The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part II

In case you haven't read Part I, please click here to do so. Today, I'm going to continue my analysis of this ridiculous and idiotic organization that thinks it can save the media by destroying the economy in the process.

While media technology has advanced in the 42 years since public broadcasting was created, the need has only grown for noncommercial, not-for-profit media, available free to the public with a mission to inform, educate, inspire and engage.

I want my readers to take a very close look at the language this organization is using. As you can see, it has radically Progressive undertones. It is now evil to make a profit in order to sustain business. When did we get to the point where we started to hold disdain for the very mention of profit? Profits buy the things businesses need to thrive. Without them, you inevitably fail in the marketplace - unless the government steps in to turn your bankruptcy into bureaucracy. These people at FreePress.Net have no clue what kind of impact their actions will have on the economy if they get their way. On top of that, their plan for government-controlled media has a specific agenda; a Progressive agenda, might I say. The information, education, inspiration, and engagement received is far from unbiased: its purpose is to indoctrinate the masses with socialist propaganda in order to manipulate society into succumbing to Progressive ideals. After all, these taxpayer-funded outlets have a "mission," do they not?

Despite their value, public media are under constant threat. They are chronically underfunded and under assault by lawmakers who would silence critical voices and cripple alternatives to the commercial media.

The words in bold are clearly methods of making people believe that massive spending bills, high taxation, and big government is the answer to our problems. If you expand the government's role in the media, won't you just silence critical voices and cripple alternatives even more? After all, that's what the government does and will continue to do. Why give them more power to do so?

The headlines are bleak. Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in just the past few years. Major dailies throughout the country have been shuttered or gone bankrupt, and it seems only a matter of time before a major American city wakes up without a newspaper on anyone’s doorstep.

Maybe these outlets would be able to thrive if they were allowed to make a profit? Just a thought. I know, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

The erosion of American journalism hinders the public’s right to know: Without quality journalism that holds our government and corporate leaders accountable, our democracy suffers. But the state of journalism isn’t natural, inevitable or acceptable.

More Progressive nonsense! First of all, it isn't groups of people who have rights; it is individuals who have rights. To say that the public has a right is like saying that everyone is one in the same, something our Founders regarded as a complete fallacy when they wrote our Constitution. It is the individual who has the right to pursue knowledge by any means possible, but that doesn't mean he or she entitled to free TV, free radio, and free internet. Although that would be nice, the economic consequences are disastrous. We can't afford all of these entitlements anymore, even if taxation was at a one-hundred percent level across the board. Giving people things for free isn't really "free" if you're stealing from someone else. As for the talk of accountability, what these people are saying is that government should interrogate and silence people who do not meet the government's idea of what is acceptable and what is not. All these people want is more bureaucracy. Someone has to tell these people that we are a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Our media system was shaped by political and public policy decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. Lawmakers and regulators at these agencies rubber-stamped the bad deals that led to the unchecked consolidation and crushing debt that now threaten the health of our press.

For once, I actually agree with these idiots, but I don't have the same solution in mind. More government is not the answer to our problems if big government was the problem in the first place. That's just common sense.

The search for solutions to the crisis in journalism calls for a national journalism strategy premised on the idea that newsgathering is a public service – not just another commodity.

Do you like socialized journalism the likes of the Soviet Union and China? If so, then you're in for a wonderful surprise. If not, enjoy the ride while it lasts. Thank you, and have a fabulous day! Leave your comments below.

The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part I

I never thought I'd actually be calling people idiots for their political beliefs, but the folks at FreePress.Net are absolutely out of their minds. What I read literally made me want to throw up. I don't understand these people in the least. What they're calling for almost seems like a government takeover of the media for the sake of getting it out of the hands of the "greedy" corporations. I want to briefly present some of the idiotic remarks I found on the site - and trust me, they are idiotic - and then explain why their idea of a solution only perpetuates the problem they claim they want to prevent.

Media owners influence how women and people of color are portrayed in the media.

I know this may seem like a small statement the organization is making - and it is true - but it already shows you the scope these people are looking through. Notice that they choose to victimize two groups that are continuously victimized by the government: women and minorities. I am appalled at how women are exposed as objects on television, but this statement leaves out another problem in our media: the portrayal of men and white people. I'm sure there are many sincere, wonderful males out there who compare themselves to the males on television and don't see themselves as "manly" enough for the rest of society, even though it doesn't really matter how masculine or feminine you are. The organization is clearly trying to use "diversity" to push its agenda so that it can use women and minorities as pawns for their own gain.

