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!

Obama's Enemy List

I read this excellent article by blogger Eddie Howell, the author of Something You Might Like, and I thought I'd share it with everyone:

Obama's Enemy List
by Eddie Howell

President Barack Obama, in a very un-presidential manner, is going about promoting his political agenda in large measure by criticizing, trying to marginalize, and ultimately bring down those whom he perceives to be his political enemies (rather than “opponents”). Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has cautioned the President that his actions are beginning to look like those of Richard Nixon, who, seemingly in a paranoia mode, made a list of “enemies” he wanted his administration to go after, and some of whom he did actually attack, using the resources of government. This pursuit of “enemies” led to the eventual downfall of his presidency.

“‘An “enemies list” only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself,’ Alexander said on the Senate floor. ‘These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.’” [1]

Sorry, Senator. You are correct, but you may be too late. The enemies-list operation is in full swing already. Any people or groups of people who have criticized (to any significant effect) some part of the Obama agenda may very well find themselves to be his target, if they aren’t already.

A partial listing of Obama’s “enemies”:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce – This is yet another example of Obama trying to marginalize and take down a traditionally very influential group. Obama is against any effective lobbying group that tries to benefit the private sector or the American economy. A prosperous people don’t look to government for everything. An impoverished people may.

Fox News – Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and others have been sent out to try to discredit Fox News and even get “mainstream” news outlets to deny that Fox is a legitimate news organization. This will have some effect, perhaps, but Fox News’ ratings are up substantially since this “war on Fox News” broke out.

Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio – The administration will probably try some back-door version of the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative talk radio (and Fox New as well). Mark Lloyd, the “diversity czar” of the FCC has no respect for freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Rush’s ratings are up.

Health insurance companies – Democrats in Congress are currently working to deny health insurers the exemption from anti-trust laws that they currently enjoy. The objective is to strip the states of their power to regulate insurance and at the same time put the insurance companies either out of business or directly under the thumb of the federal government, and further obfuscate the costs of their health care plan.

Big oil – All energy-related industries, as well as consumers, are likely to suffer as a result of cap and trade, if it is enacted. This will punish our entire country by bringing on another depression. States that are already suffering the most will likely be hardest hit, but all will be hurt. Are you ready?

Auto manufacturers – Current CAFE standards and the GM and Chrysler takeovers should be punishment enough, if any were needed (which it isn’t), but Obama is going to tighten CAFE standards further and dictate what kind of cars can be made. Many vehicles currently available will be gone.

Fast food – Federal and some local laws will more strenuously regulate fast food providers as to location, nutritional information disclosure, and allowable menus. This is an area where endless harassment of citizens can and will take place.

Conservatives on the internet – Obama is already pushing for authority to take over private networks on the pretext of “cyber-security” concerns. Proposed “net neutrality” rules will further restrict internet freedom. People have remarked on how the internet has not brought about “Big Brother” controls as some have feared, but we haven’t seen the outcome yet. The technology is there for massive abuse and government control. The FCC “diversity czar” is going after internet conservatives also.

According to Investors’ Business Daily, even though “net neutrality” is advertised as creating more opportunities for internet access, “[t]he issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Hugo Chavez did to silence Venezuela's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article titled ‘Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue’ and published by CommonDreams.org.

“‘Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits,’ Lloyd wrote. ‘Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it.’ Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.” [2]

The Republican Party – The Obama White House is trying to marginalize the Republican Party as a non-factor. The main obstacle to this is the fact that the American people, by a majority, support none of Obama’s main initiatives. Republicans could capitalize on this a lot more than they have been doing. But if they’re afraid of appearing too combative, they will instead appear to have rolled over and capitulated. New candidates will be needed if the GOP is to be revived in 2010, even though most voters want that to happen.

Etc., Etc. – Look for more enemies-list activity in upcoming days. They’re just getting started, and they’ve got to move fast.

