Thursday, October 27, 2016

Ignorance is Not Bliss

German men confronting the police over migrant rapes
I left this comment on an October 26th Gatestone column by Soren Kern, “Germany's Migrant Rape Crisis: Where is the Public Outrage?”:

"Where is the public outrage?" The outrage did not exist because the federal government and the local police forces withheld information about the identity of the criminals in an effort to ameliorate public opposition to the invasion of hundreds of thousands of "refugees," most of whom were fully grown males. But now, as s
poradic news stories are reporting, the German public is waking up to the stories that have been suppressed in a futile and dishonest effort to "educate" the public and not "stigmatize" whole races or religions. The government and the local police would rather "stigmatize" groups opposed to "immigration." That policy is also beginning to fall apart, as well. In its efforts to keep Germans in the dark about the perilous situation Germans are in, it is laying the groundwork for possibly a civil war between the duped Germans, immigrants, and the government itself. What brilliance!

In the meantime, in Britain, Her Majesty’s government has seen fit to “screen” children from the Calais “jungle” – or rather hide behind physical screens their arrival and the fact that most of these “children” are advanced teenagers or full-grown males.

In Sweden, the government and the press mitigate the criminal impact of Muslim migrants on its society.

and wrote, in order to underscore the fate of Swedes, or of Geert  Wilders, or of anyone else brave enough to report the facts about immigration and made to suffer persecution by their own countrymen:

Michael Hess, a local politician from Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with Islam's view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in Cairo's Tahrir Square during the "Arab Spring". Hess wrote, "When will you journalists realize that it is deeply rooted in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa]."

This remark led to Michael Hess being charged with "denigration of ethnic groups" [hets mot folkgrupp], a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine -- the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.

For many years, Michael Hess lived in Muslim countries, and he is well acquainted with Islam and its view of women. During his trial, he provided evidence of how sharia law deals with rape, and statistics to indicate that Muslims are vastly overrepresented among perpetrators of rape in Sweden. However, the court decided that facts were irrelevant….

Soren Kern raises these facts:

·         Despite the mounting human toll, most of the crimes are still being downplayed by German authorities and the media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

·         "The police are not interested in stigmatizing but rather in educating the public. The impression that we are engaging in censorship is devastating to the public's confidence in the police. Sharing information about suspects is also important for developing prevention strategies. We must be allowed to talk openly about the problems of this country." — Arnold Plickert, director of the GdP Police Union in North Rhine-Westphalia.

·         "The Press Council believes that editorial offices in Germany should ultimately treat their readers like children by depriving them of relevant information. We think this is wrong because when people realize that something is being concealed from them, they react with mistrust. And this mistrust is a hazard." — Tanit Koch, editor-in-chief of Bild, the most-read newspaper in Germany.

It appears that the majority of German police entities adhere to Angela Merkel’s “Let’s not be beastly to the migrants” policy,” and under-report, or do not report at all, rapes committed by Muslims (and Muslims of all origins have committed them: Afghans, Somalis, Iraqis, Turks, etc.) at all. Identifying criminals  is verboten and “discriminatory.”

One ISIS statement about the Yazidis is that they must be raped to “smash the blonde bloodline.” Doubtless that is one of the purposes of the widespread rapes in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, countries with a high proportion of blondes and blonde victims. Yet German and other European governments refuse to ascribe to Muslim rapists the least tinge of “racism.” Yet anyone pointing to a gang of Somali or Pakistani rapists and expressing the least hint of “Islamophobia” is automatically deemed a “racist.”

In the meantime, back in the U.S., damaging, incriminating facts, regardless of how they acquired, are given short shift  by criminal politicians and their wonks. 

Interview with Mook:

Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook and longtime Clinton confidant John Podesta thought the deal ― in which Clinton had committed to speak at an event for the king[of Morocco] on the condition of his $12 million donation ― would look bad. Clinton aide Huma Abedin tried to explain that it was simply too late to back out.

“Why wasn’t that classic pay-to-play?” Wallace asked.

“There’s nothing new here,” Mook replied, deflecting to Donald Trump’s sagging poll numbers.

