By Tom Rhodes 12/20/2016
This Election proved one thing. Citizens United is a Red Herring. Corporate money in politics has little or no effect. Big Oil backed Clinton, not Trump. The Stock Market backed Clinton, not Trump.
Hillary spent double what Trump did on the election. That means with ½ the money Trump got 1/3 more electoral votes. Money doesn’t matter, spending big money on TV is a waste of money. Things have changed. A virtually free tweet is worth more than a 30 second spot on ABC, NBC, and CBS during prime time combined. People can and do fast forward and skip the commercials. Things have changed and limits on spending money on “electioneering” are clearly wasted and restrictive for no benefit.
YouTube Twitter, Facebook, blogs, GAB, etc. are all more effective today than, old-line network audiences. A good tweet is more effective than $Millions on TV. TV audiences are far smaller technology allows people to skip TV ads altogether. The Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate political communications, is utterly beside the point. The fact is major corporations don't take partisan sides. If they do public relations departments always pick the PC choice.
The people are so tired of being told what they can and can’t say, not being politically correct and saying what you feel can and will win votes over carefully crafted politically correct pablum. Hillary wasted a lot of dollars pointing out that Trump is a man, and in private talks like other men. Yawn, nobody cared.
Big money on polling with polls carefully crafted to shape a message also proved to be another waste of money. The polls were wrong and most of the country won’t even participate in what they know are polls rigged by big money.
The Democrats continued whining about big money in politics is just a Red Herring designed to keep people distracted form their desire to control everybody from cradle to grave and not have any opposing ideas heard or shared. That’s why they want to control the news, and label as “fake” anything they don’t think you should know or hear about. They are up in arms about Russia, but have yet to prove anything they exposed is false. Why exactly wont’ the FBI tell congress the details of how they came to change their mind and support the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked the US elections. The same CIA who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thought waterboarding was OK, etc.
From the US Presidential Election to the Hugo Awards, the events of 2016 proved that Freedom of Speech and the Press are more powerful than big money. Government restrictions only and always support what big money wants. So why does big money want to restrict small money speech? This election proved Big Money no longer works and was proof that liberty and protecting the rights of all people to equally, provides the best way for more people to be heard and ideas to be shared.
Showing posts with label freedom of the Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of the Press. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Monday, November 24, 2014
Net Neutrality is Simply the Liberal Response to Gruber
By Tom Rhodes, 11/24/2014
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Monday, January 14, 2013
Pravda and Libertarians Agree
By Tom Rhodes, 1/14/2013
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
"Government will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime ...No, it is about power and a total power over the people. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns ... they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question."
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Stop the Madness
By Rand Simberg, 6/18/2003
This biting satire was stolen from Transterrestrial Musings
In as much as the hoplophobes are beating the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum to death with mountains of "what if" extreme unreasoned arguments concerning firearms in America, let's see what hapens when their reasoning is applied to our other rights. On FB, I posted "When a hoplophobe tells you the second amendment was about muskets not assault rifles, ask him if he posted that opinion with a bottle of ink and a quill. This satire expands that notion, and the statists view of our rights in general.
I often disagree with Bill O'Reilly, but I want to defend him.
A lot of smart people are bashing him on line,
particularly in the blogosphere, but I think that this just proves his point. I think that he's spot on with this erudite and well-reasoned editorial. This "Internet" is just too powerful.
When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they could never have conceived a technology that would allow anyone to publish anything at any time, at almost no cost, and have it readable by millions instantaneously.
In fact, inspired by this work, I'm working on a book, tentatively titled "Publishing America: Origins Of The Free-Speech Myth," in which my thesis is that very few people had access to printing presses in colonial times, and this notion of a long American tradition of a free press and individual freedom of expression is simply propaganda of First Amendment extremists. I've painstakingly gone over old probate inventories, and can show statistically that very few homes traditionally had means of printing and, such few as there were, they had mostly fallen into such a state of disrepair as to be useless.
Unfortunately, my pet iguana ate all of my notes, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm sure the print nuts will employ their usual ad hominem tactics, and call me a fraud.
Anyway, it's one thing to have free speech when the most effective means of communicating ideas is with a printing press that few can afford, and has to have the type carefully set by hand, and they have to be printed on expensive paper, and transported no faster than a horse can run, and distributed by walking door to door.
Such a laborious and expensive process as colonial-era printing ensured that potentially dangerous ideas were more thought out, and well edited, and could usually be easily traced to their author. So, given that the investment in publishing was so high, it made it much more likely that only responsible people would be publishing things, and that you wouldn't have wackos running around spewing crazy or confused, even false or misinformed notions at innocent and naive passers by.
In that environment, it made perfect sense to grant an individual right to print things (to bear presses, as it were), because there was little danger of it getting out of hand.
But surely the Founders never intended for every single citizen to be able to exercise such a right--in their wisdom, they would have known it would lead to chaos and unfettered thought. They couldn't possibly have imagined the rapid-fire distribution of dangerous ideas made possible by twenty-first-century technology. Why, some people might have even put forth the absurd notion that free speech is the right of everyone.
Had they actually anticipated the possibility that the cost of publishing could drop so dramatically, they would surely have made the First Amendment a much more explicitly collective right (like the Second), in which people would only have a right to free speech in a well-regulated state newspaper.
Let's be reasonable--of course it's fine to let people have typewriters, and copiers, as long as they don't have a paper magazine of more than a quarter-ream capacity, and can't print more than two pages per minute in high-density color. There are legitimate uses for such things--printing up book reports for school, making PTA meeting notices and party invitations, and the like. We respect the rights of those who wish to indulge in such innocuous, if pointless activities, long a part of the American cultural tradition (though it would certainly make sense to register such devices, in case they're stolen, or lest they're used to express some untoward or scandalous thought).
Of course, we do need to outlaw the cheap Sunday-night specials, old manual machines still available in pawn shops, with sticky keys, that cause ink stains, and from which a large number of late term papers are produced by the criminal procrastinating class during the witching hours. But really, folks, chill--no one wants to take away your typewriters.
But the Founders would realize also, just as Bill O'Reilly and I do today, that no one, other than the police and politicians, needs the kind of "idea assault" publishing capability offered by word processors, blogging software, and even fifteen-page-per-minute ink-jet printers, which really have no legitimate use--they only propagate calumny and wrong-headed notions, tragically damaging innocent celebrities' egos, sometimes permanently.
This past weekend, just to demonstrate how easy it is to lay hands on such dangerous equipment, I exploited the notorious "computer show loophole," and went out to the big show in Pomona, California. There, I saw entire halls filled with purveyors of high-speed idea processors, rapid-fire printers, and even modems capable of transmitting thoughts at frightening rates, up to gigabytes per second. For only $4.99, with not so much as an ID requirement, let alone a background check, I was able to purchase an "assault keyboard," with several internet hotkeys. It was fully automatic--holding down any key would result in a torrent of characters being spit out, hundreds per minute. I even saw teenaged children buying them.
Yet, when people propose sensible regulations over this, we hear hysterical cries about "freedom of expression," and "from my cold, dead fingers." But surely the far-fringe First Amendment absolutists are misreading it--there is a hint of a shadow of an umbra of a penumbra in there, easily accessed by referencing the Second Amendment. Bearing this in mind, it is more properly read with the following implicit preface: "A well-regulated press being necessary for the security of the State and self-important talk-show hosts, Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Clearly, viewed in the light of that implicit purpose clause, these were not intended to be individual rights, any more than they were in the Second Amendment, because obviously, the Founders wouldn't have meant one thing by the words "the right of the people" in the one case, and a different thing in the other, particularly in two adjacent amendments.
Accordingly it is equally clear that we need to implement what would obviously have been the Founders' intent had they foreseen the Internet, and immediately pass some laws to get this thing under control. Let's do it for the children.
Particularly Bill O'Reilly.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Fast and Furious Death of Newspapers
By Tom Rhodes 6/27/2012
Fast and Furious are the last dying struggles of newspapers suffering from self inflicted wounds. Across the nation we see the downsizing and death of newspapers. They have lost and continue to lose their audience and influence. The steady decline of newspapers is not because people don't want in-depth reporting, want ads, or the comics. It's because the newspapers have abandoned their historic past of bringing all the news that's fit to print, to being outlets for the press releases of the government and big business.
The decline in influence and the no longer blind trust of the old guard press has been a long time coming. I remember when I first noticed the blatantly obvious bias in the media. It was the reporting in the newspaper and evening news that didn't match what I saw live from broadcasts of General Swartzkoff during the Gulf War. The reporting on what Swartzkoff said was different that what was actually said. To mitigate that, the press took to editing actual quotes and tapes to fit their bias. Unfortunately with the new media, it is easy to expose the press as biased liars; like the exposure of NBC's repeated and purposefully editing quotes and tapes to dramatically change the meaning of what actually was said or happened. NBC and MSNBC as a news source cannot be trusted to tell the unbiased truth, their diminishing influence reflects this simple fact. In general, the old guard press because of its own actions is losing influence and credibility.
Newspapers would have retained their circulation and power had they displayed skepticism of authority (the government), published, and pursued truth. Instead for decades they have presented one-sided narrative promoting statism and denigrating the values most Americans hold. Like the Gutenberg press dramatically decreased costs and brought newspapers and books to the masses and diminished the power of the Church and State, the digital age has made it so cost effective that anybody who wants can report on what they see. Publishing news is no longer limited to those with the money to afford a press or broadcast facilities. The old guard press, specifically newspapers, are no longer gatekeepers to the news. Virtually everyone carries the ability to video actual events and share them with their neighbors and the world. No longer are the actions of the city council whitewashed and cleaned up by their friends in the press, as the actual truth is now broadcast for all to see. The self evident bias of the news as reported by the old guard has resulted in their death. Their monopoly on the news is dead.
Hillary Clinton said we have too much free press and there should be "gate keepers" to the news. She longs for the days when the press and government were buddy-buddy and determined what the masses were told. Technology, Matt Drudge, and YouTube killed that.
Fast and Furious is the most prominent recent example, and why the main stream media is no longer trusted by the people, and why it is losing its audience and influence. The main stream media tried to ignore Fast and Furious, but the people and non-traditional media exposed it. It's been in the news for years, but when a US House of Representatives Committee votes to hold a cabinet member in contempt, an event that is huge, rare, and important, the old guard press now have to explain to their readers and viewers why they didn't think it was news worthy. Let's face it, in all of US history you can count on your fingers the number of times Congress has held in contempt a member of the president's cabinet. The facts, and truth of Fast and Furious, including the death a of Federal Border Patrol Agent with guns that the BATF and DOJ purposefully allowed to be sold to straw purchasers acting on behave of Mexican drug lords, should have been main stream news for years. The failure of the press to cover this and the DOJ cover-up, confirms to the public that the press is in support of liberal politicians, and is not an unbiased purveyor of truth whose duty is to hold the government accountable.
The old guard press insists that it, not mere everyday people, is the only proper purveyor of "news". Of course all who get their news from the old guard press have been completely ignorant of the deadly scandal, Fast and Furious (kudos to CBS for being the only old guard press to even attempt to cover Fast and Furious, but this is an exception not the norm). Blogs, and news aggregators like Drudge, have proven to be better reports of facts and details of extraordinary events like Fast and Furious than the old guard press.
The old guard press is aghast at the fact that people actually pay attention and believes the "new media". They shouldn't be, as new media has proven over the past 20 years to be better at exposing the misdeeds of government and politicians than the main stream press. The best photos and coverage of the damage to Tampa Bay area caused by Tropical Storm Debby have come from citizen journalists. The old guard press vilifies bloggers, and citizen journalists, but fails to report the truth, and actively works with government to determine what they think the people should be allowed to know. Thus the "new media" is growing and newspapers are dying. Clinton was impeached because "new media" not the old guard press, exposed his philandering ways. Clinton was not impeached because he cheated on his wife screwing around with an intern in the Oval Office; he was impeached for lying to Congress after he was caught and exposed by the new media. If not for the "new media" he would have never been caught. Matt Drudge destroyed the monopoly control the old guard media and the government had on "the news".
The old guard press, specifically news papers, are unconscious of their leftist bias to important events. Fast and Furious is the perfect example, but the bias is in a lot of other stories the press chooses to cover or not cover. Violent racist attacks are now becoming common place in our big cities, the old guard press not only chooses not to cover this, but to deny the obvious facts. Large groups of blacks in our big cities are attacking other races for no other reason than their race. If groups of Asians or whites were doing the same it would be wall to wall coverage every day on every news cast. Even when their own white reporters were drug out of their car and beat by a gang of blacks, an old school newspaper, refused to cover it; and the old school press wonders why they are losing audience and influence. Hundreds of thousands of times every year regular citizens legally and successfully use guns to defend themselves; this is rarely newsworthy to the old guard press. This bias not only in what is covered but how it is covered is blatant, but even when the readers of old guard newspapers say that they no longer read or trust the it because of its bias, the old guard media dismiss it, as the ravings of unenlightened rubes.
