Tag Archives: Drudge Report

Leftists: “It’s the worst time in US history!”

Posted on by

Just ask the LDAMM — the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots. They’re all colluding and have been doing so, ever more cemented than before, since November 9th of 2016, when the worst calamity in the history of history occurred: Hillary Clinton was not elected as 45th president of the United States.

Despite every possible lever having been thrown, every shitty deal cut, every corner clipped, every US counterintelligence agency up and alerted then thrown against the OMB himself: the Orange Man Bad. Yes. Despite all that, Hillary Clinton was not anointed president, as was her official right. After all, it was “her turn.” Don’t you guys get that?

He should never have won. Ever. You know, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head: Donald John Trump.

The mantra now, besides the explosion of every -ist, -ism and -obe on the planet laid at the feet of Donald Trump, is that the United States is clearly plummeting towards doom.

With, eh, a couple of exceptions.

From CNSNews.com:

Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April

by Craig Bannister

The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force fell to a record low of 4.2% in April, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday show.

In April, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos, aged 16 and up, was 4.2%, down from 4.7% in March – breaking the record low of 4.3% set two months earlier in February. BLS began tracking Hispanic-Latino employment data in 1973.

The number of unemployed Hispanics fell to 1,198,000 – the fewest unemployed since August of 2007 (1,190,000) and a decline of 165,000 from 1,363,000 in March of 2019.

The number of Hispanics employed fell to 27,348,000 from 27,566,000 in March and off from its record high of 27,701,000 in December 2018. The number of Hispanics participating in the workplace increased as Hispanics’ labor force participation rate fell to 65.9% from 67.0% in March.

Job Creators Network President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz says Hispanics’ job opportunites have benefited greatly from President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies:

“One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Trump economy has been Hispanics, whose entrepreneurial talents have been harnessed in this climate of deregulation and tax cuts. While Democrats play class warfare and identity politics, President Trump’s policies are creating a booming economy that is lifting all boats.”

Some more numbers?

Hispanic-Latino employment statistics for February 2019:

  • Unemployment rate: 4.2%, down from 4.7% in March.
  • Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population (16+ years old): 43,289,000 up from 43,205,000 in March.
  • Number Participating in Labor Force: 28,546,000 down from 28,929,000 in March.
  • Labor Force Participation: 65.9, down from 67.0% in March.
  • Number Employed: 27,348,000 down from 27,566,000 in March.
  • Number Unemployed: 1,198,000, down from 1,363,000 in March.

From Breitbart.com:

Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953

by John Carney

The unemployment rate for women in the U.S. workforce fell to 3.4 percent in April, the lowest rate since September 1953.

The unemployment for women fell below 4 percent in March 2018 for the first time since the dot com boom in 2000. It has remained below 4 percent in 12 out of the last 13 months.

The longest streak of below 4 percent unemployment was 18 months starting in 1952. The record low was 2.7 percent in May 1952.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, cited a slightly different statistic that is also at the lowest level in over 60 years. Unemployment for women over 20 years old fell to 3.1 percent.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor’s degrees in April

by Joseph Lawler

Unemployment for workers without bachelor’s degrees fell to the lowest rate in 19 years in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, a sign the recovery is benefiting the people most in need of help as it stretches toward a 10th year.

Unemployment for workers without four-year or graduate degrees fell to just 3.5% in April, the lowest such mark since the 3.4% rate in April 2000, which was the lowest recorded, with data going back to 1992.

That statistic, which is adjusted for seasonal variations, represents workers above the age of 25 without associate’s degrees or who didn’t finish college, people with only high school degrees, and high school dropouts. Those groups generally have much higher unemployment rates.

From the Associated Press:

Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring

by Christopher Rugaber

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring accelerated and pay rose at a solid pace in April, setting the stage for healthy U.S. economic growth to endure despite fears of a slowdown earlier this year.

Employers added 263,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dropping to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop partly reflected an increase in the number of Americans who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, matching March’s year-over-year increase.

