If you want to talk about censorship, if you want to talk about using poltics in order to suppress a certain thought, The Path to 9/11 – blocking The Path to 9/11 is that story. The mainstream media since 9/11 has exposed to a greater extent than any time in our history the degree to which the Democratic Party is the mainstream media. - Andrew Breitbart, PJTV Daily Sept. 11 – 9/11 and the Media
Archive for the ‘censorship’ Category
Morning Quote
September 15, 2008Communist China running true to form
July 30, 2008Nobody who pays attention can be surprised by this:
China to censor Internet during Games
China will censor the Internet used by foreign media during the Olympics, an organising committee official confirmed Wednesday, reversing a pledge to offer complete media freedom at the games.
Controlling information and punishing those who access information the government doesn’t like is what Communists do.
This reminds me of the Kos Kiddies/DUmmies gleefully listing those they would ban from the airways and print if they gained power.
File this one under blindingly obvious…
July 10, 2008…except of course for so-called “progressives” who are actually trying to destroy the Bill of Rights. Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig points out that the anti-First Amendment “Fairness Doctrine” is a direct attack on constitutionally protected free speech:
HH: Do you favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine?LL: I don’t think you can, under the First Amendment, restore the Fairness Doctrine, and I don’t have any desire to amend the First Amendment, no.
HH: And do did you think the Fairness Doctrine, or that Red Lion, was wrongly decided when it came down?
LL :In that technology context, maybe not. Certainly now in the context of the technology we have right, I don’t think it’s constitutional, no.
HH: On that note of extraordinary agreement, Professor Lessig, thank you for your time. I look forward to having you back another time.
LL: Thanks for having me.
This has nothing to do with “Fairness” and everything
democrats against the First Amendment
October 10, 2007The last thing the democrats want is Freedom of Speech for those who disagree with them. The Prowler points out the thuggish (and that is being kind) behavior of congressional democrats using taxpayer money to silence political speech that they don’t want Americans to hear.
Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”
…
the DNC hopes to raise millions of dollars of Limbaugh. “If we can’t silence him, we should at least make some money to make his life more miserable in a Democratic-controlled Washington in 2008,” says a Senate Democrat leadership aide.
Mr Reynolds sums it up nicely:
They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, we’d see enemies lists, dossiers, and naked abuse of political and regulatory power in order to silence criticism and secure an unfair electoral advantage. And they were right!
That’s right kids, the left is the boogieman they tried to scare you with.
The intolerance of the left
June 13, 2007As Mr. Reynolds likes to point out, “THEY TOLD ME THAT IF BUSH WERE RE-ELECTED, government would be crushing speech it didn’t like. And they were right!“
“Rush Limbaugh has long been a thorn in the side of liberals, but now, because of him, some Democratic politicians don’t even want to join with a local radio station to broadcast hurricane information. Radio station WIOD, AM 610, has been the official channel for emergency information from Broward County government for the past year. The County Commission, all Democrats, balked at renewing the deal Tuesday, unable to stomach the station also being home to Limbaugh’s talk show.”
They have got a not so little list…
April 15, 2007
Attack on Free Speech by democrats summed up
September 8, 2006
Isn’t it interesting how many times we’ve heard that Hollywood is all about dramatizations and entertainment when the lesson conveyed is pro-left, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal? “Don’t take that seriously,” we are admonished, “It’s poetic license, darling.”Now we have the 9/11 movie that will air this Sunday. It certainly appears that ABC’s head Iger is caving to pressure brought by the Clinton Foundation’s Bruce Lindsay. Why? Because the dramatization paints the Clinton Administration accurately. Of course, efforts at “It’s just a dramatization” somehow fall on deaf ears when you’re trying to tell it to someone who really understands the power of memes and mass communication.
Look, I’m not saying that the portrayal is letter perfect. I’m not saying that in its smallest, parsable details, it is accurate to the nth degree. And I’m not saying that I’ve seen the movie. But I’m listening to the discussion, and I’m listening to people who have seen the movie (Rush, Patterico’s co-blogger). And the portrayal is very likely as accurate as TV can be.
Why do I say this? First, because of the reaction by Clinton’s camp. If this wasn’t damning and true, then it would be damnably (and provably) false. Second, because all three of the “questionable” scenes in the above article are certainly believable given what we learned over the years about the Clinton Administration. Does it matter whether Berger slammed the phone down or laid it gently upon its cradle? Does it matter if Albright met the head of Pakistan’s State Security apparatus in a dark alley or whether she sent a message by a messenger? Does it matter that Clinton didn’t exercise leadership on a habitually self-serving, liberal, and disjointed foreign policy?
Yes. Yes it does. And from what I understand, this movie accurately portrays the lack of leadership and the lack of focus that was part and parcel of that foreign policy.
The Texas Rainmaker chimes in with quotes from the 9/11 Commission’s report:
Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.
and
On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. “Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.
and this from 1998
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
and
National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’“
