Obama’s FCC vs Free Speech

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals the Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) draconian attempt to intimidate the media:

Last May 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." [Wall Street Journal]

Conservative Pre-emptive Surrender

Another absolutely disgraceful article In Praise of the Establishment from National Review states that "McConnell and Boehner have steered us right for a few months now."Though not quite as disgraceful as last week's article promoting an alliance between social conservatives and Muslims in order to promote bans on abortion and same sex marriage.Nowhere in this article is there even a mention of the enormous damage George W. Bush did with 6 years of GOP control of Congress. No mea culpa is offered for the damage done by Bush and the Republicans between 2000-6. No mention is made of the similarities between what Obama is doing and what Bush and the Republicans did. And most importantly, not a single word offered as to how to prevent the disasters of the Bush Administration in a future GOP administration. If National Review, The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine want to advocate this kind of nonsense in Blue states, fine. But to advocate it as a national strategy is beyond asinine: it is pre-emptive surrender to Obama's evil. With "allies" like this, send me my enemies. Please. -- Ed Mazlish

Religious Belief Exemptions Do Not Apply To Public Servants

The Kansas legislature has just passed a law that protects private businesses and individuals from having to provide service to same sex couples if provision such service would violate the religious beliefs of the private business/individual. Thus, the wedding cake and wedding photography cases would not happen in Kansas.So far, so good.But Republicans also insisted that the law allow government officials to use the same religious objection to refuse to provide government ...services to same sex couples. News flash to Republicans: justice must be blind, government must not discriminate, and government workers are not entitled to their jobs if their religious beliefs are offended by any part of "equal justice under law." If your religious beliefs are opposed to same sex marriage, that's your right - but then you don't have a *right* to a job in the city clerk's office. -- Ed Mazlish 

Is Submission To Their Husbands Good for Women?

by Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.Candace Cameron Bure, a former child star on the ’80s/’90s television series Full House, recently set off a firestorm when she suggested while promoting her book that the secret to her marital happiness was the fact that she let her husband take control.“I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work,” the actress writes in her book.During a recent interview with The Huffington Post, Cameron Bure tried to explain herself.“The definition I’m using with the word ‘submissive’ is the biblical definition of that,” she said. “So, it is meekness, it is not weakness. It is strength under control, it is bridled strength.”“And, listen, I love that my man is a leader,” she said. “I want him to lead and be the head of our family. And those major decisions do fall on him. … It doesn’t mean I don’t voice my opinion. It doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. I absolutely do, but it is very difficult to have two heads of authority.”“In my marriage we are equal … in our importance, but we are just different in our performances within our marriage,” she said.It sounds to me like she’s confused.On the one hand, she says her husband is the leader. This suggests he has the final say. A leader is someone who knows more than you do, who is (by definition) wiser and more authoritative than you. A leader is not your equal. If we were all absolutely equal in character, development, knowledge and ability we would not need leaders.Then, in total contradiction, she says that they’re equal. She qualifies it by saying in marriage they are equal. But they’re married. What other context do they exist with each other, aside from in marriage? How can they simultaneously be equal and unequal (as the concept “leader” suggets) at the same time?She’s trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she wants to follow the notions of the Bible. On the other hand, she wants the satisfaction of having a spouse who considers her an equal partner.The solution to this conundrum is neither angry, anti-male feminism nor reversion to Biblical literalism, where women are instructed to submit to their men. The solution is individualism. I don’t mean this politically so much as (primarily) psychologically. Psychologically, if you’re an individualist, you take responsibility for knowing yourself, along with shaping yourself into the person you wish to be.Each individual woman, like any individual man, has strengths and weaknesses, and also faces choices about which strengths to develop. It’s a challenge and responsibility for every human being to become his — or her — own individual. When one lacks the confidence or certainty required to engage in such a task, the tendency is to revert to social roles. “Well, I’m a woman. This is what others say a woman should do. So I’m going to be that.”“Others” in this context can refer to one’s family, the Bible, or any people or forces you consider significant — other than yourself. Playing out roles prescribed by others can arise from traditionalism, as it does with this actress, or from neo-feminism, in which you attempt to be some kind of a contradictory mix, such as a “supermom” whereby you run a giant corporation and be a stay-at-home mother at the same time.The error in all of these scenarios is the same: Sacrificing individualism for the sake of playing out a script you have allowed another (or others) to write for you.Meekness–not weakness…and Bure claims that’s a good thing? The concept meekness clearly implies underrating yourself, minimizing or ignoring your strengths — as a matter of principle. Religions teach meekness and submission to an all-powerful supernatural being. After all, what is any low human in comparison to an omnipotent and omnipresent God or Allah?When you apply the concept meekness to your marriage, by definition you’re treating yourself as low and inferior. I find this statement of Bure’s especially revealing: “I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work.” It sounds like she’s saying, “I have to be meek in order to get along with my husband.”What kind of husband, wife, or any romantic partner wants his or her spouse to be inferior in stature? It’s not exactly something to be proud of, or write about in a book. It’s certainly nothing to parade about as an ideal.Meek submission for women is simply another example of selfless role-playing, to fill the void where a conscious individualist might — and should — have been.

Deciphering The American State of the Union: An Introduction to Obamaspeak

Writes Harry Binswanger at Forbes:

Statism, the concentration of power in the government at the expense of individual liberty, cannot be sold to the American people. The statists in this country have always cloaked their agenda, marching us blindfolded toward the elimination of our freedom and our rights.Statists do not dare announce: “The individual must be subordinated to the state, rights be damned.” Instead, they change the meaning of old terms and introduce new ones to disguise the nature and meaning of what they advocate.

President Obama has developed this perversion of language into an art form.

His first campaign spoke of “Change we can believe in” without once explaining change from what and to what. He couldn’t, because the change he sought was from semi-freedom to unfreedom.He spoke of “hope” without once naming what was to be hoped for. He couldn’t, because, for him, the object of that hope was government handouts funded by money taken from those who had earned it–legalized plunder, in the well-turned phrase of Frederic Bastiat.“We’re all in this together,” the President repeatedly says–without telling us what “this” is. The woozy, undefined “this” turns out to be a package-deal of the voluntary cooperation of free men and the forced regimentation of rightless serfs of an omnipotent state.As an aid to those who treasure their freedom, I offer this dictionary of Obamaspeak, so that they may know what they are actually up against.

Read the rest of A Dictionary of Obamaspeak.

Are “Progressives” the Heirs To Nazi Hatred?

WritesTom Perkins founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com:

I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."Regarding your editorial "Censors on Campus" (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. [Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?]

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest