Four of five FCC study authors gave to Obama

Four of five FCC study authors gave to Obama

A significant problem with the now-suspended Federal Communications Commission plan to have government contractors question journalists about editorial decisions and practices was that it was a partisan exercise. The plan originated among Democrats on the FCC; the commission’s two Republican members didn’t even learn about it until it was well under way.

There was also a one-sidedness in the research behind the project. The FCC enlisted scholars from two big journalism schools, the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy, to determine the “critical information needs” about which journalists would be questioned. The study, delivered in July 2012, listed five authors: Ernest J. Wilson III, Carola Weil, and Katya Ognyanova from USC, Lewis Friedland from Wisconsin, and Philip Napoli from Fordham University. (Weil is now with American University.) Four of the five, it turns out, contributed to President Obama’s campaigns.
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

According to Federal Election Commission records, Wilson gave $3,300 to the Obama presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. Napoli contributed $500 to Obama in 2008. Weil gave $250 in 2012. And Friedland gave $200 in 2008. There are no contributions listed from Ognyanova, who as a post-doctoral fellow led a team of graduate student researchers on the project.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with professors contributing to President Obama, and there’s nothing wrong with Democrats exercising control over the FCC when there’s a Democrat in the White House. But controversial projects are usually less controversial when they have some bipartisan support; it’s often a good idea to have a little diversity of opinion in the mix when decisions are made. But in this case, the newsroom survey appears to have been a one-sided exercise every step of the way.

Obama Once Again Playing The Race Card: Announces New Racially Biased Initiative Aimed At Helping Only Troubled Black, Latino Youth

 Obama Once Again Playing The Race Card: Announces New Racially Biased Initiative Aimed At Helping Only Troubled Black, Latino Youth

We all know that the only people Obama really wants to help are those that he considers to be ‘his people.’ He has played the race card time and time again during his presidency. This time is certainly no different, as he announces one of the most incredibly racially biased programs ever put into place. Surrounded by a number of child props to tug on the heart strings of the audience, Obama claimed once again that he sees himself in the troubled black youth of today. He even said “I got high. Not always thinking about the harm it could do. I didn’t always take school as seriously as I should have.”

This new program is called My Brother’s Keeper and it is intended to “strengthen the efforts in creating more opportunities for young black and Latino men.” Of course Obama continued by explaining that the men and youth he is trying to help with this initiative are consistently doing worse and claimed that the “odds are stacked against them.” But never feel all you downtrodden, because our wonderful community organizer in chief is coming to the rescue. He is going to improve the conditions that are keeping black youth and young men imprisoned by society.

Gee, is this a little offensive to anyone else? Honestly, what do you think would happen if a white president were to announce a program that was aimed at helping only white youth? Certainly the liberals in Congress and the media would have a field day with that. Yet the bias carried by Obama allows him to get away with something just as racist.

Part of the problem here is that too many people actually believe that society is to blame for much our success or failure. Society is not imprisoning these kids and young adults. Instead, the predecessors (i.e. parents, grandparents, etc…) and even Obama might actually be helping to limit their opportunities. They are likely to have turned out in exactly the way they have been labeled due to these factors and not simply society.

This type of legislation or initiative is both unneeded and disrespectful. Yet, this is what Obama does time after time. He takes an issue or problem and then turns it into a race problem. Is this how Obama tends to solve our problems…by making everything into an us against them type of situation? Yes, in case you were wondering, we (you and I) belong in the ‘them’ group that are supposedly fighting to keep the minorities down. How ridiculous.

I suppose this is the only way Obama knows how to get legislation passed. Well, that and actually making big promises to the American people which he knows to be untrue. Now, by trying to help those that he claims society is imprisoning, they will only find themselves imprisoned even further by government dependency. Maybe that is the whole goal of this program…to further the stranglehold that government already has on minorities?

If Obama really wanted to help, he must realize that the only way to do so is by actually transforming things over a period of generations. Essentially, what is needed is to create a different atmosphere in which these ‘troubled’ youth are growing up.

What do YOU think? Is such a program offensive? If a white president were to put forth a similar program aimed at helping white youth what would happen? Why is Obama given a free pass? Does he even want to really help minority youth, or is this all just for political gain?

Armed Resistance To Tyranny Impossible Says Gun Control Advocate

Armed Resistance To Tyranny Impossible Says Gun Control Advocate

The idea that a major component of the 2nd Amendment is for an armed populace to be a safeguard against tyranny doesn’t sit well with the gun control industry. They always counter with a ludicrous argument that people with small arms couldn’t possibly resist heavily armed government forces. That is the position of Mike Austin, a philosophy professor, in his op-ed piece for the Eastern Progressive.

Austin is pushing for even stronger gun control laws in the country and his reasons are weirder than most. His basic argument is that we the people couldn’t possibly stand up to a tyrannical government, so why bother. Of course he’s completely wrong, but when has that ever stopped a gun grabber from spewing nonsense.

Predictably, he starts off on the wrong foot:

While it is possible that tyranny may arise in our nation, this seems unlikely, given the existence of democratic institutions and a strong tradition of adherence to the rule of law.

Currently we have a President and Attorney General that have no love for the Constitution. Obama and Holder spit in the face of the law. Police from the feds down to local departments have increasingly become militarized and the government spies on it’s own people. It’s not a matter of “if” tyranny is possible so much as a “when” it’s going to kick into full gear. Our tradition of the rule of law is history.

Moreover, when we take into account the military might of the United States government, it is not clear how an armed populace would prevent such tyranny. If such tyranny did arise, the people could successfully resist only if they had a stockpile of weapons capable of matching the state’s firepower.

Last year, LL Cool J look-alike, Christopher Dorner took on the full force of the Los Angeles and Riverside police departments. He killed 3 cops and wounded 3 others in a nearly two-week rampage. The cops knew what he looked liked and basically where he was; yet tens of thousands of heavily armed officers could not bring him down. He created chaos and death at will and was only stopped after a civilian helped cops find him.

That was just one guy. Now imagine 300 million guns in 55 million households nationwide. If you average 3 persons per household that would be 265 million armed American citizens. That’s 265 million anonymous lone wolf dissenters. How much military and police might would it take to quash that rebellion?

See, the thing is, the US is not very good at fighting guerrilla warfare. This is not to bag on the American military, all armies suck at fighting guerilla wars. When you don’t know who the enemy is, there’s a lot of standing around waiting to be ambushed. It’s hard to mount an offensive when the enemy is indistinguishable from innocent civilians. Heavy armor, artillery, and technology are useless against a radicalized armed indigenous population.

If the justification for the widespread possession of guns is to deter or resist a possible future tyrannical state, then by the same reasoning there would also be a right to possess tanks, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction, all of which would be needed to truly deter or reverse such tyranny. But surely this is wrong, because of the potential harm to innocent victims if these weapons were widely possessed.

Here’s another stupid argument. Tanks and warplanes cost millions of dollars so they would be out of the price range for the average anti-government agitator. Beyond that, if there were a tyrannical government looking to disarm its population, they would prefer that the dissenters were in a tank. If you had three guys in a city, sniping and creating mayhem, it would take thousands of soldiers to quell the threat. If you had three guys in a tank doing the same thing, all it would take to eliminate them would be one missile.

Of course in arguments like these, the anti-gunners always throw in the childish argument that if you support the 2nd Amendment as absolute, then you must also believe average citizens should be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction like nukes. For this, I will capitulate to Mr. Austin and agree that people shouldn’t have access to nuclear weapons with out a background check and a 3-day waiting period.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. For a philosophy professor, Mike Austin doesn’t seem to be able to grasp any of that. I think it is because when a person convinces him or herself that guns are bad, it becomes impossible for them to look at any problem or solution objectively. How’s that for philosophizing?

Tyranny is possible, even in our great democratic system of checks and balances. An armed population is less susceptible to tyranny than a disarmed one. Our founding fathers knew this and that’s why they included the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.