 2010, Chris Riley met with Paul de Sa, Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis.
Making this even more of an outrage is that while Free Press is apparently NOT being transparent with its lobbying efforts, it is also chastising its opponents of not being transparent with theirs. For example, part 1 starts out by quoting Josh Silver, Free Press Director, accusing opponents of Net Neutrality - internet providers - of not being transparent.
“It is deeply disturbing that the FCC’s Chief of Staff is not only meeting exclusively with industry representatives on the future of the Internet but when faced with criticism,” Silver said, “he is also making weak excuses for the agency’s behavior alongside vague promises to include others somewhere down the road.”
Actually, the FCC held a number of “secret meetings” with net neutrality proponents. In fact, the “others” were — and most likely still are — members of Free Press’s lobbying arm.
Go figure. The head of Free Press is a marxist (Robert McChesney) and his organization appears to be blaming its opponents of what Free Press is guilty of doing - straight out of the marxist handbook indeed.
Be sure to read Part 2 in the series because the Caller reveals some glaring discrepancies between what Free Press reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and what it filed with the IRS.
While appearing on WBZ in Boston, MA in 2001, Obama's Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein went on a virtually incoherent rant about how people who use the internet don't know what's best for them and if they don't voluntarily follow his agenda, they should be forced to do so by Congressional mandate. Mind you, he's allegedly advocating that everyone should have access to opposing views. Lost on him is that there are opposing views to his.
This guy has several screws loose. Intellectualism requires a willingness to consider others lesser human beings who can't think for themselves when they don't agree with you.
Talk about a leap. We're all familiar with the shared belief of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel that a crisis should never be allowed to go to waste. We saw that play out recently, when the Obama administration decided to exploit the BP oil rig explosion by having president teleprompter resurrect the mantra of calling for Cap and Trade legislation as a means to help the country move toward green energy - yeah, we also know it's a big scam but at least the logic was apparent. Exploiting the disaster in such a way seemed like a natural fit in the liberal mind.
Now, thanks to a piece by the Prowler in the American Spectator, the BP crisis may end up being used to help the FCC implement internet regulation:
The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it."
Hang on. Let's work through this argument for a minute. The BP explosion occurred on a rig that was drilling 5000 ft. under the Gulf of Mexico. Has anyone asked why they are doing that? The answer is government regulations brought on by the Eco-wackos. The premise of this unnamed staffer is simply faulty - completely so. The premise is that because BP is allowed to operate without restriction, they got careless and caused this entire disaster all by themselves.
Uh, perhaps this staffer should probe into the reasons why BP is drilling so far out from shore. In fact, the argument could be made, quite logically, that the this disaster is as big and far reaching as it is because the government interfered and placed insane restrictions on oil drilling in the Gulf.
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd has apparently been sufficiently agitated enough to speak out against his accusers with lies in response to facts (and video) those accusers have been exposing. It could be time for Glenn Beck to start soliciting Lloyd to call the red phone.
Yesterday in a speech for the Media Access Project, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd claimed to refute numerous what he called “exaggerations and distortions” of a wide range of his thoughts, positions and policy prescriptions from what he called a “right-wing smear campaign.” What Lloyd did was offer numerous falsehoods and denials about things that are undeniably true.
For example, Lloyd has insisted that a "right-wing smear campaign" was "distorting [his] views about the First Amendment" when in fact, in his 2006 book "Prologue to a Farce," Lloyd plainly made clear his view that the freedoms of speech and press were "all too often an exaggeration" and that "the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
The culture of the left revealed again and again and again. They spew lies and deny they said them even when presented to them in cold hard evidential form. Yet, as in the case of climate change, they accuse those who so much as question them of being "deniers" even when caught manipulating data and calling for destruction of emails.
Brent Bozell released a statement about Lloyd's claims that he is the victim of a "smear campaign".
Last week, we saw video of newly appointed FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd praising the rise of Hugo Chavez. Now we have video of Lloyd praising Paul Robeson, member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) while deriding Joe McCarthy (as time goes by, McCarthy is looking to be vindicated more and more).
