Another Clinton Memo Surfaces

[Flanders]

Jamie Gorelick’s infamous memo was a national security disaster because it neutered the intelligence community. The “conspiracy commerce memo” is a political disaster because of the long-term consequences. It’s also a bigger story than “Da plane. Da plane,” but it will be lucky to get a mention on any of the networks let alone an in-depth discussion:

The famous Clinton White House document known as "the conspiracy commerce memo" has finally surfaced.

The Clintons' 'conspiracy commerce' memo
By HADAS GOLD | 4/18/14 5:49 PM EDT

The Clintons' 'conspiracy commerce' memo - POLITICO.com​

The importance of that memo cannot be underestimated. To fully understand the long-term implications you have to begin with the Democrat party’s first conspiracy to silence criticism; the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949 to combat the threat of television. The Fairness Doctrine also silenced talk radio, but it was television’s content that was rightly seen as a threat to government control that had to be eliminated. Democrats lost the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

Soon after the birth of the Internet —— Socialists posing as Democrats, and their media stooges, saw freedom of speech as a threat for the first time in history. Prior to the Internet most Americans confused freedom of speech with freedom of the press. Prior to the Internet freedom of speech was a Right enjoyed by barroom pundits an soapbox orators at most.

Government bureaucrats saw the danger to their control in a rapidly expanding Internet. Media moguls saw the threat to television’s influence; the most effective propaganda apparatus ever devised. Both knew they could not silence the Internet the way they silenced TV and Radio for 38 years; the golden years for the growth of government control over a free people.

In 1995, eight years after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, the Clintons were offended on the Internet —— often. Press protection only went so far; so something had to be done. It was then that the Clintons must have realized that the best they could do to silence the Internet was to trivialize the Internet by pooh-poohing criticism; hence, the conspiracy commerce memo.

In 1998 a censor was added to the pooh-pooh strategy:

We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation? Hillary Clinton

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'​

Depending upon your point of view, Hillary Clinton had a good, or a bad, year in 1998:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE&feature=player_detailpage]Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - YouTube[/ame]​

The next attempt to silence criticism cum freedom of speech is the most Kafkaesque of all:

. . . enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ?infiltrate? social network sites​

The latest move to shutdown freedom of speech is to give away the Internet altogether. Aside from abolishing freedom of speech this fits right in with the global government crowd’s plans. One way or another, New World Order quislings will give the United Nations the authority to tax Americans:

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton said. “If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

ICANN’s Lebanese-born CEO Fadi Chehadé had already recently discussed setting up an office in Geneva — the location of the largest U.N. presence outside New York. If folded into the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union, the organization would have access to a significant revenue stream outside of member contributions for the first time.

“What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone,” Whiton said.

Ex-Bush admin official: Internet giveaway weakens cybersecurity, opens door to Web tax
1:28 AM 03/15/2014
Giuseppe Macri

Bush official: Internet giveaway weakens security, opens tax | The Daily Caller​

Considering Bill Clinton’s opposition to America’s sovereignty, I find it odd that he even HINTED he opposed the Internet give-away:

Bill Clinton Joins Republicans in Criticizing Obama’s Internet Plans
By Charles C. W. Cooke
March 24, 2014 11:59 AM

Bill Clinton Joins Republicans in Criticizing Obama's Internet Plans | National Review Online

Even if the Clintons did not have designs on the White House, I would not believe anything Bubba says any more than I believed Hillary Clinton when she said:

If you like your doctor you have, you keep him.

Democratic Candidates Discuss Health Care Proposals in Forums | PBS NewsHour​

Here’s the joker in the deck:

The Internet is called the social media. So it can be said that giving away the Internet also gives away a part of the media. Question: Does anyone think the government would hand control of television to the United Nations?

Bottom line: Every attempt to shutdown freedom of speech on the Internet originated with conspiracy commerce memo thinking.

 

[percysunshine]

So when did Bill start putting the moves on Rosanna Arquette?

 

[whitehall]

Gorelick should have been called as a witness but instead she was appointed to the freaking 9-11 commission. How's that for political maneuvering? In order to thank her for her service (keep her mouth shut?) she was appointed vice president of Fannie Mae even though she had zero experience in the mortgage field. In the mean time the former National Security adviser for the Clinton administration turned into a common thief stealing documents from National Archives and shoving them down his pants leg. The liberal media wasn't even curious about the connection.

 

[Flanders]

Gorelick should have been called as a witness but instead she was appointed to the freaking 9-11 commission. How's that for political maneuvering? In order to thank her for her service (keep her mouth shut?) she was appointed vice president of Fannie Mae even though she had zero experience in the mortgage field.