“But, Robby, there is some new stuff,” Wallace responded. “Emails show ― and I’m going to go through some of them ― you were not happy at all the idea of this meeting and her going there.”

Mook maintained that it was all just a scheduling issue that had nothing to do with corruption or public perceptions of corruption.

“We didn’t want her going overseas,” Mook said. “I didn’t want her going overseas before the campaign was kicking off. Again, these are stolen documents.”[Italics mine]

Ergo, the information about the illicit activities committed by the Clinton campaign is nullified? Not admissible in a court of law because the emails proving the existence of criminal activity were stolen?

Suppose Eliot Ness of TheUntouchables (a fine TV crime series until it succumbed to early PC) purloined a series of memos between Al Capone to Frank Nitty about what to do about the Bugsy Moran gang. “We got to deal with these buggers. Can we rub them out without getting a lot of bad press? Without everybody pointing fingers at me?” “Yeah, Al. Got to call a pow-wow between us and Bugsy’s people. Lure them into a trap. A garage would be perfect. Got to be stealthy like. Send in a bunch of our boys, some of them dressed like cops. Then let them have it. Use machine guns to be thorough. Let me handle the details and the press.”

Would that exchange be admitted as evidence in court because the memos were “stolen.”? Would Capone be indicted, tried, and jailed for conspiracy to murder and being an accessory to murder, instead of being jailed for the paltry charge of income tax evasion, as actually happened?  Members of the Moran gang were indeed murdered execution style by Capone’s men.

Possibly Ness’s purloined (or “hacked”) Capone-Nitty correspondence would be admissible in court, but then that was another era.

Let’s go one further: Suppose the mayor of Chicago had criminal connections to Capone and his gang, and wanted the whole Bugsy Moran or St. Valentine’s Day massacre issue removed from police and court records. and also removed from “public” consciousness. Would the massacre have actually occurred? Possibly, but it would have been written off as “just a bunch of yeggs with mental problems.” Yes. But there is no longer a record of it. The public is left in the dark. The mayor issues a public statement to the effect that all the rumors that Capone was responsible were false and slander the good name of Capone (PPBUP or Benedizioni e la pace sia su nostro pisano).

So, if the documents were not stolen, the information would still be festering inside the emails, but no one would know about it or have any knowledge of the wrong-doing. We would remain ignorant of the corruption and the scale of that corruption aside from the King of Morocco issue. Is that what you’re saying? That evidence of duplicity, if not revealed, would not be judged, or enter into anything because you might have been successful in suppressing the information, regardless of the legality of the hacked emails.

Welcome to the universe of thoughtcrime.

Let’s imagine for a moment that someone was able to hack into the records of the Dusseldorf police, and the records showed not only how many rapes of German women had been committed and reported, but the specific “migrant” identities of the criminals, most of whom were handed light to non-existence sentences. None of that information had been released, and the public was ignorant of it, even though much of the public knew something was terribly wrong.  

An episode in Muslim "cultural enrichment"
Suppose the hacker published that information on his own blog site, a la Wikileaks,  causing an outrage, knowing that no German newspaper would publish the information lest they be reprimanded by the German Press Council or its employees even imprisoned and fined. The police track down the owner of the blog site and he is arrested for “theft” of government property (the information coming under the rubric of “security), and for instigating “hate,” “bigotry,” and the “blasphemous libeling” of a racial, ethnic, and religious “minority.”
Soren Kern added:

Germany's migrant rape crisis — which has continued unabated day after day for more than a year — has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany's federal states. Despite the mounting human toll, most of the crimes are still being downplayed by German authorities and the media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

The German Press Council (Presserat) enforces a politically correct "code of media ethics" that restricts the information journalists can use in their stories. Paragraph 12.1 of the code states:

"When reporting on criminal offenses, details about the religious, ethnic or other background information of the suspects or perpetrators is to be mentioned only if it is absolutely necessary (begründeter Sachbezug) to understand the reported event. Remember that such references could foment prejudices against minorities."

