LIKE HELL YOU WILL

Obama has said “Don’t judge me, based on what others say about me, or my words alone, but rather judge me by who I surround myself with”

Fine O have it your way!

Another OCommieCzar? Mark Lloyd (The Obama Admin’s new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ) glorifies Hugo Chavez’ marxist revolution in Venezuela and defends a communist. I hate to see what else Lloyd has in his bag of tricks. By the way Van Jones the former Obama Green Jobs Czar has just resigned as reported late last night around midnight. Mark Lloyd should be the next to go. And rightfully so.

Free speech and marxisim-communisim go together like oil and water. Diversity, although divisive and a leftist ideal, has little to do with what Mark Lloyd will try to accomplish while holding down his non-Congressional approval appointment, mark my word. It is but the cloak he will wear to cover his anti-freedom of speech actions. A more appropriate title would be Censorship Czar. If you speak in defense of communists you may as well be one.

AIM

Raising new concerns about another controversial Obama Administration official, testimony has surfaced from Mark Lloyd, the new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in which he praises Paul Robeson, the communist actor and singer who was an apologist for Soviet dictator and mass murderer Joseph Stalin.

Lloyd, who worked as a broadcast journalist at NBC and CNN, has come under fire from Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck and Seton Motley of the Media Research Center for being openly critical of private media companies in the U.S. and Venezuela, where Lloyd believes that Marxist ruler Hugo Chavez is trying to implement a popular democracy.

At the FCC, Lloyd is in a position to try to influence and control media content by making statements and issuing directives on media “diversity” and fairness.

But 2005 testimony that Lloyd provided to a congressional forum headed by far-left Democratic Rep. John Conyers raises even more questions about his totalitarian mind-set and background.

Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

Link @YouTube

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…”

The implication of these remarks is that Chavez dealt with his opponents in the media by trying to control or silence them, and that Lloyd supports that strategy when dealing with opponents of revolutionary Marxism here in the U.S.

…..

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.

Could this be their plan in the U.S. as well?

Go read it all!

Notable quote at the 2:47 mark:

I will also propose that the solution to the problem of bad speech is not censorship but better speech.

Hey Obama why don’t you just admit that you are a far left radical minded individual.

We knew before you were elected, and you have given us plenty of proof after the fact backing up our claims.

I will not only judge you by the company that you keep but on the content of your character. As in shady character.

Take note at this date in time, anyone who still supports Obama I will presume is cut from the same cloth.

Video transcript: the Ruminator

Update:

Lloyd dismisses outright what he calls the “two primary explanations typically put forth to explain the disparities between [the respective amounts of] conservative and progressive talk radio programming.” Says Lloyd:

“In the first argument, the explosion of conservative talk radio is attributed to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the [FCC] in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation … that required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. From this perspective, the repeal of the doctrine in the late 1980’s allowed station owners to broadcast more opinionated, ideological, and one-sided radio hosts without having to balance them with competing views.”

This development, the theory goes, gave rise to the growth of the talk radio format spearheaded by such conservative personalities as Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sean Hannity. Leftist/liberal radio has not produced anyone of similar stature.

But Lloyd says “the Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues.” He explains:

“The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.”

To address each of these issues, Lloyd recommends that the FCC take the following steps “to ensure local needs are being met”:

• “Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation … of how they are meeting these obligations.”
• “Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.” In other words, every three years radio stations would be evaluated for their compliance with the mandate that they serve “the public interest.” (Section 307 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act extended the length of broadcast-license terms to eight years.)
• “Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the pro­cess to determine whether the license should be extended.” (Such a modus operandi would provide ample opportunity for activist groups like ACORN to stage high-profile, public demonstrations against radio stations whose political content they find objectionable.)

Related:

Van Jones – The Truther Plot Thickens

Why has VanJones.net been scrubbed?

Obama’s ‘Green Czar’ Van Jones: ‘Green Jobs’ Goal is ‘Complete Revolution’ Away From ‘Gray Capitalism’ [update 6: 9/11 Truther and The Nancy Pelosi Connection]

Van Jones’ (founder of STORM) communist manifesto:  “Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)”

To Congress, The 5 Pledges

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during a difficult economic times, therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of US dependence on foreign oil is a travesty, therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why. I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity power over US citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will no apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

—

Glenn Beck: In or Out 2010
If your politician doesn’t believe, support or reflect these beliefs in their actions then they aren’t supporting you. More importantly, they aren’t supporting, protecting or defending the Constitution

The New Republic: America’s Future Recap – Glenn Beck

All week on radio and TV Glenn asked the tough questions — because our republic is being transformed before our very eyes. The time for silent dissent has long passed, and now the hard questions need to be asked. Maybe there are perfectly logical explanations for Obama’s ‘Civilian National Security Force’ he wants funded as well as the military. But what is it? Who are the radical Czars in the White House, and why are they there? Does the President actually listen to Communist ideas? Here is the ENTIRE RECAP of this weeks shows — the monologues, the questions, the amazing interview with Rush Limbaugh and more. Please, read it and pass it around to all of your friends. These questions need to be asked and answered. Get started!

