Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
The U.S. dollar’s downward slide is accelerating as low interest rates, inflation concerns and the massive federal budget deficit undermine the currency.
With no relief in sight for the dollar on any of those fronts, the downward pressure on the dollar is widely expected to continue.
The dollar fell nearly 1% against a broad basket of currencies this week, following a drop of similar size last week. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index closed at its lowest level since August 2008, before the financial crisis intensified.
“The dollar just hasn’t had anything positive going for it,” said Alessio de Longis, who oversees the Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund.
The main driver for the dollar’s decline is low interest rates in the U.S. compared with higher and rising rates abroad. Lower rates mean a lower return on cash—and the pressure from that factor could intensify next week when the Federal Reserve’s rate-setting committee is expected to signal that U.S. short-term rates will likely remain near zero for many months to come. On Wednesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to give the central bank’s first-ever press conference following a policy-setting meeting.
But it is worry about the U.S. budget deficit that is intensifying the selloff. On Monday, investors were spooked by a warning from Standard & Poor’s that it might take away the U.S. government’s coveted AAA rating status amid concerns the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress might not be able to agree to significant reductions in the deficit.
In addition, Chinese government officials have stepped up rhetoric hinting they might diversify their $3 trillion of currency reserves away from U.S. dollars. Such a shift would chip away at what has been a substantial source of dollar-buying in recent years.
I dare say that the Wall Street Journal got it wrong this time. While it certainly might be technically true that the immediate driver of the dollar’s decline is ” is low interest rates in the U.S. compared with higher and rising rates abroad,” that is only a symptom of the ultimate cause of the dollar’s decline. The bigger picture can be summed up in two words: quantitative easing. Obama’s Federal Reserve is creating money out of thin air. And with more dollars chasing the same amount (and actually fewer) finite goods and services, the value of each dollar devalues.
A week is a long time in Obama’s God damn America. A fool-in-chief can do a lot of damage in a week:
NEW YORK—Investors wasted no time in sending the dollar to new three-year lows after the Federal Reserve gave them little reason to support it.
Weak U.S. growth and unemployment data quickened the dollar’s fall. Initial employment claims jumped back above the 400,000 level in the latest week. Meanwhile, gross domestic product data showed that economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter, led by surging food and energy costs that sent a key gauge of inflation, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, soaring to its highest level in nearly three years.
Late Thursday, the euro was at $1.4821 from $1.4794 late Wednesday. The dollar traded at ¥81.54 from ¥82.04, while the euro was at ¥120.85 from ¥121.37. The U.K. pound bought $1.6640 from $1.6636. The dollar fetched 0.8733 Swiss franc from 0.8738 franc, plunging to a new record low.
The ICE Dollar Index, which tracks the U.S. dollar against a trade-weighted basket of currencies, was at 73.12 from 73.519, its lowest level since July 2008.
Has Obama made our economy better? Really? You’ve been watching and reading mainstream media propagandist lies, haven’t you? Here’s the reality: our dollar situation is every bit as bad now as it was when the terrible economic implosion of 2008 hit us. That giant sucking sound you hear all around you is the value and purchasing power of your dollar sinking into the abyss.
Here’s another major economic indicator going right down the toilet:
Home price gains since spring 2009 vanish The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index for 20 major U.S. cities in February comes close to its previous bottom reached in April 2009.
By Alejandro Lazo, Los Angeles Times
April 26, 2011, 5:06 p.m.
The home price gains made after the housing market bottomed in spring 2009 have vanished, with 10 cities posting fresh lows in February, according to a closely watched index that tracks home prices in America’s biggest metropolitan areas.
The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index for 20 major U.S. cities, released Tuesday, came within a hair of its previous bottom hit in April 2009. The renewed drop in home prices indicates the nation’s housing woes continue despite a recovery in the broader economy.
“There is very little, if any, good news about housing. Prices continue to weaken, while trends in sales and construction are disappointing,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor’s.
[…]
Foreclosures remain a significant part of the market and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future as borrowers continue to fall behind on their mortgage payments.
Patrick Newport, U.S. economist for consultancy IHS Global Insight, wrote in a note Tuesday that the decline in the index and drops in other home price measures — specifically a monthly index produced by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has seen steady declines in recent months — indicate that the housing slump is once again widespread.
The federal agency’s index’s “recent decline indicates that the vicious cycle in which falling prices lead to more foreclosures which lead to even lower housing prices, continues to play a role in keeping housing on the mat,” Newport wrote.
The Case-Shiller index has fallen to nearly the same level it was in April 2009, the last time it bottomed, evaporating the gains made last year after a popular tax credit for buyers fueled sales nationally. Experts predict prices will continue to fall this year, pushing past their previous lows into a much-feared double dip.
The only thing propping up the economy under Obama’s morally and fiscally idiotic policies is QE2. Banks and major businesses are not being allowed to fail (it’s all too big too fail in an increasingly fascist system in which the government dominates the banking and corporate spheres). Right now, the system Obama has only made more broken is being kept afloat in cash being created out of thin air. The last time quantitative easing ended, the DOW immediately lost 16% of its value in two weeks. And QE2 is set to end in June.
This means QE3, and then of course QE4. Because “QE” means “Quack Economics” far more than it should mean anything else.
The following video WAS a fictional account warning us of what could happen. But it is about to become news before history confirms it:
And do I really have to say anything about gas prices? Gas was $1.79 a gallon when Obama took office; it is now $3.91 and going up every single day. That is an increase of more than 118%. How’s that hope n’ change workin’ out for ya?
Liberals say they care about the poor. But they don’t give a damn about the poor. All Democrats want is to “fundamentally transform” America into a socialistic system where they can maintain power forever.
I think of one journalist named Stephen Laurent who was impriosoned for trying to tell the truth about Hitler. He wrote:
“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”
And that is where America is heading. Only there will be no America to rebuild America the way the United States of America rebuilt Germany in the aftermath of Germany reaping its whirlwind after sowing the wind. Obama himself will have seen to that.
The funniest thing about this – if anything about America turning into a socialist banana republic is “funny” – is that it will be the left who so rabidly despise the Word of God (otherwise known as the Holy Bible) who will bring about it’s ultimate fulfillment.
The beast is coming. He will be a one-world global leader who will take over in the catastrophic aftermath of false messiahs like Barack Hussein Obama. He will be the personification of the United Nations and globalism and a world without borders and all the other total idiocy the left has been jabbering about for decades. He will represent the sum total of everything the liberals have ever yearned for.
The secular humanist left has said that if they could just take over, they would create a humanist Utopia. God is going to give them their chance in the Tribulation with the big government Utopia of the Antichrist.
And in just seven years he will have brought a literal hell on earth.
It will be the left – it will be the people who most hate and despise and mock the Bible – that brings about all of the end times prophecies of the very Bible they so ridicule.
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.
But I have been reading my Bible, President Obama. And I’m seeing more and more reasons to believe it and accept it as God’s Word about a time which is now at hand.
I see the dollar devaluing to nothing; I see the cost of food skyrocketing. And I consider the words of the book of Revelation:
“He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:16-17)
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell shows us how totally over the top rabid liberal non-Fox News networks truly are.
Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:
O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.
What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.
What? They’re ignorant because they’re white? Are you kidding? O’Donnell continued:
O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.
Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.
But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:
What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.
You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?
I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.
I am so sick and disgusted with liberals. They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.
Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism. It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world. Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius. Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.
The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.
There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.
Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic. They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves. And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off.
They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington
But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution. They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments. Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”
But multiculturalist, pluralist, postmodernist secular humanists that dominate liberalism like Lawrence O’Donnell literally seek hell.
Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot? You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own. But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.” We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.
“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)
“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)
“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.
“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)
“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)
“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.
“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)
And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.
Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.
A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.
Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.
Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race? I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.
So yes, we’ve got Lawrence O’Donnell, anti-white bigoted man-despising white male.
Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue. Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man. And so O’Donnell is those things, too. And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him. Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.
I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.
Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction. You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.
At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people. And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.
MSNBC has the right to broadcast. Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right. But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.
In the face of mounting political unrest, Egypt took the unprecedented step of severing all Internet connections and shutting down its cellphone services—with the cooperation of international firms.
Egyptian authorities asked mobile operators to “turn down the network totally,” said Vittorio Colao, chief executive of U.K.-based Vodafone Group PLC, which owns 55% of Egypt’s largest carrier, Vodafone Egypt.
Mr. Colao, speaking Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the request was legitimate under Egyptian law, but he hoped the government would reverse course soon. […]
Other countries attempting to undermine or contain political uprisings in recent years—from Myanmar in 2007 to Iran and China in 2009—have also clamped down on Internet access and cellphone use.
But Egypt’s crackdown appears unique in both scale and synchronization, particularly for a country with such an advanced infrastructure with so many providers, according to Internet security experts.
“What’s shocking about this is that they didn’t just take down a certain domain name or block a website—they took the whole Internet down,” said Mr. Cowie.
Yes, Hosni Mubarak and the thugs in Myanmar are DICTATORS. And dictators love to control and suppress information.
But don’t forget our dictator, whose name also happens to be Barack. He wants to be a dictator, too:
A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.
Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.
“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.
“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.
Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.
“The current language is so unclear that we can’t be confident that the changes have actually been made,” he said.
The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users.
According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.
“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which represents online companies such as eBay and Yahoo, told CNET. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”
“Judicial review is our main concern,” he added. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”
Under the proposed law, the Department of Homeland Security would draw up a list of Internet “critical infrastructure” it deems vital to the proper functioning of the web and US economy. The president would then be granted the power to order some part of that critical infrastructure to be shut down, in case of a “national cyberemergency.”
While the bill does lay down what constitutes “critical infrastructure,” critics say it’s not clear what constitutes a “national cyberemergency.” Nor is it clear what other powers the president may exert, aside from shutting down parts of the web.
Many people have the unfortunate tendency to fail to see just how quintessentially fascist this president, his party and the cozy liberal media-industrial news complex which undergird that political party truly are. It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer compared conservative political speech to porn that should be regulated. Democrats have been calling for some version of a “Fairness Doctrine” regulating and controlling (and even subsidizing leftwing journalists) political speech for years and years. And the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Democrats and the mainstream media immediately combined to demonize conservative speech – notwithstanding that conservatives had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting – simply reinforces the mortal danger that free speech is in from the left these days.
All of the above are as fascist as they think they can get away with. And they keep pushing the envelope toward more fascist big government totalitarianism.
Liberals and progressives want power. And then they want more power. And then they want more. And more.
Frankly, they want to amass enough power so that, as Barack Obama himself put it:
They want to control people’s lives so that they can be the sole determiners of who wins and who loses. They want to amass enough power so that they are invulnerable to the will of the people.
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
Obama wants dictatorial power so that he can become a better dictator. And the only thing that is stopping him is a Constitution that Democrats constantly undermine and a finicky entity called “the people.” Democrats have already reinterpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness, and the will of the people?
It’s not going so well for him now, but we’re only one election away from tyranny.
We’re sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try your vote again.
Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:
In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.
One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.
You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!
But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”
And quote, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”
In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.
Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.
Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.
And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it. And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.
With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey. Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century? Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):
KC: I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year. Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center. But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.
MR: And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…
KC: (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.
MR: …I mean I went to really fancy schools. I cannot tell you five things about Islam. I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us. And I’m embarrassed. I mean I know nothing about Islam.
KC: Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.
MR: Interesting.
KC: I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand. Like you, Mo. You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…
MR: (interrupts) Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…
KC: (interrupts) I totally agree with you.
MR: …much more. The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state…
KC: Alright. Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.
End of clip
I rest my case. For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam. Mindless apologist pabulum. Ignorance. Abject denial of reality. Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study. If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.
So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.
According to the poll results, only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.
On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.
But, don’t you see? “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and so your beliefs and values can be disregarded. And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway. And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*
And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites. Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas. Just ask them.
MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.
He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this. Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.
That’s the amazing thing about liberals. They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.
It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.
And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.
But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for. And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it. Why? Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.” And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.
Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.
I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis. And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).
The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.
It’s funny. General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party). The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.
Mainstream media outlets and the apparatchiks who staff them reach low after low; and then keep right on digging.
Monday night Juan Williams appeared on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Program and said:
Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
Now, I remember also when the Times Square bomber was at court — this was just last week — he said: “the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood.” I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
If that isn’t blatant enough, the same day far leftist radical George Soros gave that $1.8 million to NPR, he similarly gave another million dollars to the profoundly leftwing Media Matters, with the express purpose of attacking Fox News. From Newsmax:
Billionaire currency titan George Soros, long a patron of liberal political causes in the United States, is giving $1 million to Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.
And, just to complete the picture, Media Matters proceeds to tell us the real sin of Juan Williams – appearing on Fox News – as it turns its demonization campaign to Mara Liasson. From millionaire Media Matters:
News that Juan Williams’ contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network’s evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR’s Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions. This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.
So liberals, being the dishonest lying slime that they are, can’t just say, “We’re firing Juan Williams because he’s appearing on the most trusted name in news, which and we just can’t have that.”
They don’t have the decency to say that former Nazi collaborator George Soros bought them 100 paid-in-fill propagandists, and probably instructed NPR to clean house of anyone who won’t properly march to his goose-step.
Instead NPR relied upon the favorite tactic of the left – the politics of personal destruction – in order to try to personally destroy Juan Williams’ character and integrity.
That’s just the kind of slimy reptiles these people are.
A few things come to mind as I think about the craven excuse NPR used to get rid of Juan Williams:
1) Juan Williams was fired for telling the truth, of all things. You just can’t have truth in liberal “journalism.” Because truth is an embarrassment to the left.
Further, “government-funded” and “journalism” go together like ketchup and milkshakes. NPR and PBS stand as embodiments of disgrace to journalism. And when you add “George Soros” to “government funded,” you get something that is quintessentially dangerous to both journalism and democracy itself.
2) Every mainstream media outlet is fundamentally hypocritical as well as dishonest regarding Islam as the “religion of peace.”
On the one hand, we are constantly told that Islam is peaceful. And that anyone who fears Islam is some kind of a bigot.
And yet, on the other hand, the same “journalists” and news outlets that say this to us are themselves so piss-in-their-pants afraid of this peaceful religion becoming über-violent at the drop of a hat that they constantly censor themselves lest they end up as terrorist murder victims.
Case in point: the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and many other mainstream media papers, refused to allow the following Non Sequitur cartoon:
Why? Because the people the leftist journalists so dramatically insist are “peaceful” will launch a murderous jihad if they feel insulted or offended in any way, shape, or form.
If NPR, the New York Times, the “ladies” of The View, or anyone else, wants to tell me that Muslims are peaceful, or that Islam is the religion of peace, let them publish pictures of an image of The Prophet immersed in a jar of urine. So we can see Islamic “tolerance” in action.
The fact of the matter is that the very mainstream media news outlets that are the most vocal in telling us that fear of Islam equals bigotry are in point of fact the most terrified of Islam. And journalists have literally bowed down to the point of becoming the most pathetic form of useful idiots out of fear of the thing they constantly tell the American people they must not be afraid of.
3) NPR, in firing Juan Williams, committed a terrorist act itself. With this firing as their “jihadist propaganda bomb.”
I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh was getting at when he started referring to Muslims today as “Middle Eastern liberals.”
Let’s face it. This wasn’t just about Juan Williams. This was about any journalist who dares to cross the line from propaganda to truth. If you tell the truth – especially on the most trusted network in news – they will bury you.
The idea was to strike terror in any journalist who would say, “I’m going to be objective for once in my life.”
I always got the sense that Juan Williams was both a personally gracious man and a straight shooter who called it as he saw it.
Now, having said all of that, I found most of Juan Williams’ offerings to be frankly idiotic. And if the man was to be fired by anyone, it should have been by Fox News for offering mostly stupid, doctrinaire liberal crap.
It’s kind of pathetic, really. The Slobbering Love Affair that the media has had with Obama still isn’t over; it’s just that Obama has been such an abject failure in every aspect of his failed presidency that even über minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels couldn’t bail him out. But Obama can’t seem to emotionally handle that ANY media outlet or ANY reporter is permitted to say anything negative about him (and I don’t seem to remember Obama decrying this phenomenon of negative news coverage when George Bush was president). Obama has received the most fawning media coverage of any president in the modern era – and it STILL isn’t enough for him.
Obama is not happy about not being able to control the media. This is typical of a socialist….if he can’t control the message, then the message must be a lie. This thought process, this way of thinking, is very dangerous. To quote the President:
“Meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”
What [Obama’s] crying about is the fact that he and his cohorts haven’t been as successful as hoped in controlling the flow of information, and how we…his minions…should interpret that information. Very hard to lie when there are so many forms of media today. How else can he sell us crap like how well the economy is going, or a State actually enforcing laws is a bad thing, or Socializing medicine isn’t going to cost us more in the long run, both economically and in the quality of that service.
It was sooooo much better when all we had were the alphabet channels, the NYT’s, and Cronkite to control what the flow of information….right?
Now we know why Barack Obama selected Marxist Mark Lloyd to be his “Diversity Czar”; Obama believes the identical same communist garbage about controlling the media to control the people’s perception that Lloyd does.
Lloyd wrote in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. … “[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
Freedom, screedom. It’s overrated. There’s no God. We’re biologically determined meat puppets. The “people” (i.e. the Marxist-fascist totalitarian big government) really ought to have complete control over the herd animals otherwise known as the human race. Then we could have the kind of “democracy” that big government liberals want.
Lloyd also said of Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez:
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”
If by “began to take very seriously the media” you mean “used the power of government to destroy free speech,” you’re right.
Sean Penn explained what the standard of media coverage should be from his liberal, progressive perspective:
“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it” said Penn, winner of two Best Actor Academy Awards. “And this is mainstream media, who should — truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”
Ah, just the kind of media standard that Hitler and Goebbels would have loved.
And, of course, many prominent Democrats have been trying to implement dictator Hugo Chavez’s policies via their “Fairness Doctrine” for years. And when one version of this socialist takeover of the media fails to cut the mustard, there’s always the “new, improved” version.
“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense.”
And:
“We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
We know that Obama’s number one visitor – Andy Stern of SEIU – is a rabid Marxist:
We know that Obama demonstrated his radical Marxism via his appointment of self-described communist Van Jones:
“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’”
How’s that capitalism working for ya?
And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities.
“This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don’t stop there! Don’t stop there! We’re gonna change the whole system! We’re gonna change the whole thing!
And we know that Obama’s White House CONTINUES to employ Marxist hostility and jack-booted-thug rhetoric about private companies, as demonstrated by Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s comment:
Salazar’s boots kept walking on CNN, where he said, “Our job is keep our boot on the neck of British Petroleum and make sure they live up to their responsibilities.”
The media has largely been like Pavlov’s dog, trained to drool every time Obama has called to them. But even their fawning coverage hasn’t been enough for him. He is a Marxist to his core. And such people have always done everything they could to undermine freedom and liberty.
Read Liberal Fascism. Realize that the first word is just a nice-sounding synonym that means the second word. Look at who REALLY wants to control the press, control free speech, use the politics of demonization and demagoguery to divide the country, and impose the big government socialism of Marxist-fascism.
Liberals have always been hypocrites and demagogues. It’s just part of their DNA.
They have also always been totalitarians at heart, just like their other socialist counterparts (Nazi = “National Socialist German Workers Party”; U.S.S.R. = “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”).
Hence the “Fairness Doctrine,” which morphed into the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which has recently morphed into “Media Diversity” – as long as that “diversity” excluded and was designed to exclude conservatives. Which morphed into “Localism” – as long as the local programming restricted conservative talk radio. Then it morphed into a Marxist-based enterprise called “Media Justice.”
And if you think that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or the Wall Street Journal would ever get so much as a nano-second of consideration for a bailout from the Obama administration, then you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.
Liberals are people who shout the loudest, while at the same time demanding that every other voice be suppressed.
Poster boy for liberal fascism: Alan Grayson, the Democrat who believed he had the right to say that Republicans want old people to “die quickly” on the House floor; who told Dick Cheney to “S.T.F.U.“; who has believed that he had the absolute freedom to say more hateful and dishonest things than I care to track down.
File this story under the pot calling the kettle black.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), prone for throwing his own political bombs at Republicans, has threatened a local critic with five years in jail for creating the website “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Grayson wrote a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government imprison Republican activist Angie Langley for five years because of her website criticizing him.
The website, designed to raise money against Grayson, catalogues videos and news clippings that portray the provocative congressman in an unfavorable light. It courts donors to donate money to help elect his Republican challenger next year – collecting $3,725 to date.
Grayson accuses the activist of misrepresenting the fact that she’s a constituent of his (she lives outside his district).
“Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don’t support me,” Grayson wrote in the letter.
It’s awfully ironic that Grayson is demanding to silence one of his critics, given his history of red-meat rhetoric against a host of powerful Republicans. Earlier this month, he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he wished Dick Cheney would “STFU.”
Earlier in the year, