Please listen to this audio about shielding donations, specifiying programing and her talking about million and millions of dollars. Then tell me they need, or should get federal dollars.
National Public Radio: Part II | James O'Keefe's Project Veritas
National Public Radio was eagerly anticipating a $5 million donation from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center, according to the latest secret recording released by Project Veritas, which set up MEAC to sting NPR and in turn caused the resignation of two top officials early this week.
The second recording, an audio of a phone call, demonstrates that NPR had not "repeatedly refused" the donation, as an NPR spokesman said after Project Veritas unleashed the first secret video, which showed NPR executives eating lunch with the phony Muslims and calling members of the Tea Party racist.
Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
It solves the problem that many are uncomfortable with tax money going to an organization they perceive to have a distinct bias in its political editorial shows.
It helps, even if just a little, contribute to solving our "too many bills -- not enough money" problem.
I like NPR. I like many of it's shows. I think the narrow worldview shared by many of it's broadcasting employees is often implicit in its programming.
The day the US government stops sending my money to the CPB is the day I make pledge to KERA. I can tell you my pledge will likely be larger than the money they reap from me at the point of a gun.
Last edited by cAPSLOCK; 03-20-11 at 03:23 AM.
Also, just because a whole bunch of easily led people are led to believe they can get something by making the government steal it from other people doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and it certainly does not mean it will work.
Your contention is flatly wrong. The Constitution is written to forbid the excesses of a tyrannical government, specifically the tyranny of a mindless mob electing a self-serving congress with absolute power to steal, pillage, and rape the nation. The nation had experience of a nation run by a Congress with no brakes. That's why the Senate was correctly established as a an appointed body of elders that who were required to approve of the actions of the Congress before any bill could be passed to the President for final approval or rejection.It is my contention that the founders were explicitly opposed to corporatism, while only vaguely opposed to socialism.
The Founders had all the experience needed to know that the whims of the mob as expressed by their elected idiots representing them HAD TO BE balanced with mature debate and deliberation before becoming law. The Constitution they wrote granted the Congress specific powers and ONLY those specific powers. None of the subsequent amendments to the Constitution significantly altered Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment has not been modified, nor has the Ninth. The Congress does not have the authority to impose socialism or any socialist style program on the people.
The Founders were perfectly familiar with the concept of stealing from the rich. They were, after all, closer to that silly Robbin' Hood legend than we are. MOST importantly, they included that pesky clause in the Fifth Amendment requiring just compensation for property taken from private parties.
So their awareness of the failings of people, including their propensity for the silliness now known as socialism but which reared it's ugly destructive head to contribute to the destruction of the Roman Empire, was incorporated in the Constitution they wrote by prohibiting unjust takings.
One aspect of the modern symptoms of socialism is the vociferous defence of publicly funded education. Unfortunately for your argument, while Jefferson did indeed support federal funding of education, he was knowledgeable enough of the Constitution to state in his sixth state of the union address the following:
Jefferson may have been a proto socialist, but he wasn't the Father of the Constitution.Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads,rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumerationof Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separationwill disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is hereplaced among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of privateenterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal, but a public institution can alone supply thosesciences which though rarely called for are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to theimprovement of the country and some of them to its preservation.
The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because if approved by the time the State legislatures shallhave deliberated on this extension of the Federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed and other arrangements made for theirexecution, the necessary funds will be on hand and without employment.
I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are notamong those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.
Thomas Jefferson's Sixth State of the Union Address: Information from Answers.com
Don't be silly. Just look at what the media of HIS day did in their attempt to destroy Jefferson's reputation before an election. You're doing a lot of supposing without understanding the circumstances.I believe they would be appalled at what has become of our democracy, and our media, today.
There's this thing called the "Internet". Perhaps you've heard of it?
There's Netflix. They seem to have some kind of distribution network to deliver opera to people who like that sort of thing, anywhere they live.
That's just two possibilities that don't require the taxpayer getting fleeced.
A final possibility is that they could do what I did, long ago, I admit, and read the damn thing in French but USING THIER OWN DAMN MONEY TO BUY THE BOOK. That might require them to marry a Parisian to help with the hard parts, but the best things in life are not easy, nor free.
Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 03-20-11 at 03:45 AM.
No, it would just waste my time because NPR hasn't changed it's left wing anti-American bias since it's inception in 1967.
And yes, cutting this budget is going to require cutting major programs...
...AFTER the low hanging fruit like NPR/PBS and NEA are plucked.
What, you think the government should try to cut a quarter trillion dollars out of the budget and all the luxuries like NPR should be left alone?
Don't be silly. The cutting must be done, and yet you people are balking because your favorite irrelevant perk has it's pinky on the chopping block, as if you're pretending you can stave off complete national collapse by standing in opposition to the sensible recommendations that will ease the more difficult choices that will be made in the future, regardless of what party is in power.
It can only be concluded that the left's need for other people's money is a deep seated addiction immune to reason. Mayor Snorkum can understand the opposition the staff of NPR feels towards losing 5% of their budget, that might mean they have to let a janitor go or something. Mayor Snorkum will not expend wasted effort to comprehend the degree of irrationality of others who lose nothing by making a business stand on it's own merits without subsidy.
NPR's bias is inescapable to honest listeners. Fact.
The limitations on Congress by the Constitution are written in plain english. Fact.
That NPR should be stricken from the list of recipients of corporate welfare (ummmm.....shouldn't 100% of recipients of corporate welfare be taken off that list?)...is a conclusion from established fact and hence, of course, an opinion.