While Robeson deserved praise for his artistic talents, there is no excuse at this late date for ignorance about Robeson's real record not only as a secret member of the Communist Party USA but as an apologist for communist tyranny. Lloyd's comments suggest that he would have preferred that the media not make an issue of Robeson's involvement in an international movement that has cost the lives of more than 100 million people.
This is absolutely chilling when one takes into account that Lloyd is calling for policies that will, in effect, bankrupt private broadcasters by requiring them to double their operating expenses in the form of fees to support public broadcasting. Couple that with Obama's Internet czar Cass Sunstein calling for increased regulation of the interenet and a new bill that would give Obama the authority to shut down the internet during an emergency and you have a witch's brew of censorship with the U.S. Constitution as kindling.
Here's the unbelievable video of Lloyd in 2005. While his extoling Robeson is bad for sure, I found this quote at the 2:47 mark about somes up my problems with Lloyd (also the name of the bartender in Stephen King's, "The Shining):
"I argue that the answer to bad speech is not censorship but better speech."
Frankly, if that statement is meant to convey that the arena of ideas should win the day, fine. However, it's obvious after watching this video that Lloyd has a different interpetation. This guy is nuts. Period.
As Kincaid points out, indications are that Lloyd wants to take a page out of the playbook of Hugo Chavez when implementing policy here in the United States:
At a 2008 "media reform" conference sponsored by the George Soros-funded Free Press organization, Lloyd declared that the Marxist revolution in Venezuela under Chavez was "incredible" and "dramatic" but that the "property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled" against the would-be dictator and supported a coup against him. However, Lloyd said that Chavez wised up and "then started to take the media seriously..."
Did I mention that according to Rasmussen, approximately 30% of the American people strongly approve of the job Obama is doing?
Keeping in mind that Lloyd's strategy involves creating a situation in which private broadcasters go out of business because they can't afford the FCC's fees, what is the logical outcome? Answer: A broadcast entity is then made available to the government through attrition.
It is apparent that Chavez is using the government to force private companies out of the media business and restrict and investigate the remaining independent journalists. This is a process that apparently meets with the approval of "progressives" such as Mark Lloyd in the U.S.
Who'd have ever imagined that the FCC would one day decide to follow a model set by that of a tinpot dictator in Venezuela.
Last week it was learned that the FCC's news "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd was going to push the idea of financing public radio by doubling the operating expenses of commercial / private broadcasters, thus bankrupting them.
Now it appears that may just be one prong of the strategy. CNSNEWS is reporting that the FCC will actually implement Alinsky-inspired tactics to aid in the effort.
Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.
A top government agency representative is calling for a confrontational movement to bully and intimidate private broadcasters. Not only that but he is not even hiding his affinity for Saul Alinsky:
With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.
1. “Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ‘Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.’”
2. “Understand where people stand on your issue. Once we were clear that we needed to drum up the support of people, we needed to understand what people knew about our issues. As Alinksy wrote, ‘if people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it.’”
3. “Connect with groups that have already organized the community. Our means of reaching local communities was through existing national organizations. We reached out to groups that had large constituencies and articulated our message by identifying how our goals fit their core interests.”
4. “The strategy must have an inside and an outside game. For media reform, this means we needed to embrace the necessity of operating both in and outside Washington [D.C.].”
5. “Don’t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition – the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.’”
6. “Communications is a priority. Again drawing from Alinksy, we understood that ‘one can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one exception – and still be effective. That exception is the art of communication.’ It is not just a matter of getting media to cover your campaign. That is, undoubtedly, a part of it, but it is also about getting the sort of attention you want, so the public and your opposition see you and your issues the way you want to be seen.”
7. “Research is key. We took not only message and public opinion research seriously, we took seriously our obligation to research the activity of our opposition. Our research entailed not only public opinion polling, but academic papers presenting economic and social analysis, legal research…and grassroots research involving the inspections of dozens of televisions station’s public files.”