To whitehall: Worse still, one of the hacks they put on the committee jumped all over then-Attorney General Ashcroft for bringing up Gorelick’s Memo.

In the mean time the former National Security adviser for the Clinton administration turned into a common thief stealing documents from National Archives and shoving them down his pants leg. The liberal media wasn't even curious about the connection.

To whitehall: As impossible as this sounds, the media always gave the Clintons more protection than they give Taqiyya the Liar.

 

[Flanders]

Imagine how devastating this story would be if all 331 un-redacted pages got out:

The most important of the documents, “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28 pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version posted by the presidential library.

The strength of this story is learning how far Socialists will go to shutdown freedom of speech on the Internet as I detailed in the OP.

The story’s weakness is that the media will not cover it because nobody is going to jail; no congressional committee is required to get to the bottom of the sanitized version, and nobody was killed. In short: Aside from the fact that the story shows the Clintons in their true light, the topic is devoid of the manufactured drama the media loves so dearly. Nevertheless, the 28 redacted pages contain more than enough material for the Internet-public to conclude the truth.
Poetic justice: The Internet that Democrats fear so much is going to bite them on the ass again. The beauty is that the Clintons are responsible for the bite marks —— not this nonsense:

“The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce refers to the mode of communication employed by the right wing to convey their fringe stories into legitimate subjects of coverage by the mainstream media,” explains the report. “This is how the stream works: Well-funded right wing think tanks and individuals underwrite conservative newsletters and newspapers such as the Western Journalism Center, the American Spectator and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Next, the stories are reprinted on the Internet where they are bounced into the mainstream media through one of two ways: 1) the story will be picked up by the British tabloids and covered as a major story, from which the American right-of-center mainstream media, (i.e. the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and New York Post) will then pick the story up; or 2) The story will be bounced directly from the Internet to the right-of-center mainstream American media. After the mainstream right-of-center media covers the story, congressional committees will look into the story. After Congress looks into the story, the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a ‘real’ story.”

Parenthetically, message board libs always attack my sources especially WND. I know they do not get it from the DNC; so fear of WND must come naturally:

“It’s quite an amazing story,” said Farah, founder and editor of WND, . . .

XXXXX​

Four of the 28 pages in the redacted report released Friday focus on Farah – his history running daily newspapers, his religious views and his investigations into official corruption.

Finally, unregulated data clearly means everything that embarrasses the New World Order crowd:

Farah notes the concern expressed in the report about “unregulated data.”

“That’s Hillary, right there,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if she wrote that section herself. A few years later she deplored the fact that the Internet lacks ‘any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.’”

Here’s the article spelling out the meaning, and the origin, of The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce:

Released! Clinton files on media enemies
Learn what Hillary meant by ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’
Published: 2 days ago

Released! Clinton files on media enemies

 

[whitehall]

Clinton had eight years in office and another attack on the World Trade Center but he bombed a defenseless country in Europe while the 9-11 terrorists (some of whom were illegally in the Country) were attending flight school. Low information conspiracy tin foil hats still want to blame George Bush for 9-11. It all boils down to media scrutiny. If the media doesn't care what documents Sandy Burger had down his pants and how Gorelick was connected to the criminal negligence of 9-11 nobody else will care.

 

[Flanders]

Does a tweet count as a memo?

Hillary Clinton tweeted: "Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls"

Clinton's tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by calling Boko Haram what it was.The requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization were serious and came from very responsible authorities.

As Josh Rogin reported:

"What Clinton didn't mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

"'The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use. And nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy,' said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. 'The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.'

Gingrich: Hillary Clinton's Boko Haram problem
By Newt Gingrich
updated 8:13 PM EDT, Fri May 9, 2014

Gingrich: Hillary Clinton absent on Boko Haram terrorism designation? - CNN.com​

There is one other thing Clinton failed to mention. Every innocent girl has a basic Right to an education IF SHE SURVIVES CLINTON’S ABORTION TERRORISTS.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is guno on the Obama/Clinton payroll?

 

[percysunshine]

Is guno on the Obama/Clinton payroll?

The IRS would know.

 

[Pogo]

Why is this under "Media"?

Or to put it so the OP can read it, why is this thread in Media?

 

[Capstone]

Why is this under "Media"?

Or to put it so the OP can read it, why is this thread in Media?

Is there a forum designated for discussion on verifiable facts related to "social media" outlets?

 

[Pogo]

Why is this under "Media"?

Or to put it so the OP can read it, why is this thread in Media?

Is there a forum designated for discussion on verifiable facts related to "social media" outlets?

Hmm...