Like the good book says "the truth shall set you free", and the main stream press has been exposed and demonstrated that they can no longer be trusted to be the purveyor of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The old school press has lost its monopoly on news, and the trust of the people. Because we have Freedom of the Press, the Drudge Report, YouTube, a zillion blogs, are proof that in a free society it is the people, not the government nor the "press", who determine "all the news that's fit to print."
Because we still have a nominally free society, the people can and do get to choose what press they purchase, read, watch, listen, and believe. The people have spoken loudly and clearly; the result is the slow death of old school newspapers and the loss of influence of the old school media due to self inflicted wounds. Old guard media blaming the new media and society for the loss of readership and influence is like a man who gets caught cheating and lying to his wife blaming his Facebook and her because of what she saw on his mistresses FaceBook page rather than her trusting him to filter the information she sees. Like the cheating spouse who has been caught the consequences to old guard main stream press are the same, and even if forgiven and not divorced; the liar and cheat may be listened to but his word will always be suspect and have to be verified, because he has proven to be untrustworthy. Only the elimination of bias, true scrutiny of the government, and honest reporting for a long time can return the reputation of the main stream media, it will however never again be taken at its word without independent verification by the we the people.
Fast and Furious are the last dying struggles of newspapers suffering from self inflicted wounds. Across the nation we see the downsizing and death of newspapers. They have lost and continue to lose their audience and influence. The steady decline of newspapers is not because people don't want in-depth reporting, want ads, or the comics. It's because the newspapers have abandoned their historic past of bringing all the news that's fit to print, to being outlets for the press releases of the government and big business.
The decline in influence and the no longer blind trust of the old guard press has been a long time coming. I remember when I first noticed the blatantly obvious bias in the media. It was the reporting in the newspaper and evening news that didn't match what I saw live from broadcasts of General Swartzkoff during the Gulf War. The reporting on what Swartzkoff said was different that what was actually said. To mitigate that, the press took to editing actual quotes and tapes to fit their bias. Unfortunately with the new media, it is easy to expose the press as biased liars; like the exposure of NBC's repeated and purposefully editing quotes and tapes to dramatically change the meaning of what actually was said or happened. NBC and MSNBC as a news source cannot be trusted to tell the unbiased truth, their diminishing influence reflects this simple fact. In general, the old guard press because of its own actions is losing influence and credibility.
Newspapers would have retained their circulation and power had they displayed skepticism of authority (the government), published, and pursued truth. Instead for decades they have presented one-sided narrative promoting statism and denigrating the values most Americans hold. Like the Gutenberg press dramatically decreased costs and brought newspapers and books to the masses and diminished the power of the Church and State, the digital age has made it so cost effective that anybody who wants can report on what they see. Publishing news is no longer limited to those with the money to afford a press or broadcast facilities. The old guard press, specifically newspapers, are no longer gatekeepers to the news. Virtually everyone carries the ability to video actual events and share them with their neighbors and the world. No longer are the actions of the city council whitewashed and cleaned up by their friends in the press, as the actual truth is now broadcast for all to see. The self evident bias of the news as reported by the old guard has resulted in their death. Their monopoly on the news is dead.
Hillary Clinton said we have too much free press and there should be "gate keepers" to the news. She longs for the days when the press and government were buddy-buddy and determined what the masses were told. Technology, Matt Drudge, and YouTube killed that.
Fast and Furious is the most prominent recent example, and why the main stream media is no longer trusted by the people, and why it is losing its audience and influence. The main stream media tried to ignore Fast and Furious, but the people and non-traditional media exposed it. It's been in the news for years, but when a US House of Representatives Committee votes to hold a cabinet member in contempt, an event that is huge, rare, and important, the old guard press now have to explain to their readers and viewers why they didn't think it was news worthy. Let's face it, in all of US history you can count on your fingers the number of times Congress has held in contempt a member of the president's cabinet. The facts, and truth of Fast and Furious, including the death a of Federal Border Patrol Agent with guns that the BATF and DOJ purposefully allowed to be sold to straw purchasers acting on behave of Mexican drug lords, should have been main stream news for years. The failure of the press to cover this and the DOJ cover-up, confirms to the public that the press is in support of liberal politicians, and is not an unbiased purveyor of truth whose duty is to hold the government accountable.
The old guard press insists that it, not mere everyday people, is the only proper purveyor of "news". Of course all who get their news from the old guard press have been completely ignorant of the deadly scandal, Fast and Furious (kudos to CBS for being the only old guard press to even attempt to cover Fast and Furious, but this is an exception not the norm). Blogs, and news aggregators like Drudge, have proven to be better reports of facts and details of extraordinary events like Fast and Furious than the old guard press.
The old guard press is aghast at the fact that people actually pay attention and believes the "new media". They shouldn't be, as new media has proven over the past 20 years to be better at exposing the misdeeds of government and politicians than the main stream press. The best photos and coverage of the damage to Tampa Bay area caused by Tropical Storm Debby have come from citizen journalists. The old guard press vilifies bloggers, and citizen journalists, but fails to report the truth, and actively works with government to determine what they think the people should be allowed to know. Thus the "new media" is growing and newspapers are dying. Clinton was impeached because "new media" not the old guard press, exposed his philandering ways. Clinton was not impeached because he cheated on his wife screwing around with an intern in the Oval Office; he was impeached for lying to Congress after he was caught and exposed by the new media. If not for the "new media" he would have never been caught. Matt Drudge destroyed the monopoly control the old guard media and the government had on "the news".
The old guard press, specifically news papers, are unconscious of their leftist bias to important events. Fast and Furious is the perfect example, but the bias is in a lot of other stories the press chooses to cover or not cover. Violent racist attacks are now becoming common place in our big cities, the old guard press not only chooses not to cover this, but to deny the obvious facts. Large groups of blacks in our big cities are attacking other races for no other reason than their race. If groups of Asians or whites were doing the same it would be wall to wall coverage every day on every news cast. Even when their own white reporters were drug out of their car and beat by a gang of blacks, an old school newspaper, refused to cover it; and the old school press wonders why they are losing audience and influence. Hundreds of thousands of times every year regular citizens legally and successfully use guns to defend themselves; this is rarely newsworthy to the old guard press. This bias not only in what is covered but how it is covered is blatant, but even when the readers of old guard newspapers say that they no longer read or trust the it because of its bias, the old guard media dismiss it, as the ravings of unenlightened rubes.
Like the good book says "the truth shall set you free", and the main stream press has been exposed and demonstrated that they can no longer be trusted to be the purveyor of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The old school press has lost its monopoly on news, and the trust of the people. Because we have Freedom of the Press, the Drudge Report, YouTube, a zillion blogs, are proof that in a free society it is the people, not the government nor the "press", who determine "all the news that's fit to print."
Because we still have a nominally free society, the people can and do get to choose what press they purchase, read, watch, listen, and believe. The people have spoken loudly and clearly; the result is the slow death of old school newspapers and the loss of influence of the old school media due to self inflicted wounds. Old guard media blaming the new media and society for the loss of readership and influence is like a man who gets caught cheating and lying to his wife blaming his Facebook and her because of what she saw on his mistresses FaceBook page rather than her trusting him to filter the information she sees. Like the cheating spouse who has been caught the consequences to old guard main stream press are the same, and even if forgiven and not divorced; the liar and cheat may be listened to but his word will always be suspect and have to be verified, because he has proven to be untrustworthy. Only the elimination of bias, true scrutiny of the government, and honest reporting for a long time can return the reputation of the main stream media, it will however never again be taken at its word without independent verification by the we the people.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Watch the Watchmen
Editor's Note: I hope Mr. Stossel doesn't get mad, I reprinting his article in total here. This particular subject is a huge problem in the USA, and one I think and am working on having the Libertarian Party attack. You will note that there is a specific plank about filming government officials, including law enforcement, in the Proposed Platform which should be adopted at the end of the month at the Libertarian Party of Florida State Convention. Thank you Mr. Stossel for bringing this problem into the spotlite.
Watch the watchmen
John Stossel © 2011
April 20, 2011
I believe in the right to privacy.
Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy – a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it's a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.
That's wrong. Police work for the public, they're paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it's a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?
I asked Radley Balko, an editor at Reason magazine who keeps an eye on issues like this: What's happened to the people who were arrested for videotaping cops at work? Balko will be a guest on my Fox Business show this week.
"In most of these cases, the people aren't actually prosecuted," Balko said. "The charges tend to get dropped before these cases get to trial – I think because the people prosecuting these cases and the people who make the laws don't want the laws to actually get challenged. But it's a night in jail."
On what charge?
"In states that have these two-party consent laws, they rely on the old wiretapping laws. The claim is that police officers have a right to privacy while they're on the job in public exercising some pretty powerful responsibilities that we give them. I think that claim is ridiculous."
He says some authorities now claim that people who record the police while being arrested are "interfering with arrest or ... refusing to obey a lawful order, if they tell you to turn the camera off and you don't."
How does it interfere with the arrest?
"It's a ridiculous argument. But here's the thing: You may not go to jail for these charges. But they're going to take your camera, going to arrest you, you're going to be handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car. And nothing is going to happen to the police officers who illegally arrest you – usually."
Occasionally a cop caught abusing his power is arrested or fired. But that's rare.
In Maryland, motorcyclist Tony Graber got in trouble for recording a cop who pulled him over for speeding. Graber didn't know it was a cop. He was just a guy in plainclothes with a gun. The cop eventually identified himself.
"Graber didn't get arrested until he posted that video on YouTube," Balko explained. "Once he posted it ... the state police raided his home – came into his home early in the morning, guns drawn – confiscated a bunch of computer equipment, held him and his parents at gunpoint, arrested him. He spent several nights in jail. He had felony charges hanging over his head until the case finally got to court."
Fortunately, a state judge threw out the charges and wrote a strong opinion:
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
He ended by asking, "Who watches the watchmen?" – a question Plato raised in "The Republic." Good for the judge. But Balko points out that no one punished the authorities who abused their power.
"The prosecutor who charged him, the cops who raided him and arrested him – they were all wrong about the law and did real harm to him, and none of them are going to suffer any consequences."
Most police officers told us that they're fine with cameras, and some were happy they were recorded when they were vindicated of misconduct charges thanks to a video made by a bystander. The cops who object tend to be problem cops.
That little phone with a camera is a good thing. Now it's even a weapon against tyranny.
But, Balko added, only if the laws "ensure that we can continue to use it that way."
Watch the watchmen
John Stossel © 2011
April 20, 2011
I believe in the right to privacy.
Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy – a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it's a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.
That's wrong. Police work for the public, they're paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They've got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it's a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?
I asked Radley Balko, an editor at Reason magazine who keeps an eye on issues like this: What's happened to the people who were arrested for videotaping cops at work? Balko will be a guest on my Fox Business show this week.
"In most of these cases, the people aren't actually prosecuted," Balko said. "The charges tend to get dropped before these cases get to trial – I think because the people prosecuting these cases and the people who make the laws don't want the laws to actually get challenged. But it's a night in jail."
On what charge?
"In states that have these two-party consent laws, they rely on the old wiretapping laws. The claim is that police officers have a right to privacy while they're on the job in public exercising some pretty powerful responsibilities that we give them. I think that claim is ridiculous."
He says some authorities now claim that people who record the police while being arrested are "interfering with arrest or ... refusing to obey a lawful order, if they tell you to turn the camera off and you don't."
How does it interfere with the arrest?
"It's a ridiculous argument. But here's the thing: You may not go to jail for these charges. But they're going to take your camera, going to arrest you, you're going to be handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car. And nothing is going to happen to the police officers who illegally arrest you – usually."
Occasionally a cop caught abusing his power is arrested or fired. But that's rare.
In Maryland, motorcyclist Tony Graber got in trouble for recording a cop who pulled him over for speeding. Graber didn't know it was a cop. He was just a guy in plainclothes with a gun. The cop eventually identified himself.
"Graber didn't get arrested until he posted that video on YouTube," Balko explained. "Once he posted it ... the state police raided his home – came into his home early in the morning, guns drawn – confiscated a bunch of computer equipment, held him and his parents at gunpoint, arrested him. He spent several nights in jail. He had felony charges hanging over his head until the case finally got to court."
Fortunately, a state judge threw out the charges and wrote a strong opinion:
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
He ended by asking, "Who watches the watchmen?" – a question Plato raised in "The Republic." Good for the judge. But Balko points out that no one punished the authorities who abused their power.
"The prosecutor who charged him, the cops who raided him and arrested him – they were all wrong about the law and did real harm to him, and none of them are going to suffer any consequences."
Most police officers told us that they're fine with cameras, and some were happy they were recorded when they were vindicated of misconduct charges thanks to a video made by a bystander. The cops who object tend to be problem cops.
That little phone with a camera is a good thing. Now it's even a weapon against tyranny.
But, Balko added, only if the laws "ensure that we can continue to use it that way."
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Truth will Set You Free
On August 21, 2010 Obama said the following, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are the people with something to hide."
The following is a list of some of the records that President Obama has refused to release to the public see:
educational records from kindergarten at Noelani Elementary through the swanky private Punahou School;
his SAT scores;
records from Occidental College that would reveal whether he attended as a foreign student;
the transcript of courses and grades he took at Occidental College, or Columbia University, or Harvard Law school.
his thesis written at Columbia on "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament," on which he reportedly spent a year of research;
his LSAT scores;
Harvard Law Review articles during the time he served as the first black president of the institution;
University of Chicago scholarly articles;
medical and health records;
files and schedules during his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 through 2004;
If what Obama said is true, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are the people with something to hide," what is he trying to hide by not releasing those records?
The following is a list of some of the records that President Obama has refused to release to the public see:
If what Obama said is true, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are the people with something to hide," what is he trying to hide by not releasing those records?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Politifact Loses All Credibility.
Without using even a single outside source it is clear that Politifact has lot's it's credibility.
In claiming that the statement health care reform law a "government takeover" is a lie they clearly have to stretch the meaning of a lie and government takeover.
Here's what they said:
To Politifact if the government doesn't own hospitals, clinics, and medical practices they haven't taken them over. They even admit that the Obamacare has the "same effect" as a government takeover, but because they don't actually "own" the physical property they haven't taken over health care.
Since when has taking over something equated to owning something. Lots of bullies have taken over a playground without owning the property. Nobody would argue that TSA hasn't taken over control of airport security without actually owning the airports.
Obviously the credibility of Politifact as a source to determine if a politician in telling the truth or not has been dramatically compromised. Politifact has lost its credibility, and cannot be trusted, especially if the subject in question concerns Obama and his policies.
In claiming that the statement health care reform law a "government takeover" is a lie they clearly have to stretch the meaning of a lie and government takeover.
Here's what they said:
When government determines the limits of insurance coverage and medical fees and patient treatment through price controls, that's not a government takeover of health care. It may feel like one, it may have the same effect as one, but the federal government doesn't actually own the hospitals, clinics and medical practices. It just controls their prices and policies by controlling health insurance. Ergo, any talk of a government takeover of health care is not just wrong but a lie. Indeed, the biggest lie of the year.
To Politifact if the government doesn't own hospitals, clinics, and medical practices they haven't taken them over. They even admit that the Obamacare has the "same effect" as a government takeover, but because they don't actually "own" the physical property they haven't taken over health care.
Since when has taking over something equated to owning something. Lots of bullies have taken over a playground without owning the property. Nobody would argue that TSA hasn't taken over control of airport security without actually owning the airports.
Obviously the credibility of Politifact as a source to determine if a politician in telling the truth or not has been dramatically compromised. Politifact has lost its credibility, and cannot be trusted, especially if the subject in question concerns Obama and his policies.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Tax Dollars Used to Promote Abortion
The current liberal control of the federal government, knows no bounds in its hypocrisy. The people and congress have repeatedly said that federal dollars cannot be used for abortion, but now Federal dollars are being used to change the terms of debate and promote abortion in the USA. Managing editor of NPR, David Sweeney, recently issued a memorandum to staff ordering them to use only the politically correct designations for the contending sides in the debate: abortion rights advocates is the approved way of referring to those who favor liberalized abortion; abortion rights opponents is the only way NPR will refer, from now on, to pro-lifers.
The Libertarian Party is generally considered a pro-infanticide (pro-abortion) group. It has a huge number of atheists and pro-abortion proponents. As a Christian Libertarian I believe that abortion is better termed infanticide and wrong; that the LP Platform position on abortion is misguided and wrong, but I also believe it most honestly reflects the true position of the American people. The LP Platform position on abortion reads: Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
In no case should the government ever be promoting abortion. The official radio station of the US government National Public Radio in general should be eliminated. If it can survive on private donation from both corporations and citizens, or sell commercials to support its work it should be allowed to exist as it is. Spending tax dollars on it is wrong. It is and should be recognized as a federal propaganda organ not a real news source. NPR has been hostile to conservatives and traditional values and has a history of accepting and promoting opinions as facts, and of demonizing anybody who doesn’t accept the leftist line.
What is most objectionable is that NPR uses public tax money to spread pro-infanticide bias. Not only that but they have decided that “pro-life” terminology will no longer be used. Calling people, who believe that of all the rights, the right to life is sacred, anti-abortion rather than pro-life is propaganda of the Soviet style, designed to change an argument by controlling the language. “Pro-Life” is the positive view of human rights. The acceptance of the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is not anti-anything. Americans want to protect, and do protect, the right to life. We should extend that protection to millions of genetically distinct living people who through no action of their own are denied their right to life simply because of their developmental age.
The government should not be allowed to have a leftist propaganda arm like NPR. NPR should be allowed to exist and have whatever obvious and shameless bias it chooses. It should however, like the NY Times, Newsweek, Fox News, or any other “news source” be allowed to make it or go the way of the Detroit News, Clearwater Sun, and a thousand other news sources that no longer exist because the people didn’t support them. The next time we have a Congress that listens, let’s demand that NPR do it on their own dime.
The Libertarian Party is generally considered a pro-infanticide (pro-abortion) group. It has a huge number of atheists and pro-abortion proponents. As a Christian Libertarian I believe that abortion is better termed infanticide and wrong; that the LP Platform position on abortion is misguided and wrong, but I also believe it most honestly reflects the true position of the American people. The LP Platform position on abortion reads: Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
In no case should the government ever be promoting abortion. The official radio station of the US government National Public Radio in general should be eliminated. If it can survive on private donation from both corporations and citizens, or sell commercials to support its work it should be allowed to exist as it is. Spending tax dollars on it is wrong. It is and should be recognized as a federal propaganda organ not a real news source. NPR has been hostile to conservatives and traditional values and has a history of accepting and promoting opinions as facts, and of demonizing anybody who doesn’t accept the leftist line.
What is most objectionable is that NPR uses public tax money to spread pro-infanticide bias. Not only that but they have decided that “pro-life” terminology will no longer be used. Calling people, who believe that of all the rights, the right to life is sacred, anti-abortion rather than pro-life is propaganda of the Soviet style, designed to change an argument by controlling the language. “Pro-Life” is the positive view of human rights. The acceptance of the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is not anti-anything. Americans want to protect, and do protect, the right to life. We should extend that protection to millions of genetically distinct living people who through no action of their own are denied their right to life simply because of their developmental age.
The government should not be allowed to have a leftist propaganda arm like NPR. NPR should be allowed to exist and have whatever obvious and shameless bias it chooses. It should however, like the NY Times, Newsweek, Fox News, or any other “news source” be allowed to make it or go the way of the Detroit News, Clearwater Sun, and a thousand other news sources that no longer exist because the people didn’t support them. The next time we have a Congress that listens, let’s demand that NPR do it on their own dime.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Are We Seeing the End of The Rule of Law?
This is a great country, unlike most its very foundation is based on people being free, and all people regardless of class being treated equally. The very fact that I can write this blog, and editorialize about current events is proof of that. Because this country was founded on the Rule of Law, everybody being equal, every citizen has the right in this country to freedom of the press. The government doesn’t get to determine who the press is, who can publish, or what ideas may be published. In this country if you have the means to publish you are allowed to publish. For generations that has meant that those who could afford to own or hire a printing press (or later radio and TV stations) were the only people who could exercise that right. Everybody for generations had the right, just not the means. Now virtually everyone with a cell phone is a TV reporter, and because every public library has computers with access to the internet there is literally nobody who doesn’t have the means to publish their ideas, views, and news. Truly today we have freedom of the press. Our rights as defined in the Bill of rights are extensions of the Rule of Law.
I have a relatively famous friend, if you’ve seen an action movie in the past few decades and if you bother to read the credits, you’ve seen his name, Flint Eagle. Flint is a happy gregarious man who enjoys life, and in general makes everybody around him feel good. We we’re bussed from redneck orange groves to a high school situated in the middle of a Greek enclave located in the deep south. The grandson of a famous professional wrestler, Flint is a Native American half breed stunt actor and driver who has managed to earn a living at playing. Because we were friends in the past, I’ve made a habit of trying to watch movies he’s in. Just so I can say “I know that guy, I remember when he was a scrawny kid,” yada yada yada. So trying to catch up on all of Flint’s movies, some are very bad Zombie movies, others are summer blockbusters like The Hulk, I had to sit through the HBO John Adams mini-series where he did stunts. Even trying to escape the cares and worries of what’s going in the world, I’m lead back to US politics. Watching John Adams it struck me as odd how different John Adams was from our current President.
In his closing arguments defending British soldiers who shot into a rioting crowd killing 5 colonists, he said, ” "The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men." None of the soldiers was convicted of murder. Thus setting up the foundation that regardless of class and circumstance, no man is above the law, and all men are to be treated equally before the law, even against popular condemnation. The US from its beginning was founded on the Rule of Law.
President Obama on the other hand “informed” BP, that they would forgo their rights to due process, and give the government billions of dollars to pay claims for damages due to the Gulf oil spill. BP has not been proven to cheat anybody, or evade its responsibility for the damages it’s caused. BP is not refusing to pay legitimate claims. They got caught taking shortcuts to save money and time, and appear to be willing to pay for the damages that their risky actions caused. They have made over 25,000 claim payments for over $63 million already and repeatedly insist they will pay all legitimate claims. Their actions to date have not shown any attempt to evade their liability. BP is a group of people (stock holders), and as such those people have rights. Including property rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution which says, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Obama’s extortion of Billions of dollars of stock holder’s money clearly violates the Fifth Amendment, and puts Obama’s dictates above the rule of law.
Maybe if Obama like John Adams started every day with a flagon of hard cider, he’d mellow out a bit and like the lawyer he is, uphold the rule of law. How very different the lawyer presidents Obama and John Adams are. John Adams while fighting for self rule fought to defend British soldiers because he believed in the Rule of Law.
Obama by arbitrary official fiat took the property of citizens without due process(40% of BP shareholders are us citizens). If we the people allow this to continue, all of our rights are in jeopardy of being eliminated or overruled by arbitrary official fiat or government decree.
All of our unalienable rights are based on a very few very old principles, primarily the Rule of Law. Taking the property of another whether through theft, extortion, or fraud is wrong. Because we have lawyers we have to have lots of laws hammering down that principle. Based on the Rule of Law, a thief, whether rich or poor, whether black or white or brown or yellow or freckled, whether male or female or transgendered, whether politician or ordinary citizen is supposed to be treated the same. Why is Obama’s extortion of BP stockholders future and current earnings above the law? If the government deny the right to due process to one of the biggest corporations in the world what’s to stop it from denying any right to anybody? Obama, like Don Corleone, made an offer; BP couldn’t refuse. I wonder what “horse’s head” ended up in BP’s Bed?
The press, be it a little read blog, or CNN, under the rule of law should be treated the same legally. The government is actively trying to eliminate citizen journalism. A “free press” was good and grand when only the rich could afford to publish and the voices and ideas of “small people” were just a little background buzz. Like the Industrial revolution which made complex machinery, indoor plumbing, and luxury products affordable to virtually everybody, the information revolution has made publishing and the press affordable to everybody. This means the elite no longer have access and means to control the press, and to what information the public at large is exposed. “Great” journalists like Dan Rather and Helen Thomas have been put to pasture because rich elites no longer control the press. Before the information revolution, the recording of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel rant would have been squelched and used by powerful elite to sway her writings. Matt Drudge is proof of what one person free from the editorial control of the rich elite can do. President Clinton was impeached because of freedom of the press and all publishers of the press, be they large or small, being treated equally under the law. Because of the Rule of Law, a nobody pounding away on a computer in the public library is now free to expose government and corporate abuses, no longer is the news limited to what editors, beholding to the powers who pay them, say is the news.
If we ignore the rule of law, as Obama is with BP and did with GM, then all of our rights, like freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, free speech, and freedom of religion can be taken away without due process or accountability. I mean, if the rule of law is ignored, we’d start seeing people arrested and locked up for talking about religion in public and the police seizing their video cameras so the government can hide or lie about what happens. (oops that happened in Michigan over the weekend CLICK HERE)
Our leaders are very frustrated over the Rule of Law, free press, and the Constitution in general. It keeps getting in the way of their dictates. The free press is keeping Pelosi from pushing through legislation to squelch political speech. Obama while campaigning lamented that the constitution gets in the way of making significant changes. Because a free press, free speech, and a liberty minded populace is making it difficult to create “law”, the elitists are resorting to arbitrary government fiat, and granting bureaucracies wide discretionary powers, to avoid accountability and constitutional restrictions. By ignoring the Rule of Law, Obama is abusing the rights of all citizens, not just BP. He is our president not our King, he is not above the rule of law.
The end of the Rule of Law is happening in the USA, why are we tolerating it?
I have a relatively famous friend, if you’ve seen an action movie in the past few decades and if you bother to read the credits, you’ve seen his name, Flint Eagle. Flint is a happy gregarious man who enjoys life, and in general makes everybody around him feel good. We we’re bussed from redneck orange groves to a high school situated in the middle of a Greek enclave located in the deep south. The grandson of a famous professional wrestler, Flint is a Native American half breed stunt actor and driver who has managed to earn a living at playing. Because we were friends in the past, I’ve made a habit of trying to watch movies he’s in. Just so I can say “I know that guy, I remember when he was a scrawny kid,” yada yada yada. So trying to catch up on all of Flint’s movies, some are very bad Zombie movies, others are summer blockbusters like The Hulk, I had to sit through the HBO John Adams mini-series where he did stunts. Even trying to escape the cares and worries of what’s going in the world, I’m lead back to US politics. Watching John Adams it struck me as odd how different John Adams was from our current President.
In his closing arguments defending British soldiers who shot into a rioting crowd killing 5 colonists, he said, ” "The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men." None of the soldiers was convicted of murder. Thus setting up the foundation that regardless of class and circumstance, no man is above the law, and all men are to be treated equally before the law, even against popular condemnation. The US from its beginning was founded on the Rule of Law.
President Obama on the other hand “informed” BP, that they would forgo their rights to due process, and give the government billions of dollars to pay claims for damages due to the Gulf oil spill. BP has not been proven to cheat anybody, or evade its responsibility for the damages it’s caused. BP is not refusing to pay legitimate claims. They got caught taking shortcuts to save money and time, and appear to be willing to pay for the damages that their risky actions caused. They have made over 25,000 claim payments for over $63 million already and repeatedly insist they will pay all legitimate claims. Their actions to date have not shown any attempt to evade their liability. BP is a group of people (stock holders), and as such those people have rights. Including property rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution which says, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Obama’s extortion of Billions of dollars of stock holder’s money clearly violates the Fifth Amendment, and puts Obama’s dictates above the rule of law.
Maybe if Obama like John Adams started every day with a flagon of hard cider, he’d mellow out a bit and like the lawyer he is, uphold the rule of law. How very different the lawyer presidents Obama and John Adams are. John Adams while fighting for self rule fought to defend British soldiers because he believed in the Rule of Law.
Rule of Law: Definition - Absolute predominance or supremacy of ordinary law of the land over all citizens, no matter how powerful. First expounded by the UK law Professor A. V. Dicey in his 1885 book 'Introduction To The Study Of Law Of The Constitution,' it is based on three principles that (1) legal duties, and liability to punishment, of all citizens, is determined by the ordinary (regular) law and not by any arbitrary official fiat, government decree, or wide discretionary-powers, (2) disputes between citizens and government officials are to be determined by the ordinary courts applying ordinary law, and the (3) fundamental rights of the citizens (freedom of the person, freedom of association, freedom of speech) are rooted in the natural law, and are not dependent on any abstract constitutional concept, declaration, or guaranty.
Obama by arbitrary official fiat took the property of citizens without due process(40% of BP shareholders are us citizens). If we the people allow this to continue, all of our rights are in jeopardy of being eliminated or overruled by arbitrary official fiat or government decree.
All of our unalienable rights are based on a very few very old principles, primarily the Rule of Law. Taking the property of another whether through theft, extortion, or fraud is wrong. Because we have lawyers we have to have lots of laws hammering down that principle. Based on the Rule of Law, a thief, whether rich or poor, whether black or white or brown or yellow or freckled, whether male or female or transgendered, whether politician or ordinary citizen is supposed to be treated the same. Why is Obama’s extortion of BP stockholders future and current earnings above the law? If the government deny the right to due process to one of the biggest corporations in the world what’s to stop it from denying any right to anybody? Obama, like Don Corleone, made an offer; BP couldn’t refuse. I wonder what “horse’s head” ended up in BP’s Bed?
The press, be it a little read blog, or CNN, under the rule of law should be treated the same legally. The government is actively trying to eliminate citizen journalism. A “free press” was good and grand when only the rich could afford to publish and the voices and ideas of “small people” were just a little background buzz. Like the Industrial revolution which made complex machinery, indoor plumbing, and luxury products affordable to virtually everybody, the information revolution has made publishing and the press affordable to everybody. This means the elite no longer have access and means to control the press, and to what information the public at large is exposed. “Great” journalists like Dan Rather and Helen Thomas have been put to pasture because rich elites no longer control the press. Before the information revolution, the recording of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel rant would have been squelched and used by powerful elite to sway her writings. Matt Drudge is proof of what one person free from the editorial control of the rich elite can do. President Clinton was impeached because of freedom of the press and all publishers of the press, be they large or small, being treated equally under the law. Because of the Rule of Law, a nobody pounding away on a computer in the public library is now free to expose government and corporate abuses, no longer is the news limited to what editors, beholding to the powers who pay them, say is the news.
If we ignore the rule of law, as Obama is with BP and did with GM, then all of our rights, like freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, free speech, and freedom of religion can be taken away without due process or accountability. I mean, if the rule of law is ignored, we’d start seeing people arrested and locked up for talking about religion in public and the police seizing their video cameras so the government can hide or lie about what happens. (oops that happened in Michigan over the weekend CLICK HERE)
Our leaders are very frustrated over the Rule of Law, free press, and the Constitution in general. It keeps getting in the way of their dictates. The free press is keeping Pelosi from pushing through legislation to squelch political speech. Obama while campaigning lamented that the constitution gets in the way of making significant changes. Because a free press, free speech, and a liberty minded populace is making it difficult to create “law”, the elitists are resorting to arbitrary government fiat, and granting bureaucracies wide discretionary powers, to avoid accountability and constitutional restrictions. By ignoring the Rule of Law, Obama is abusing the rights of all citizens, not just BP. He is our president not our King, he is not above the rule of law.
The end of the Rule of Law is happening in the USA, why are we tolerating it?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Citizen Press embarasses Government Official
Why Elected Officials are trying to curb, citizen journalism, free speech, and the internet? Watch this video of a polite high school student interviewing a state Senator, and you'll see why.
Our elected officials really don’t like well educated, informed citizens, actually holding them accountable for their actions.
Our elected officials really don’t like well educated, informed citizens, actually holding them accountable for their actions.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Press Actively Works To Suppress Libertarian Candidates Exposure
When the Florida Press Association invited U.S. Senate candidates to speak to the media at the Ritz-Carlton on Thursday, They invited 4 US Senatorial candidates to speak, claiming that only those who reached 10% polling in a major pole were invited. Two problems, one it's a lie; Green hasn't reached 10%; and two since the press pays for the major polls, and won’t put any non-career politicians in the polls only those ordained by the press can reach 10%.
Snitker has been claiming that the press won't cover them, and is trying to stop or hide coverage of those who are not career politicians, or billionaires. Evidence of it is clear. Yesterday in a bold move Alex Snitker crashed the Florida Press Association media event. He calmly and coolly requested a chance to be heard, he was escorted out by security. The press' response:
In Fox News' Coverage never mentioned him or the fireworks from Snitker challenging the establishment. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/sun_coast/top-candidates-for-senate-governor-meet-in-sarasota-061810
The Associate Press coverage had no mention of the event. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/17/1686686/fla-senate-candidates-talk-federal.html
The New York Times Regional Media Group reporting in the Sarasota Ledger, says Nada, no mention of Snitker. http://www.theledger.com/article/20100617/NEWS/6175080/1001
Sarasota ABC News Channel 7 has video's of the media event, but never even a mention that the historic first time ever on the state ballot Libertarian Candidate was there, and wasn't invited. http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=12668696
Local news paper, the Sarasota Herald/Tribune also ignored it. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100618/ARTICLE/6181031/2055/NEWS
Obviously the main stream news not only doesn't want to cover the Libertarian Party, they appear to be suppressing it actively. It looks like the only way they will cover anything besides the Democrats and Republicans is if you’re a sitting governor, or a billionaire. If regular people try to become active in politics and government, the press is obviously against them.
Official Snitker Press Release
Snitker Crashes Press Event, Demands To Be Heard
After being snubbed by the media, Alex Snitker crashes a candidate forum hosted by the Florida Press Association to speak to the assembly.
(Press Release) – Jun 18, 2010 – SARASOTA, FLA - When the Florida Press Association invited U.S. Senate candidates to speak to the media at the Ritz-Carlton on Thursday, there was one name absent from the list. Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek all made the list. Even long-shot Democrat billionaire Jeff Greene was included.
However, Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Alex Snitker was not invited.
But that didn't stop him from crashing the event to ask the FPA why he was excluded. After Marco Rubio finished his 15-minutes at the podium, Snitker stepped to the microphone in the aisle and said, “I'd like to make a statement. I think denying a person who served eight years in the United States Marine Corps defending your right to have this today...is an atrocity.”
Snitker admonished the assembled press, saying, “You keep saying that career politicians are the problem, and you're only going to allow career politicians and a billionaire on stage. You want to talk about the tea party candidate? It's not Marco Rubio – it's Alexander Snitker.”
FPA President Dean Ridings told Snitker that he would not be granted the opportunity to speak and called for security. Shortly thereafter, Snitker was politely escorted from the event by security, with a flock of reporters in tow.
Snitker is the first Libertarian ever to appear on the ballot for U.S. Senate in Florida. The Libertarian Party is fully recognized by the State of Florida, and is the third largest political party in the state.
According to Florida Division of Elections procedures, Snitker's name will appear above Charlie Crist on the ballot, because Crist is running with no party affiliation. In a May poll, Snitker received 12% support in among likely voters familiar with him, Rubio, Crist, Meek.
“The mainstream media has intentionally ignored Alex, despite the groundswell of grassroots support, and despite all our efforts to reach out to them,” said Snitker campaign manager Kelly Lobean. “We've made the decision that we can no longer play by the status quo rules of politics.”
The decision appears to have paid off. Within minutes of Snitker's impromptu speech, tweets were flying among media insiders. Several newspapers and 6-o'clock news programs were running the story, and even the Associated Press had weighed in.
“We're just looking for a level playing field, that's all,” said Adrian Wyllie, campaign media director. “We have called press conferences, sent out dozens of press releases, and spoken with countless TV news producers. If they won't report the news, then we are forced to make the news.”
Snitker has been claiming that the press won't cover them, and is trying to stop or hide coverage of those who are not career politicians, or billionaires. Evidence of it is clear. Yesterday in a bold move Alex Snitker crashed the Florida Press Association media event. He calmly and coolly requested a chance to be heard, he was escorted out by security. The press' response:
In Fox News' Coverage never mentioned him or the fireworks from Snitker challenging the establishment. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/sun_coast/top-candidates-for-senate-governor-meet-in-sarasota-061810
The Associate Press coverage had no mention of the event. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/17/1686686/fla-senate-candidates-talk-federal.html
The New York Times Regional Media Group reporting in the Sarasota Ledger, says Nada, no mention of Snitker. http://www.theledger.com/article/20100617/NEWS/6175080/1001
Sarasota ABC News Channel 7 has video's of the media event, but never even a mention that the historic first time ever on the state ballot Libertarian Candidate was there, and wasn't invited. http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=12668696
Local news paper, the Sarasota Herald/Tribune also ignored it. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100618/ARTICLE/6181031/2055/NEWS
Obviously the main stream news not only doesn't want to cover the Libertarian Party, they appear to be suppressing it actively. It looks like the only way they will cover anything besides the Democrats and Republicans is if you’re a sitting governor, or a billionaire. If regular people try to become active in politics and government, the press is obviously against them.
Official Snitker Press Release
Snitker Crashes Press Event, Demands To Be Heard
After being snubbed by the media, Alex Snitker crashes a candidate forum hosted by the Florida Press Association to speak to the assembly.
(Press Release) – Jun 18, 2010 – SARASOTA, FLA - When the Florida Press Association invited U.S. Senate candidates to speak to the media at the Ritz-Carlton on Thursday, there was one name absent from the list. Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek all made the list. Even long-shot Democrat billionaire Jeff Greene was included.
However, Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Alex Snitker was not invited.
But that didn't stop him from crashing the event to ask the FPA why he was excluded. After Marco Rubio finished his 15-minutes at the podium, Snitker stepped to the microphone in the aisle and said, “I'd like to make a statement. I think denying a person who served eight years in the United States Marine Corps defending your right to have this today...is an atrocity.”
Snitker admonished the assembled press, saying, “You keep saying that career politicians are the problem, and you're only going to allow career politicians and a billionaire on stage. You want to talk about the tea party candidate? It's not Marco Rubio – it's Alexander Snitker.”
FPA President Dean Ridings told Snitker that he would not be granted the opportunity to speak and called for security. Shortly thereafter, Snitker was politely escorted from the event by security, with a flock of reporters in tow.
Snitker is the first Libertarian ever to appear on the ballot for U.S. Senate in Florida. The Libertarian Party is fully recognized by the State of Florida, and is the third largest political party in the state.
According to Florida Division of Elections procedures, Snitker's name will appear above Charlie Crist on the ballot, because Crist is running with no party affiliation. In a May poll, Snitker received 12% support in among likely voters familiar with him, Rubio, Crist, Meek.
“The mainstream media has intentionally ignored Alex, despite the groundswell of grassroots support, and despite all our efforts to reach out to them,” said Snitker campaign manager Kelly Lobean. “We've made the decision that we can no longer play by the status quo rules of politics.”
The decision appears to have paid off. Within minutes of Snitker's impromptu speech, tweets were flying among media insiders. Several newspapers and 6-o'clock news programs were running the story, and even the Associated Press had weighed in.
“We're just looking for a level playing field, that's all,” said Adrian Wyllie, campaign media director. “We have called press conferences, sent out dozens of press releases, and spoken with countless TV news producers. If they won't report the news, then we are forced to make the news.”
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Elites hate Citizen Journalism
The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
