Home » Posts tagged 'Government'
Tag Archives: Government
“Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals; that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government; that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse’s from the public treasury. From that time on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
The Scottish Jurist and Historian Sir Alex Fraser Tyler: Year 1810
Every day we are reading stories where the President of the USA, the pre-supposed champion of American Democracy and protector of the Republic is actually doing everything he can to dismantle its framework. His hope and change promised is giving more Americans pause and have them scratching their head saying “is he really trying to do that?” Yes my friends he is.
For those who are paying attention the 1st Amendment appears to be on his radar. Freedom of the press is a bulwark to our form of government. If the press do not have the ability to print stories at their choosing objectively (not saying they always do, just saying they have the ability now) then the press and media become nothing but propaganda tools for this and any future administration. The press is supposed to be the people’s bulldog, but the Obama administration is trying to put the dog on a leash and kept inside.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal last May
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai revealed a brand new Obama Administration program that Pai fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.” The FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring. The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
There is no place for the federal government to determine what stories are important to America and what bias if any, exists. Bias in the newsroom is the editorial staff’s right. In a free Republic the people get to decide what is interesting and important not the government. If the people choose to watch Fox News over MSNBC that is their business. If Honey Boo Boo holds their attention more than Obamacare, that is the citizens business not some bureaucrat in Washington.
This idea that bias exists and that the media should be regulated is not new. In 1949 the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine that required anyone with a broadcast license to present controversial issues or public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. The doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1969 agreeing with the FCC’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, recognizing that broadcast channels were limited and a need was present. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was required to do so. Over time however technology and innovation has allowed for a great diversity of media and communication outlets and rendered the doctrine obsolete. In 1987 the FCC eliminated the doctrine and in August 2011 they removed all of the language that implemented the Doctrine. Efforts in recent years by the Left have attempted to resurrect the fairness doctrine but have been unsuccessful.
The main objective of the doctrine of old was diversity in viewpoints. It would appear however that diversity in news is really at odds with this new President. President Obama has openly showed his disdain for Fox News during a Bill O’Reilly interview Super Bowl Sunday. One only has to listen to most other new outlets these days and see that they are stumping for the President. Their talking points almost seem like they came from the White House press room. Fox usually stands alone, harshly critical of the President and his political party. Talk Radio’s Rush Limbaugh one of the most successful radio broadcasters ever is a staunch supporter of Conservatism and the most vocal critic of this President.
Could it be that the real objective of this President and its FCC’s snooping is to silence its critics. If so do you think that’s a good idea? I am greatly concerned about what this President and his minions are doing to this country but even more concerned what a future President regardless of political affiliation is going to do with power that dangerous precedents have established.
If you feel the Bill of Rights is as important today as when it was drafted, and the US Constitution still matters to you, than I challenge you to speak up. Let your elected representatives hear from you. Let your apathetic friends hear from you. Our way of life is being threatened subtly and will continue to be threatened in the future. You and I and our opinions, matter. Be Heard!
The American Center for Law and Justice has a petition they are putting together to let government know they have no business in America’s newsrooms. Sign up here http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/no-government-monitors-in-newsrooms
Utopianism also finds a receptive audience among the society’s disenchanted, disaffected, dissatisfied, and maladjusted who are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for their own real or perceived conditions but instead blame their surroundings, ‘the system,’ and others. They are lured by the false hopes and promises of utopian transformation and the criticisms of the existing society, to which their connection is tentative or nonexistent. Improving the malcontent’s lot becomes linked to the utopian cause. Moreover, disparaging and diminishing the successful and accomplished becomes an essential tactic. No one should be better than anyone else, regardless of the merits or values of his contributions. By exploiting human frailties, frustrations, jealousies, and inequities, a sense of meaning and self-worth is created in the malcontent’s otherwise unhappy and directionless life. Simply put, equality in misery — that is, equality of result or conformity — is advanced as a just, fair, and virtuous undertaking. Liberty, therefore, is inherently immoral, except where it avails equality. — Mark R. Levin (Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America)
By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.
John F. Kennedy, April 1960
I had a discussion the other day with someone who identified themselves as Libertarian and was promoting the idea of legalizing marijuana nationwide. While I identify with many Libertarian viewpoints I draw a line when it comes to their views on social issues and I took issue with my friend’s points. When you get down to it both Libertarians as well as those from the left of the political center embrace the idea that man is inherently good and that if only the right set of laws were put in place or the elimination of laws as in the case of Libertarians man would be happy place and be able to live in harmony or paradise on Earth. Conservatives by contrast and particularly Christian ones do not believe in the inherent goodness of man. Instead they recognize that man is corruptible from the moment of birth. I identify more I think with this belief and accept as our founders did that with great freedom comes great responsibility. Men are not angels and so laws are needed in some cases to govern human beings whose very nature is corruptible.
The libertarian mantra that everyone should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want to, and believe whatever they want to, so long as it does not hurt others is often being preached these days. We see them more and more in social networking circles and increasingly in the political arena. Like their left wing political rivals they believe that truth is subjective and changing, and morality can best be described as relative. This idea is gaining traction now too as more public schools are teaching young people to accept everyone and every culture and giving equal merit to all beliefs all the while ridiculing the Bible’s interpretation of creation and man’s purpose on Earth.
The conflict as I see it or some would say the “cultural war” is the fact that America’s heritage is not based on moral relativity; multi-culturalism; multi-lingualism; worship of the State, or hedonism. American culture, laws and customs have their roots in the Judeo-Christian experience and the belief in one true God; the acceptance of absolute truth and the natural laws of men. John Adams said “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. I agree. It was expected from the outset that citizenship should be taken seriously. It was hoped that citizens would be honest in their dealing with one another; sober; informed and able to exercise sound judgment and fiscal and social responsibility. These things were deemed necessary in order to maintain self-governance. However, fast forward to today’s society and what you have is a population of people addicted to their own passions and pleasures, ignoring their responsibilities and increasingly reliant upon government to provide for them. An increasing number of Americans reject or ignore their heritage and common language English; and millions of immigrants now are permitted to enter the country without ever being required to assimilate to the American culture but are willing to take from American sustenance. It is not sustainable, to use the language of the political left. Rome and many other empires of antiquity were destroyed in this way.
America does not have a state religion but if it did it most certainly would be Christian, as in poll after poll a majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christian. The numbers depending upon the polls hover around 75%. What can be said of a population that stands for and is tolerant of everything? Are they not by default then really standing for nothing? Furthermore what can be said of American society that claims to be Christian but increasingly is silent to pop culture’s embrace of moral relativity and secular humanism?
Increasingly the country is divided because of these issues and I believe is losing its national identity and suffering from what can be described as a multiple personality disorder. It remains to be seen what dominant if any personality emerges over time, but so far I’m not liking what I’m seeing