Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
(March 14, 2014)
In this day and age, anytime a politician even hints through written words or spoken words that the federal government should be involved in setting truth standards or accountability standards or any standards for talk shows of any kind in relation to political topics in the United States of America, a person who hears sees or hears the words should be worried greatly, especially since the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives the right to free political speech. In and around 2009, politicans--especially high-ranking U.S. Senators and U.S Congressmen who were Democrats--and some others, such as Liberal-based television commentators, were bringing up ideas of somehow limiting what could or could not be said on "radio" in the country, and the "radio" really referred to was "Conservative talk radio," and some of the talk by the people involved bringing back something that existed for a while in the country--the Fairness Doctrine--or doing something else. This document focuses on the Fairness Doctrine and other matters that might lead to censorship in the United States of America by those who would take away your freedoms and rights to political-based speech and your abillity to hear all types of ideas of political-based speech.
Let us look at some media history. Commercial radio has existed since 1920 in the U.S.A., and commercial television has existed since 1941. Although there was a type of cable television (really, CATV) from 1950s to the mid-1970s, modern cable television did not begin till the mid-1970s in the country. From the 1970s the early 1990s, television programming delivered by satellite existed in the country, but, really, the modern age of direct-to-home-by-satellite television service really took off in the 1990s, when Ku-band satellite systems began to exist in the marketplace. Satellite-delivered radio systems began to appear in the country in 2001, when XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio began as commercial operations. In the early 1990s, the Internet became available for commercial service in the country, and, in the mid-1990s, because of, for one, the availability of the Real-Audio streaming-audio system, radio stations began to do streaming of air signals on the Internet, and, in addition, Internet-only radio stations showed up. In the late 1990s, companies that had been known as "telephone companies" began to offer television service ("broadband service"). (I could put magazines and newspapers in this rough outline, too, since they are media, but I will leave them out.)
Now, I have to present a brief history of the Fairness Doctrine--not only for people who were born in the United States of America but also for those who were not and want to live better in the United States of America. In 1920, through authorization by the federal government, the commercial radio industry began, and the commercial radio industry was basically entities getting licenses (from the federal government) to operate radio stations as businesses (the selling of commercials to clients did not come till several years later, though), and commercial radio was AM radio (related to the AM radio band). In 1941, a rule was set down by the federal government that noted that radio stations could not do editorials (this happened during the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt period, and, of course, from 1941 to 1945, the United States of America was involved in World War II); the rule was informally called the "Mayflower" rule, because it had come about through Mayflower Broadcasting Company's attempt to acquire the radio license of radio station WAAB, which was owned by the Yankee Network and was in Worchester, New York. Incidentally, commercial FM radio began to get going in 1941, but it would not challenge AM radio for listeners till around the 1970s. In 1949, the "Mayflower" rule was amended, and the federal government began to allow radio stations to do some editorializing with "...a reasonably balanced presentation." That ruling became informally known as the "Fairness Doctrine." On April 4, 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was scrapped (for instance, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who wanted to free the marketplace of all restrictions, vetoed a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine), but people tried to get it reinstated through the court system, but the U.S. Supreme Court ended the issue of reinstating the rule on January 1, 1990, through a ruling.
Let me report some information about radio formats. Between about 1969 and March 1981, people were pressuring the federal government--particularly the Federal Communications Commission--to determine what format a radio station could have and when it could or could not change format, and, on March 24, 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the FCC did not have to get involved in setting formats for radio stations and determining when radio stations could change formats. Today, it is the operator or owner of a radio station that determines what format will be used, such as a rock-and-roll-music format or a sports format, and when the format will be changed.
Here is a bit of history about "talk radio." In the 1970s, radio listeners, especially younger people, were choosing to listen to music on radio stations on the FM band over radio stations on the AM band, or, in essence, AM radio stations were losing listeners to FM radio stations, the former of which began to lose revenue and the latter of which began to gain revenue (because it had more listeners and could charge more for advertising or commercials). As radio programmers had to give up on offering as much music on radio stations on AM stations as they had before, they changed to other formats (trying to not go bankrupt), and one of the formats was "talk radio," in which a radio host talked about subjects and had listeners call in and make comments). In the 1970s, the use of satellites to distribute programs to radio stations around the country was replacing the use of records tapes and the use of telephone lines, and, in the 1980s, using satellites to distribute programming became the preferred method, and satellites allowed companies to distribute talk-show programming of, for example, stations in New York City, New York, to other cities easily. Since the late 1980s, "talk radio" focusing on political ideas has been a really viable format for radio, especially AM radio stations, and, generally speaking, the people who can been considered "Libertarians" (which should not be confused with "Liberals") or "Conservatives" have done better with talk radio than Liberals have, and one reason is the latter group has a hard time proving their political ideas are sound through the presentation of facts and data since the ideas can be unsound (but Liberals seem to do better with television than Conservatives do, because television audiences are less reliant on facts and data than radio audiences are and are more impressed with the visual presentation over facts). Remember: The only things that radio shows can present are facts and figures through audio (or sound), and television can present information through video and audio--and video gets more attention than audio does (for instance, with television, the looks or appearance of anchors can be a reason that the audience tunes in, but, with radio, looks and appearance mean nothing), and so people who do television talk shows can cover up the lack of real facts with nice visuals. A talk radio show that exists on a radio station can be either a radio show that is produced by the radio station or be a radio show that is produced in another city by some type of company and syndicated to the radio station.
Keep in mind: Generally speaking, from the late 1940s to the mid-1980s, the Fairness Doctrine existed for only radio; it did not exist for television, cable television, direct-to-home-by satellite television, newspapers, magazines, or the Internet.
In January 2009/February 2009, the U.S. Congress was working on a big "stimulus" bill, which became known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (when it was signed on February 17, 2009). The bill was a fake "stimulus" bill, as was shown through many radio talk-show hosts around the country, who, for instance, got information about the bill from the Heritage Foundation. While the bill was being put together (by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress), very little about the bill (the proposed law) was being reported to the American public buy such entitles as ABC-TV, CBS-TV, NBC-TV, and MSNBC; by the way, in addition, when the bill for the law was voted on, almost no one in the U.S. Congress (U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives) had read the bill. For example, some of what the American public did not learn about the bill through the so-called main media entities, especially NBC-TV and MSNBC, and did learn about through radio talk-show hosts was the bill had the beginning structure for a national-health-care system contained within it (which has nothing to do with "stimulating" the economy and which, if it turns out like the national-health-care systems in Britain and Canada, will lead to the rationing of health care, especially for elderly, and the losing of a person's ability to choose a specific doctor). (Oh, the bill that became the federal act had been passed by the U.S. Congess about four days before Barack Obama signed it into law; Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress had pressed upon the American public that the bill had to be passed quickly, or there would be a catastrophe, and I say that that shows more of the garbage of Barack Obama.)
Really, the underlying issue about the Fairness Doctrine or whatever is created comes down to a political battle between (1) Democrats and Socialists (and such) and (2) Republicans (especially Conservatives and Libertarians), and the battle is that group number one wishes to give group number two a harder time to present political ideas to the public, especially through "talk radio" shows, and, also, the political battle comes down to mostly the Democrats (especially in the U.S. Congress and Barack Obama) trying to stop citizens from expressing their political thoughts over radio, which is about the only place where they can express their political thoughts publicly.
Here, I must present quotations of only some of the persons who have supported reinstating the Fairness Doctrine or creating something that sets up censorship, and I do it so that an individual can understand what persons are filled with nonsense thoughts and are dangerous to the individual.
Dick Durban (a Democrat speaking in June 2000 on the U.S. Senate floor):
"...I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'd really wish, ah, that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the Senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the Senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government--speaking for the people of this country--have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?...."
Dianne Feinstein (a Democrat and a U.S. Senator related to California; in 2007):
"...Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive, ah, it's, it's, it's pushes people to--I think--extreme views without a lot of information." [A question is asked her about whether or not she would revive the doctrine.] "Well, I'm looking at it...because I think, hum, there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side, and, unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way...."
John Kerry (a Democrat and a U.S. Senator related to Massachusetts; stated in June 2007):
"...Well, I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance in the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements, and the result is that, dah, who know they've been able to squeeze down and squeeze out, ah, opinion, ah, of opposing views. I think it's been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public...."
Debbie Stabenow (a Democrat and a U.S. Senator related to Michigan; stated on February 5, 2009):
"...I think it's absolutely time to, ah, pass a standard. Now whether it's called the fairness standard, whether it's called something else, I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency in, you know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place...." [For more, you should see the document entitled T.H.A.T. #58, which can be reached at T.H.A.T. #58.]