Friday’s jobs report from the government showed that economic growth remains brisk enough to encourage strong hiring nearly a decade into the economy’s recovery from the Great Recession. The economic expansion, which has fueled 103 straight months of hiring, is set to become the longest in history in July.

“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.

Read that again. You know, the crap that exited the pie-holes of the LDAMM. “Recession recession recession.” Except:

“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.

From CNBC.com:

Jobs surge in April, unemployment rate falls to the lowest since 1969

by Jeff Cox

  • The U.S. added 263,000 new hires in April, easily beating Wall Street expectations of 190,000.
  • The unemployment rate fell to 3.6% vs. 3.8% expected and the lowest since December 1969.

The U.S. jobs machine kept humming along in April, adding a robust 263,000 new hires while the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest in a generation, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payroll growth easily beat Wall Street expectations of 190,000 and a 3.8% jobless rate.

Average hourly earnings growth held at 3.2% over the past year, a notch below Dow Jones estimates of 3.3%. The monthly gain was 0.2%, below the expected 0.3% increase, bringing the average to $27.77. The average work week also dropped 0.1 hours to 34.4 hours.

Unemployment was last this low in December 1969 when it hit 3.5%. At a time when many economists see a tight labor market, big job growth continues as the economic expansion is just a few months away from being the longest in history.

From RasmussenReports.com:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

ABC kept the good news pretty much quiet. Can you blame them? Everything else Leftist is falling down around Demorat heads.

Bad News for Liberals? ABC Can Barely Speak of 50-Year Low in Unemployment

by Tim Graham

The news was shocking on Friday morning when the Labor Department reported the economy added 263,000 new jobs — higher than expected — lowering the unemployment rate to 3.6 percent, the lowest in fifty years. Would the networks acknowledge this news, or try to dodge it like last Friday’s surprisingly strong 3.2 percent growth in GDP? ABC and CBS skipped that, and NBC gave it ten seconds. This Friday, Curtis Houck noted on Twitter that CBS and NBC had full reports on Friday night, but ABC’s World News Tonight was done with it in 18 seconds. 

Nah. No bias there. Uh-oh. Neil Irwin of the New York Times said:

After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).

In particular, it now appears that recession fears that emerged at the end of 2018 were misguided — especially once the Fed backed off its campaign of rate increases at the start of 2019.

But beyond the assigning of credit or blame, there’s a bigger lesson in the job market’s remarkably strong performance: about the limits of knowledge when it comes to something as complex as the $20 trillion U.S. economy.

He’s clearly going to Leftist Hell. At minimum, he’ll be receiving no more Christmas cards. Oh wait. The New York Times doesn’t believe in Christmas. Or is it that Christ doesn’t believe in the New York Times?

And that from just one day’s news this past week.

Question: did you hear this good news hammered home by the American Media Maggots? CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Of course you didn’t. Why? Because it would tend to make President Trump look good — and none of those outlets can afford to allow President Trump to look good. They run in lockstep with the Demorats and the DNC. The Demorats and DNC cannot allow President Trump to look good.

You didn’t hear about this story either, from Investors Business Daily, did you?

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

Media Bias: Ask journalists, and they’ll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be “fair.” They’re “centrists.” Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with “fake news.” Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.

If you ask “journalists” how they voted, well, they won’t tell you. They’ll fall back on

  • What does that matter, and
  • We can do our jobs in a vacuum.

Except they can’t. And yes, it matters greatly. Because the bulk of them are Leftists.

Despite journalists’ denials, it’s now pretty much a fact that journalism is one of the most left-wing of all professions. But until recently, that wasn’t thought to be true of financial journalists — who have a reputation for being the most right-leaning and free-market-oriented among mainstream journalists.

If that was ever true, it sure isn’t today, a new study  suggests.

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.

