Obama vs. The Constitution of the United States of America

Written October 23, 2009

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As everyone knows, there has been much talk of bringing back the so-called "fairness doctrine" back to radio. (No one can seriously doubt that the real reason is to shut down the hugely successful conservative talk radio.) Now, the Obama Administration is talking about regulating the internet as well (so-called "net neutrality").

While these proposals are still in the development stage, the O. team has already actively attacked those they do not believe are entitled to free speech: those who disagree with them. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh has been one of their main targets. Now, Fox Cable News is another.

Anita Dunn, O.'s communications director, said that Fox was an "arm of the Republican Party." (Jewish Press, 10/23/09) Recall that Dunn has said that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers. She has also said that Fox is not a legitimate news organization. (Politico.com, 10/21/09)

Obviously taking their cue from either Dunn or O. himself, other high ranking members of the O. team have joined in. Per David Axelrod, O.'s political advisor, Fox is "not really a news station." He goes on to tell George Stephanopolous on ABC that: the bigger thing is that...other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel got the same memo, as he told CNN that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." He goes on: "more importantly is not to have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led by Fox." (Politico.com, 10/18/09)

Ken Feinberg, the "executive pay czar," was offering to do interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations - except Fox was not invited. Thankfully, the other networks recognized the attack on free speech for what it was, and refused to participate without Fox. The White House had to back down. (Investor's Business Daily, 10/23/09 opinion by Charles Krauthammer)

Clearly, another one of Obama's lies was his desire to unite the country and end the partisan divide. After all, Limbaugh has the highest rated talk show on radio, with perhaps as many as 13-15 million listeners. Fox Cable News has more than the combined audience of CNN and MSNBC. If Obama was looking to unite people he would go on Fox (with say Chris Wallace, a fair interviewer) and reach out to an entire segment of the population that might not otherwise be inclined to listen to him.

But no. The first instinct is to attack and delegitimize. This is no different than any dictator in history - shut down the free press; or at least those in opposition. The O. team has not felt any need to go after the rest of the media as they compete with each other to shower adulation on Obama. After all, if Fox and Rush and most of talk radio are on one side of the divide, the other side is not exactly devoid of participants: The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, most of the papers in the country (including our local Ventura County Star), ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio, Air America and others. Not to mention the Hollywood crowd and most university professors and public school teachers. Only dictators and totalitarian regimes do not tolerate dissent.

Now, one might think that with the development of the internet, people have access to more news and opinions than ever before in our country's history. Just because a news item or opinion piece does not make it into the newspaper or network TV does not mean you can not read about it on many sites on the internet. After all, it was Fox that broke the Rev. Wright story - a full year before the "mainstream" media felt compelled to pick it up. It was on Fox that we learned about Acorn. It was on Fox that we learned about Anita Dunn's fondness for one of the greatest dictators of all time, Mao. And it was on Fox that we learned about Van Jones, a former czar, and his socialist ideas and belief of US government involvement in 9/11. Not too bad for a "not legitimate news organization."

But the O. team does not see things the same way. Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, said: "I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust internet." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09) Now, I do not usually make this request, but if anyone reading this does NOT believe that we have an "open and robust internet" without government involvement I would truly like to hear from you. Not so, though, according to O.'s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd. He wrote: "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)

In typical dictatorial style, he demonizes those he wants to control or eliminate ("the powerful cable and telecom industry"), and justifies such action by attributing evil motives to them ("profits"). Entitling his hit piece "Net Neutrality is a Civil Rights Issue" it is clear who he thinks can best assure the proper distribution of news and information and opinion on the internet - the government.

But a friend of Lloyd's and Van Jones, one Robert McChesney, is at least forthright in explaining his support for net neutrality. "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." He goes on: "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it and perhaps even eliminate it." (Investor's Business Daily, 10/22/09)

Remember, when Obama was running for office he said he wanted to bring FUNDAMENTAL change to the U.S. Anyone think he was kidding?