But these massive conglomerates – like General Electric, Time Warner and News Corp. – only care about the bottom line, not serving the public interest. And allowing these few firms too much control over the flow of news and information is dangerous for our democracy.

Again, notice the language. The agenda seems reasonable on the surface, but if you look at the language closer, you will definitely notice some collectivist and Progressive rhetoric that has been used for years by politicians who are shredding our Constitution without an ounce of shame. The phrase "public interest" is often used to justify collectivist ideas, principles, and policies that define the interests of every individual despite the fact that individuals have a relative viewpoint on what is truly in their best interest.

High-speed Internet access is fast becoming a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.

This was the idiotic rhetoric I was speaking of. Can anyone explain to me how high-speed internet is just as important as water? I guess if we don't drink enough internet, we'll suffer from dehydration. Uh-oh! Although I am using a high-speed internet connection at this moment, I can honestly tell you that I survived without high-speed internet for years, and I didn't even come close to dying. Really? Yeah, really! I'm serious. Nothing happened to me. In fact, I've even lived without the electricity that these collectivists claim is a "basic public necessity" for long periods of time through some of the most horrible blizzards we've experienced in years (so much for global warming). To claim the internet as a necessity is one thing, but to call it a basic public necessity is even worse. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one "needs" the internet.

We need to keep the Internet free, open and neutral. Network Neutrality is vital to ensuring that everyone can connect and share content freely, that we can access the information, visit the Web sites and say what we want online, free from discrimination or interference.

And that is why, supposedly, putting it in the hands of the government is an even better solution. In fact, the government already partially controls the internet through special interests, the Patriot Act, and the FCC for crying out loud! This solution would just give them more control.  If you honestly think that the government is going to be more fair and balanced, you have no idea who controls our government: bureaucrats, special interests, global corporations, and the Federal Reserve. The solution advocated by FreePress.Net would give the government the ability to silence and interrogate opposition, peek in on personal conversations and networking sites, and give the president the executive power to shut down the internet at will. We already have this so-called "network neutrality," but the solutions advocated by this organization, and by members of the Obama administration, would go far beyond that. In fact, Obama's FCC "Diversity" Czar has said that the widely unpopular Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough. Although repealed a few years back, elements of the Fairness Doctrine still exist today, and if we let the government have more control over the media, who knows what will happen? Oh, maybe I'm worrying too much. The government already has massive influence over the media. A complete takeover would just be a few steps away.

The way to stop the slide and improve broadband access, service and choice is to pass a comprehensive national broadband plan that is focused on putting our digital future back on track. A national broadband plan would protect Internet freedom and foster competition by bringing new providers into the marketplace, driving economic growth and innovation, and bringing universal, affordable broadband access to all Americans.

In a nutshell, that pretty much means socialized internet. Supposedly, the internet should be "free" for everyone by making all citizens pay into the system, regardless of how often they use the internet or whether or not they use it all. What these idiots don't realize is that setting up a "comprehensive national broadband plan" would require trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers, borrowing, and increased printing of money, leading to hyperinflation, bigger debts, and the very destruction of the U.S. dollar. That's not exactly "free," now is it?

Well that's all I really have time for today. This is just scratching the surface. I know you're in shock, but please leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!

Long Time, No See, Folks!

You're probably wondering where I've been. Let's just say that I've been quite busy and stressed out lately. I'm having some issues with our police and government. It's pretty much why I've become so passionate about politics in the last few months. There has been a lot that has been happening in the world recently, and you're probably wondering what I have to say about it. President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, a decision on Afghanistan is yet to be made, the Supreme Court has refused to take up a case on a student who was harassed for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, gay rights activists marched on the hill on Saturday to demand that Obama keep his pledges, the White House is waging a war of words against Fox News, the health care bill inches closer and closer to being passed, and Columbus Day is being phased out. So where do I stand on these important issues? You're about to find out!

President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Congratulations, Mr. President! I have to say I'm quite shocked. You really haven't accomplished anything good so far, and I have no idea why they decided to give you such a prestigious award. Perhaps the award has become a sort of punch line, seeing as Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are other winners of this decade. The thing is, even they actually accomplished something. I will spare the hate, and realize that there is still a lot of time left. However, you have shown so far that you can't be trusted.

