The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: massadvj on November 12, 2016, 03:36:32 pm
-
Of All Things to Consider, Consider Repealing Public Broadcasting
Victor J. Massad (exclusive to gopbriefingroom.com)
I have a fairly long commute to work each day, and being somewhat of a political junkie, sometimes I listen to NPR to gain some insights into what the minority half of the country is thinking. Make no mistake. When I am listening to NPR, I am strictly listening to much less than half the country. During the presidential campaign a “balanced” panel on NPR consisted of one radical leftist, two ultra-progressives and a “conservative” NeverTrumper. All anyone who depended on NPR heard during the election was that (1) Trump was a racist and sexual predator who stood no chance to get the votes of Republican women; (2) the GOP was completely ignoring demographic reality, and that the African-Americans, Latinos, Millennials and women assured it was impossible for Hillary Clinton to lose the election; (3) Trump being the product of a fractured Republican party ensured that the senate was going to be Democratic, and even the lower house was in play; and (4) Republicans live in a “media bubble” driven by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report, and so they are not told the harsh truth that demographics have rendered them dinosaurs.
Now that the Republicans control the presidency, senate, congress, the majority of governorships and statehouses around the country, it is no wonder leftists are rioting in the streets. Their worldviews and expectations have been shaped by media so biased, but competent at propaganda, that their listeners actually think most people agree with them. Instead of beating up innocent Trump supporters in the streets, the Occupy Whatevers should go after people like Robert Siegel and Audie Cornish for gross negligence and outright fraud in journalism.
I dare say there never was uttered one positive word about the Republican Party on any NPR program to which I listened. All of the news and commentary, whether it be All Things Considered, Fresh Air or the Diane Rehm Show was unequivocally slanted to Clinton. The so-called “conservative” voices on the station beat up on Trump, while the liberals beat up on Trump and propped up Hillary. On the entertainment programs, such as Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me and Prairie Home Companion, the jokes ridiculing conservatives, Trump and evangelicals were rattled off one after the other, to the delight of the oh-so sophisticated, urbane audiences. There is a slight pretense of balance, but no actual balance whatsoever on NPR. It is radio of, by and for the urban liberal, and no one else.
Not that I dislike listening to public radio. I find it very provocative and refreshing in comparison to say, Fox News. Two of my particular favorites are Terry Gross and Diane Rehm. Both of these women are expert interviewers with the capability to extract the unexpected from their guests. They are both intelligent and empathetic, and over the years I have heard both illicit amazing things from their guests. But both of these remarkable women are blind to the varying points of view of people who are right of center. They dismiss anything that challenges postmodernism, secularism and existentialism as archaic and out-of-touch. The problem is that Diane Rehm has 2.4 million listeners and Terry Gross has 4.5 million listeners; whereas Rush Limbaugh has 22 million listeners. Even right wing flamethrower Michael Savage has 11 million listeners, twice that of Terry Gross. So who is really out of touch?
I would love to hear Terry Gross interview Michael Savage. Or vice-versa. Unfortunately, left wing media stays in its bubble, and right wing media stays in its bubble, and so we just don’t get much variance in point of view from any one media vehicle today. In the digitally-driven media age, people who want to hear varying points of view must choose them on their own. It is my impression that if one were to examine the internet bookmarks of most conservatives, one would find Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Huffington Post and Democratic Underground. If one were to examine the bookmarks of most liberals, one would find the latter two only. Based on what I hear on NPR, liberals simply do not want to hear alternative points of view. In fact, they would want to stifle them through government regulation or political correctness. I theorize that the smartest liberals intuitively understand that their worldview is convoluted, but they hope that if the people they regard as stupid would just stop listening to snake oil salesmen like Rush Limbaugh the world could be changed for the better. It never occurs to them that Garrison Keilor might also be a snake oil salesman.
NPR and PBS are both funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a relic of the Lyndon Johnson Great Society era. CPB spends about $500 million per year of federal taxpayer funds, which admittedly is a drop in the bucket of the nearly $4 trillion federal budget. Nonetheless, it has become a $500 million machine for the propagation of liberal indoctrination, and it continues relentlessly year after year, decade after decade, serving a small, elitist portion of the public. Talk about regressive taxation and government spending. What do you suppose the mean income of the average NPR listener is in comparison to that of the average American citizen? According to NPR’s own website “NPR listeners are 74 percent more likely to earn $100K+ in household income.” After the NPR commentators are done talking about how the rich simply do not pay their fair share, why don’t NPR’s commentators lament the fact that the $500 million in public funds spent by their network to entertain people who can afford caviar might better be used to feed the hungry?
The problem, of course, is this. I can choose whether to support Rush Limbaugh, but I am forced to pay for NPR whether I want to or not. I feel like an Obamacare victim. Not only do I have to pay for my own health care, but I have to pay for that of everyone who smokes, drinks, takes drugs or otherwise refuses to take care of themselves. Like Obamacare, NPR and public broadcasting are the manifestation of the socialist dream. They take my money to propagandize the country to turn against the things I treasure most, including the first few amendments to the Constitution; you know, little things like rights to religion, speech, arms and property. I completely support their right to this point of view, and I unequivocally support their right to express it. I manifestly oppose their presumed right to put a gun to my head and take money from my pocket so that they may continue to do so.
Given the plethora of available media to the public, and given the absolute and undeniable bias of public broadcasting, and given the fact that both PBS and NPR are well-endowed and sponsored, isn’t it time the congress defunded them? At long last?
-
"Now that the Republicans control the presidency, senate, congress, the majority of governorships and statehouses around the country, it is no wonder leftists are rioting in the streets. Their worldviews and expectations have been shaped by media so biased, but competent at propaganda, that their listeners actually think most people agree with them. Instead of beating up innocent Trump supporters in the streets, the Occupy Whatevers should go after people like Robert Siegel and Audie Cornish for gross negligence and outright fraud in journalism. "
This
-
Without a doubt, my good friend...
Your best yet.
-
Without a doubt, my good friend...
Your best yet.
I agree
I enjoy reading his writings. @massadvj , have you ever consider writing for a bigger publication?
-
I agree
I enjoy reading his writings. @massadvj , have you ever consider writing for a bigger publication?
I am a professor of marketing and have written quite a bit of research in academic journals. I have also published political pieces in American Thinker and some other outlets a few times. But I like it here and I want to help Nancy grow this site.
-
Of All Things to Consider, Consider Repealing Public Broadcasting
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
Well done Victor! :beer:
-
Of All Things to Consider, Consider Repealing Public Broadcasting
Victor J. Massad (exclusive to gopbriefingroom.com)
[snip]
Given the plethora of available media to the public, and given the absolute and undeniable bias of public broadcasting, and given the fact that both PBS and NPR are well-endowed and sponsored, isn’t it time the congress defunded them? At long last?
Great points.
However, the ruling oligarchy is NOT about to defund NPR.
They are busy turning all their other mass media holdings into a clone of NPR and worse.
However, it's nice to have dreams and fantasies, sometimes.
-
Confusing headline. Public Broadcasting is not a public institution, so how can that be repealed?
Perhaps stop taxpayer funding is the message.
-
"You just want to kill Big Bird! —What do you mean, he moved to HBO?"
-
I am a professor of marketing and have written quite a bit of research in academic journals. I have also published political pieces in American Thinker and some other outlets a few times. But I like it here and I want to help Nancy grow this site.
Professor of Marketing? Just the man I have been looking for. I got a rusty 93 Buick Century with 238K miles I would like to sell for $8500. Can you help me word the Craigslist ad so I can get my outrageously high price?
-
Enjoyed reading this Victor, thanks and I agree, NPR long ago gave up any illusion that it was fair and balanced, but I also enjoy some aspects of their format and wish it could be more evenly reporting. Fox news is so silly it is a waste of time to watch and NPR can allow for a more relaxed discussion of events. Perhaps because it is so slanted, it works, I don't know, but anyone that denies its' slant is just out right lying.
I offer this song pretty much outlines how bias they are... does a great job of tight-casting the viewers too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk
-
AFAIK,PBS is paid for by viewer donations.
The only real federal financial involvement comes from the tax money lost to the foundations that finance PBS.
I even make small contributions to them myself from time to time because I enjoy viewing almost everything they broadcast from the BBC,plus I like the nature and science shows. Almost none of that stuff has a chance of being aired on network tv.
-
Confusing headline. Public Broadcasting is not a public institution, so how can that be repealed?
Perhaps stop taxpayer funding is the message.
@IsailedawayfromFR
AFAIK,the only taxpayer funding are in the form of tax deductions from foundation contributions. No direct federal funding goes to PBS. Not sure about state funding for state PBS channels because they do produce education programs,some not even leftist political propaganda. BUT.....,if they do,it is MUCH easier to shut that down in your state if you want it shut down.
-
Enjoyed reading this Victor, thanks and I agree, NPR long ago gave up any illusion that it was fair and balanced,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk
@Sighlass
Have they ever actually even pretended to be unbiased politically? Programs like the Prairie Home Companion would give Karl Marx wood,and right up until the 70's,and maybe even later in some areas,that was typical of daytime programming for many (all?) PBS stations. PBS was probably one of the few channels people in the prairie states could pull in back then,and it fit the political leanings of the vast majority of the immigrant populations in those areas.
And let's not forget that state-supported PBS (local) funding is supplied by the political creatures that run each state,so the programs being broadcast in each state will reflect the political biases of the ruling political classes. When you control their budget,you control their programming.
I am guessing that Prairie Home Companion,for example,was NOT all that popular in Alabama. I have no idea what the local Alabama PBS stations were broadcasting,but I'm fairly certain they weren't promoting socialism or it's adult brother,communism.
-
I thought this was an excellent piece. I enjoyed it, and related to it, very much.
-
Professor of Marketing? Just the man I have been looking for. I got a rusty 93 Buick Century with 238K miles I would like to sell for $8500. Can you help me word the Craigslist ad so I can get my outrageously high price?
Apparently you have never heard the expression "Those who can do, those who can't teach."
-
Trump will be searching under every couch cushion in the United States to help pay for his TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus package.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
AFAIK,the only taxpayer funding are in the form of tax deductions from foundation contributions. No direct federal funding goes to PBS. Not sure about state funding for state PBS channels because they do produce education programs,some not even leftist political propaganda. BUT.....,if they do,it is MUCH easier to shut that down in your state if you want it shut down.
?
This source of the Congressional Research Service indicates something completely different than what you said.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22168.pdf
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives virtually all of its funding through federal appropriations; overall, about 15% of public television and 10% of radio broadcasting funding comes from the federal appropriations that CPB distributes. CPB’s appropriation is allocated through a distribution formula established in its authorizing legislation and has
historically received two-year advanced appropriations.
Since CPB funds the programs aired on PBS, are you implying that none of that is taxpayer funded when it in fact is to some degree?
That amount is currently $445 million per year for CPB. That is a big spigot of our tax dollars going to PBS.
You really need to explain your source. Perhaps the Congressional Research Service is not correct?
-
?
This source of the Congressional Research Service indicates something completely different than what you said.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22168.pdf
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives virtually all of its funding through federal appropriations; overall, about 15% of public television and 10% of radio broadcasting funding comes from the federal appropriations that CPB distributes. CPB’s appropriation is allocated through a distribution formula established in its authorizing legislation and has
historically received two-year advanced appropriations.
Since CPB funds the programs aired on PBS, are you implying that none of that is taxpayer funded when it in fact is to some degree?
That amount is currently $445 million per year for CPB. That is a big spigot of our tax dollars going to PBS.
You really need to explain your source. Perhaps the Congressional Research Service is not correct?
@IsailedawayfromFR
Don't go getting your panties all in a wad over this,Bubba.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the mother ship. It's to PBS as the FCC is to ABC. I don't know and don't really care enough to do the research,but I suspect all or most of that money goes to run the bureaucracy that controls PBS.
I know the two PBS stations I watch on a regular basis run a lot of fundraisers,and they are always claiming "we are funded by you,the viewer".
What does "you the viewer" mean to YOU?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/5e/0e/e05e0e269b749563d42a650faf6015c5.jpg)
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Don't go getting your panties all in a wad over this,Bubba.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the mother ship. It's to PBS as the FCC is to ABC. I don't know and don't really care enough to do the research,but I suspect all or most of that money goes to run the bureaucracy that controls PBS.
I know the two PBS stations I watch on a regular basis run a lot of fundraisers,and they are always claiming "we are funded by you,the viewer".
What does "you the viewer" mean to YOU?
PBS is funded by the taxpayers, however you try a convoluted approach to say otherwise.
We cut off the funding for them when we cut off taxpayer groveling to fund the CPB Mother ship.
And no, the FCC is not the same to ABC as CPB is to PBS.
CPB uses taxpayer money to make the programs that get aired on PBS.
The FCC makes nothing that gets aired on ABC.
Bubba is the husband of the witch that got a beat down last Tuesday.
Try a bit harder to read up on things before you throw out insults.
-
@massadvj
I loved this piece. It's professors like you that made me love college so much when I was an undergraduate.
I wish I could audit one of your courses but it's a very long drive.
-
@massadvj
I loved this piece. It's professors like you that made me love college so much when I was an undergraduate.
I wish I could audit one of your courses but it's a very long drive.
Thank you very much. :patriot:
-
For later.
-
The problem is that this isn't a single-headed snake.
Look at the funding info they freely provide, and you see that they get a lot of their funding from licensing content to local stations. These local stations get their funding from state and local levels, as well as advertising "contributions" and donations from listeners. A huge chunk is from college/universities.
Cutting federal funding alone would do little.
-
This is professional columnist quality stuff here! Good job Massadj.
I enjoy NPR on occasion. It goes from good to boring fast though. I prefer college radio, and a little talk radio.
Do you guys listen to Meghan McCain? I like her show even if she gets a little too feminist for me sometimes.
-
PBS is funded by the taxpayers, however you try a convoluted approach to say otherwise.
We cut off the funding for them when we cut off taxpayer groveling to fund the CPB Mother ship.
And no, the FCC is not the same to ABC as CPB is to PBS.
CPB uses taxpayer money to make the programs that get aired on PBS.
The FCC makes nothing that gets aired on ABC.
Bubba is the husband of the witch that got a beat down last Tuesday.
Try a bit harder to read up on things before you throw out insults.
@IsailedawayfromFR
Maybe YOU could try to actually learn how to think for yourself instead of spouting dogma like the Dims you claim to hate? You are one of those "throw out the baby with the bathwater" loons because it's easier to do that than all that hard "thinking stuff".
Careful,or your own dogma is going to chew your ass off.
PBS is necessary as an alternative to corporate news and entertainment. If it is failing to do so in your area,it is the fault of you and your neighbors for not giving them your input through contributions as well as contacting your local and state politicians.
PBS broadcasts a LOT of educational programming that just isn't seen anywhere else. You don't know this because you are one of those cretins that think you know everything so you don't bother to watch it. Rush Limbo or some other High Priest of Bullshit told you it was bad,so that's all you need to know.
-
The problem is that this isn't a single-headed snake.
Look at the funding info they freely provide, and you see that they get a lot of their funding from licensing content to local stations. These local stations get their funding from state and local levels, as well as advertising "contributions" and donations from listeners. A huge chunk is from college/universities.
Cutting federal funding alone would do little.
@Suppressed
The control is at the local and state level. If you and those who live around you don't influence the programming you have no one to blame but yourself.
Almost none of the programming on PBS is political,and what is,is usually balanced. Most of the programming is entertainment or educational.
-
PBS TV tends to be fairly balanced here, a little left leaning, but not worse than normal broadcast TV.
Houston has one of the oldest PBS TV stations in the country.
The Radio station, on the other hand, definitely leans left.
I do not know how much either of them receive in federal funding, but I know that they do get some money.
Both seem to hold an awful lot of fundraisers.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Maybe YOU could try to actually learn how to think for yourself instead of spouting dogma like the Dims you claim to hate? You are one of those "throw out the baby with the bathwater" loons because it's easier to do that than all that hard "thinking stuff".
Careful,or your own dogma is going to chew your ass off.
PBS is necessary as an alternative to corporate news and entertainment. If it is failing to do so in your area,it is the fault of you and your neighbors for not giving them your input through contributions as well as contacting your local and state politicians.
PBS broadcasts a LOT of educational programming that just isn't seen anywhere else. You don't know this because you are one of those cretins that think you know everything so you don't bother to watch it. Rush Limbo or some other High Priest of Bullshit told you it was bad,so that's all you need to know.
Having someone who lies in how funding occurs, then will not admit the lie and instead attack others, is the resume of a liberal.
Why do that? Try doing something civil for a change.
We taxpayers are paying for PBS. It makes no difference if it is a good program or if others pay it too. The attention is on whether taxpayers should be on the hook for it. I happen to believe no.
You seem to support paying for it with taxpayer dollars, correct?
No more insults, please, as this is a good forum.
-
I do not know how much either of them receive in federal funding, but I know that they do get some money.
Not just some. CPB budget http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget
-
Having someone who lies in how funding occurs, then will not admit the lie and instead attack others, is the resume of a liberal.
Why do that? Try doing something civil for a change.
We taxpayers are paying for PBS. It makes no difference if it is a good program or if others pay it too. The attention is on whether taxpayers should be on the hook for it. I happen to believe no.
You seem to support paying for it with taxpayer dollars, correct?
No more insults, please, as this is a good forum.
Taxpayer dollars also pay for roads you will never drive on,also. Not to mention fire stations that will never put out a fire in your house,military defense from an attack that will likely never happen,etc,etc,etc.
This is a big country with many varied interests that need to be served. Meeting those varied needs IS the purpose of government.
The federal tax draw from PBS is minuscule,the cost to administer it through the CPB,which IS to PBS what the FCC is to privately owned radio and tv stations.
Almost all the funding comes from contributions from viewers,and some local and state taxes because each station is also administered at the state level. if you really want to control it,contact your local and state authorities about the local and state tax contributions to your state PBS,or get yourself on the board.
(NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED BY MODERATOR)
-
This is a big country with many varied interests that need to be served. Meeting those varied needs IS the purpose of government.
And therein is a big issue.
Our Founding Fathers believed the purpose of government is not serving needs, but instead to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most did not believe the government was to provide but for freedom and to get out of the way and let citizens provide for their own needs.
Thomas Jefferson:
The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation.
And what the Federal govt should be doing vs state and local governments is another thing. Most believed the federal government's role should be reduced to a few necessary items such as defense, diplomacy and tariffs to protect indigenous business.
If local PBS wishes to extract government money from taxpayers to broadcast, why not from state or local entities rather than forcing all Americans to pay tribute?
-
Taxpayer dollars also pay for roads you will never drive on,also. Not to mention fire stations that will never put out a fire in your house,military defense from an attack that will likely never happen,etc,etc,etc.
This is a big country with many varied interests that need to be served. Meeting those varied needs IS the purpose of government.
The federal tax draw from PBS is minuscule,the cost to administer it through the CPB,which IS to PBS what the FCC is to privately owned radio and tv stations.
Almost all the funding comes from contributions from viewers,and some local and state taxes because each station is also administered at the state level. if you really want to control it,contact your local and state authorities about the local and state tax contributions to your state PBS,or get yourself on the board.
(NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED BY MODERATOR)
Why not run NPR/PBS as a non-profit or cooperative?
-
Why not run NPR/PBS as a non-profit or cooperative?
If it is so good and useful why can it not stand or fail on it's own merits in the marketplace? Why does it need to be propped up with my tax money?
-
If it is so good and useful why can it not stand or fail on it's own merits in the marketplace? Why does it need to be propped up with my tax money?
Well it's not entirely propped up with tax money, just partially so. I think the government gives matching funds to the CPB.
:shrug:
Both sides are right. I will say that CPB and it's derivatives should give equal weight to all viewpoints at the very least.
-
....
This is a big country with many varied interests that need to be served. Meeting those varied needs IS the purpose of government.
....
No, it's not. YOU meet your own damn needs. Not me and and not the government.
-
Well it's not entirely propped up with tax money, just partially so. I think the government gives matching funds to the CPB.
:shrug:
Both sides are right. I will say that CPB and it's derivatives should give equal weight to all viewpoints at the very least.
I repeat what I asked in the post you replied to. They shouldn't need ANY tax money IMHO!
-
I am for them going out and fundraising.
They also get corporate sponsorship.
Let the marketplace decide.
Tax dollars can be spent for the emergency broadcast systems, but I don't find a major need for them to fund other types of broadcasting.
-
And therein is a big issue.
Our Founding Fathers believed the purpose of government is not serving needs, but instead to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most did not believe the government was to provide but for freedom and to get out of the way and let citizens provide for their own needs.
I am guessing you would be happy with no roads or bridges,for example?
-
I am guessing you would be happy with no roads or bridges,for example?
Obviously you haven't read the constitution! If you had you would know that such things ARE addressed therein!
-
I am guessing you would be happy with no roads or bridges,for example?
Strawman, dude.
-
I am guessing you would be happy with no roads or bridges,for example?
What does that have to do with funding PBS? It is a non sequitur attempt to explain.
Got any other ideas on how to justify the federal government to extract money from me to pay for some other's pleasures?
-
Obviously you haven't read the constitution! If you had you would know that such things ARE addressed therein!
@Bigun
Can I get a link that directed states the government is required to build and maintain roads and bridges? Seems to me from reading history there were a LOT of privately owned toll bridges and even roads back in the 1800's and earlier.
What about the FAA? You ready to piss and moan about the federal government using tax money to set and maintain aviation safety standards,and to monitor them?
Or the air waves. Are you ready to demand the government stop controlling the airwaves?
Or even the internet. You do understand it was government organizations that spent tax money to develop the internet,build up aviation,and even radio? Want to pull all that stuff to retain your "tax purity"?
-
@Bigun
Can I get a link that directed states the government is required to build and maintain roads and bridges? Seems to me from reading history there were a LOT of privately owned toll bridges and even roads back in the 1800's and earlier.
What about the FAA? You ready to piss and moan about the federal government using tax money to set and maintain aviation safety standards,and to monitor them?
Or the air waves. Are you ready to demand the government stop controlling the airwaves?
Or even the internet. You do understand it was government organizations that spent tax money to develop the internet,build up aviation,and even radio? Want to pull all that stuff to retain your "tax purity"?