Bill Clinton (a Democrat and a former U.S. President; said on a Spanish-language-based media outlet on Thursday, February 12, 2009):
"...Well, you either outta have the Fairness Doctrine or we oughta have more balance on the other side, because, essentially, there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows. And let's face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he's saying things that I think are ridiculous....I never minded having somebody be heard who disagreed with me, but if you only have one side like this, this blatant drum beat against the stimulus program, this doesn't reflect the economic reality that we're facing...." [The stimulus program referred to was and is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was signed in law on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, and the law is a garbage law, which, for one, started the procedure to create a national-health-care system in the country, and, remember, the bloated bill on which the law is based was rammed through the U.S. Congress by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, and, basically, the final bill, which was over 1,000-pages long, was not read completely (given lack of time) by those who were supposed to vote on it, and it was talk-radio industry that enlightened the public about how bad the bill was, getting help from, for instance, the Heritage Foundation. Incidentally, the big money that supports the talk-radio industry comes from commercials that are bought on programs by companies and businesses, and the television industry involves much, much, much more money, since commercials on television are much, much, much more expensive than commercials on radio are.]
[For more, you should see the document entitled T.H.A.T. #59, which can be reached at T.H.A.T. #59.]
By the way, only a few of the other people who have recently talked about some type of law or rule about "fairness" or "accountability" or "localism" or "viewpoint neutrality" in talk radio have been Tom Brokaw (who is affiliated, for instance, with NBC-TV) and Tom Harken (a Democrat and a U.S. Senator related to Iowa), and Chuck Schumer (a Democrat and a U.S. Senator related to New York).
Consider what is being done. The people who want the censorship system might set up a Fairness Doctrine, put pressure on radio stations about providing "localism" and make the radio stations subject to losing broadcast licenses, and create a national review board or local review boards involved in setting standards. In essence, if the federal government works to set standards and block speech, you should see the federal government will be using money--the money of yours and the money of other citizens--to put down radio and block ideas and thoughts from you, and the federal government will be using money to stop you from being heard on radio. If the censorship pressure of some type is put in force, it can be seen that some people in the federal government worked to put businesses (radio businesses) out of business, and that is bad and that is Marxism, or there will be a loss of revenue to radio companies and employees. If local boards related to setting up accountability standards or whatever are set up, there will be the wasted cost of administrating the logs or diaries or whatever that note events and report events to parties that might wish to have time for opposing views.
Now I have information from an article from WorldNetDaily.com from May 2, 2009 (Zahn, Drew. "MEDIA MATTERS: 31 horsemen of talk radio's apocalypse?: FCC anoints 'diversity' panel with 'Fairness Doctrine' mission." WorldNetDaily.com, 2 May 2009, p. NA.). The article notes that a diversity panel (or advisory committee) has been created by the FCC, and what is being done is Barack Obama and the FCC (which is under the control of Barack Obama) are going to set up making it so that the radio industry will have more "diversity of ownership," unlike what television, newspapers, and magazines have to have, and the panel, which is made up of, for example, liberal or left-wing or Marxist groups, has thirty-one members. Some of those members are Henry Rivera (of the Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media), Raul Alarcon (of the Spanish Broadcasting System), Maria E. Brennan (of American Women in Radio and Television), Alan B. Davidson (of Google, Inc.), David Honig (of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council), Debra Lee (BET Holdings, Inc.), Mark H. Morial (of the National Urban League), Karen K. Naraski (of the Asian American Justice Center), Jake Oliver (of Afro-American Newspapers), Rey Ramsey (of One Economy Corporation), and James Winston (of the National Assoication of Black Owned Broadcasters). The panel has no "conservative" group involved, and the panel is really a one-sided "think tank," which is supposed to make recommendations for policy that Barack Obama can adopt, working to put or force more minorities and women, who are more likely to be liberal than conservative, into positions where they can control the content of radio stations, and, of course, the ultimate goal of Barack Obama's is to shut down conservative-based talk shows..
Now, let me add some disturbing pieces of information. On April 4, 2009, WorldNetDaily.com published a story on the Internet entitled "LIKE WITH BIG BROTHER: Will bill give Obama control of the Internet? Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention" (Zahn, Drew. "LIKE WITH BIG BROTHER: Will bill give Obama control of the Internet? Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention." WorldNetDailly, 4 April 2009, p. NA.), and it talked about the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, especially two bills known as Senate Bill No. 773 and Senate Bill No. 778, which, for one, would give the federal government easier access to private computer networks and the data on those networks, and the main sponsor of this proposed act was Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat of West Virginia. In 2008 and 2009, a number of newspapers in the country closed down, such as The Rocky Mountain News, and some have gone backrupt or gone into backruptcy protection, and, on April 20, 2009, John Conyers, a U.S. Representative related to Michigan held a hearing about the status of the newspaper industry in the country ("Conyers gets tough on newspapers." Detroit Free Press, 26 April 2009, p. 17A.), and it makes me think some big newspaper companies might ask for federal bailout loans, which would result in the federal government becoming direct operators of newspapers in the country, which has not happened before and which would be bad, bad, bad (see Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which talks about John Conyers and which can be reached through the link provided at the end of this document, and see the document entitled Never Forget these Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the Individual in the United States of America, which can be reached through the link at the end of this document).
If you are yet not convinced that Barack Hussein Obama and members of the Democratic Party of the U.S. Congress are working to make freedom of speech a thing of the past, you should read the September 22, 2009, segment of my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which provides the text of a speech that was made by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (a Republican related to Kentucky) about how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (a federal government agency) sent out a gag order on Monday, September 21, 2009, that noted that insurance companies dealing in Medicare Advantage could not report to customers information about what was being proposed in the health-care legislation that existed in the U.S. Congress at the time, and it was U.S. Senator Max Baucus (a Democrat related to Montana) who was instrumental in setting up the censorship.
In the end, you will always have to wonder: What makes up a controversial issue, how can you define the standards, and what individuals get to set the standards?
Oh, I first heard reports in early 2009, such as around February 17, 2009, that some individuals of the federal government are thinking about setting up censorship of the Internet (China censors the Internet within China).
WARNING: Censorship like a dictator: Then a big event happened on Thursday, October 22, 2009, and it was an attempt by Barack Obama to control the press as if he were like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Fidel Castro of Cuba. On that Thursday, Barack Obama was going to make Kenneth Feinberg, who is informally called the "Pay Czar," available to the press--except the Fox News Channel (the Fox News Channel and Barack Obama had already been in a public-relations war for several days). What happen is the bureau chiefs of the five main broadcast networks in Washington, D.C., told Barack Obama that they would not show up if the Fox News Channel was not allowed to show up. ("Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview." FoxNews.com, 23 October 2009.).
WARNING: The potential censorship crew: In 2009, Barack Obama made some appointments. Early in the year, Vivek Kundra, who shoplifted from JCPenney when he was in his early twenties, was made the Federal Chief Information Office, and Aneesh Chopra was made the U.S. Chief Technology Officer. Late in the year, Howard Schmidt was named the "Cyber Security Czar."
Around Thursday, January 21, 2010, Barney Frank was a U.S. Representative related to Massachusetts, and on this date, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision about how all people, even those in corporations and unions, could use money in elections. Remember: A corporation can be a business that is as simple as a stand-alone gasoline station or ice-cream shop to company owning dozens of grocery stores to a big automobile dealership chain. People began to make comments about the decision soon after the decision was announced, and some people showed that they promote censorship of businesses but not, for example, unions, in relation to campaign financing, and one of the persons was Barney Frank, and here is one statement that Barney Frank made: "...Fortunately, there is an approach we can take. What we can do that's perfectly possible and constitutionally I believe unassailable.is to impose restrictions as a matter of corporate law on what corportations can do. We can limit what corporations do! And, ah, we limited not as a matter campaign finance regulation per si, but as a matter of corporate law, we will be cooperating with the Obama administration and drafting the toughest posssible constitutional legislation to prevent the drowning of American democracy in corporate dollars. There's no other way to say it...." Barack Obama has been attacking all businesses--from hair salons to banks since January 20, 2009--such as by noting that he is going to increase taxes, and Barney Frank is trying to find a way to limit the amount of money that businesses will be able to put toward election campaigns--those that will probably be against Barack Obama in 2012. Remember: Unions--or the management of union--promoted Barack Obama for U.S. President through campaign dollars.
On Thursday, January 21, 2010, in the evening, Mark R. Levin talked about the U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (January 21, 2010) during his nationally syndicated radio show, and Mark R. Levin talked about how it had come about through the work of a man named David Bossie, who was associated with Citizens United, who had made a 2008 film about Hillary Clinton, showing why she was not qualified to be the U.S. President, and had been blocked from distributing the movie by Federal Election Commission, which was basing its push on election rules contained within the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (which is also known as the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002), and here are some parts of the interview that Mark R. Levin did on that day with David Bossie:
Here is one part, which took place at the beginning:
Mark Levin: "...McCain-Feingold Bill, he could literally go to jail over it. Isn't that right David?"