You went back against everything that you promised in your campaign. We found out that you don't really hate the Patriot Act. You just want to use it to your advantage. You don't really want to cut spending. You want to raise it to fund your own plans for the nation. You don't really want to keep the middle class from getting a tax hike. You want to tax them to death so that you have revenue to fund your health care plan, and even that won't be enough to do so. You're going to have to get the Federal Reserve to print more money, risk hyperinflation post-recession, and destroy the dollar as we know it. You're not really anti-war. Apparently, Afghanistan is a "good war" that must be fought. You don't really hate the lobbyists. One of your number one priorities is appeasing SEIU. You're a shill for lobbyists. You weren't really going to avoid an individual mandate for health care coverage. You want to demand it. You're not really listening to the "other side" of the debate. You're closing the door on it. The list just never ends.

On MarioKartWii.com, I wrote the following:

President Obama will gain my trust if he at least does these things:

1. Attempts to repeal the Patriot Act
2. Ends the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3. Criticizes the Federal Reserve on tremendous levels, then at least attempts to influence Congress to audit or abolish it
4. Says that we should re-institute a gold standard
5. Frequently criticizes his own administration and his own party
6. Frequently criticizes himself for his past mistakes
7. Attempts to cut taxes for at least the middle class
8. Attempts to cut spending drastically
9. Denounces Chavez, Castro, and other dictators
10. Attempts to minimize, decrease expansion, or lower the expansion rate of the size and scope of government
11. Denounces every Marxist in his life
12. Denounces the last three administrations
13. Attempts to reduce lobbying
14. Embraces the Constitution as America's sacred document
15. Stops apologizing to the world and becomes a proud American who doesn't care what other people think of us

As I monitor the president carefully, and look at this list often, I also encourage my readers to do so. If President Obama fulfills any of these promises, please email me immediately. Near the end of his term, we'll see how he did.

The War in Afghanistan

President Obama can't seem to come to a decision, and I can honestly say this would be a very hard one to make. If I were in his position right now, I'd fear being persecuted for ending the war right on the spot. Just like Obama, I don't have much political experience. However, I can say this: ending the war and focusing on domestic defense is a good idea. I just don't see this happening, as Obama seems to think that Afghanistan is a "good war."

Those on the Left want Obama to keep things the way they are right now, and those on the Right side with military leaders by wanting to send more troops. I, however, disagree with both sides. We don't need any troops in Afghanistan. What we need is for our borders to be secured, increased domestic defense, militarization of space, and an effective missile defense system. Engaging in American imperialism is not something our Founders would be proud of. We're only weakening our national security by provoking violence and hostility abroad. For more on my opinion of this issue, read my blog entry - Afghanistan: The "Good" War? - from a few weeks ago. It explains my positioning and reasoning quite clearly.

Student Harassed for Not Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance

Up until a few weeks ago, I was not aware that some states mandated that students and schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't get me wrong: I think patriotism is one of the most admirable and necessary qualities that a person should have in this great nation. I love reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it's great that students do. However, when you give the state power to force patriotism on people, you're doing the opposite of what you're intending to do. Patriotism enforced by the establishment is just going to make anti-patriots even angrier. Not only will it make anti-patriots angrier, but it will also make those who love this country angry as well. In what way does that encourage patriotism? It goes beyond that, unfortunately. Coercion by the state is only needed when someone violates another person's right to life, liberty, and property, and when you try to use it otherwise, you're committing an act of aggression. This creates hostility in the population, spreads violence throughout, and makes people much more fearful of the government.

That being said, I should move on to the actual story. Cameron Frazier, a high school student in Florida, was ridiculed, cursed at, and accused of being unpatriotic by his teacher when he refused to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Some people think that's the appropriate thing to do, but I, for one, think otherwise. Frazier points out that it takes more than imitating the crowd and saluting a flag to be patriotic. According to him, patriotism also includes supporting our troops and victims of natural disasters. He thinks the flag is a powerful symbol of our nation's core principles, but the government's recent policies don't reflect those principles. I am in total agreement with him. Any proud American should be.

Honestly, his teacher is a bitch for doing what she did to him. If she did that to me, I'd totally wanna sue her. I mean, who wouldn't? I really can't blame the kid. I feel deep pride in my heart that this student stands up for he believes in, respects the core values of our nation, and stays strong and brave through all of it. This is the kind of role model that we need for America. Someone who speaks out against the establishment regardless of what anyone else thinks and respects old traditions and values that have made this country great.