Do your own research sport! I will give you a hint however. Start with Article I. Section 8!
-
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious here,
The 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press, FROM GOVT INTERFERENCE.
Govt funding of the Press is not just interference with it.
It's Govt Ownership of the press.
-
@Suppressed
The control is at the local and state level. If you and those who live around you don't influence the programming you have no one to blame but yourself.
Almost none of the programming on PBS is political,and what is,is usually balanced. Most of the programming is entertainment or educational.
I agree that NPR is far worse than PBS, but that doesn't mean PBS is without its leftwing bias.
Are college/university stations controlled at the state or local level, or by the institution? A lot of public stations are attached to institutions.
-
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious here,
The 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press, FROM GOVT INTERFERENCE.
Govt funding of the Press is not just interference with it.
It's Govt Ownership of the press.
goopo
-
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious here,
The 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press, FROM GOVT INTERFERENCE.
Govt funding of the Press is not just interference with it.
It's Govt Ownership of the press.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
PBS is the Press? Since when?
-
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious here,
The 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press, FROM GOVT INTERFERENCE.
Govt funding of the Press is not just interference with it.
It's Govt Ownership of the press.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
When did PBS become "the press"?
-
"I agree that NPR is far worse than PBS, but that doesn't mean PBS is without its leftwing bias."
@Suppressed
So what? EVERYBODY is biased,including thee and me. You will never learn a damn thing,including what your political enemies are up to if you only have access to one side of the arguments.
"Are college/university stations controlled at the state or local level, or by the institution? A lot of public stations are attached to institutions."
I have no clue how that works. It never even occurred to me to think about it.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
When did PBS become "the press"?
Everytime they report/broadcast their version of events in the public arena: IE, the news.
The Press is not The Press unless it's printed on dead, pulped trees?
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
PBS is the Press? Since when?
Perhaps we might consult James Madison regarding Constitutional Intent restricting Federal Over reach, here?
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison,
President of the United States
The issue of Highways and Roads has been raised here.
Constitutionally, the Federal Govt Does have the Constitutional Authority and Responsibility to build and maintain them under the purview of the Postal Service.
The Federal Dept of Transportation properly belongs under the control of the Postal Service who are tasked with providing Post Roads to deliver the Mail.
It belongs there due to the simple expediency that NONE of us as private Citizens can afford to build our own roads and highways.
Beyond that, I see no other issues with President Madison's Veto, Which, if he were writing it today, would take the advance of technology unforeseen by himself, into account.
When did PBS become the Press?
Electronic media isn't The Press?
PBS is the US Govt version of PRAVDA no matter how many non-political minutes of arts and crafts it broadcasts.
-
"The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution"
James Madison, March 3, 1817
-
Everytime they report/broadcast their version of events in the public arena: IE, the news.
The Press is not The Press unless it's printed on dead, pulped trees?
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Ok,you just admitting you don't watch PBS,and are just repeating what other people who don't watch PBS are babbling.
There is VERY little news on PBS. I sometimes watch BBC on PBS for an alternate look at opinions of things that are happening all over the world,but that's about it.
From what I have seen it IS true that most of the reporters that work on shows like "Frontline" tend to have a leftist/globalist POV,but not all of them,and in general viewers get a balanced report on whatever the subject is. I have seen both pro-illegal alien as well as anti-illegal alien reports on Frontline Specials.
Having said that,political programming on PBS is just a tiny part of what they broadcast. You don't have to believe me,you can watch it for a few weeks and find out for yourself.
-
Perhaps we might consult James Madison regarding Constitutional Intent restricting Federal Over reach, here?
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I didn't even bother to read it. You obviously have an agenda,and you are not about to allow the truth to get in the way.
When you start out with a false premise,everything that follows is shit.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I didn't even bother to read it. You obviously have an agenda,and you are not about to allow the truth to get in the way.
When you start out with a false premise,everything that follows is shit.
So you don't care what James Madison or the Constitution has to say you just want your way no matter what. Hummm!
-
So you don't care what James Madison or the Constitution has to say you just want your way no matter what. Hummm!
@Bigun
Nope,because you have an agenda,and are going to interpret it in a way that agrees with your biases. Nothing I can say or do will change that,so why bother? It's dogma amongst Republicans that PBS is "evil" because it has the world public in it.
BTW,do you REALLY think that Madison spent much time contemplating the issue of public television and if it was a good or a bad thing?
-
@Bigun
Nope,because you have an agenda,and are going to interpret it in a way that agrees with your biases. Nothing I can say or do will change that,so why bother? It's dogma amongst Republicans that PBS is "evil" because it has the world public in it.
BTW,do you REALLY think that Madison spent much time contemplating the issue of public television and if it was a good or a bad thing?
**nononono*
-
Why not run NPR/PBS as a non-profit or cooperative?
PBS is run as a cooperative.
-
PBS is run as a cooperative.
Shouldn't need gubment funds then.
-
Shouldn't need gubment funds then.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
It is either public or private. If it is public,the government and the taxpayers have input when it comes to programming. If it is private it exists to turn a profit,not expand the education of children as well as adults. The idea behind public television was to have shows broadcast that would most likely not draw a large audience and bring in advertising money.
It can be one or the other,but it can't be both.
I see all these people complaining about public tv,and it's obvious none of you ever watch it.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
It is either public or private. If it is public,the government and the taxpayers have input when it comes to programming. If it is private it exists to turn a profit,not expand the education of children as well as adults. The idea behind public television was to have shows broadcast that would most likely not draw a large audience and bring in advertising money.
It can be one or the other,but it can't be both.
I see all these people complaining about public tv,and it's obvious none of you ever watch it.
I don't care about PBS/NPR, you are right in that it's a drop in the bucket. I grew up watching Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. I don't really watch TV at all.
In the scheme of things, ideologically I am against it, but in reality it's a small expenditure, and I have been listening to NPR lately. To me it's not worth getting worked up about.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I see all these people complaining about public tv,and it's obvious none of you ever watch it.
A characteristically cavalier comment.
Pray how do you know this?
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
It is either public or private. If it is public,the government and the taxpayers have input when it comes to programming. If it is private it exists to turn a profit,not expand the education of children as well as adults. The idea behind public television was to have shows broadcast that would most likely not draw a large audience and bring in advertising money.
It can be one or the other,but it can't be both.
I see all these people complaining about public tv,and it's obvious none of you ever watch it.
You're right, and all of us who don't watch it shouldn't have to pay for it.
-
You're right, and all of us who don't watch it shouldn't have to pay for it.
The fella you directed this to believes you do not pay for it. Alternate universe, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233751.msg1138608.html#msg1138608
-
The fella you directed this to believes you do not pay for it. Alternate universe, http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233751.msg1138608.html#msg1138608
Oh, I missed that.
-
... I have been listening to NPR lately. To me it's not worth getting worked up about.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
You got me there. I can't remember EVER listening to NPR. The truth is if I listen to the radio,it is for music. Talk radio in all it's forms has never appealed to me at all.
-
A characteristically cavalier comment.
Pray how do you know this?
@IsailedawayfromFR
Your ignorance of the subject is on display for everyone to see.
Your dogma is flat chewing your ass UP,
-
Having someone who lies in how funding occurs, then will not admit the lie and instead attack others, is the resume of a liberal.
@IsailedawayfromFR
LOL! Doesn't sound to me like you sailed away from FR. You don't leave if you take it with you,bubba,and NOTHING screams "ignorant fool" like calling someone else a "liberal" while trying to pose as a "conservative". If there were any truth in advertising laws in effect for web posts,you would be required to register as an "Apprentice Dumb Ass,hoping to learn enough to become a Complete Dumb Ass".