Question with Boldness

You need to start asking questions:

Day 1
- Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

- We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink?

- The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

- If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later?

- Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them – how exactly does that work?

- Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

- Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

- Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

- How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special advisor to the president?

- Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor?

- The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

- If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1,000-plus page bills actually impose on the American people?

- If the “public option” health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

- If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind – why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

- Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

- Why would you want to overwhelm the system? (It’s in their blood what they live for: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis)

- Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about “not letting a crises go to waste”?

- What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Day 2

- Who is “surrounding” the President in the White House?

- Do any of the President’s advisers have criminal records?

- Are the President’s advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

- Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

- What roles do they have in crafting bills?

- What was “STORM“? What happened to the founders, where are they now?

- What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser?

- What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

- Do the czars have power?

- Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States?

- What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

- Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

- How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society?

- What role does George Soros play…CONSTITUTIONALLY?

Day 3
- Why does the FCC have a diversity “czar”?

- Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to “balance” the airwaves?

- Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?

- Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?

- Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?

- Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?

- Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?

- If Lloyd has his way, stations who don’t comply to the governments definition of the “public interest” will have to pay a massive fine — that helps support public broadcasting:

- What will be the definition of “public interest”?

- Who defines “public interest”?

- Why should it be balanced? Because it’s public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don’t count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them)

Link @YouTube

In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country. – Mark Lloyd

Day 4
- Why do we need a civilian force?

Link @YouTube

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the US Military.
- Barack Obama Colorado Springs July 2nd 2008

- Who is posing a threat to us?

- Who will this “force” be made up of?

- Who is the real enemy?

- Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?

- Why won’t the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?

———————————————————————————–

Note: I have embedded relevant links, video and quotes to provide additional information and insight. – VH

We are being taken down from the inside. From deep inside the highest office in the land. Raise your voices.

*****Contact Congress*****

*****Contact Senators of the 111th Congress*****

Remind them they work for you!

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” – JFK

Are you a free thinking, conservative, patriot applying your first amendment rights of free speech?

Well –the left wants you to ‘give up’ and  “shut up”.

But …”Whatever you do.  DON’T SHUT UP”!

Andrew Klavan reveals the strategy used to silence the criticism and ideas of conservative thinkers.

_{Embedded video}

Link @YouTube
H/T It’s Only Words

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

Excerpts

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn’t communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: “Political Correctness.”

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the “correct” handling of contradictions among the people. “Sensitive training” – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud’s psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

Fighting the political correctness plague…

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.
Read it all! >>>

Freedom is Slavery – Gates of Vienna

In his essay yesterday, “Resisting 21st Century Communism”, Fjordman examined the emergence of transnational politically correct Multiculturalism, and the parallels between this noxious ideology and Communism, and its origins in 20th-century socialism.

In the comments, Ypp left a series of thesis/antithesis pairs that highlight the fundamental contradictions inherent in Multiculturalism and political correctness.

I’ve reworded and reorganized them a bit, but the list below is still Ypp’s handiwork.

The Ten Antitheses of Political Correctness

1. Materialism is not about matter, but about suppressing ideas.
2. Communism is not about common wealth, but about depriving people of any personal possessions.
3. Socialism is not about society, but about depriving people of the means of production.
4. Human rights are not personal rights, but collective obligations.
5. Tolerance is not about mutual respect, but about the prohibition of opinions.
6. Multiculturalism is not about cultures, but about the repudiation of nationhood.
7. Energy policy is not about the distribution of energy, but about cutting off energy supplies.
8. Health care is not about health, but about control of our consumption.
9. Family planning is not about families, but about abortions.
10. Self-loathing is not about repentance, but about depriving others of their moral foundation.

Whenever they start by improving something, they finish by depriving people of it.

“Free will, truth and the freedom of speech are my weapons of choice” – Velvet Hammer

Related:

[Video] Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder Admits: No Equality Under Hate Crime Bill

Collectivism vs. Individualism

Flashback 1963: 45 Communist Goals