David Bossie: "That is exactly right, Mark. They told me I could go to jail for five years per, ah, criminal code violation."
Mark Levin: "And who told you that?"
David Bossie: "The, the Federal Election Commission."
Mark Levin tried to say something, but David Bossie spoke over him.
David Bossie: "The bureaucrats, the bureaucrats at the FEC said, 'You can't show your movie, ah, on, on...video-on-demand even, if people want to participate, meaning they affirmatively say they want to watch it, they can't even do that.' Ah, we can't, we can't show ads so that people can buy the DVD. We can't, we can't put ads up on the air and say go watch the movie in a movie theater. Ah, so, yeah, we, we were totally shut down, and I said, 'That's not right.'...."
David went on to say that he decided to sue the Federal Election Commission first, before it could bring up proceedings against him, and that led to the court case
At one point, David brought up the idea that he had tried to get a media exemption (the media was exempt from following the rules of the McCain-Feingold Act, so since he was a filmmaker, he thought he could be exempt), and, officially, here is what David said to Mark R. Levin: "...And I went to the Federal Election Commission this year, and I said, hum, I said, and I said, 'Could I get the media exemption, because I make documentary movies?' And they said, 'No, no, no. No, no, no. You're not The New York Times. You're not, ah, GE. You're not, ah, The Washington Post. ..You don't get the media exemption, ah, because you're a political group' And, so, I said, 'Ha! All right, I'm gonna have to sue ya.'..."
The two--Mark R. Levin and David Bossie--covered a number of topics. David Bossie noted that the case began to be associated with the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2008, and he noted that the first argument to the U.S. Supreme Court was made in March 2009, and then, in June 2009, the work for a rehearing was started, involving an expanded case (under the push of the U.S. Supreme Court), and, in September 2009, the new expanded issue was put before the U.S. Supreme Court. Later, David talked about how a U.S. Justice had brought up the idea to the opposing attorney that noted, if the movie would have been a book (having any mention of a political candidate), could the book be banned, and the opposing attorney said, in essence, the book could be banned, and the idea about banning books now became an important part of the case, and when talking about this subject in relation to the second hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, David said, "...And then in the September argument, Justice Ginsberg, who was trying to do the new Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, a favor and bring it up to clarify, said, 'Has the position changed on the, on, on, on the book issue, because back in March, we visited this issue, and we need to clarify it?' And the Solicitor General, herself, hum, said, 'Well, you know what, it is, we do have the constitutional authority to do so, but trust us, we've never prosecuted anybody for it.' What in turn got the Chief Justice Roberts to lean across the desk and say, 'We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.' ...In both oral arguments, the issue of banning books is what won me the day." [The Solicitor General, who is associated with the U.S. Department of Justice, tries cases for the federal government before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Solicitor General to whom David Bossie referred was Elena Kagan.]
In essence, the vote to give David Bossie the win or the loss came down to either allowing the FEC to ban books or not ban books. Here are the U.S. Justices who voted in favor of David Bossie: John Roberts (the Chief Justice), Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Here are the Justices who against David Bossie and, in turn, would vote for allowing the government to ban certain books under a McCain-Feingold-type law: John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor. (You are urged to see the "Sonia Sotomayor" section of my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.)
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decision did more than block the potential to ban books, and one thing it did was allow businesses to be able do all that unions are allowed to do (for example, the McCain-Feingold bill had allowed unions to give money at times when business could not). (You should see the document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, particularly the section about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his "not true" response of sorts to a Barack Obama statement on January 27, 2010, and the document can be reached using the link at the end of the document.)
So, you may think--"Nah! A U.S. Supreme would never impose censorship! The federal government would never ban books and videos!" If you believe that, you are naive. I can prove it is possible that the federal government could ban books and videos in the future by showing what is in the mind of a woman named Elena Kagan. On Monday, May 10, 2010, Barack Obama presented to the public and the press a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court--Elena Kagan; then, Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for the federal government. In my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", I have a section entitled "Elena Kagan," and you will find information about what Elena Kagan is, and she is at least a socialist, if not hard-core communist, but what the section does not have is this quotation from Elena Kagan--"...Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs...." That statement was contained in the brief related to a case on which Elena Kagan was on the losing side--United States v. Stevens (which was basically under consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court from April 20, 2009, to April 20, 2010). Study what was meant in the statement from Elena Kagan. You should see she is a person who would be involved in censorship--she would censor certain categories of speech or certain topics of speech. You should ask yourself--Who would determine what categories would allowed and not allowed and what entities would Elena Kagan like to determine what categories of speech could be allowed or not allow? The First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution allows a person to speak freely--especially about politics--and not be killed or imprisoned, which happens in communist countries. By the way, the court case known as United States v. Stevens was decided in an eight-to-one vote, and to reach my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", you can use this link: Crud.
On June 1, 2010, news reached the public, such as through an article in The Hill newspaper, that another event was taking place that people were working to silence opposition in the press to Barack Obama, such as members of conservative talk radio, and I first heard about the event through Mark Levin, the host of the nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show, on June 2, 2010. Mark R. Levin talked about the article in The Hill (Nagesh, Gautham. "Groups want FCC to police hate speech on talk radio, cable news networks." The Hill, 1 June 2010, 01:02 p.m. ET.), in which it was noted that a group of about thirty entities made a presentation letter to the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees broadcast stations, cable entities, and more. What Mark R. Levin made clear is that the group of groups wants the FCC to monitor radio and cable broadcast news for hate speech. Here is a portion of what Mark R. Levin said (a portion of which is from the article): "...Gee, who do you think they're aiming at, Fox and conservative talk radio? 'A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the pubic to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news. The groups also charge that syndicated radio and cable television programs "masquerading as news" use hate as a profit model. [Mark R. Levin left out some material between the sentence ending with "model" and the next sentence listed here.] The organizations, which include Free Press, the Center for Media Justice, the Benton Foundation and Media Alliance, also argue that the anonymity of the Web gives ammunition to those that would spread hate.'" So, that is some of what I heard, and now you are aware of the event. And Mark R. Levin also said at one point: "...So they don't like the Internet, and they don't like talk radio. Another words, they don't like liberty, and they don't like America. That's right I said it! These phony front groups are all left-wing radical statist groups, funded by the usual left-wing radical statist foundations and millionaires and billionaires. They're front groups. Some of them have ethnic titles. Some of them pretend they're for free speech. Whatever their titles, whatever their camouflage, they are what they are--Marxist-oriented, free-speech hating enterprises that actually what the FCC to shut down this show and other shows and to regulate the Internet, like red China, like Russia, like Saudi Arabia, like Burma, like Cuba, like Venezuela, like Iran...." Yes, Mark R. Levin is one person who is working to present truth to the American public.
Historic days can be either good or bad, since early November 2008, the country has had a number of bad historic days, some of which are the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America, the inauguration of Barack Obama as the President of the United States of America, the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, and the passing of what is informally called the "DISCLOSE Act" by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 24, 2010 (. On June 24, 2010, Mark R. Levin took up the topic of the passing of the "Disclosure Act" on his nationally syndicated radio show, which is entitled The Mark Levin Show, which happened, in essence, minutes after the bill had passed the U.S. House of Representatives. He took up the topic by doing an interview with Cleta Mitchell, a campaign finance attorney and a free-speech expert. Here is what happened during much of the first hour of The Mark Levin Show on June 24, 2010:
Mark Levin: "First of all, I want you to remind people what this 'DISCLOSE Act" is all about and, and what it is really intended to do."
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, people may remember that, in January, the Supreme Court, after, ah, much effort on a part of a number of people who believe in free speech and the First Amendment, handed down a decision that said that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment for Congress to prohibit corporations from making candidate-related expenditures that are independent of a candidate so that a corporation--if, ah, the Democrats went crazy, they, they went crazy--because they all of the sudden are afraid that small business around the country will hand things out to their customers and vendors and that, and the conservative- ah, issue organizations will be able to criticize them in the fall election, and so they have, ah, they have been hyperventilation since January over this decision, which really just unshackled small business and sa, citizen groups who happen to be incorporated. And the, let's be honest, we're not gonna see the Coca-Cola ads support or opposing candidates because--I've only said--any corporation big enough to have a vice president for government relations isn't really..."
Mark Levin (laughing): "...Good point."
