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".
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd not only championed the cause of Hugo Chavez in 2007 but in 2005 advocated removing people from their current positions and replacing them with minorities in the name of racial justice.
This audio is from the Conference on Media Reform in 2005. Keep in mind that both Van Jones and Lloyd worked for the Center for American Progress (John Podesta's group) as Senior Fellows (Jones has been re-hired since retiring as Green jobs Czar). One of Van Jones' many audio recordings that surfaced featured him advocating incrementalism because drastic change would not be accepted by the masses.
Lloyd seems to be advocating the same type of incrementalism with Affirmative Action. Instead of viewing Affirmative Action as something no longer needed or causing unintended consequences, Lloyd seeks to put more teeth in it. I mean, what could be more racist?
The most egregious quote from Lloyd may be this one:
"Who is going to step down so someone else can have power?"
Tell you what, Mr. Lloyd. How about YOU step down and we replace you with someone who isn't so concerned about race and ideology?
It's also disgraceful, stereotypical, and racist that Lloyd pretends to know what all white people think when he says,
"There are few things more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men."
In a display of more incrementalism, Lloyd says that the
"Fairness Doctrine is not enough."
Only a "progressive" could say that a retrograde and abolished policy didn't go far enough. Then he says that a policy without teeth cannot be fair.
Former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff and chairman of Barack Obama's presidential transition team, John Podesta, has welcomed former Green Jobs Czar back to his old job as a Senior Fellow at Podesta's Center for American Progress.
For fallen White House aides, the rallying cry apparently is John Podesta to the rescue! The Obama administration’s former green jobs czar Van Jones is headed back to Podesta’s Center for American Progress after stepping down from his White House post four days ago amid controversy over his leftist affiliations, the Daily News has learned.
The brashness with which the left is operating never seems to disappoint. This means that at best Podesta didn't know about Jones' past before but would have had no problem with it even if he did. At worst (and most likely), he knew about Jones' past then and approved.
Either way, this means that the man Barack Obama put in charge of his transition team has no problem with the views of an AVOWED COMMUNIST,TRUTHER, and supporter of COP KILLER Mumia Abu Jamal.
Guess who else has experience as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. None other than FCC Diversity Czar, MARK LLOYD.
Lloyd is on record (and video) praising the way Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez managed to successfully shut down media outlets that aired opposing views. He also wants to implement a plan that would ultimately bankrupt private broadcasters by requiring them to DOUBLE THEIR EXPENSES in the form of licensing fees.
By now, many of us are familiar with the 2008 video of current FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd saying some very flattering things about Hugo Chavez (video below) defeating opposition by shutting down media outlets that provided it. Now we have Reuters reporting that Chavez continues to shut down radio stations that are not in lock step with his agenda:
Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez's government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown.
Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was "democratizing" media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.
The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez's government.
"Democratizing" media ownership by silencing adversarial voices? It's easy to see that Lloyd shares very similar views of private broadcasters in America after watching him speak and reading what he's written. That makes him a walking contradiction in addition to being an ALINSKY DICIPLE.
Don't you know that Lloyd is envious of what's going on in Venezuela right now? Make no mistake. If Lloyd had his way, he would flip a switch and shut down all radio stations that carry views in opposition to Obama. Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones would call this a "MAXIMUM GOAL". As an aside, Jones, with coaching, understood he had to push "Minimum Goals" that contained very "radical kernel(s)" but he ultimately couldn't walk the walk because his maximum goals were revealed in a slew of shocking revelations last week.
Lloyd has gone public with his intentions. While his goals run parallel to those of Chavez, his means are more covert. CNS NEWS reported on Lloyd's plans to have private broadcasters pay double their current operating costs in the form of licensing fees. These fees would then fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
CHAVEZ AND AHMADINEJAD
There are additional reasons for Americans to be disturbed by Lloyd's reverence for Hugo Chavez today. An AP REPORT shows that Venezuela is exporting gasoline to Iran.