Then there are those the Administration and Congress are going after a little less directly, without trying to publicly discredit them specifically. They’re not enemies so much as targets to be dealt with in clearing the way for and financing the Obama program:

Doctors who oppose Obamacare – Doctors are going to find their government reimbursements decreased (to lower “costs”), which will lead to more doctors dropping out of government-reimbursed programs, or out of medical practice entirely. But that’s OK with Obama if he gets his government-dominated program going. However, the attempt to cut reimbursements may well prove politically impossible.

The private sector in general – How many more businesses and industries must be taken over by the government? Apparently many more, will be, not necessarily by ownership, but by numerous new taxes and regulations and zealous enforcement from the growing government sector. Corporate profits are the liberals’ piggy bank, they think. They’ll worry about the economy and jobs (along with Afghanistan) later, time permitting.

The “rich” who aren’t part of his support team – Hollywood liberal elites, professional athletes, union leaders, rich trial lawyers and other liberal donors can hope to fare well in Obama’s fascist crackdowns. Some large companies are said to be cutting deals to try to gain a favorable position. But the rich taxpayers in general are considered ripe for the picking. Obama does not care about unemployment or the bad economy. It’s all about getting his great fascist program in place before the bottom falls out of his popularity.

American Taxpayers in general (investors, professionals and other workers) – These will do well to be able to keep their jobs or the better part of their investments in the Obama-depressed economy that we’ll see if Obama’s big agenda items are enacted. Forget about green jobs. A few thousand of those will do little to help the 15-million-plus who are unemployed, not counting those who have given up looking for work, or have taken part-time jobs.

The Obama Administration is probably the most activist freedom-destroying and takeover-minded (i.e., “progressive”) administration in our history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR might come close, but at least they could point to World War I and the Great Depression and World War II as excuses for their activism. Obama still tries to blame George W. Bush long after it’s too late to do so. This is not the change most people thought we were going to get. Soon only the most hardcore leftists and Obama fans (and some others bought off or severely arm-twisted) will be able to willingly support the Obama program.

Isn't that incredible, people? Eddie is such a good writer. Please visit his blog, and be sure to comment! God bless you, and have a fabulous day!

A Constitutional Lawyer's Analysis of H.R. 3200

I was looking through some blogs today, and I came across something very interesting. The author of Just Another Conservative Girl posted a critique of H.R. 3200, the health care bill, by Michael Connelly of Carlton, Texas, a retired Constitutional lawyer. I decided to post it on my blog, and I encourage others to do so as well.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the [Fourth] Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the [Third] and [Fourth] Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have [health care] insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the [Fifth] Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The [Ninth] Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The [Tenth] Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article [VI] of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired [Attorney],
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
mrobertc@hotmail.com

Now wasn't that interesting, folks? I sure though it was. Leave your comments below. God bless you, and have a fabulous day.

"The Pay Dictator"

I was watching the news this morning, and the conversation I witnessed was very interesting. The reporter was interviewing Stephen Moore, one of the authors of a book called The End of Prosperity, which I haven't happened to read yet. They were discussing "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg's decision to cut the salaries of executives at several bailed-out firms. Stephen Moore made sure to correct the reporter on calling Feinberg the pay czar.

"He's not the pay czar. He's the pay dictator."

I couldn't have put it better myself. Now don't get me wrong - I can assure you that these executives were paying themselves more than they deserved, all the while cheating out their employees and shareholders with jack for dough. The salaries the executives paid themselves were over-the-top and outright ridiculous. However, there is a deep message in all of this. Let's take a look at what happened.

These firms, which were on the edge of declaring bankruptcy, were bailed out with taxpayer money. Hooray for government intervention, right? What happens when executive salaries, wages, and the means of production are paid for by your tax dollars is that an alliance forms. Government gets to call more shots in the market, and the giant corporations get to call more shots in the laws. Since the corporations are now dependent upon public funds, the government, who controls those funds, also gets to control the aspects of production that are dependent on those funds. As far as I'm concerned, once an institution is bailed out, it provides an incentive for the government to gain an impressive amount of control over the market, especially since many of these bailed-out institutions are largely responsible for what happens in our economy.