In FACT,I AM a "Liberal". So were the Founding Fathers. Yet you seem to think that is a bad thing to be because you are so ignorant you depend on the Fascist Left for political definitions,and then believe them without question. In AMERICA,being a Patriotic American that believes in the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights MEANS YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPORTING A LIBERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF A DOMINATING POLICE STATE.
Then again,if you are happy to follow the Euro-weenie definitions of words and politics instead of American ones,have at it.
Just like you believe the morons that rant against PBS without question or even bothering to watch it for a while to make up your own mind proves you are a mindless sheeple. Assuming of course that you have a mind to make up and don't rely on radio talk show monkeys ranting into a microphone to tell you what to think.
We taxpayers are paying for PBS. It makes no difference if it is a good program or if others pay it too. The attention is on whether taxpayers should be on the hook for it. I happen to believe no.
What will you do with the 37 cent tax refund you would get,go on vacation? This is where you are going to tell me that it is the principle of the thing that is important,not the reality,right? I guess you want the government to tear down bridges you don't drive across too,right? Maybe disband the FAA and fire all the air traffic controllers because you don't fly?
You seem to support paying for it with taxpayer dollars, correct?
Yes. Informing the public IS one of the basic requirements of government. If they can sometimes also entertain while they teach history and science,it's a bonus.
-
And therein is a big issue.
Our Founding Fathers believed the purpose of government is not serving needs, but instead to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most did not believe the government was to provide but for freedom and to get out of the way and let citizens provide for their own needs.
Thomas Jefferson:
The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation."
DAYUM! You make one claim,and then contradict yourself by posting your "evidence".
Unless maybe you don't think "maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation." is a NEED?
Maybe you don't think the history shows broadcast on PBS that educate people who are otherwise ignorant of history because they slept during school doesn't provide a public service that fills a need that benefits America?
"And what the Federal govt should be doing vs state and local governments is another thing."
If you had paid attention to what I wrote,you would have read my post that the states provide most of the funding for PBS that doesn't come from public donations. EACH PBS station that broadcasts is controlled by the state where it is located. The ONLY federal money that goes to PBS is for administration between the feral and state governments.
" Most believed the federal government's role should be reduced to a few necessary items such as defense, diplomacy and tariffs to protect indigenous business."
People believe all sorts of stupid shit. There are still people that don't believe we landed men on the moon,and there are billions of people in the world that believe some Big Ranger in the Sky is going to swoop down from the sky one day in the future,and snatch them out of their graves to reunite them with their loving,and also dead,families. ALL they have to do to assure this happens is donate a percentage of their income to the cult of their choice,and it WILL happen,you betcha!
"If local PBS wishes to extract government money from taxpayers to broadcast, why not from state or local entities rather than forcing all Americans to pay tribute?"
That is EXACTLY what they do. EACH PBS station is OWNED BY THE STATE IT IS LOCATED IN.
That's why IF you would watch PBS you would would see mentioned during the credits of a lot of shows credits a notice saying something like "produced (or Provided) by Boston PBS","Chicago PBS",etc,etc,etc. They are identified by city because there is more than one PBS station creating,producing,and broadcasting shows in most states. They then rent or lease this original programs to PBS stations in other states to pay off the production costs and sometime turn a profit they use to produce more "free to the public" broadcasting. They use some of that money to lease shows from BBC like Masterpiece Theater,Sherlock,etc,etc,etc.
You have a problem with that?
-
Why not run NPR/PBS as a non-profit or cooperative?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
It IS to everyone except the dogmatic with an agenda. Local and state tax money goes towards producing and then leasing original programing to other PBS stations as well as private stations,and the money from those leases goes back into the state coffers.
No,I don't have any idea of the numbers or percentages,and I doubt anyone else does either because each state is it's own kingdom. Two of the most prominent PBS stations seem to be in Chicago and Boston,so you can be sure they pull in a LOT more money from renting original content to other stations than a PBS station in Nebraska,for example. States with larger tax bases obviously have more money to invest in original programming to lease to other PBS stations and private stations.
I have no idea how much original PBS programming gets leased to tv stations outside of America,but since American PBS leases a lot of BBC programming,it stands to reason they must lease at least SOME American original PBS programming. As one example,I am guessing the recent PBS series on the Civil War was leased to a lot of European tv stations. I am also GUESSING a lot of the nature programs created by local PBS stations are also sold to European tv stations. Most people enjoy viewing programs about nature,regardless of where they live. The one example that comes to mind that is likely to have been leased is the one about the guy in the northeast that build a untra-lite airplane and became a "mother" to Canadian Geese hatchlings in Canada. He raised and fed them,and when the time came for them to migrate south for the winter,he fired up his untra-lite and led them south,like Moses crossing the desert. Shows like that appeal to people everywhere.
-
If it is so good and useful why can it not stand or fail on it's own merits in the marketplace? Why does it need to be propped up with my tax money?
@biggun
Why not spend a couple of weeks educating yourself by watching your local PBS station,instead of relying on someone else to tell you what to think?
The FACT that you still think PBS relies on your tax money only goes to prove the people you have been listening to in the past have either been lying to you,or most likely giving you wrong information they believed themselves.
EACH PBS production ends with the moderator stating something like "PBS is offered to you be contributions made from x,y,z,and your local stations". If you had ever watched it,you would know this.
BTW,if you ever decide it wouldn't be harmful to open your mind to other possibilities,I highly recommend you focus your PBS-viewing attention on BBC programing at first. Shows like Foyle's War,danger UXB,Masterpiece Mystery,English history like "The Tudors",etc,etc,etc. Or progamming like nature shows,the most prominent being named "Nature",oddly enough.
Some programs,like "Frontline" have a polical base,and will piss you off as often as they please you because sometime they show the leftist viewpoint. The good news is you will be getting the unvarnished leftist POV without any filters or explanations or excuses,and it is ALWAYS better to see the enemy how they see themselves than it is to have some professional talking head filter if for you and explains it to fit HIS agenda. Other times they show similar programs from the American conservative POV,and chances are you will be shocked to see it and need some time to adjust.
-
No, it's not. YOU meet your own damn needs. Not me and and not the government.
@Sanguine
Yeah,causen you are a special little snowflake,and the only things in life that are important are what YOU want,right?
What's keeping you from moving to a island somewhere or going to live in a cave so you don't have to be concerned with what other people want?
-
SP, so I guess you have strong feeling on PBS huh?
-
Strawman, dude.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
ONLY if you think the government has no duty to inform the public that finances the government.
This obviously isn't the case now in the modern world where we have satellites broadcasting programming 24/7,but it really wasn't that long ago that PBS was the ONLY tv stations a lot of people that lived in rural America could pull in. To them it was priceless. I'm old enough to remember those days,and how excited I was to discover a channel that wasn't CBS. Finding the PBS channel doubled the number of channels I could watch and gave me a choice.
Of course in these modern times they have expanded greatly,but you still see interesting programs on your local PBS channel that you won't see anywhere else.
Or would,if your dog would quit chewing on your dogma long enough to let you actually watch it.
Today
-
@Sanguine
Yeah,causen you are a special little snowflake,and the only things in life that are important are what YOU want,right?
What's keeping you from moving to a island somewhere or going to live in a cave so you don't have to be concerned with what other people want?
@sneakypete, looks like you totally mis-read my comment. Try it again and get back to me.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
ONLY if you think the government has no duty to inform the public that finances the government.