Cleta Mitchell: "...and so, you know, that's, that's what they say they're fearful of, but what they're really afraid of is citizens organizations, the grassroots organizations--and if you can believe this--they put in this bill, they say, 'Oh, it's just disclosure.' Well, no it's not! If you want to, ah, run an ad that--say you're a 501(c)(4) citizens organizations, you know that's, that's what grassroots organizations are--you want to run an ad or hand out materials without a candidate--that's just independent of a candidate, just says, 'We, we don't like this person.' We want to tell them they voted for Obama care, and we need to get rid of them--ah, then you, and you get, get a contribution from a corporate entity, the head of that corporation has to be listed, you have to list everybody who's given money to your organization over a certain amount, going back for, ah, man, two years. And then they put together this, these carve outs. They carved out the unions. They've carved out the NRA and other organizations...."
Mark Levin: "Well, let's, let's, let's take a step back. Let's..."
Cleta Mitchell: "It's just terrible, terrible."
Mark Levin: "Basically, what we have here are liberals parsing out speech--who gets to speak and who doesn't before an election. It's that basically what's going on here?"
Cleta Mitchell: "That's exactly what's going on. And..."
Mark Levin: "So a...."
Cleta Mitchell: "...in fact, it's like Congress has, is handing out speech licenses. You can have one. You can...I mean...."
Mark Levin: "That's a great way put it!"
Cleta Mitchell: "You know?"
Mark Levin: "Yup! Yup! And I'm, I'm going to tell you something. This, this, this is really a direct assault on the Bills of Rights and the First Amendment, and, dah, and it's gonna receive minimal coverage, and notice, Cleta, how they twist this--that this is disclosure, when, in fact, what it's intended to do is smother speech. You run these ads...."
Cleta Mitchell: "Right."
Mark Levin: "...right before an election. Ah...."
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, it's very Orwellian to call it...."
Mark Levin: "...That...."
Cleta Mitchell: "...disclose."
Mark Levin: "Well, you run an ad right before an election, the CEO is my understanding, you have to have his face on the ad...."
Cleta: "Oh, yes!"
Mark Levin: "...have...."
Cleta Mitchell: "The top five, the top five donors--if you have cor, let's say corporate contributions--you have to put them in the ad, and they have to say, 'They approve this ad.' Well, then there's no, there's no time left to say your message. The government is telling you what to say in the time period that you've paid for."
Mark Levin: "Who authored this bill?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Chuck Schumer and, ah, Chris Van Hollen. Chris Van Hollen is the chairman of the House Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And Chuck Schumer was--we all know who he is--he, he was the shakedown artist who got more money from Wall Street for the Democratic Senate Committee, the two terms that he was chairman of the Senate Committee to elect the Democrats in oh six and oh eight. People don't realize that, that the vast majority of Wall Street money, ah, during the past decade has gone to Democrats not Republican. It's just. It's. But you're right, the media does not cover this. But guess why? Because they're exempt from all of these regulation. A citizens organization...."
Mark Levin: "...what, what we have here the head of the campaign effort for the House Democrats...."
Cleta Mitchell: "Correct!"
Mark Levin: "...former head for the campaign effort for the Senate Democrats sat down, wrote a bill to fix the system. I don't mean reform it! I mean fix the outcome like a mob so that their people can speak more--are people, meaning mostly conservatives, can, ah, won't be able to speak as much and the quote unquote business community, they're treated like second-class citizens. Meanwhile, the unions can pretty much speak whenever the hell they want to."
Cleta Mitchell: "You got it! That's it! That's exactly described it perfectly. That's exactly what this bill does. And it passed by one vote today."
Mark Levin: "...passed in the House. What was the vote?"
Cleta Mitchell: "It was two-nineteen to, um. I'll tell you in one second. There were only two Republicans who voted it."
Mark Levin: "So two Republicans voted for this?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, one of them was, ah, Mike Castle from Delaware...."
Mark Levin: "All right."
Cleta Mitchell: "...who is...."
Mark Levin: "That does it! Excuse me, Cleta! That does it with that guy! I can't take that guy anymore! Cap and trade! Against free speech! I don't know, I'm gonna find out who's runnin' against this guy in the Republican primary, and I've gotta. I mean, I know he's the overwhelming favorite. I don't care! There needs to be a spotlight on this man!"
Cleta Mitchell: "Yeah. He, he was ca, he was a co-author of the bill. He was...."
Mark Levin: "Castle?"
Cleta Mitchell: "...co-author of the bill. And what's interesting is the other co-author was Walter Jones from North Carolina, Republican from North Carolina. But he saw the light and got off the bill and voted 'no.' But not Mike Castle. He voted 'yes.' And the other one who voted for it was that, dah, House member from Louisiana...."
Mark Levin: "Cao?"
Cleta Mitchell: "...Cao. Um hum."
Mark Levin: "Cao."
Cleta Mitchell: "Who...."
Mark Levin: "Well, he's a political dead man walking, so he keeps casting votes, ah, that are intended to undermine, ah, conservatives. But this really is a free-speech issue. Now, my understanding is some of the left-wing groups agree with us. Or am I wrong?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, now. The ACLU, ah...opposed it. Now, what happened last week was that, when the NRA wrote a letter in opposition to the bill just before Memorial Day, the, ah, House Democratic leadership decided they would, ah, exempt the NRA from the coverage of the bill and, ah, extract NRA's commitment to, ah, be...."
Mark Levin: "Quite."
Cleta Mitchell: "...silent and not do anything on the bill. So they didn't do anything, and so then when that announcement was made a week ago that the NRA was exempt, it caused all the organizations on the left to get angry, and so then a number of them, um, said, 'Well, they would then oppose it, ah, ah, with the NRA exception or exemption in it.' It's. But, again, you, you put your finger on it. This is Congress handing out speech licenses. Well, our right to speak doesn't come from Congress. It comes from the First Amendment and The Constitution of the United States of America. It does not come from Nancy Pelosi's thugs in the House."
Mark Levin: "Damn right!"
Cleta Mitchell: "Or...."
Mark Levin: "And I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell ya something, Cleta. I'm gonna tell you something. You wrote a beautiful op-ed in The Washington Compost [The Washington Post is the correct name, but Mark Levin uses a joke name for the entity]. I read you're op-ed on the air. Ah, and. I read your op-ed on the air. And, dah, you are a board member of the NRA. Are you still on there, or have they thrown you off yet?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, you know, I thought about resigning, but what's interesting is I stopped and thought about it, and I re. We're elected to the NRA board. I received tens of thousands of votes from NRA members across the country. And I thought I'm not going to resign, and they can't throw me off, because I was elected by the, by NRA members and I...."
Mark Levin: "I, I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that one of those in the leadership said, dah, 'Look we don't have to agree with all these groups. We don't have to defend every aspect of the Bill of Rights. We have our iss. I said, 'What the hell is that?' What are you talkin' about? The First Amendment and the Second Amendment go together."
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, and historically the NRA has been a, a strong defender of the First Amendment--strong defender of, of--opponent of these kind of speech police, speech regulations, and, in fact, has, you know, was one of the first groups to challenge McCain-Feingold and has always said, 'If the First Amendment goes, guess what's next?' And it's very disappointing to me, and I think that the next thing people need to say to the NRA and its leadership and to every group--and...particularly the NRA--'All right. Turn your attention on Harry Reid. Turn your attention on John Tester or some of these Senate Democrats who contend or pretend that they're pro-Second Amendment, and see if you can't influence them ta, to say, 'We're not gonna vote for this bill.' Right now, guess who's saying, 'They're not going to vote for it' on the Democratic side? The two biggest opponents of the Second Amendment--Frank Lautenberg and, ah, Dianne Feinstein."
Mark Levin: "Um hum. Because of the, because of the exemption for the NRA?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Right. Which is the ultimate irony. Which. But I, I just think it never ever satisfies, or it's never sufficient justification to make a deal if it's not on principle, and it's just very discouraging to me this decision was made, and I think that it's, ah, I think it was a wrong decision, and I, I just said, 'I couldn't, I couldn't not speak out.' And as a NRA border member, the first thing that I do, as a board member when you take office, is you're sworn in. And guess what the oath says? I asked, I got out the oath last Tuesday after I knew about this decision, and I got out the oath that I had just sworn to, and I'd taken this in May at the annual meeting: 'I hereby solemnly swear and affirm to protect, preserve, and defend The Constitution of the United States."
Mark Levin: "Um hum."
Cleta Mitchell: "We take an oath."
Mark Levin: "You cannot parse The Constitution. And they, and if they divide us, they will conquer us. Now, you think we can stop this in the Senate with a filibuster?"
Cleta Mitchell: "We, we have to really work hard, and we have to thank Mitch McConnell. Thank goodness Mitch McConnell is a diehard defender of the First Amendment!"