8. “Establish a broad base of funding and never stop raising money. Alinksy is right that people are a source of power, but without adequate funds organizing people effectively cannot be accomplished.”
9. “Find allies in power. If civil rights leaders such as King had the Kennedys and Johnson, and the anti-Bork campaign had Ted Kennedy, our main ally was [FCC Chairman] Bill Kennard.”
The solution
To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.
Obama continues to attack institution after institution in this nation. Now he has someone in Mark Lloyd at the FCC who is going to try to do to private broadcasters what was done to auto dealerships.
They're not even being secretive about their intentions anymore.
"Appeasers are like those who feed alligators, hoping to be eaten last." - Winston Churchill (the guy whose bust was sent back to Great Britain by Obama)
Last week, CNSNews reported on the likely direction the FCC's new "Chief Diversity Officer" (Translation: Fairness Doctrine Czar) would attempt to take talk radio. Based on a book penned by Mark Lloyd (pictured), if his preference is granted, private broadcasters would be required to double their operating expense in order to fund public broadcasters.
NEWSBUSTERS is reporting that this over-the-top and beyond-the-pale tactic being espoused by someone with a lot of power in the FCC has gotten the attention of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who has issued a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who appointed Lloyd to this post.
NewsBusters insists there is significant reason for alarm when it comes to Lloyd's views:
We have repeatedly explained that Lloyd is virulently anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.
While I'm glad to see that Grassley has gotten involved, we've also seen him write letters before that yield no fruit (Gerald Walpin case comes to mind).
Nonetheless, shining a light on what's going on at the FCC is critically important in light of what its Fairness Doctrine Czar envisions. Here is an excerpt from Grassley's letter:
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
On July 29, 2009, you announced the appointment of Mark Lloyd as Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I write today to express my concerns with this appointment and ask for you to clarify and reaffirm statements you made to me in a personal meeting prior to your confirmation related to the Fairness Doctrine and efforts to diversify broadcast media.
On April 22, 2009, before your confirmation by the U.S. Senate for your position as Chairman of the FCC, you came to my office and told me that you did not support an effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I took you at your word that, if confirmed, the policies that you promoted at the FCC would not include any policy or regulatory shifts that seek to reintroduce the long abandoned Fairness Doctrine. However, I have serious reservations that...
If Lloyd's plan is enacted, it would amount to government theft of 1st Amendment rights as private broadcasters cannot afford to have their operating expenses doubled when they're struggling to breakeven as it is.
Nothing short of downright nefarious if this plan is put in place.
Here we go. Add another Czar to the list. This one is Mark Lloyd, FCC's Chief Diversity Officer. This latest assault on radio is likely intended to produce the same outcome experienced by GM - Government Ownership.
If the name Mark Lloyd rings any bells, he was the Senior Fellow of a Center for American Progress Study in 2007 called, THE STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE OF POLITICAL TALK RADIO. Without acknowledging market forces as a primary determinant of what dictates programming, the report simply noted the disparity between conservative and progressive content while using obscure and irrelevant statistics to reach the conclusion that programming needs to change devoid of market forces. That's what we call doing a study and omitting an incredibly important variable.
Appendix B of the Center for American Progress lists the names of talk show hosts it used in its report. LYNN WOOLLEY, who provided me with this report is one of them. Echoes of a target list, huh?
Anyway, onto the CNSNEWS report. According to CNS, Lloyd wants to require privately run stations to fund publicly run stations.
(Lloyd has) called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.
Anyone who is even the least bit familiar with the radio business knows that profits don't come easy and that such a strategy will break the radio industry and put it squarely in control of the government (seems to be a common theme these days).
Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
This is nothing short of the government handcuffing an industry already struggling to survive by making it subsidize programming more in line with MSNBC apparently.
The entity that would ultimately receive monetary support from private broadcasters is the Corporation for Public Broadcasing (CPB). This must mean that the CPB is not currently funded.
Not exactly.
The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.
Why are government entities being called corporations anyway? An entity funded by taxpayer dollars is going to attempt to bankrupt private broadcasters by overburdening them with excessive fees.