This obviously isn't the case now in the modern world where we have satellites broadcasting programming 24/7,but it really wasn't that long ago that PBS was the ONLY tv stations a lot of people that lived in rural America could pull in. To them it was priceless. I'm old enough to remember those days,and how excited I was to discover a channel that wasn't CBS. Finding the PBS channel doubled the number of channels I could watch and gave me a choice.
Of course in these modern times they have expanded greatly,but you still see interesting programs on your local PBS channel that you won't see anywhere else.
Or would,if your dog would quit chewing on your dogma long enough to let you actually watch it.
Today
I don't watch TV, period. I will watch morning joe and football sometimes. :shrug:
I believe the Constitution mentions roads, it does not mention the CPB or public broadcasting.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Your ignorance of the subject is on display for everyone to see.
Your dogma is flat chewing your ass UP,
Then you are categorically incorrect.
Assumptions by you do not make an assumption a fact.
-
FACT,I AM a "Liberal". So were the Founding Fathers.
Exactly where did you pull out that fact on our country's first citizens were 'liberal'?
Seems you are wanton to just make things up as they suit you.
The individuals who wrote our Constitution did not adhere to a philosophy which apparently you do that it is permissive for the federal government to extract tribute from this country's citizens in order to pay for costs like you advocate.
If that is your definition of liberal, you are sadly mistaken. School failed you.
-
"If local PBS wishes to extract government money from taxpayers to broadcast, why not from state or local entities rather than forcing all Americans to pay tribute?"
That is EXACTLY what they do. EACH PBS station is OWNED BY THE STATE IT IS LOCATED IN.
That's why IF you would watch PBS you would would see mentioned during the credits of a lot of shows credits a notice saying something like "produced (or Provided) by Boston PBS","Chicago PBS",etc,etc,etc. They are identified by city because there is more than one PBS station creating,producing,and broadcasting shows in most states. They then rent or lease this original programs to PBS stations in other states to pay off the production costs and sometime turn a profit they use to produce more "free to the public" broadcasting. They use some of that money to lease shows from BBC like Masterpiece Theater,Sherlock,etc,etc,etc.
You have a problem with that?
Yes, I have a problem if my tax dollars are used to fund a show. This country values the individual's freedom to make his own decisions. And to spend his own money the way he sees fit.
You advocate a nanny state that permits a government to forcibly extract money from its citizens to pay for things. That takes away from those same citizen's freedoms as they cannot spend that money on what they wish to spend it on.
Read the Constitution some time. You will find out what certain items the citizens of this country permit the federal government to fund. It might be helpful to you to ascertain how this country actually is supposed to function.
Reminder: $445 million went to CPB which helped fund PBS.
-
"And what the Federal govt should be doing vs state and local governments is another thing."
If you had paid attention to what I wrote,you would have read my post that the states provide most of the funding for PBS that doesn't come from public donations. EACH PBS station that broadcasts is controlled by the state where it is located. The ONLY federal money that goes to PBS is for administration between the feral and state governments.
So your earlier comment that no federal dollars go to fund PBS is an admitted lie. Do you even realize that the CPB, which is federally funded, uses its budget to make content for PBS?
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I didn't even bother to read it. You obviously have an agenda,and you are not about to allow the truth to get in the way.
When you start out with a false premise,everything that follows is shit.
You know, Pete, I'm trying to be civil here, but being told By you that my posting and conclusions I've drawn from it are 'Shit' after you've admitted you don't have a Clue because you refuse to even Read it (one of the authors of the Federalist Papers - to which SCOTUS is supposed to refer when SCOTUS desires further Constitutional clarity), is not exactly reassuring.
Allow the Truth to get in my way? Whose Truth? Your's? I'm shit because You've INTUITED that I don't watch PBS, but Your Truth is so much truer than mine that even reading James Madison is beneath your contempt???
Pete, if this really IS you, the REAL Sneakypete, I'd change my password if I were you, because the most generous construction I can put on your tirade is that Some A##hole has hacked your identity here at TBR and is using it to post stupid comments.
-
@sneakypete, looks like you totally mis-read my comment. Try it again and get back to me.
@Sanguine
Ok,I read it again,and still came to the same conclusion. What am I missing?
-
Quote from: sneakypete on November 16, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I didn't even bother to read it. You obviously have an agenda,and you are not about to allow the truth to get in the way.
When you start out with a false premise,everything that follows is shit.
Well, Thank The Almighty. At least there's One of us here whose on the ball.
You're informed, and I'm shit.
You watch PBS. I read Madison.
Yessiree. Ain't no pulling the wool over Your eyes.
And since you didn't feel my posting of James Madison's take on the Constitution was even worth your Truth Divining Oracle of Delphi Super Powers, I don't expect you to read This post either.
It's for the other folks here.
Unless, of course, you're Really Certain you actually Want to take another shot at pointing out my 'shit'.
This is my profile page from FR.
The following are facts.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is a written document and as such its meaning is not subject to change. The Founders sweated and argued out the choice of every word, phrase, paragraph, colon, semi colon, and period for just and reasonable cause.
The Founders included within the Constitution a legal method for us to step outside of its original rules. That method is Article V: the process of Amending the Constitution: which is intentionally a very difficult process assuring that it would be used only in cases of extreme, actual need.
The Founders therefore did not intend for us to play fast and loose with what they labored so hard to create, which is why they said exactly that.
Art. 6 Clause 2 provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
However, since our political class assume to know more about it than those of us who've actually Read it, a refresher course for Their edification appears in order.
The following are my opinions.
We have more than too many laws suffocating our perfect Constitution as it is. To rectify that encumbrance the next law we must pass must address those too many laws.
That next law shall require that for every new law which shall be passed the people passing it shall first repeal six existing laws. Where those six laws shall be found shall not be as important as that they shall be found, and they shall be repealed.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
You’re welcome to start cleaning up the mess anywhere you choose because that mess is everywhere, so long as you start actually cleaning it up.
Any law needing to be interpreted by an Administrative Law Judge in order to give that law effect, shall not become a Law until it shall have been simplified and made sufficiently specific to obviate any Administrative Law Judge involvement.
When anyone discovers that the Law means something other than what the law clearly or otherwise states (see preceding simplified and specific clause) when they get to Court, then Whomever is responsible for that misconstruction of the law’s stated intent shall be fined and or imprisioned by the State and or bamboozled party, and shall possess no immunity from prosecution for Civil compensatory damages by the bamboozled party.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
All Laws, Regulations and Rules enacted at any level of Government which do not conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution, shall henceforth be required of our existing Administrative Law Judges to either be made to conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution or to be declared null, void and inoperative by our existing Administrative Law Judges. Decades of ‘Through The Looking Glass’ Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Agency activist precedent citing shall not be any defense against impeachment and or fines and or imprisionment.
Since the adverb Administrative is derived from the verb Administer meaning to manage or run something, the Constitution shall henceforth become the primary something being Administered. Secondary consequences and or perceived inconveniences to specially protected Agendas discovered in penumbrated somethings which needs must over ride the primary something shall henceforth become officially, SOL.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, and rather than Firing our Administrative Law Judges, we will continue to pay them subject to the adjustment that they will be required to work For us instead of Against us.
Firstly among those reimposition of the Constitution consequences shall become the actualized understanding that Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment’s “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law” clause shall be applicable only to acts of Congress which are in fact actually lawful under Article 1 Sections 7, 8, and 9 rather than the current theft of everything every Citizen owns through the Federal Reserve System’s violation of Congress discharging its mandated duty under Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5:
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”
Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5 mandates the coining of money, not the imprinting of cloth, paper, or any non metallic substance with any image which has presently abandoned even its former warranting to the bearer that its face IOU promissory shall be redeemed for gold or silver (immutable equity) which value shall be subjected to the impossibility of being recalculated and devalued minute by minute by combined Congressional Profligacy and such Private Sector Transference of Public Equities and Securities considerations as have bought Congress their Unconstitutional, rebellious and insurrectionary epidemic of bank fraud and check forgings.
Failure by the Federal Reserve System to immediately cease and desist any and all of its operations shall subject any and all officers and or employees of the Federal Reserve System to prosecution under Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 6:
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 1 states in defining and circumscribing the powers of Congress:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
The ‘general Welfare’ clause exists nowhere else in the Constitution except in its introductory preamble:
The Clauses of Art 1 Sec 8 following Clause 1 therefore define the sum total of Congress legitimate powers to legislate into existence and as we’re now suffering Out of existence, the ‘general Welfare’ of the United States.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, because halting Government’s epidemic counterfeiting, bank fraud, and check forging is a more reasonable approach than trying to round up all the perpetrators, deliver them into Court, get them tried, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.
As for State and Local Governments:
Article 1 Section 10 states:
“No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
As the Constitution is the highest law of the land it is therefore the highest legally binding Contract between We the People and those we have Contracted with to govern us.
I didn’t contract for Any of these Impairments on the Obligations of My Constitutional Contract with Governments at State or at any other subsidiary level and I doubt very much that you did either.
-
I don't watch TV, period. I will watch morning joe and football sometimes. :shrug:
I believe the Constitution mentions roads, it does not mention the CPB or public broadcasting.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Ok,your choice,but my points still stand.
-
Exactly where did you pull out that fact on our country's first citizens were 'liberal'?
@IsailedawayfromFR
Ever heard of a little thing called "World History"?
Look it up. I am not responsible for your education. It's up to you to cure your ignorance.
-
So your earlier comment that no federal dollars go to fund PBS is an admitted lie. Do you even realize that the CPB, which is federally funded, uses its budget to make content for PBS?
@IsailedawayfromFR
You are a professional fool. Continue to stew in your ignorance and brag about it. I have better things to do with my time than try to train monkeys.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
You are a professional fool. Continue to stew in your ignorance and brag about it. I have better things to do with my time than try to train monkeys.
Excellent post to try to dissuade all readers of this thread that refutes the facts I laid out.
You need a serious education on the history of this country. The 'better things to do with my time' could be directed towards that, perhaps?
Till then, there is little hope for you.
-
Just gonna make one small comment.
PBS shows a lot of BBC programs. BBC programs are made using money obtained from the obligatory TV license fee in the UK - currently £142 per yer, £122 if you are blind or over 70.
Not having a TV license gets you an automatic court date - no way out of it, even if you don't have a TV, and a £1000 fine unless you are exceptionally persuasive.
I hope you all enjoy the programs I had NO choice but to pay for.
-
Just gonna make one small comment.
PBS shows a lot of BBC programs. BBC programs are made using money obtained from the obligatory TV license fee in the UK - currently £142 per yer, £122 if you are blind or over 70.
Not having a TV license gets you an automatic court date - no way out of it, even if you don't have a TV, and a £1000 fine unless you are exceptionally persuasive.
I hope you all enjoy the programs I had NO choice but to pay for.
Some of those programs, like Sherlock, are fantastic. I thank you even if your government does not.
-
Quote from: sneakypete on November 16, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
I love your knowledge and the way you think.
I sure wish there was some hope of such remedies to our current globalist-rush-to-hell-mess.
After Armageddon, whatever's left of the USA MIGHT pursue such goals as you articulate so well.
Have pondered such things a lot.
One thing I keep coming back to is one law:
ALL THINGS CONSIDERED--was the deed done loving, or not?
I realize court cases would build up precedent that would then acquire a level of law . . . but I think it might be possible to try and keep the focus on each case on it's own merits.
I'd also like to see something in the Constitution about term limits as well as identifying the MOST HUMBLE PERSONs OF HIGH INTEGRITY in a given jurisdiction to serve as the top leader etc. etc. and particularly as judges
And that any serious fault found in either the humility or high integrity would require immediate removal from positions of leadership.
Could be tricky administering but it would likely at least be far better than the system we have.
Thanks.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I didn't even bother to read it. You obviously have an agenda,and you are not about to allow the truth to get in the way.
When you start out with a false premise,everything that follows is shit.
Well, Thank The Almighty. At least there's One of us here whose on the ball.
You're informed, and I'm shit.
You watch PBS. I read Madison.
Yessiree. Ain't no pulling the wool over Your eyes.
And since you didn't feel my posting of James Madison's take on the Constitution was even worth your Truth Divining Oracle of Delphi Super Powers, I don't expect you to read This post either.
It's for the other folks here.
Unless, of course, you're Really Certain you actually Want to take another shot at pointing out my 'shit'.
This is my profile page from FR.
The following are facts.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is a written document and as such its meaning is not subject to change. The Founders sweated and argued out the choice of every word, phrase, paragraph, colon, semi colon, and period for just and reasonable cause.
The Founders included within the Constitution a legal method for us to step outside of its original rules. That method is Article V: the process of Amending the Constitution: which is intentionally a very difficult process assuring that it would be used only in cases of extreme, actual need.
The Founders therefore did not intend for us to play fast and loose with what they labored so hard to create, which is why they said exactly that.
Art. 6 Clause 2 provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
However, since our political class assume to know more about it than those of us who've actually Read it, a refresher course for Their edification appears in order.
The following are my opinions.
We have more than too many laws suffocating our perfect Constitution as it is. To rectify that encumbrance the next law we must pass must address those too many laws.
That next law shall require that for every new law which shall be passed the people passing it shall first repeal six existing laws. Where those six laws shall be found shall not be as important as that they shall be found, and they shall be repealed.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
You’re welcome to start cleaning up the mess anywhere you choose because that mess is everywhere, so long as you start actually cleaning it up.
Any law needing to be interpreted by an Administrative Law Judge in order to give that law effect, shall not become a Law until it shall have been simplified and made sufficiently specific to obviate any Administrative Law Judge involvement.
When anyone discovers that the Law means something other than what the law clearly or otherwise states (see preceding simplified and specific clause) when they get to Court, then Whomever is responsible for that misconstruction of the law’s stated intent shall be fined and or imprisioned by the State and or bamboozled party, and shall possess no immunity from prosecution for Civil compensatory damages by the bamboozled party.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
All Laws, Regulations and Rules enacted at any level of Government which do not conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution, shall henceforth be required of our existing Administrative Law Judges to either be made to conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution or to be declared null, void and inoperative by our existing Administrative Law Judges. Decades of ‘Through The Looking Glass’ Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Agency activist precedent citing shall not be any defense against impeachment and or fines and or imprisionment.
Since the adverb Administrative is derived from the verb Administer meaning to manage or run something, the Constitution shall henceforth become the primary something being Administered. Secondary consequences and or perceived inconveniences to specially protected Agendas discovered in penumbrated somethings which needs must over ride the primary something shall henceforth become officially, SOL.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, and rather than Firing our Administrative Law Judges, we will continue to pay them subject to the adjustment that they will be required to work For us instead of Against us.