The two countries signed the agreement late Sunday during a visit by Chavez, who pledged to deepen ties with Iran and stand together against what he called the imperialist powers of the world.
The radio stations in Venezuela who would carry voices that oppose such agreements are being targeted for closing by Chavez. What does this say about Lloyd and, by extension, Obama himself, who has already aligned with Chavez in the Honduran crisis? By championing the efforts of Chavez, isn't Lloyd advocating government action that leads to agreements between Ahmadinejad and Chavez increasing in boldness and frequency while becoming increasingly unchallenged?
Lloyd's writings carry an air of backward thinking and contradictions. In fact, he reminds me of a character from a Gilligan's Island episode - Wrong Way Feldman. Quoting from the AP report, here is an example of how Lloyd's proposed policies would actually serve to help Iran:
Western leaders have threatened to impose further sanctions against it should Iran refuse to bend to deadlines for talks aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear activities. One idea that has been touted, though not yet formally proposed, is to cut off exports of gas station-ready fuel to Iran.
By showing admiration for Chavez and his aggressive policy of shutting down opposing voices, Lloyd is espousing a weaker stick when it comes to imposing further sanctions on Iran since Chavez is thumbing his nose at the notion and wants to make it even easier by silencing any remaining vestige of an adversarial press.
OLIVER AND HUGO
Isn't this special? Oliver Stone's favorable documentary of Chavez is being screened in Venice as the deal between Hugo and Mahmoud is revealed, a deal that helps to alleviate a huge bottleneck for the Iranian leader - refinery capabilities amid a sea of oil.
DRUDGE has links to stories about the Stone documentary. If there is good news in these very troubling times, it may just be that a substantial number of far leftwingers who like to portray themselves as either apolitical or objective fence-sitters are unmasking themselves. Oliver Stone appears to be overtly choosing sides in the left/right debate these days as REUTERS is reporting that Stone views Chavez as a victim.
Stone no doubt thinks he's doing important and daring work. The irony is that he seems to be suffering from the same delusion that afflicted the likes of Cindy Sheehan, who also embraced Chavez. When you're sympathetic to dictators, you're in no real danger as long as you are useful. Jane Fonda certainly comes to mind.
Director Oliver Stone says the U.S. media and government have demonised Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other leftist South American leaders, and argues in a new film that they were right to stand up to Washington.
Here's where Stone confounds in a way similar to Lloyd when one takes a look at another film Stone is responsible for - JFK (the left's hero). If memory serves, that film outed communists and implicated Castro's Cuba. Aren't the Castros and Hugo close allies? It should be no surprise why those on the left seem to share a trait of rampant confusion.
Before reading these quotes from Stone, take another look at the one of countless photos above showing Chavez and Ahmadinejad embracing.
"I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez," Stone told reporters in Venice, where South of the Border has its world premiere on Monday.
"But I didn't want to make a movie only about the American media's attacks. I felt that that was too small for what this man is about. This man is a big phenomenon.
"So we travelled in a road trip kind of movie to visit these other presidents and we saw the positive side of what is going on, the sweeping change in this region. It's a very important historical phenomenon that is ... ignored in America."
Just curious but how soon will it be before Stone does a glowing documentary on the leader of Iran? As he and Chavez yuk it up in Venice, what's the possibility Chavez drops the idea in Stone's lap in much the same way he handed a book to Obama in front of the cameras?
In summary, as Chavez wheels and deals with Ahmadinejad, he's closing down radio stations that might have opposing voices to that kind of thing. FCC Diversity Czar Lloyd is on video extoling the virtue and courage of Chavez while filmmaker Oliver Stone is screening a glowing documentary of the communist dictator that identifies him as a victim.
Is Stone's film the kind of thing Lloyd would find acceptable for airing on the public airwaves he wants to control one day?
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.
NEWSBUSTERS reported: 