Upon further review of the OP I see my answer. I made the mistake of reading the thread title. Don't know what I was thinking there. Also my eyes tend to glaze over posts written in obnoxious fonts.

Perhaps the question should be, "why does a media thread have a political title?"



I'd take issue with this:

The Internet is called the social media.

-- never heard that one before; I thought "social media" referred to the mindless world of Twits and Nosebooks and texting. Which is realy antisocial media.

 

[Pogo]

And with this:

The importance of that memo cannot be underestimated. To fully understand the long-term implications you have to begin with the Democrat party’s first conspiracy to silence criticism; the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949 to combat the threat of television. The Fairness Doctrine also silenced talk radio, but it was television’s content that was rightly seen as a threat to government control that had to be eliminated. Democrats lost the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans, especially those irritated with Franklin Roosevelt's "fireside chats" and their influence on the populace. FDR, simply because of the time he lived in, was the first POTUS to make effective use of mass broadcast media.

In fact when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his exposé of Joe McCarthy in 1954, McCarthy requested, and was granted, air time to refute the broadcast. CBS gave McCarthy the entire show to say whatever he wanted, which he did. That's what the FD did --- provided an avenue of response...... in exactly the same way I can respond to the OP here, and someone else can respond to this one. It's called dialogue, in contrast to monologue.

Nor did the FD "silence talk radio". That's a myth. Talk radio has been around since 1924, and in the political arena since at least 1926. The first radio stations to go to an all-talk format, did so in 1960. For years on this question, literally years, I've challenged anyone anywhere to come up with a single instance of the FD silencing or censoring anyone, anywhere. I'm still waiting for the first case, because I already know there aren't any. Which, I admit, means I'm not really "waiting".

So the very idea that allowing a response amounts to "silencing" is ludicrous, and always was. Obviously we all know that, or we wouldn't be sitting on a message board that has a "reply to post" capability. Because that's what the FD did.

And by the way there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". That malaprop tells me who's ass this myth was pulled from.

 

[Flanders]

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans, especially those irritated with Franklin Roosevelt's "fireside chats" and their influence on the populace. FDR, simply because of the time he lived in, was the first POTUS to make effective use of mass broadcast media.

In fact when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his exposé of Joe McCarthy in 1954, McCarthy requested, and was granted, air time to refute the broadcast. CBS gave McCarthy the entire show to say whatever he wanted, which he did. That's what the FD did --- provided an avenue of response...... in exactly the same way I can respond to the OP here, and someone else can respond to this one. It's called dialogue, in contrast to monologue.

Nor did the FD "silence talk radio". That's a myth. Talk radio has been around since 1924, and in the political arena since at least 1926. The first radio stations to go to an all-talk format, did so in 1960.

To Pogo: You have to be the biggest asshole on the USMB. You continue to open my threads when you know what you are going to find. Do both of us a favor and stop cluttering up my threads with misdirection.

The objective of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 was to get people to listen to the Socialist message. In effect, the Fairness Doctrine said “If I cannot get everyone to listen to my message conservative voices must be silenced.” And it worked until the FD was abolished in 1987.

For years on this question, literally years, I've challenged anyone anywhere to come up with a single instance of the FD silencing or censoring anyone, anywhere. I'm still waiting for the first case, because I already know there aren't any. Which, I admit, means I'm not really "waiting".

To Pogo. Wait no longer. Economics silenced conservative voices. Radio stations simply changed their format rather than lose audiences by implementing the Fairness Doctrine.

Also, the Fairness Doctrine did not apply on television’s entertainment shows that were, and still are, predominantly liberal. You never hear liberals calling for equal time there.

If the Fairness Doctrine is so fair why are the Democrats the only ones that tried to reinstate it:

This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso's new paper "Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine"
Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair
By Adam D. Thierer

Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair​

NOTE: Although it does not involve the FD there is no equal time in the class room.

The second example of silencing conservative voices was done with tax dollars. Nothing was more unfair than tax dollars going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those dollars paid to advocate liberalism’s worldview from the time LBJ created Public Broadcasting and still today —— a view most Americans disagree with. If anything, Public Television is a clear example of silencing conservative voices with and without the Fairness Doctrine.

There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It's mine. It's not yours.

Back to Bias Basics at PBS
L. Brent Bozell

Back to Bias Basics at PBS by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent​

 

[Pogo]

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine was championed by Republicans, especially those irritated with Franklin Roosevelt's "fireside chats" and their influence on the populace. FDR, simply because of the time he lived in, was the first POTUS to make effective use of mass broadcast media.

