Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ised_land.html


FCC Commissioner Circulates Document on ‘The State of Media
Journalism’

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=50761


http://www.unfairair.org

On Jul 10, 6:43*pm, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:


now this is fascism:The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation far beyond the warrantless wiretapping, they
were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including
a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment its mind boggling




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/...c_surveillance

Report: Bush surveillance program was massive


By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer – 2*mins*ago
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond
the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal
inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for
the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still
too secret to reveal.
The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to
"unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies
under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the
Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs
pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be
"carefully monitored."
The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth
of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly
criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote
legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John
Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the
intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving
for the previous two and a half years, the report says.
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the
"President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to
terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the
"mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made
investigating the leads worthwhile."
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 people inside and
outside the government, but five former Bush administration officials
refused to be questioned. They were Ashcroft, Yoo, former CIA Director
George Tenet, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and David
Addington, an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
According to the report, Addington could personally decide who in the
administration was "read into" — allowed access to — the classified
program.
The only piece of the intelligence-gathering operation acknowledged by
the Bush White House was the wiretapping-without-warrants effort. The
administration admitted in 2005 that it had allowed the National
Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed
through U.S. cables without seeking court orders.
Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its
fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it
inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.
Bush brought the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority
of a secret court in 2006, and Congress authorized most of the
intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the
remaining and still classified aspects of the wider surveillance
program is not clear from the report.
The report's revelations came the same day that House Democrats said
that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old
classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been
apprised of its existence.
The IG report said that President Bush signed off on both the
warrantless wiretapping and other top-secret operations shortly after
Sept. 11 in a single presidential authorization. All the programs were
periodically reauthorized, but except for the acknowledged
wiretapping, they "remain highly classified."
The report says it's unclear how much valuable intelligence the
program has yielded.
The report, mandated by Congress last year, was delivered to lawmakers
Friday.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told The Associated Press she was shocked
to learn of the existence of other classified programs beyond the
warrantless wiretapping.
Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a terse reference
to other classified programs in an August 2007 letter to Congress. But
Harman said that when she had asked Gonzales two years earlier if the
government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence
activities, he denied it.
"He looked me in the eye and said 'no,'" she said Friday.
Robert Bork Jr., Gonzales' spokesman, said, "It has clearly been
determined that he did not intend to mislead anyone."
In the wake of the new report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, renewed his call Friday for a formal
nonpartisan inquiry into the government's information-gathering
programs.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden — the primary architect of the
program_ told the report's authors that the surveillance was
"extremely valuable" in preventing further al-Qaida attacks. Hayden
said the operations amounted to an "early warning system" allowing top
officials to make critical judgments and carefully allocate national
security resources to counter threats.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in
the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report.
Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were
unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report
said.
The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the
program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by
Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice
Department withdrew the memos years ago.
The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law
designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic
surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying
Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious
impediment" to recertifying the program.
Yoo insisted that the president's wiretapping program had only to
comply with Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure —
but the report said Yoo ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which had previously overseen federal national security
surveillance.
"The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John
Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president's office were running a program
around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of
the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling," Harman said.
House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand
congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White
House has threatened to veto it.

0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.


The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

On Jul 11, 7:57*am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. *They should serve the people, not
large corporations. *Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).
Just like when you vote for a Liberal fascist President.
But unlike a Liberal Fascist Government, radio stations can not rely
on the theft by way of taxes to keep themselves on the air.
What you are saying is that Liberal Fascist Government decides who can
run a radio station and what format and content it can broadcast
But you and I who actually vote by listening to what we want to listen
to (it's called Freedom BTW Dr.DaviD, PhD) have no vote.

Welcome to the LIBERAL FASCIST State!

"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
news:383d4b7a-e3e9-4d08-b304-
The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).
Just like when you vote for a Liberal fascist President.
But unlike a Liberal Fascist Government, radio stations can not rely
on the theft by way of taxes to keep themselves on the air.
What you are saying is that Liberal Fascist Government decides who can
run a radio station and what format and content it can broadcast
But you and I who actually vote by listening to what we want to listen
to (it's called Freedom BTW Dr.DaviD, PhD) have no vote.

Radio station owners (at this point, most are owned by five or six large
corporations) have been telling us what we like for years. We are given a
playlist of often as little as 100 different tracks and told we get to pick
the ones we like best. Blame Bill Drake, the inventor of the Drake format
(top 30).

We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

On Jul 11, 9:12*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

Dobbs, I think you got brain washed over there in San Diego.
Watch out for that San Andreas Fault line, don't let it gitcha!
cuhulin

On Jul 11, 8:21*am, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:




even david brooks is finding out how perverted the republicans
areavid Brooks: A Republican senator put ‘his hand on my inner
thigh’ for a ‘whole’ dinner party:i wonder which family values
conservative that was?






http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/10/...senator-thigh/

David Brooks: A Republican senator put ‘his hand on my inner thigh’
for a ‘whole’ dinner party.
Earlier this week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about
how “the dignity code” has been “completely obliterated” in
Washington, DC. Discussing the concept on MSNBC today, Brooks recalled
how he “sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his
hand on my inner thigh the whole time”:
BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering
politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re
all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to
invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican
senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole
time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.
HARWOOD: What?
BROOKS: I can only imagine what happens to you guys.
O’DONNELL: Sorry, who was that?
BROOKS: I’m not telling you, I’m not telling you.
Brooks said that he has “spoken to a lot of young women who are Senate
staffers and they’ll have these middle age guys who are sort of in the
middle of a mid-life crisis. Emotionally needy, they don’t know how to
do it and sort of like these St. Bernards drooling everywhere.” Watch
it:



When O’Donnell asked if he had “a couple drinks at lunch,” Brooks said
that he was just “trying not to be too dignified and stuffy.”
Transcript:
O’DONNELL: What, what’s happened?

BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering
politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re
all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to
invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican
senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole
time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.
HARWOOD: What?
BROOKS: I can only imagine what happens to you guys.
O’DONNELL: Sorry, who was that?
BROOKS: I’m not telling you, I’m not telling you. But so, a lot of
them spend so much time needing people’s love and yet they are
shooting upwards their whole life, they’re not that great in normal
human relationships. And so, they’re like freaks, they don’t know how
to, they’re lonely. They reach out. I’ve spoken to a lot of young
women who are Senate staffers and they’ll have these middle age guys
who are sort of in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Emotionally needy,
they don’t know how to do it and sort of like these St. Bernards
drooling everywhere. And you find a lot of this happens in mid-life
and among very powerful people who are extremely lonely.
O’DONNELL: Can I ask one other question David? Do you think, what
about female or women politicians? Are they dignified and are there
examples of when they have not? Or does it tend to be the men who less
dignified?
BROOKS: Yeah, I think that’s mostly a matter of genetics. I do think
that…I do think there’s loneliness.
O’DONNELL: That was just a softball, David, and you really hit it very
well.
BROOKS: Yeah, I wish I could think of sort of St. Bernards, sloppy
women who are licking their aides, but but no, I can’t think of any.
HARWOOD: I’m not going there.
O’DONNELL: Did you have a couple drinks at lunch, David? I mean, this
is clearly.
BROOKS: No, you’ve hit me…I’m trying not to be too dignified and
stuffy.
O’DONNELL: Well, David Brooks as always, thank you very much. That was
a lot of fun. You may not have gotten best column of the week, but you
got best appearance of the week, certainly.

This isn't Michigan, where it is cool and not humid weather.This is
Mississippi and tHat hOt hUmid weather oUtch yOnder is killin my aRse! I
has tEh took me a bReak ever leetle oNcet inna ahh wHile.
cuhulin

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:21:17 -0700, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:

On Jul 11, 7:57Â*am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. Â*They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Â*Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.

I vote we use the spectrum occupied by Ru$h's program to be use by gay
wireless dildo manufactures. That way, 0baMa0 Tse Dung will understand
where to stick it.