Republicans take a shot at Big Bird?

Here we go again. If you stop sending someone money, you’re attacking them?

Jun 10, 2005: Republicans take a shot at Big Bird:

Republicans on the House subcommittee that controls public broadcasting have voted to reduce and eventually eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. The effects would be disastrous.

Children, parents, and teachers deserve a network that provides safe, high-quality programming; and it should come without the threat of destructive political influence.

The effects would be disastrous if you’re on the public dole (oops, I meant if you get government money for your programs). Children, parents and teachers deserve exactly what they’re willing to pay for themselves. If they want this so bad, let them fork out the cash from their own pockets instead of picking the pockets of their neighbors who don’t want, don’t care about or actively oppose the socialist messages put out by PBS. If you don’t want disastrous political influence in your shows, then don’t take money from politicians! Hello!

If their shows are so great, they should be able to fund them from people who are willing to pay for them. If no one wants them then they should fade away.

Republicans and Democrats should oppose Janice Rogers Brown, the rest of us should elect her President

Here’s an interesting post from DNC: Kicking Ass:

Jun 7, 2005: Why moderates and conservatives should oppose Janice Rogers Brown

The funny part is that everything they cited gave me another reason to like her. Even the link to the Think Progress post showed me how great she would be as a judge. I’d love to see her on the Supreme Court.

However, if you’re a committed Republican or Democrat, you should beware, since it appears that she will stymie your socialist ambitions for this country. If you’re a regular American national who just wants the government off your back, then she’s the judge for you.

I just laughed at the accusations of her extremism. Apparently people accusing her have forgotten the positions and writings of our Founding Fathers. They would have been filibustered by the Democrats and Republicans as well if anyone dared to advance them for a judgeship on a Federal Court.

Property Rights?

I must say I like reading Amy Ridenour’s Blog. Once again she points out an issue, but fails to go far enough in her comments about what is wrong.

In her blog post: Sex Story or Property Rights Story? I Say the Latter, Ms. Ridenour says:

In a piece otherwise largely sympathetic to the owners and patrons of the clubs, the Washington Post never managed to use the phrase “property rights” even once. Yet, all things being equal, isn’t it wrong for the government to take private property belonging to one private business and turn it over to the benefit of another?

It is not merely wrong for the government to take private property from one private business and turn it over to the benefit of another private business, it is wrong for government to take private property from anyone for any reason. And yes, this includes eminent domain.

Government is the representative of the people. That means that the people are taking the private property. Just because a group of people get together and decide they want to take away someone’s property, it doesn’t mean they have that right. If personal property is not sacrosanct, then anyone can vote to take away anything we own, as long as 51% decide that they want it.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights to property from groups of people who would try to take it away from us. This is not a conservative viewpoint, though, it is rather a radical, liberal (in the classical meaning) viewpoint, and one on which our country was founded.