What can the government now control in terms of that bailed-out institution? Almost anything - salaries, wages, prices, methods of production, distributive measures, shareholder payouts, what is produced, how it's produced, when it's produced, where it's produced - pretty much everything. Even if you don't agree with what the methods of production are, you're forced to pay for it anyway through the tax dollars that you rightfully earned. A large part of the market is now controlled not by the people, but by the ruling elite. When an institution is largely free of regulation, the institution has a responsibility to employees, shareholders, and consumers. If these people are not properly satisfied, it hurts business. The institution is then held accountable and must choose to make the proper decisions in order to satisfy the people they are responsible to. If they do not make the proper decisions, they can lose their employees, shareholders, and consumers through the system of natural selection that is the free market. Sales, profits, and overall stability decreases. Since institutions want to avoid this, they are motivated to make the right decisions. That is the magic of the free market.

Let's pretend you're a business owner.

Employees earn their pay by the wages you provide. The lower the profits, the lower the wages. You can't earn a decent profit if you pay yourself too much and don't leave enough for the means of production and the people who are expecting to be paid. If people find out that your wages aren't too great, less people will want to work there. You need workers to do the jobs that you don't have time to do because of your other responsibilities. I won't waste too much time explaining why workers are needed. It's obvious.

Shareholders are invested in your profits, since they themselves own a portion of your business. This means that they are dependent upon your profits. The lower the profits, the lower the payouts. If the payouts are too low, less people will invest in your business, and you might just dissatisfy your shareholders.

Consumers buy your product. They're the main source of your profit. If they buy your product, you bring in money. If they don't buy your product, you don't bring in anything. Thus, you must satisfy them. You also need enough profits to set good prices and make a high-quality product. If the price is bad, and the quality is bad, less people will buy your product, which will give your competitors an advantage.

See how much responsibility you have as a business owner? You dissatisfy people, and they just might take a hike. You get less profits. You don't want this to happen. You are motivated to avoid the worst in order to keep profits, stay ahead of the competition, and thrive. Simple as that.

When the government starts to stick it's nose in everything, however, force can be used to bring in revenue (which isn't profitable if you're spending more money than you take in). Money can be squeezed out of taxpayers whether they like it or not because paying taxes is the law. It's not voluntary. You can be jailed or even threatened for not paying your taxes. Therefore, most people will want to pay them. What you have is coercion. If you spend more money than you take in, which is usually the case with government due to reduced profit motive, then you add on debt. This means higher taxes, more inflation, currency degradation, and more. It's horrible for the economy. We're on the edge of destroying the dollar right now.

Excessive government intervention leads to waste and inefficiency. I mean, look what happened. The health industry was relatively unregulated - and then came the government with price controls, subsidies, regulations, tort reforms, and programs like Medicare. Is it any coincidence that our system got worse as intervention got heavier? Social Security's broke, Amtrak is broke, Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke, every government program on the book is broke. If the government was a business, they would have failed decades ago!

The worst thing about this whole ordeal is that the pay dictator is letting executives of government-owned corporations keep their massive salaries - think GM and General Electric - in addition to thinking about regulating the salaries of private businesses that aren't even propped up by taxpayer dollars. This means that the big guys are going to literally squish the little ones into tiny little pieces. Oh, President Obama sure loves those small businesses, doesn't he? Unless they have money, that is. Then he stabs them in the back and accuses the millions of small businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce of having too much profit.

Since when can one man - the pay dictator - determine executive salaries? I mean, I could understand if Congress was involved. These are taxpayer funds, and Congress is supposed to have control over those funds. But since when can one man say, "Your salaries need to be cut," and be automatically fulfilled of his wish? This is dangerous, people! One man having so much control is not a good thing. Powerful corporations have been given even more ability to call the shots in the very laws we must abide. You'd better believe it.

On top of that, the Federal Reserve, a supposed "private" entity that is supposedly "separate" from the government has been given the power to monitor the activities and actions of other businesses. If you don't think these guys are power-hungry, string-pulling puppeteers whose ultimate goal is one-world government, you've got to be out of your mind. The proof is everywhere, people! This banking elite is the most powerful entity in the world. They must be destroyed.

God help us all.

Much Ado About Nothing

The opinions I express today are going to be extremely controversial. Neither liberals or conservatives are going to be very happy with me after I say what I'm going to say next. As my ideas are often shaped by my own experiences, I don't expect everybody - or even most people - to agree with me.

Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Louisiana, denied a couple their marriage license based on the fact that it was an interracial relationship. I, for one, think there is too much brouhaha over this story. You're probably thinking, "But, Michelle, he's a racist!" It is my personal belief that Bardwell is not a hateful man, or even a complete and utter racist for that matter.

Bardwell says that he has not denied marriage to people based on their race alone. In fact, he has married numerous black couples. He is friends with people of multiple races, and he has discussed this issue with them. He is opposed to interracial marriage because, from his personal experience as well as the experiences of others, interracial marriages have not lasted long or have had a good impact on children.

Do I agree with him? No, I don't. In fact, I am the product of an interracial relationship, and I am in one myself. So is my sister. So is my brother. So is my aunt. Obviously, I am not opposed to interracial relationships or interracial marriage. However, I was raised and still live in a place where jokes about white girls and their black boyfriends run rampant, a place where jokes about blacks and Native Americans are very, very, very frequent, and a place where people often refer to President Obama's race in many of their jokes. I can honestly tell you that most of these people are not racist.

I mean, everyone's a little bit racist. I'll admit it myself. To a certain extent, I like black jokes. To an even greater extent, I like jokes about my own race. Native Americans have a great sense of humor about themselves. A major portion of their jokes are about Native American culture. Everyone makes judgments based on race. It's in our blood. Does that mean that statements, like, "Black people are the scum of the earth and should be murdered," are acceptable? Hell no! But that doesn't mean we should be policing political correctness and accusing everyone left and right of bigotry for a few racially-fueled jokes.

I realize that this is a different topic. However, I can also tell you that many of the people I am surrounded by are a little uncomfortable with interracial relationships. A black guy with a white girlfriend comes to mind. People often are weary when it comes to these types of things. Couples like that are often joked about or even criticized. To me, it's not right or fair, but those kinds of attitudes don't make a person a complete and utter racist.

I mean, look at the percentage of Americans who either are not sure they agree with interracial relationships or oppose them altogether: 32 percent. Does that mean that 32 percent of Americans are racist? Of course not! In fact, many black people actually share Bardwell's opinion. People need to open up their minds and realize that some people live in a completely different atmosphere with completely different values, especially the elderly who have grown up in a different time and place entirely.

In further defense of Bardwell, let's take a look at what this man has to say:

To me, this man seems nothing but well-intentioned and goodhearted. I am seeing constant hate for him. "What a bigoted racist. He should just die. I hope he burns in Hell." If you ask me, those with open minds should at least be more considerate. You don't have to agree with Bardwell. I sure as hell don't! The point I'm trying to make is that, in America, we can't force people to think like we do.

In the private industry, priests, rabbis, imams, and other issuers of marriage can deny pretty much anyone marriage. As a government worker, however, it is against the law for Bardwell to deny people marriage if they can pay up front. He misunderstood this, and it was a very honest misunderstanding. He thought that the law was that you could not prevent people from getting married. In fact, he offered them his advice and referred them to someone who would marry them. Does that really make him such an awful man? I think not!

Call me a racist, call me a bigot, call me whatever the hell you want, but I don't care. I stand by my statements. Leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!