This kid obviously took the self-initiative to develop himself beyond the confines of government education. My fellow conservatives should be voicing out on this issue. If they think our educational system is flawed, admire patriotism in our youth, and really stand for the core principles of our nation, why aren't they expressing their outrage? Seriously, it makes me angry that they would rather continue to ramble on about some birth certificate than help distinguish the difference between enforced patriotism and real patriotism. They should be expressing their pride in this kid!

Liberals, where are you? Say something!

Gay Rights Advocates Pressure Obama to Keep to His Promises

On Saturday, in case you haven't heard, some super-duper gay rights activists headed up to Washington on pink ponies and multi-colored rainbows to demand that President Obama keep the pledges he made to the gay community during his campaign. As many of you know, I'm a lesbian myself, and I do fully support the rights of the LGBT community. Although I'm not a bleeding-hard liberal who will expose every inch of her body at each opportunity she gets - or a promiscuous girl who thinks sleeping around is the perfect way to live - I would also like Obama to keep to his word on this. However, it's not on my top priorities list.

We have more urgent issues at hand, and we need to focus on those more than we need to focus on things like gay marriage. The solution I have in mind is making everything a civil union under law and leaving individual churches to decide on the issue of marriage. I believe that a church has a right to deny anyone marriage and speak out against homosexuality. When I marry my sweetheart, I'll just go to a church that is willing to hitch the two of us. This process of allowing any kind of marriage whatsoever - gay, straight, monogamous, or polygamous - is a long and tiring path. I realize that my views are a bit radical and not representative of the mainstream. As I don't see this solution being implemented anytime soon, gay marriage is not on my top priorities list.

However, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. President Obama said he would address this, but he hasn't really said or done anything about it so far. Gays have every right to serve in the military. If someone wants to risk their life for the country that they love, who are we to tell them that they can't just because they're gay? I can see how homosexual activity can be disruptive in the military, but so can heterosexual activity. Who are we restrict rights to anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation? That's discrimination. DADT is a flawed policy that needs to be dealt with.

The White House vs. Fox News

I have a few things to say, and I will sum it up quickly.

1. FOX News is biased, but...
2. They will cover crucial stories that other networks won't.
3. With two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, a news station is not the enemy.
4. The White House is openly watching Glenn Beck now. I hope he gets it through their heads.
5. Anti-FOX News stories are a great way for the MSM to bring in more viewers. Clever idea.

Health Care

With a vast majority of Democrats in Congress, something tells me that H.R. 3200 has the potential to be passed soon, and those of us who oppose the bill - not those who would rather see no reform whatsoever - should continue to fight against it. On MarioKartWii.com, I wrote the following:

Here is how we will pay for H.R. 3200:

1) Request that the Fed print more money
2) Raise taxes not only on the rich, but also the middle class
3) Increase inflation
4) Spend debt
5) Devalue and eventually destroy the dollar

If we continue to tax and spend like a bunch of crazy lunatics, inevitable consequences will ensue, and we'll all regret it. We can't trust the government with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and many other programs that have sent this country into a downward spiral. How can we trust them with HR 3200? More people are denied under Medicare than private insurers! In this country, it has led to rationing. We may get short-term social benefits, but we will ultimately see a rise in poverty.

As you can see, the price of H.R. 3200 is not a price worth paying. Its economic effects will greatly outweigh the social benefits it seeks to provide. I've written about this subject several times before, and you can check under the archives for my entries.

Columbus Day

Although Christopher Columbus was a murderer who slaughtered several of my Native American ancestors, I respect that some people think that he should be revered through a national holiday. Evidently, a Native American group is protesting this holiday. I can't blame them, really, for feeling resentment towards this man for what he did. I know I do. However, when they start accusing people of being racist bigots and trying to ruin everything for them, that's where I draw the line. To some people, criticizing members of your own race represents self-hatred, but I don't hate myself. They're people just like everybody else. I don't know how important Columbus Day is to everyone, but calling it "Fall Day" or "Native American Day" is a bit over the top. Can't we just have another day reserved for Native Americans? How about a holiday reserved for white people? That would be nice.

Well, folks, it's time to wrap things up. I hope this much-needed update satisfied any curiosities you may have had about my opinions on current events. With that, I bid you farewell.

Have a fabulous day. God bless you, and God bless America!