From the DailyWire.com:

462 Financial Journalists Were Asked Their Political Leanings. Guess How Many Said They Were Conservative.

by Ashe Schow

“First, financial journalists have stronger incentives to produce original information and analysis than to disseminate information already in the public domain, and they rely heavily on private communication with company management for information. Second, sell-side analysts play an important role in informing financial journalists, many of whom lack financial sophistication. Third, the incentives for sensationalism in the business press assumed in prior research are dominated by incentives for accurate, timely, in-depth, and informative reporting, while the quid pro quo incentives assumed in prior literature (e.g., putting a positive spin on company news to maintain access to inside sources) are substantial.”

Let’s translate the pablum speech.

Get that? Journalists covering the financial industry don’t know the industry and give favorable coverage to keep access. Sounds like pretty much every other type of journalist.

Here’s the crux of the biscuit:

The journalists surveyed by the scholars come from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post and other highly respected outlets, as well as other smaller outlets.

One other thing the researchers found was that the surveyed journalists overwhelmingly described themselves as liberal. Of those surveyed, 17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

“Moderate.” I suppose like a “moderate Muslim.” Or “kinda pregnant.” Or “I had part of a colonoscopy.”

Simultaneously, from Newsbusters.org:

Journalism Institute Poynter Tries to ‘Blacklist’ 29 Conservative Outlets as ‘UnNews’

by Corinne Weaver

The attack on the conservative internet has reached a new low.

Poynter, the journalism institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online. The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for a journalism organization funded by prominent liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.

Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”

Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.” That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites —  Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

Let’s stop here for a moment. The microsecond I see the DRUDGE REPORT on ANY Leftist list I know they’re ignorant and lying. Why? Because the DR doesn’t write any content whatsoever. Matt Drudge hasn’t written a word on his site for years. The DR is nothing more than an aggregator of news. It carries stories written by other outlets and frequently includes New York Times, LA Times, CNN and other Leftist stories. Every. Day.

Judicial Watch is a site that essentially sues for information via FOIA requests and, AGAIN, doesn’t create original content. It only publishes what the government releases.

Project Veritas has video to back up every claim it makes.

The Washington Examiner has been part of the DC scene for literally decades.

This where we are today.

But remember: it’s all about footsteps.

I can hear them.

Can’t you?

BZ

 

 Share

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Posted on by

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

FEC wants to remove your freedoms — again

Posted on by

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, ‘not done fighting’

by Paul Bedard

They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibly even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission.

You say the US government has tried on prior occasions to censor the Drudge Report? Yes. By the FCC as I wrote here on May 5th of 2015, and here on August 24h of 2015.

The FEC, specifically, tried back in 2014 as Paul Bedard, the author of this newest article above, documented here:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs

by Paul Bedard

Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

The real truth is this — no more complicated.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

When you cannot win the war of ideas, that is to say “the message,” then your only alternative is to shut down “the messenger” which, in these cases, translates to the internet itself and some sites specifically, like Drudge. Mine is next. So is yours.

(FEC Chairman Lee Goodman) added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

That translates to, as I have said for quite some time: “No one is equal until everyone is equal.”

The history explained here, as well.

You can already see the Leftist social media giants shutting down free speech. But whose free speech? Those on the right. Leftist speech remains predominantly uninterrupted, undisturbed and inviolate unless it is so shockingly egregious that even the American Media Maggots begin to notice a bit. Even then, not consistently. Death threats against President Trump on Twitter, for example, tend to remain unless they are somehow brought to light. Massive light.

Then don’t forget about this aspect.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut off conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

At one point the “fairness doctrine” — which is the precise opposite, of course — ruled in media. Its attempt, originally, was to actually ensure some semblance of “fairness” in broadcasting when media choices were extremely limited, the precise opposite of today.

See my previous posts about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished.

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

“Net neutrality” to censor Drudge, Fox and ME?

Posted on by

Freedom of Speech StoppedAh yes, Leftists soon to get what they want, the censorship of those who oppose their policies?