Mark Levin: "....absolutely is."
Cleta Mitchell: "He is. He is unwavering, and he has, he, he went to the Senate floor this morning and made a speech out this bill, even before it comes over to the Senate and talked about its assaulted on the First Amendment. But people need to be calling, ah, their Senators and, and demanding that their Senators vote against it and support Mitch McConnell and support the, the filibuster and keep this thing from coming to the floor. Because guess who is sittin' in the White House...chomping at the bit to sign it?
Mark Levin: "And he praised it today. He, he congratulated the House...."
Cleta Mitchell: "Of course, he does...."
Mark Levin: "Yeah, he loves this."
Cleta Mitchell: "This is Chicago politics at its best!"
Mark Levin: "So, it's not enough to be, it's not enough to be an American citizen. You have to be an American citizen who is a member of a certain group or who supports certain, a certain ideology in order to be able to speak in this country. Isn't that what it comes down to?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, according to these people. I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell that this will, ah, pass constitutional muster, but they, normally in these kinds of bills, there's an, an expedited judicial review process, which is not here in this one, because they're only trying to impact one election, and that's this November. That's what these people are trying to do. And they've been brazen about saying that. And they, there's some Democrats...."
Mark Levin: "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute! I want you to listen to one of these guys. Mister Producer, you have cut five? I want you. Cleta Mitchell, Foley and Lardner, wonderful law firm, a top campaign-finance attorney and free-speech advocate in this nation, it's an honor to have you on this program, Cleta. I want you to listen to Democrat from Georgia, Hank Johnson [Henry Johnson], today, ah, discussing, discussing this. Right, Mister Producer? Hat tip to Breitbart! Go!"
This was the Henry Johnson audio clip: "Why are the Republicans opposed to restricting campaign donations in American campaigns...local, state and federal. Why? It's because Republicans favor big business. And big business favors Republicans. With all of these unlimited dollars flowing through, we'll see more Republicans getting elected...."
Mark Levin: "Stop! Stop! There you go. First of all, you have already pointed out that big-businesses dollars goes mostly to Demo. Number two, big businesses don't donate to candidates. That prohibited. Number three, we're talking about independent advocacy ads prior to an election. That's what they reject. And, Cleta Mitchell, you hit right on it. They know this is unconstitutional. They want this in place now, because they figure, by the time this gets to the Supreme Court in three or four or five years, they'll get through a few campaign elections cycles, don't they?"
Cleta Mitchell: "That's what they're counting on. I'm hoping that we can, ah, number one, ah, keep it from passing the Senate, and, if it by chance, unfortunately, if some Republican caves, which we hope, we hope doesn't happen, we hope all the Republicans will stay put, and we thin--we ought be calling on some of these Democrats who say that they are conservative quote unquote, at least Ben Nelson, John Testor, some of these guys."
Mark Levin: "Listen. I, I got go. Don't hang up, Cleta Mitchell! I want to come back with you. We have a hard break...."
The program went to a commercial break.
Mark Levin: "I'm going to make this DISCLOSE Act so famous. I'm going to make this damn this so famous, ladies and gentlemen. This is the greatest assault on free speech in this country since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Do you agree with me, eh, Cleta Mitchell?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Oh, absolutely.... Can I send you the, ah, roll call of who voted how, so you'll have it at your finger tips. I'm sitting here looking at it."
Mark Levin: "Yes. We'd loved the link, and we'll put it up on my Web site."
Cleta Mitchell: "All right. Ah, it's...after this, just tell me where to send it. But people need to know how their respresentative voted. And they need to be callin' their Senators. They need to be callin' their Senator!"
Mark Levin: "I mean this, this is so thuggish, it is so crude. I mean, do you realize, in some respects, ah, people are freer in Russia today than they are in this country? It's ap. I mean they're criminalizing speech right now by some of us, by some entities that they don't like. And on the other, in the other hand, groups that they do like that support them are much freer to speak. This, I, you know, I never thought I see this in our country...."
Cleta Mitchell: "...pretty outrageous...."
Mark Levin: "...And then Obama puts out a statement praising this."
Cleta Mitchell: "Well, this is, this is the kind of thing that he and, ah, Rahm Emanuel and, eh, David Axelrod, this, this is the kind they love. They, they love to try to, ah, basically turn everybody who opposes them into some sort of criminal. That's, that's their, that's their, that's the way they operate."
Mark Levin: "Now, are there criminal provisions in this statute?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Of course, there are! Of course...."
Mark Levin: "So, if you violate it, you can go to jail."
Cleta Mitchell: "Of course, there are! There's, ah, I mean, I, I've literally been thinking about the fact this is so contrary to law, the law and The Constitution and the Supreme Court's decisions that, I, you know, I, my job as I advise people how they can participate in the political process without running afoul of the law, and I've just been thinking in the past week, if this becomes law, how can I tell people, 'Gee, you have to abide by this, even though I now it's completely unconstitutional.' I'm almost not certain we shouldn't plan for civil disobedience and tell people, you know, ah,...."
Mark Levin: "Defy it! Defy it and ignore it!"
Cleta Mitchell: "Defy the law. The problem, of course, is there are those criminal penalties for willful and knowing violation. That's. But actually the other thing is this is so complicated, this is so complicated and complex, and so difficult, I'm not sure that even a court will comprehend what these yahoos were wra, writing when they got behind closed doors to write it. That's the best part. I have to tell you this part. They wrote this all behind closed doors. It's called the "DISCLOSE Act.' Right?"
Mark Levin: "Exactly. Yes."
Cleta Mitchell: "They wrote it all behind closed doors. And yesterday's Rules Committee meeting that they called and had it within two hours of producing a forty-five page Manager's Amendment to add all these other re, ah, special deals. That was closed to the public. So, they're really committed to disclosure, aren't they? They did it all behind closed doors--all behind close doors."
Mark Levin: "Cleta, Cleta Mitchell, campaign-finance attorney expert, Foley and Lardner, let me tell you something, Cleta. You don't have to agree to me, with me. But this is tyranny! I've never see.... This is absolute tyranny! And it's right, and it's staring us right in the face. And, dah, we're all going to be talking about McChrystal for the next fourteen days, which was bad enough, what, what took place there, but here they are stealing our liberty. And the problem is, Cleta Mitchell, it's at every level! I mean, this is going on, our health care's going on, the cap-and-trade stuff's being pushed. Let me tell you what I hear. I hear they can't wait till the first Wednesday in November, the day after the election, because--win, lose or draw--they have an entire agenda they're gonna ram through in a lame duck Congress, and they won't give a damn what people think."
Cleta Mitchell: "Oh, we have to start a movement--No Lame Duck. We need bumper stickers. You're just the person to lead it--No Lame Duck. The Republicans ought to refuse to participate...should refuse to come, there are to be no Lame Duck, no Lame Duck. And if they have it, the Republicans ought refuse to participate."
Mark Levin: "All right, my friend. Well, keep up the fight. You are a patriot. And, dah,...."
Cleta Mitchell: "Thank you. You are, too. You, you give voice to all of our concerns, and, and are patriotism. And we appreciate what you do every day."
Mark Levin: "Well, God bless, ya. Don't hang up. We're gonna get that link from you, and we're gonna put it up on, on my Web site. Okay?"
Cleta Mitchell: "Yup. Um hum."
Mark Levin: "Thank you. Now, that is a gutsy lady. She really has courage and smart as hell, and this is her subject, and she knows it better than anyone, Cleta Mitchell, Foley and Lardner, campaign-finance attorney. More than that, she's a First Amendment expert. And she's in all these battles. And you understand what just happened in the House is brazenly unconstitutional. But you also understand that what they're doing is they want to get this passed, they want the Senate to get it passed, they want Obama to sign it to protect Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate. They don't give a damn about The Constitution! More over, they are defying the United States Supreme Court. All this talk about the, ah, how sacrosanct a Supreme Court decision is. All this talk about follow the rule of law. In the face of the rule of law, in the face of The United States Constitution--this is what they're doing. They are redistributing speech! Now, I call on all the talk-show hosts in this country to stand up, to take a stand. They're going after the Internet and people like Matt Drudge and conservative bloggers. What the hell is going on here? Don't wait! It'll be too late! And don't think that FCC isn't plotting against talk radio and people like me. You know they damn well are. This damn government's out of control! It's completely out of control. President praising this decision by the House of Representatives. This Nancy Pelosi, she's nuts. Write it down! Media Matters, you, you phony creeps, write it down! She's a low-life thug. There, I said it. Repeat it and send it all over the world. This Harry Reid, another low-life thug. Repeat it! This is stunning, absolutely stunning! We have a counter revolution going on in this country by our government against the people, a counter revolution that seeks to defy the American Revolution and those principles. This is why they trash the tea-party movement. This is why they trash any conservative who dares to speak out. This is why they smear the Sarah Palins and the Sharon Angels and. Rand Paul, I'm your biggest supporter now. You got that? I am your biggest supporter! Now, this creep who's running in, ah, Republican primary, this Mike Castle in Delaware, this guy needs to be defeated. I won't vote for him in a primary or a general election. What the hell do you think about that? For cap and trade, for stimulus, for TARP, and for this, the DISCLOSE Act. DISCLOSE Act? This is the Destroy Act to destroy the First Amendment! Folks, if this doesn't radicalize you, there is nothing that will. I want you to look at our Congressman. My Con. You, you know, there's a great Congressman in northern Virginia, Frank Wolf. But right next door, there's this, this tub of lard, this lard ass, this Gerry Connolly, a local hack, and he runs around. He's a 'moderate,' Jay. 'Moderate,' my ass! This guy votes left wing every damn time, and he voted for this. Northern Virginia, wake the hell up! And it's not just him. These creeps all over the country. We have men and women in uniform on the battlefield today fighting to defend our Constitution, while these political creeps are here at home, not only undermining them but undermining the very structure of this society. This is why all this talk about, 'Oh, you can't have a Obama undermined by this general.' First of all he wasn't. But all this...civilian leadership. So this. Excuse me! This issue isn't civilian leadership. The issue is The Constitution. What does The Constitution require? What happens when you have a Congress that rejects The Constitution? What happens when you have a President that rejects The Constitution and encourages the Congress to reject The Constitution? What happens when you have a federal agency, like the EPA, without any checks and balances that tromps all over The Constitution? I'm supposed to get upset about General McChrystal. I'm not upset about General McChrystal at all! Every damn thing his staff whispered is correct. Well, Mark, how will this society function? The society's not functioning. Mark, why to you get so? Ladies and gentlemen, there's gonna come a day when I won't be behind this microphone, either I will drop dead from my fury of what's going on in this country or they will drag me away from. I don't know when that day's gonna come. But that day will come! I see it! I see it. They're picking us off one industry at a time, one constitutional provision at a time. Liberty--we're losing our liberty. We're losing our liberty, and everyone of you who are listening to this program knows it. I don't care what your race is. I don't care what your party affiliation is. In your heart of heart, you know it! This is a disaster. I've never been more serious in my life. This is a, an absolute. Do you think, if Schumer and his Van Hollen and Obama could take me off the air, they'd take me off the air. You bet they would. Or take Rush or Sean or Boortz or my other buddies off the air. They would take us off the air in a second, if they could. And they're gonna work on it! They're gonna keep chipping away. 'Oh, look at this regulate. Oh, you violated this regulation. Oh, look at this regulation. You can do that. That's not fair, people, is it? No, no, we have to set up these little committees who are gonna review so we can have fair and equality and.' It's comin'."
Note: See part "69" in the document entitled A Little History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which has information about General Stanley McChrystal and which can be reached by using this History link.
It was on Tuesday, July 27, 2010, that American people learn more information about the bad of the U.S. Senate and the good of the U.S. Senate, and the knowledge was gained when the members of the U.S. Senate voted on the DISCLOSE Act (a federal bill for a proposed act), and the killing gave enslavers and the supporter of enslavers another opportunity to try to put in place at least some censorship in the country, though the reason for the censorship was all based on falsehoods and lies. The good news is that the bill did not pass through the U.S. Senate on this day (losing in a vote of 57 "yes" votes to 41 "no" votes)--it seems very likely to me there will be attempts to pass another version of this bill, such as during the period between early November 2010, and early January 2011, which is the period when the U.S. Congress considered a "lame-duck" Congress, because some of the people in the U.S. Congress will not be in the U.S. Congress for the next term, having been voted out. What is good was that all the Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted "no," and one Democrats voted "no," and two members of the U.S. Senate did not vote. One of the bad pieces of news is that fifty-seven persons voted "yes"--all but one of the Democrats and one Independent--which means nearly half the persons in the U.S. Congress showed they support of censorship related to political speech. You should think that everyone or nearly everyone in the U.S. Senate would vote "no," but today is the day and age when the Democratic Party is mostly controlled and made up of communists, socialists, and fascists, who, in essence, can be described as "enslavers" by trade. Yes, nearly half of the members of the U.S. Senate wish to restrict or take away the ability of people to speak freely about politics through the media, such as through commercials. Remember: The persons who voted "yes" for the bill might say that companies' having the ability to run commercials about political candidates during the roughly several weeks before an election takes away the power of the average person's vote, but I say that that idea is nonsense, because, for instance, a company's ability to advertise--no matter how much money is spent--does not take away a person's ability to think, do research about candidates, and cast a vote Oh, by the way, this bill was not fair, since some entities were exempt from the restrictions of the bill, such as the National Rifle Association. (You can see information about who voted "yes" and who voted "no" by seeing my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: Politicians Who Hurt You and You Family by Voting "Yes" on Bad Federal Bills, which can be reached by using this link: Enemies.)
Since January 1985, John "Jay" Rockefeller has been a U.S. Senator (a Democrat related to West Virginia). On Wednesday, November 17, 2010, this U.S. Senator was involved in a Senate committee hearing about retransmission consent related to broadcasting and cable. John Rockefeller made a number of statements during the day, and here is one statement: "...We need new catalyst for quality news and entertainment programming. I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the 'right' and the 'left.' There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox [News] and to, and to MSNBC, 'Out, off, end, good-bye!'...." You should see there is a "bug" inside Jay Rockefeller that is about censorship.
Enslavists, such as, in particular, communists, are types of people who are prone to lying, especially about what they are and what they believe in, such as "enslavism" (which can be learned about by seeing my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharie, Socialism, et cetera), which can be reached by using this link: Enslavism), and, for example, Barack Obama is certainly an enslavist, and in order for enslavists in government to do what they want to do and be what they want to be, they must stop truthful information about them and what they believe in from reaching the minds of people--people who would not support them or elect them to office if the people knew the truth--and that is why enslavists like censorship by the government. To get truth blocked from being heard in the United States of America, enslavists are working to get government rules made that would censor what some persons can say and when they can say what they know, and the enslavists are pressing to get rules made either through federal acts or through rules made by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC). To get rules made to block truthful words for being hear or block people who speak the truth, the enslavers, for example, are very likely demonize words that would show up the enslavers what they are or what they are doing or demonize people who would speak the words that would show up the enslavers for what they are and what they are doing, and the purpose of demonizing is get the public to believe it would be good to have the words blocked from use or the people blocked from being able to speak such words for the sake of the society and for the safety of society, saying such words and people create, for instance, discord in the minds of the citizens and disharmony in the minds of citizens, which might make citizens rebel against the government, but, I say that that idea--that idea that the demonized words or demonized people are creating discord or disharmony--is nonsense, since the words that show up bad of people or the demonized people who show up bad people for what the bad people are cannot help but create uneasiness in citizens when the citizens discover that the truth reveals such things as the evilness within the enslavers or the corruption within the enslavers. When any event happens that can be used by enslavers to push the issue of censoring speech, the enslavers will exploit the event, even if it means, for instance, the enslavers will have to lie while putting the blame for the event on people who have no ties to the event in any way, especially when the people are media persons who stand up for the ways of The United States Constitution, which enslavers in the United States of America dislike because the document is a blocking document against those who wish to practice enslavism.
On Saturday, January 8, 2011, a man named Jared Loughner appeared at an outdoor event being held by U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (a Democrat related to Arizona) in Tucson, Arizona, and the man shot and killed six persons and shot and injured others; for example, the man killed a federal judge (a Republican) and a nine-year-old girl and injured Gabriella Giffords. Soon after the shootings took place, enslavists--in the media, such as those at MSNBC, and in public office--took up the cause of attacking people in the media who uphold the ways of The United States Constitution and are against the ways of Barack Obama's and the political ways of Barack Obama's, which are the ways of enslavism and the ways aimed at hurting the country and the people in the country. The main goal was to make radio talk-show hosts that uphold The United States Constitution--"conservative" radio talk-show hosts--appear to be persons who helped push Jared Loughner over the edge through what the radio talk-show host had said and say about the Barack Obama administration and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress, because if the public could be made to believe the radio talk-show hosts inspired Jared Loughner to do violence, the public or enough members of the public would press the enslavers in government to take action against the radio talk-show hosts by imposing some type of censorship, which might goes a far as having radio talk-show hosts removed from the airwaves.
Remember: There was no need for a conspiratorial act by enslavers to take up such actions against radio talk-show hosts as a group or at the same time, since it is in the nature of each enslaver to see an opportunity and act.