On October 17, the Press Council reprimanded the weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit, for revealing the nationality of three Afghan teenagers who raped a woman at a train station in Vienna, Austria, in April 2016. The press council said the nationality of the perpetrators is "not relevant" to the case, and by revealing this information the newspaper "deliberately and pejoratively represented the suspects as second-class persons."

On the other hand, it’s okay for Muslim preachers to advocate war against the West and to take sex slaves. Ali Hammuda, a Muslim cleric in Cardiff, Wales announced in July to his teenage audience, as reported in the Daily Mail:

“One of the interpretations as to what this means is that towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today, and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah, women will be taken as slaves.

“And then, er, her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”

Sharia will dominate the world, even if perpetrators must show up in court and be slapped on the wrist, leaving their victims to deal with the rapes and fearing more.  But Westerners are not supposed to fear that, or even know about it. That’s thoughtcrime, Islamophobia!  As far as the State is concerned, when it comes to reporting Muslim crimes, “mum’s the word.” The State doesn’t want you to know.

Ignorance can be bliss, until you’re raped. And even dead.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Parallels in Evil: Part II

Hillary Clinton's Unacknowledged idol: Negan

Jeffrey Dean Morgan, as Negan, the “super” villain of Season 7 of The Walking Dead, has nothing over Hillary Clinton in terms of foul language. In fact, Clinton has a nonstop sewer of a mouth that puts Negan’s to shame. All the censors could permit Morgan to say on screen and repeat ad nauseam is the four letter term for feces.

Clinton has had no censor to control her mouth rage. In public appearances, she poses as a calm, clean-cut, well-bred, grandmotherly hostess about to serve you tea and nothing but the truth. But backstage, and in venues where cameras are not rolling, she is a harpy dedicated to befouling the minds of everyone she comes into contact with, which includes her campaign staff, her Foundation clients and donors, the Secret Service, and doubtless her husband, Bill, and daughter Chelsea. She makes “biker chicks” look like polished graduates of finishing school. She is about as “feminine” as a pig in a pantsuit.

A person, regardless of his gender, who uses that kind of language as an automatic, default means of expression has a festering ball of noxious grunge for a soul. Clinton has exhibited that soul many, many times, in public and off-camera.

The Mouth that Roared
But Hillary’s and Negan’s mouths are not the main subject here. I discussed the simpatico political relationship between The Walking Dead’s boisterous, glib, repellant villain (the worst ever depicted in the series) in “Hillary and Negan: Parallels in Evil.”

What is the difference between the Negans of fiction and the Negans of the real world? The fictional ones cannot kill you. The real ones can and will. As happened in Paris and Brussels and New York City and dozens of other places over decades. There are dozens of Koranic verses for violence that the fictional Negans could just as well adopt…..

… I do not look forward to the debut of Negan in Season 7. It appears he's a thorough-going nihilist and evil to the core. When he shows up, I'm quits with TWD. It seems that the scripters are pandering to viewers who want Negan.
The title of the debut episode is “The Day Will Come When You Won’t Be.” Meaning that when you meet Negan, you will probably cease to exist. The two most appealing heroes of The Walking Dead, Carol and Daryl, are no longer heroes. They are just memories now. They have been changed and demoted to secondary characters. Carol’s future role is indeterminate; Daryl has been kidnapped into Negan’s Sanctuary maw to be imprisoned and tortured, future also indeterminate.

What worried me most – but no longer, because after this review, I will have joined the “Quitters Club” – has been the new stress on the overwhelming, driving-force of malevolence in the person of Negan. In the past, the Walking Dead gang fought evil, and largely defeated it.  They lopped off the heads of “walkers,” defied and fought gangs of rampaging marauders, and worked to create a livable “environment” during an apocalypse. They lived as rationally as they could in a world in which emergency ethics was the rule demanded of their survival.  Several characters stood out, Carol and Daryl among them who became favorites of The Walking Dead watchers. In general, most of the gang would not submit to the state of the world.