Firstly among those reimposition of the Constitution consequences shall become the actualized understanding that Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment’s “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law” clause shall be applicable only to acts of Congress which are in fact actually lawful under Article 1 Sections 7, 8, and 9 rather than the current theft of everything every Citizen owns through the Federal Reserve System’s violation of Congress discharging its mandated duty under Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5:
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”
Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5 mandates the coining of money, not the imprinting of cloth, paper, or any non metallic substance with any image which has presently abandoned even its former warranting to the bearer that its face IOU promissory shall be redeemed for gold or silver (immutable equity) which value shall be subjected to the impossibility of being recalculated and devalued minute by minute by combined Congressional Profligacy and such Private Sector Transference of Public Equities and Securities considerations as have bought Congress their Unconstitutional, rebellious and insurrectionary epidemic of bank fraud and check forgings.
Failure by the Federal Reserve System to immediately cease and desist any and all of its operations shall subject any and all officers and or employees of the Federal Reserve System to prosecution under Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 6:
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 1 states in defining and circumscribing the powers of Congress:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
The ‘general Welfare’ clause exists nowhere else in the Constitution except in its introductory preamble:
The Clauses of Art 1 Sec 8 following Clause 1 therefore define the sum total of Congress legitimate powers to legislate into existence and as we’re now suffering Out of existence, the ‘general Welfare’ of the United States.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, because halting Government’s epidemic counterfeiting, bank fraud, and check forging is a more reasonable approach than trying to round up all the perpetrators, deliver them into Court, get them tried, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.
As for State and Local Governments:
Article 1 Section 10 states:
“No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
As the Constitution is the highest law of the land it is therefore the highest legally binding Contract between We the People and those we have Contracted with to govern us.
I didn’t contract for Any of these Impairments on the Obligations of My Constitutional Contract with Governments at State or at any other subsidiary level and I doubt very much that you did either.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
AFAIK,the only taxpayer funding are in the form of tax deductions from foundation contributions. No direct federal funding goes to PBS. Not sure about state funding for state PBS channels because they do produce education programs,some not even leftist political propaganda. BUT.....,if they do,it is MUCH easier to shut that down in your state if you want it shut down.
Obviously lies get exploded by the truth.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/11/22/npr-donald-trump-may-defund-500-million-public-broadcasting/
With President-elect Trump promising to pay for his infrastructure and defense spending by defunding non-essential federal spending, one of the first programs on the block could be the almost $500 million spent on public broadcasting.
Despite repeated efforts to kill federal funding of public broadcasting since Republicans won the House in 2010 and Presidential-nominee Mitt Romney made it a campaign promise in 2012, the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education are spending $470.7 million in U.S. taxpayer cash to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) this year, which provides 15 percent of PBS television and 10 percent of NPR radio broadcasting funding.
Although their charter requires strict non-partisan programing, the public broadcasters are accused of leaning left. An NPR article described the 2016 election results as “nostalgia for a whiter America.”
After Joel Pollak, who serves as Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large and In-house Counsel, defended its Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon from false and defamatory claims of antisemitism and “white nationalism” in a Nov. 16 interview, NPR’s ombudsman/public editor Elizabeth Jensen recommended that the taxpayer-funded radio news service bar future live interviews of conservatives, who may be “normalizing hate speech.” Instead, guests with presumably controversial views should be pre-taped, she said, so that their opinions might be “contextualized.” (NPR clarified on Monday evening that it will continue to air live interviews with conservatives.)
The CPB was supposedly founded as a non-partisan not-for-profit corporation in 1967 as part of President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society.” The President trumpeted that by signing the bill, “It announces to the world that our nation wants more than just material wealth; our nation wants more than a ‘chicken in every pot.’ We in America have an appetite for excellence, too.”
Originally funded with a $5 million grant, the CPB quickly became controversial for its liberal programing, such as Washington Week in Review, Bill Moyers, The Great American Dream Machine, and the documentary Banks and the Poor, which alleged that many major banks discriminated against poor customers.
The Carter administration was unsuccessful in 1978 when it tried to convince a Democratic Congress to appropriate $200 million to CPB for each of the next five years. But since then, U.S. taxpayers have spent generously on public broadcasting — over $10 billion in the past five decades. Despite recessions, CPB’s budget has only been trimmed four times during the period.
In keeping with President Johnson’s statement that “our nation wants more than a chicken in every pot,” public broadcasting not-for-profits are known for paying egregiously high executive compensation. According to the latest data available for the 2013 fiscal year, PBS’s Paula Kerger pocketed $779,954 in salary, NPR’s Gary Knell banked $756,575, and CPB’s Patricia de Stacy Harrison received $434,364.
It is extremely difficult to break down exactly what portion of salaries is paid by taxpayers through CPB, PBS and NPR program grants.
The launch of the Great Society coincided with the beginning of the end of America’s blue-collar prosperity. Over the next 40 years, working class Americans have seen their wages shrink as factories and mines and shops in their communities were shuttered.
It was working class Americans that just gave President-elect Donald Trump his improbable victory. They want the type of tax cuts and infrastructure spending that will put back the “chicken in every pot.“ Many see little or no benefit in continued federal spending on elitist public broadcasting.
-
Damned right.
-
With all the screaming by the left around AM radio and the fairness doctrine. it's cricket sounds when the discussion ensues that the government has had a tax payer subsidized a left wing media outlet for 45 years.
Truth be known, I'd bet endowment money would keep this POS afloat to eternity. I call on PBS to completely open those books.
-
Obviously lies get exploded by the truth.
@IsailedawayfromFR
Are you calling me a liar?
-
Please let's cool our jets here, guys. I don't want to edit or delete your comments, but I will if it means keeping this site engaging for everyone.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Ever heard of a little thing called "World History"?
If you are alluding to PBS, their slant and content on world history is strikingly liberal.
Leftist like Kenneth Burns, Bill Moyers, Henry Louis Gates dominate this POS.
I'd rather have tax dollars go elsewhere, or at least somewhere neutral.
-
This is another thread that might not be a bad idea to close down. :shrug:
Just my $.02.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Are you calling me a liar?
If you say something that is not factual, then that may be the definition of one doing such.
You punch away instead of examining the facts.
Cannot have a discussion with someone with a burr under the saddle.
-
If you are alluding to PBS, their slant and content on world history is strikingly liberal.
Leftist like Kenneth Burns, Bill Moyers, Henry Louis Gates dominate this POS.
I'd rather have tax dollars go elsewhere, or at least somewhere neutral.
@catfish1957
Some of it is,and some of it isn't. Most of the Moyers and Burns stuff is filtered through their leftist lenses,but I think they are naive enough they believe it themselves.
The more modern "history in the making" stuff on PBS is usually pretty balanced,and sometimes downright harsh on leftist viewpoints. Of course the flip side of that is sometimes the very same show (Frontline is a good example) will air an episode that is brutal to the right.
None of this really bothers me because I WANT to know what the left is thinking and promoting so I can try to counter it,and because I like to think I am smart enough to be able to view anything they broadcast and separate the wheat from the chaff. Yeah,sometimes I do have to do some research of my own to satisfy my curiosity or prove a point to myself, but that's good to because it causes me to do the research and I usually end up learning something I didn't know before.
I do NOT want to live in a country where only one POV is broadcast,and as I wrote above,I am a firm believer in knowing what the enemy is up to.
-
If you say something that is not factual, then that may be the definition of one doing such.
You punch away instead of examining the facts.
Cannot have a discussion with someone with a burr under the saddle.
@IsailedawayfromFR
It's even harder to have a conversation with a fool,and you clearly qualify. I get upset when fools call me a liar because I am one of those old-fashioned people that considers that to be a provocative insult because I make a effort to never knowingly tell a lie. Yeah,I have a burr under my saddle over this. You would call me a liar to my face exactly one time,and I would change your life forever.
-
When a topic devolves into two people sniping at each other, it is time to lock it before people start dying of boredom.