One of the first outspoken enslavers to start attacking radio talk-show hosts who uphold the ways of The United States Constitution was County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pime County, who had been the country sheriff of Pima County, in which Tucson exists, since 1980. On Saturday, January 8, 2011, Clarence Dupnik held a press conference about the shootings event of the day, and during the press conference, Clarence Dupnik acted very inappropriately and spoke very inappropriately for a country sheriff under the circumstances of the day, and, for one, he said: "..And I think it's time as a country that we should do a little sole searching, because I think the vitriol rhetoric we hear day in and day out from, ah, people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised that this has not become the nice--the United States of America--that most of us grew up in, and I think that it's time that we do the sole searching...." On Sunday, January 9, 2011, Clarence Dupnik, who is a Democrat, was interviewed for the Fox News Channel, and one comment he made was: "...But my belief--and I've been watching, ah, what's been going on in this county of the last seventy-five years and I've been a police officer for over fifty years--there's no doubt in my mind that, when he, ah, ah, a number of people night and day try to inflame the public, that there's going to be some consequences from doing that...." Diane Sawyer interviewed Clarence Dupnik for ABC television on Monday, January 10, 2011, and Clarence Dupnik said: "..The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh--in my judgment--he's irresponsible, uses, ah, partial information, sometimes wrong information, attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials. And that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences, and I think he's irresponsible...." Besides that, when Clarence Dupnik was confronted with the question from Diane Sawyer on January 10, 2011, about whether or not he believed what Rush Limbaugh had done and does on the air directly inspired Jared Loughner to do the killing, Clarence Dupnik said, "Of course!"
In the U.S. House of Representatives, a number of blacks are members of an informal entity known as the "Black Caucus," and, really, the entity is made up of Democrats, such as communists like John Conyers (who is related to Michigan), and one of the members of the "Black Caucus" is Jim Clyburn (a Democrat related to South Carolina). On Tuesday, Jim Clyburn was interviewed by Robert Siegel on the radio program distributed by NPR known as All Things Considered, and on that program, Jim Clyburn said: "...During the 1960s, we saw the cattle prods. We did see some murders, and they were very, very unfortunate. But didn't have the Internet back then. We had restraint on speech back then. I came up in a time that the 'Fairness Doctrine' did not allow media outlets to say things about a candidate or person in public office without giving that person equal time to respond. And I really believe that everybody need to take a look at where we are pushin' things, and they need to take a serious step back and evaluate what's goin' on...." Jim Clyburn's eldest daughter--Mignon Clyburn--is a member of the board for the Federal Communications Commission (or the FCC), as she has been since August 3, 2009 (Jim Clyburn was instrumental in getting Barack Obama to nominate Mignon Clyburn to be a member of the FCC).
On January 11, 2011, Chris Matthews used his television show on MSNBC to take up the topic of radio talk-show hosts and Jared Loughner, and, for example, Chris Matthews did that during an interview segment with two gentlemen, one of whom was E. Steven Collins. The next two paragraphs make up a part of the interview in text form, and the first paragraph was spoken by Chris Matthews, and the second paragraph, spoken by E. Steven Collins, followed directly afterward. Here are the two paragraphs:Chris Matthews: "E.Steven, I have ta tell you a couple names without getting into too many fights--people like Mark Levin or Michael Savage, for example, who every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the 'left,' with anger that's, it just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial, they just in some rage every night with ugly talk, ugly sounding talk. And it never changes, it never modulate. They must have an audience. I looked at the numbers today. They have big audiences, And I guess that's the question--Why and is it ever goin' to stop, if it keeps working?"I could present a number of other example of "liberals" in media and in politics who worked to persuade the public around this time that such persons as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage could be considered people who directly influenced Jared Loughner to do what he did or who incited actions in Jared Loughner so that the "liberals" could advance their cause of censoring such persons--maybe by having them removed from the airwaves. What I have presented in this section through what little that I have presented is a lesson--a lesson that shows what enslavers and supporters of enslavers are willing to do so that they can be elites and control others and be like dictators and live off the spoils of others. When you come right down to it, you should see I showed some people who used the deaths of others to advance their lives to be enslavers.
E. Steven Collins: "The sheriff in Tucson was absolutely right, Chris. It does impact people who may have a mental problem or may not, and they just have an anger toward government, but a little push to the right and they are there, and that little girl went down to meet the congressperson who lost her life for absolutely nothing is witness to what we've seen over and over again--this kind of violence. Idea that Sarah Palin who was a governor of a state would put cross hairs over congressional districts and then a week or so later, a congressperson is almost fatally shot and a federal judge is killed and other bystanders who came out to meet their congressperson were, were shot the way they were, there is a direct relationship. This person--I get that he's mentally ill--but how do we know that what he heard on his radio, saw on his Web site did not impact him to make that decision."
By the way, on Wednesday, January 12, 2011, people around the country were learning that one friend or former friend of Jared Loughner's was Zach Osler. Zach Osler appeared on Good Morning America (a television show shown weekdays on ABC-TV) on January 12, 2011, and he was interviewed by Ashley Banfield, who asked Zach Oster if politics could have been a part of Jared Loughner's reason for doing what he did, and Zach Oster said: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right...." and "..."I think...Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner's mind set, and how he viewed the world that he lives in...." Later in the day, Rush Limbaugh said during this nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Rush Limbaugh Program: "...Now Zeitgeist is a 2007 documentary that asserts that Jesus Christ is a myth, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power...." Also, on January 12, 2011, I found information that showed, for example, Jared Loughner approved of the ways expressed in The Communist Manifesto.
[Note: I urge you to learn how U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy worked to undermine U.S. President Ronald Reagan by conspiring with the leaders of the Soviet Union--communists--in the early 1980s, and Edward Kennedy showed then he would get some prominent people in the main media in the United States of America, such as Barbara Walters, to help him, and you can learn about the event by seeing my document entitled T.H.A.T. #65, which can be reached by using this link: T.H.A.T. #65.]
On October 30, 2013, The Daily Caller published a piece of writing done by Tim Cavanaugh, and the work was entitled "FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content survey" (Cavanaugh, Tim. "FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content survey." The Daily Caller, 30 October 2013, 10:25.). Basically, the story noted that, in 2014, the Federal Communications Commission, which is controlled by Barack Obama (the communist and the lover of Islam law (Sharia)), was going to start up a survey of the news media (of all platforms) called "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," and behind the survey was a group called Social Solutions International, which was being paid $917,823 (at least) to conduct and compile the survey, and the goal of the survey was to determine, as best as I could tell, the news policies of news entities, and given I am aware of the influence that conservatives have on radio, I suspect the survey was being done by the federal government as a first effort to really silence conservatives on radio by coming up with information about them that can be used to show that they do not serve the needs of the communities that they serve as determined by the communists and such of the federal government, such as Barack Obama, and one of the questions of the survey was going to focus on how news entities decide what does and does not get published. I did some research on November 1, 2013, and I discovered that the Social Solutions International (the name of which reminded me of so many names tied to socialistic-type entities or communistic-type entities) was indeed highly "liberal," as shown in the "about" statement--filled with buzz words of the modern-day communist and socialist--at the website for the organization, which was--"Social Solutions is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world." Incidentally, Social Solutions International is headed by Susanna Nemes, who is a political activist and who obtained a BA from Harvard University (which is a communist stronghold). Given what the nature of Susanna Nemes seems to be and given what Social Solutions International seems to be, a person should expect something rotten will be the result of "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs."