In fact when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his exposé of Joe McCarthy in 1954, McCarthy requested, and was granted, air time to refute the broadcast. CBS gave McCarthy the entire show to say whatever he wanted, which he did. That's what the FD did --- provided an avenue of response...... in exactly the same way I can respond to the OP here, and someone else can respond to this one. It's called dialogue, in contrast to monologue.

Nor did the FD "silence talk radio". That's a myth. Talk radio has been around since 1924, and in the political arena since at least 1926. The first radio stations to go to an all-talk format, did so in 1960.

To Pogo: You have to be the biggest asshole on the USMB. You continue to open my threads when you know what you are going to find. Do both of us a favor and stop cluttering up my threads with misdirection.

Actually I'm not that big. I've been successfully losing weight.

"Misdirection"? Well, guilty at first, but why does your thread have a title that has nothing to do with either the forum or your topic? Who's misdirecting who?
Is this thread about media -- or is it about Hillary Clinton?

The objective of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 was to get people to listen to the Socialist message. In effect, the Fairness Doctrine said “If I cannot get everyone to listen to my message conservative voices must be silenced.” And it worked until the FD was abolished in 1987.

Utter and complete bullshit.

Neither the FCC nor any other government agency ever dictated what broadcast content would be. Nor did it ever set any benchmarks on what kind of political talk would be permitted, prohibited, encouraged or discouraged. Simply does not exist. And sitting on a message board making stuff up out of thin air does not make it into retroactive reality. So -- bullshit.

The assertion is yours --- prove it.

For years on this question, literally years, I've challenged anyone anywhere to come up with a single instance of the FD silencing or censoring anyone, anywhere. I'm still waiting for the first case, because I already know there aren't any. Which, I admit, means I'm not really "waiting".

To Pogo. Wait no longer. Economics silenced conservative voices. Radio stations simply changed their format rather than lose audiences by implementing the Fairness Doctrine.

Again, utter bullshit. Again -- document it. Again, it doesn't become retroactive history just because you just wrote it on the internet. Show me these stations that "changed their format rather than implement the FD". I already know that's impossible.

Also, the Fairness Doctrine did not apply on television’s entertainment shows that were, and still are, predominantly liberal. You never hear liberals calling for equal time there.

Swing and a miss, strike three. The FD applied to everybody who had a broadcast license -- whether they broadcast political content or not.

FYI I worked in broadcasting both before and after the FD was in effect. You know what effect taking it away had for the stations I worked with? ZERO.

If the Fairness Doctrine is so fair why are the Democrats the only ones that tried to reinstate it:

That question doesn't even make sense.

NOTE: Although it does not involve the FD there is no equal time in the class room.

The classroom is completely unrelated to the airwaves. Strike four.

The second example of silencing conservative voices was done with tax dollars. Nothing was more unfair than tax dollars going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those dollars paid to advocate liberalism’s worldview from the time LBJ created Public Broadcasting and still today —— a view most Americans disagree with. If anything, Public Television is a clear example of silencing conservative voices with and without the Fairness Doctrine.

Again, Bull Shit, strike five. CPB funds public broadcasting facilities; again it has no benchmark whatsoever for what the political content should be (or indeed what ANY content should be) on that facility. I know the application process inside out. Once again, burden of proof is all yours.

As for "silencing conservative voices" ..... where do you think Bill Buckley's TV show ended up once it failed on commercial TV?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y021WAdUlW8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y021WAdUlW8[/ame]

There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It's mine. It's not yours.

Back to Bias Basics at PBS
L. Brent Bozell

Back to Bias Basics at PBS by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent​

Brent Bozo is a blogger, not a broadcaster. His opinion and $2.50 might buy you a cup of Starbucks. Not even interested.

And no, the fact that you don't get Brent Bozo or Rash Limblob or Alex Jones or whatever crackpot on public broadcasting doesn't make it "liberal". It makes it unsensational. Those guys are entertainers who make money by baiting listeners. Or as we call them in this medium -- trolls. Trolls are not sources of information or of discourse. They're clowns. Ask Glenn Beck. He admits to it.

The reality is this country does a piss poor job funding its public broadcast infrastructure and is well behind our peers in that area such as Germany, Japan and Canada. And that's because demagogues like the ones Brent Bozo drools over cut the legs out from under it whenever they can by floating the same bullshit you and Bozo have floated here as they pander for the votes of the informationally starved.

Strike six.

Now here's the rest of the quoted post you forgot to continue with -- an oversight I'm sure; don't worry, I got you covered:

So the very idea that allowing a response amounts to "silencing" is ludicrous, and always was. Obviously we all know that, or we wouldn't be sitting on a message board that has a "reply to post" capability. Because that's what the FD did.

And by the way there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". That malaprop tells me who's ass this myth was pulled from.