Total submission, a la Islam, on bent knee, before Negan
Until now. The leader, Rick Grimes, after six Seasons of leading his gang (and friends) to some semblance of safety and security, in the latest episode has submitted to Negan’s threats and killings, and is broken, so broken that he was willing to cut his son’s arm off at Negan’s command. It was Negan’s purpose to break him, to own him, to “make him mine.” If there was anyone left alive in the gang, Rick would now “lead” them in service and in subservience to Negan. Negan almost literally dances in joy after he’s used his bat on his vicitms.

Negan's Law: the baseball bat
In “Hillary and Negan: Parallels in Evil,” I draw a wholly justified parallel between Negan and Hillary Clinton. As Negan is a psychopathic power-luster who revels in the power he wields over his mob of awed and comfortably subservient “Survivors” (her unthinking supporters and the MSM) Clinton wishes to wield the same kind of power, but elevated to a scope beyond but hauntingly similar in all its attributes to Negan’s. Hillary would like to break Americans as Negan broke Rick Grimes. Their purposes, ends, and means dovetail to exactly the same power-wielding point. They comprise a mutual-nihilist society.

Make no mistake about it; Hillary is as much a nihilist as is Negan. Negan smiles in satisfaction when he sees the sobbing, pleading look in Rick’s eyes. Negan is a first-class jihadist at heart. He enjoys killing for the sake of killing. He relishes killing spirits and souls as much as he does lives, in the most horrible, gruesome ways possible. Hillary will gloat in public and in private, when more Americans are raped, murdered, and beaten by Muslim immigrants and Mexican illegals when she lets more of them in, just as Barack Obama has. She and Obama are the cold-hearted “humanitarians” their supporters and the MSM hope to bring down the country.
Hillary's Law: the baseball bat

Do you think Hillary isn’t made of the same stuff? Think again. Her nihilism is the only explanation of her policies and behavior ever since she entered “public service.”  Remember, she laughed about how a rapist she represented got off with a light sentence because of time served in a county jail, and how she victimized the rape victim again, and ruined the girl’s life.

Do Americans really want this hellacious, nihilistic harridan laughing at them from the Oval Office?

Saturday, October 22, 2016

The FEC and FCC Prepare Speech Nooses

American citizens are in for a double whammy of speech restrictions, and even of censorship.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) want to ratchet up the pressures on freedom of speech.

Two independent news blogs have bravely reported developments in this realm when they stand a chance of being “lawfully” obliterated by the government: The Daily Signal, and Accuracy in Media.

On the one hand, the FEC is a government agency that should not even exist. But it was pushed and encouraged by Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive, and so the initial legislation was introduced and passed by Congress, on the premise that regulating Big Business was the natural thing to do (re the  Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 of 1890, and other Federal regulations)

As early as 1905, Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor Senator Benjamin Tillman, banning corporate contributions. Further regulation followed in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1910, and subsequent amendments in 1910 and 1925, the Hatch Act, the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. These Acts sought to regulate corporate and union spending in campaigns for federal office, and mandated public disclosure of campaign donors.

But the urge to regulate corporate contributions during political campaigns can be dated to the immediate post-Civil War period.

Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the modern era of "campaign finance reform" in the United States begins with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and, more importantly, 1974 amendments to that Act. The 1971 FECA required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. The 1974 Amendments essentially rewrote the Act from top to bottom. The 1974 Amendments placed statutory limits on contributions by individuals for the first time, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an independent enforcement agency. It provided for broad new disclosure requirements, and limited the amounts that candidates could spend on their campaigns, or that citizens could spend separate from candidate campaigns to promote their political views.

Fred Lucas in The Daily Signal article of October 20th writes:

Books, movies, satellite radio shows, and streaming video about real-life politics aren’t protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, some government officials argue.

The Federal Election Commission hasn’t proposed banning books or movies, but in a 3-3 vote last month along party lines, the six-member panel left the regulatory option on the table.

But the six appointees are thinking about it. It’s an option “on the table.”  The FEC is divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. It is a “bipartisan” entity. The notion of “bipartisanship” politics is counterproductive, to say the least.  In a situation when decisions of enforcing or creating arbitrary power over free men  must be made, the most consistent party will always “win.” One party must compromise its principles, if it has any. The Republicans have no principles. Otherwise they would not have encouraged the creation of FEC. It is the Democrats, with their consistent, unswerving commitment to statism and the regulation of the private affairs of other men, who have been setting the terms and establishing the “moral high ground” of altruism – that is, sacrificing men and rights for the “greater good,” for the “community” – for over a century. The Republicans have always seconded that altruism, and said, “Me, too!”  Very few Republicans have maintained an explicit, articulate fealty to the founding principles of this nation.

It’s a good thing for me that the FEC hasn’t discovered my books, such as Trichotomy ( a roman à clef), set in 1929, on how the collectivists and Progressives will take over American education, or A Crimson Overture, how Reds and Pinks have infested the American government for decades, or We Three Kings, about an American entrepreneur who is “thrown under the bus” by the State Department to be killed at leisure by a Saudi sheik over a gold coin, or The Black Stone, in which the hero deals with the Muslim Brotherhood  killers as early as 1929.  They and other titles are prescient . But that would not matter. Each and every one of these titles, although they are fiction, could be deemed too provocative, blasphemous, injurious, or slanderous to allow their continued availability for sale and reading by “deplorable,” “every day” Americans. They certainly contain what could be interpreted as “partisan material.”

There really is no way to know what would be going through the minds of the FEC. If the proposal to regulate or prohibit the content of books, editorials, radio stations, and videos is “on the table,” it is too much to hope it would ever be taken “off the table.” The itch to control, regulate, or even prohibit is too tempting to resist scratching.

It’s doubtful that these appointees take any political fiction seriously, but it’s unnerving nevertheless to know that the option “is on the table” to banish a title or a program or an Internet news site they could easily put on a Federal Index Librorum Prohibitorum. A certain presidential candidate has already said that she wants Breitbart and InfoWars reduced to ashes. What’s to stop the FEC or the Department of Justice from targeting lesser known blog sites? Nothing.

Lucas continues:

The FEC hasn’t spoken in a unanimous voice about what Goodman and others say are basic matters of free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, various commission votes open the door to applying campaign finance laws to movies, books, and other media rarely ever considered before as campaign contributions.

In the past two years, the FEC, divided equally into Democrat and Republican factions, investigated books containing partisan material (among them a book by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.), a conspiratorial film disparaging President Barack Obama, and a Republican presidential debate on Fox News Channel.

While the presidentially appointed commission sanctioned neither Ryan’s publisher nor Fox News, it avoided granting the “press exemption” to either.
“Respect for the free press shouldn’t vary based on who is on the commission or on the content of the publication,” the FEC’s Lee Goodman says.

The exemption was designed to ensure that news organizations, which generally are corporations, cannot be accused of electioneering or making in-kind campaign contributions based on news reporting or commentary on political candidates. The law states, in part:

B) The term ‘expenditure’ does not include—
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; …

In one case, FEC member Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, suggested the “press exemption,” provided in campaign finance law,  doesn’t protect book publishers.

Weintraub then referred to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling, in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that organizations have free speech rights allowing them to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

The work we do need to do, which some of my colleagues, including Commissioner Goodman, have blocked for years, is to write rules that respond to Citizens United and the advent of super PACs. Sadly, even routine regulatory fixes have become nearly impossible to accomplish at the FEC.

This useful and almost entirely noncontroversial technological-modernization proposal has been bogged down for years. I decided to stick with the staff’s draft in the hope of getting this done without further delaying it with nongermane but substantive proposals.

And who is to determine what is and is not “nongermane” or “substantive”? Not you or me.

Six individuals – whether they are appointed or elected is immaterial – will determine after verbal cat fights in conference rooms over the future of free speech.

As though that were not “worrisome” enough, we are witnessing the disgraceful and damning spectacle of the major American news outlets not so much censoring what they report, but dispensing with objectivity and facts in their quest to guarantee the election of their preferred presidential candidate, and so crudely and transparently biased that few people take them at their word anymore.  Today’s MSM is comfortable with lies and outright fabrications.

The press, or the mainstream media (MSM), has usually been exempted from FEC regulations. We have grown inured to that. We have also grown inured to the blatant liberal bias of the MSM, so much so that it is largely held in contempt by Americans as a notoriously untrustworthy source of news.  ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and NPR have all been “electioneering” for over a year, without disguise or pretence. The New York Times,  the Washington Post, and countless smaller newspapers and magazines have gone hog wild “electioneering” without penalty or so much as a tut-tut from the FEC.

However, “charitable” organizations that fall under 501(c)3 regulations must remain mute. The FEC virtually acts as a policeman for the IRS to enforce 501(c)3 constraints.

The “guidelines” include:

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Let us now turn to the Federal Communications Commission.

Sold to the highest bidder!
Jerry Kenney in his October 21st article on Accuracy In Media  (AIM), “FCC Approves Foreign Takeover of  U.S. Broadcasters,”breaks the bad news:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on September 29th did something worse than give up control of the Internet. They voted unanimously to put America’s entire broadcast industry on the fast track to a foreign takeover by Chinese, Russian or Muslim Brotherhood front corporations.

This new FCC rule gives foreign interests the long sought-after tools they need to shape U.S. public opinion and to censor the opposition.

Once a foreign corporation scoops up a media business, such as a chain of radio stations, it can eliminate national and local programming and substitute its own government’s propaganda. That means that conservative talkers could find themselves off the air.

Off the air? There are so many candidates for microphone gagging and, on the Internet itself, so many blog sites that could now be turned blank and the reader advised: “Server not Found”! or “This site has been blocked for indecent or inappropriate content.” Indecent content could be calling the FCC wonks names, or criticizing Islam.

Says who?

The FCC? Or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)?  Or some petty local bureaucrat who has put a premium on publicly saying something “Islamophobic” about Muslims or Islam? Or some elitist FCC regulator who is empowered to control what you say or see and can pontificate about the “public service” of his power in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, which would allow no comments or rebuttals ?

Do you see how closely the FEC and FCC are linked in ideology? Kenney writes:

At the final FCC vote, Commissioner Ajit Pai said the new rule will “give broadcasters greater access to capital.” Accessing capital by selling 100 percent interest in a business? Isn’t that called selling out?
Only in Washington is a going-out-of-business sale called “accessing capital.” If accessing capital is the main issue, I guess by that standard we should repeal the laws that make bank robbery illegal, too. After all, aren’t bank robbers just accessing capital?

No, there is much more at stake here than just capital. It’s called a free and independent press. Thanks to the FCC, soon foreign interests will be able to masquerade as your friendly neighborhood TV or radio station (the national media sold out long ago). And you can count on them waving the American flag as they do it. Remember Al Jazeera America buying Al Gore’s Current TV?

The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have reported extensively on Chinese purchases of movie theater chains and Hollywood production companies, including a current bid to buy Dick Clark Productions. Chinese interests have also leased local underperforming AM radio stations in major U.S. markets such as Washington D.C. Based on the nature of those deals and their financial losses, it is clear that China’s interest in entering the U.S. media market is more to influence public opinion than to turn a profit.

Foreign, and especially Chinese, money has purchased great gobs of Hollywood studios. So it is no wonder that anti-Communist or even anti-Islam movies are completely absent from the big screen and TV.

Broadcasting is not just another pipe through which you deliver data. A broadcaster controls the message and the content.

So why did this happen? The current FCC commissioners are mostly lawyers and lobbyists with political connections to both political parties. These political parties depend on financial contributions from major corporations, including media corporations. They want the option of dumping their broadcast properties off on cash-heavy foreign buyers, no matter what impact it has on the public’s right to know.

The system is rigged, even in favor of the foreign interests buying up America.

Remember: China runs a very efficient and effective censorship system.

All tyranny, no matter how banal, is necessarily rigged against freedom of speech. Censorship is a kind of “Game of Thrones.” The goal in such a “fantasy” is the consolidation of power – over your mind, and over your life or your livelihood.