As per normal it isn’t Republicans or Conservatives or those on the right who want to remove your freedoms and specifically your First Amendment freedoms, it is those who profess to be the most embracing and the most understanding and tolerant who wish to remove your freedoms: the Demorats and Leftists and so-called Progressives.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Fox News could be censored under new federal rules, experts warn

by Rudy Takala

A Washington, D.C., appeals court is set to hear arguments later this year on new net neutrality rules, which critics say could lead to government regulators censoring websites such as the Drudge Report and Fox News.

In its February vote on net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission stated that broadband providers do not have a right to free speech. “Broadband providers are conduits, not speakers … the rules we adopt today are tailored to the important government interest in maintaining an open Internet as a platform for expression,” the majority held in its 3-2 vote.

The rules, which went into effect in June, require that broadband providers — such as Verizon or Comcast — offer access to all legal online content. It did not place such a requirement on “edge providers,” such as Netflix and Google. The FCC defines edge providers as “any individual or entity that provides any content, application, or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet.”

No right to free speech?

Writing in separate briefs, former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology argues that the rules violate the First Amendment right of Internet providers to display the speech they choose.

“If rules such as these are not reviewed under the most rigorous scrutiny possible, government favoritism and censorship masquerading as ‘neutrality’ will soon cascade to other forms of mass communication,” the center argues.

“If the court upholds the FCC’s rules, the agency’s authority over the Internet would extend from one end to the other,” Fred Campbell, president of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, told the Washington Examiner. “Because the same theories the FCC relied on to impose its new regulations on Internet service providers are also applicable to companies like Apple and Netflix, the FCC could extend its regulatory reach much further in the future.”

Could that “reach” mean me?  And you?  Our opinions on social media?  Any bit of written expression that involves an opinion or even a viewpoint?

More pointedly, our political opinions?  Opinions that could contradict those of the regime in power, as Mr Obama or others of power in DC?

Specifically, Campbell said, the FCC will likely try to control political speech.

“This possibility raises the risk that Congress or the FCC could impose restrictions on Internet video and other services that have traditionally been imposed on over the air broadcasting and cable television, including the fairness doctrine that once put the government in charge of determining whether broadcasters were fairly representing both sides of an issue,” he explained.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the net neutrality rules, has said such restrictions may be coming if net neutrality is allowed to stand, warning in March that online political content like the Drudge Report could face greater regulation.

Why is it, however, that only Drudge and Fox News should be targeted?  Is it because the “rest” of the news agencies are so terribly unbiased — such as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN?  It is no shock that there is much Left-wing bias in the newsrooms of what most would term the “mainstream media.”  Bernard Goldberg knew this years ago.  There are very few Republicans and right-wingers in MSM newsrooms.

Further, clearly the ignorant don’t know that Drudge doesn’t write news; the DrudgeReport is nothing more than a news aggregator.  It collects and collates news from sources around the globe, then slugs stories with a headline that catches.

Is this really the United States of America, when something like this could actually happen?

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s very own federal government: coming for MY First Amendment rights

Posted on by

First Amendment WrappedFirst, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge

by Paul Bedard

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

Does anyone with a semblance of common sense realize, for example, what the Drudge Report actually is?  For the most part Matt Drudge doesn’t write his stories; his site is merely an aggregator of stories from around the globe and around the internet.

He takes them and collates them, then places them on his site with accompanying headlines.  It is the headlines and the types of stories featured on Drudge to which Leftists object.  They also object to Drudge’s massive popularity and his incalculable hit ratio.

When Drudge makes a link to a story, that site’s servers can frequently be downed due to the quantity of hits.  To object to Drudge, however, is to object to reality.

“I told you this was coming.”

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

An incredibly important final paragraph:

“Regrettably, the 3-to-3 vote in this matter suggests a desire to retreat from these important protections for online political speech — a shift in course that could threaten the continued development of the Internet’s virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate,” they concluded.

Ladies and gentlemen, when did you ever possibly believe that your First Amendment rights could even remotely be threatened by some capricious force that is not guaranteed by your federal government in its Bill of Rights or US Constitution?

Is that not insane?  Your federal government threatening its own guarantees?

BZ

US Flag Under Attack

 Share