Posted by
grad_1986 on Monday, April 20, 2009 1:28:11 PM
President Obama has added to his resume many titles over the past few months
Commander-In-Chief - he considers this is more of a "honorary" title than a tangible one
Banker-In-Chief - taking over AIG and other banks
Auto-Designer-In-Chief - telling the GM CEO to fall on his sword so he can take it over
Soon you can add to these: Editor-In-Chief.
I was appalled to here that the Obama administration has even "considered" bailing out the New York Times newspaper. Our founding fathers must be twirling in their graves to see this happening. Who would have thought that a government would become so controlling that a Free Press would be on the auctioning block. Do we really think this will be a good thing? Have they never read the Constitution? Is the Times too big to fail as well? Maybe in the eyes of the liberals it is as important to America as the Pravda was important to the failed Soviet Union. How else will the liberals be able to put out their communist garbage on a daily basis to the unsuspecting masses.
But here again our government just doesn't get it. The newspaper industry (or old-media) has been suffering for years with lost readership who have turned to free-er forms (I mean that both in terms of cost AND content) of news-media via the internet. I myself only get the Sacramento Bee on the weekends so I can get the coupons for the week (and the comics). Does bailing out the newspaper industry make sense? Do we think sending them billions of dollars will suddenly cause us to buy their junk? (Oh look honey, its government owned now, let's have it delivered to our house so we can hear what our illustrious leader is saying today!) Why should my tax money be used for helping out a company I am 100% opposed to in every way and will continue to lose money? Will our government give equal help to conservative newspapers as well? If not, then how will they be able to compete with a company that is on the government dole?
As Obama said after losing a court case in 2000, "I think the Constitution only tells the government what it can't do and doesn't say enough about what it should do". But of course, the writers of the Constitution knew full well that government never needs to be told what to do, they need LIMITS as to what they can do. Its those darn limits that trouble this administration so much but we hold so dear to us.
We cannot let this happen