The date for this paragraph is February 19, 2014, and I noted that a number of things have happened in the last two years that show the Barack Obama administration is working to control what news is reported by the media, though, in some cases, no control is really needed since some entities of the news industry already push Barack Obama's causes without any coercion or urging from the federal government, being like a part of the direct information arm of the Barack Obama administration. In 2012, the federal government gave money to the Annenberg School of Communications and Journalism (of the University of Southern California), which is, in essence, a communistic entity, to put together a study related to minorities and the news industry, and in April 2013, Social Solutions International Inc. (another communistic-based entity) released, in April 2013, a study entitled "Research Design for the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," and it was related to minorities and the news industry, and what the Barack Obama administration, such as the FCC, was trying to do around the time with the studies was set up getting federal-government people into the newsrooms of news entities in the near future on a regular basis so that the federal-government people could influence, if only by being present, what does and does not get reported, and it was all done under the idea that the federal government was working to find out how to get, for example, more minorities into the news industry, though getting more minorities into the news media or news media jobs has nothing to do with what news stories are chosen for publication and what news stories are not chosen for publication. On May 24, 2014, the FCC--particularly the Office of Communications Business Opportunities--hinted at plans in a public press event to learn more about what does and does not get reported, such as by having federal-government people monitor newsrooms. In the first few weeks of February 2014, the American public was learning more about the Barack Obama administration's plan to monitor newsrooms, such as through an editorial published in The Wall Street Journal from an FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, who reported the FCC was soon going to put federal-government people in newsrooms to monitor what gets reported and what does not get reported, and the American public heard that it seems the Barack Obama administration was rethinking the idea about putting federal-government people in newsrooms after there had been some public outrage about the idea of having federal-government people stationed in newsrooms. On February 19, 2014, a smart person could see the Barack Obama administration was working--really working--to set up a way in which to coerce in some way the employees of newsrooms who might be not beholden to Barack Obama and make them hold back on publishing stories that might be detrimental to Barack Obama--it was clearly a plan at censoring news people. In addition, a smart person on February 19, 2014, could understand the Barack Obama administration was also probably working to get some type of "Fairness Doctrine" (a federal law) enacted, which would, for one, affect conservative radio-talk show hosts (who are "anti-enslavists," such as anti-communists) adversely, such as by forcing them to cut back on attacks on Barack Obama (and the Democratic Party, of course). Also, a smart person could see that the federal government would try some other strategy to get federal-government people in newsrooms on a regular basis, and I say that it seems very likely the Barack Obama administration would make contact with media entities who support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party without question and get federal-government people in their newsrooms to start setting a standard related to having federal-government people in newsrooms. Whatever the next strategy was going to be from the Barack Obama administration, it was clear the Barack Obama administration was working to set up regular censorship of the news, despite the existence of The United States Constitution. [Clark, Matthew. "Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?" Redstate.com, 18 February 2014, 05:38 p.m.; Bachman, Katy. "FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices: GOP said study violated freedom of the press." Adweek, 12 February 2014, 9:37 a.m. EST.; Huston, Warner Todd. "FCC Laying Grounds for New Fairness Doctrine?" Breitbart.com, 4 November 2013.; Lucas, Fred. "Obama Administration's Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition." The Blaze, 19 February 2014, 5:30 p.m.; Pai, Ajit. "The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom." The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2014, 7:26 p.m. ET.]
Remember: In the United States of America, there is no lack of speech outlets--there are several hundred television or cable-television networks, and there are hundreds and hundreds of radio stations and television stations, and the are countless magazines and newspapers, and there are countless Web-site outlets, and anyone who says that diversity is needed in radio broadcasting is full of crap.
Then again, the idea of no lack of speech outlets may be deceiving. On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued a new set of rules that were informally supposed to be about "net neutrality," and the "net" word meant "Internet," and at the time, the Internet had ties to radio, television, telephone, and the computer, so it was clear "net neutrality" was only a little about what the rules were about. It was not till March 12, 2015, that the rules were issued for the public to see, and the rules were contained within about a 314-page document, which was entitled "Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order." The document was more rottenness from the federal government--the Barack Obama administration; three members of the FCC board--beholden to Barack Obama--had voted to pass the rules, and two members had voted not to pass the rules. Yes, it was another big document of rules and regulations from, in essence, Barack Obama; the federal government had already passed a number of very large documents, amounting to more of a thousand pages each, which had not been made public till after they were made official laws, two examples of which are "Obamacare" and "Dodd-Frank" (the names of which here are informal names), which are already known by good people to be rotten laws. A smart person aware of the nature of those who were involved in making the rules from the FCC knew right on March 12, 2015, that everything about the rules had to be rotten--Bad people make bad laws, or bad politicians, such as communists like Barack Obama, make bad laws purposely. Supposedly, the document was put together to protect and promote and open Internet, but a smart person seeing such words as "....just and reasonable regulate content..." in the document understood the end result was to set up censorship of people and coerce people and to knock down entities that were designed to criticize bad politicians--socialists and communists and followers of Sharia (Islamic law). When a government--especially a bad goverment--gets to decide what is "just" and "reasonable" in relation to speech and communications or when a politician gets to decide what is "just" and "reasonable" in relation to speech and communications, and end result is always rottenness for good people, and it always leads to protection for the rotten politician and the rotten government. I state that the document of rules from the FCC was designed to push more "enslavism" for the country and that it was designed to push for the final development of a hard-line police state, and that, through sneaky ways, the document was designed to limit and make useless the First Amendment of The United States Constitution. [To learn more about the document from the FCC, you are urged to see my document entitled "Net Neutrality--It is More Enslavism, and It Focuses on Killing Freedom of Speech, which can be reached by using this Net Neutrality link.]
Incidentally, on September 11, 2012, four Americans--one of whom was a U.S. ambassador--were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and Barack Obama used the event to push the idea that a video made in the U.S. about Islam sparked the attack and condemn the maker of the video, and he used the event to take up pushing for more international and national laws that would restrict free speech--under the guise of stopping "hate speech," such as speech against bad politicians and dictators--and you can learn more about the attack and Barack Obama's actions by seeing my document entitled The "Benghazi Killings Scandal": A Short Information-and-Status Report, which can be reached by using this Benghazi link, and the event shows up more of the evil mind of Barack Obama.
"Arizona gunman targets U.S. rep." Detroit Free Press, 9 January 2011, p. 1A/
"EDITORIAL: Kagan speech rationing." The Washington Times, 18 May 2010. (http://www.washingtontimes.com....)
"Jay Rockefeller." Wikipedia.com, 18 November 2010.
"United States v. Stevens." Wikipedia.com, 17 May 2010.
Chaddock, Gail Russell. "Who's exempt from 'fix' for Supreme Court campaign finance ruling?" The Christian Science Monitor, 25 June 2010. (http://www.csmonitor.com....)
Malcolm, Andrew. "Obama's FCC pick happens to be daughter of key House Democrat Clyburn." Los Angeles Times, 29 June 2009. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com....)
Meyers, Jim. "Chris Matthews Blames Savage, Levin fro Shooting." Newsmax.com, 12 January 2011, 01:22.
Montopoli, Brian. "What Foes Jared Lee Loughner Believe?" CBS News, 15 January 2011, 1:34 p.m.
Myers, Amanda Lee, and Jacques Billeaud. "Motive mystery in Ariz. rampage." Detroit Free Press, 10 January 2011, p. 5A.
Nagesh, Gautham. "Groups want FCC to police hate speech on talk radio, cable news networks." The Hill, 1 June 2010, 01:02 p.m. ET.
Rojas, Rick. "Jared Lee Loughner, shooting suspect, leaves YouTube rants." Los Angeles Times, 8 January 2011.
Schouten, Fredreka. "Houses passes campaign-discloser bill." USA Today, 24 June 2010. (http://content.usatoday.com....)
Swaine, Jon. "Gabrielle Giffords Shooting--strange internet trail of 'loner' Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged Tucson gunman." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 9 January 2011, 12;23 a.m. GMT.
Note: The first version of this document was posted on the Internet on: February 17, 2009.
Note: On the Internet, this document is: www.hologlobepress.com/fairness.htm (Find it through the link provided on the site-summary page associated with the main Web page of The Hologlobe Press or by using yahoo.com).
Note: This note is provided to give you places where you can find more information about censorship topics. Listen to The Rush Limbaugh Program, The Sean Hannity Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Billy Cunningham Show, which are nationally syndicated radio shows (all of which can be heard through Web sites, too). There are other nationally syndiated radio talk shows that you could try to listen to. By the way, Sean Hannity has a television show called Hannity, which is shown on weeknight evenings on the Fox News Channel. There are numerous local-radio talk-show hosts to listen to around the country, such as Frank Beckmann (of The Frank Beckmann Show of WJR-AM, 760, Detroit, Michigan) and the morning hosts at WTCM-AM (which is at 580 AM and is based at Traverse City, Michigan).
To reach the main Web page of The
Hologlobe Press, use this link:
For further reading, you should see
document entitled Justice for All?:
The Rules are Changing Under
Barack Obama, which can be
reached through this link: Justice.
For further reading, you should see
Never Forget these Media
"Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States
of America, which can be reached
through this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled T.H.A.T. #55,
which can be reached by using
this link: T.H.A.T. #55.
For further reading, you should see
THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF
LOGIC for the individual woman
and the individual man, which can
be reached through this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Political Lessons
for the Individual Woman and the
Individual Man in the United States
of America, which can be reached
by using this link: Lessons.
For further reading, you should see
THOUGHTS AND STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA for the individual woman
and individual man, which can be
reached through this link: Thoughts.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotes of Barack Obama, which
can be reached at this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A.
and the Counter-Counter Revolution,
which can be reached at this link: Patriots.
Nore: Many more documents exist at the
Web site of The Hologlobe Press, and you
can reached them by going to the Site-Summary
Page, which can be reached by using this link: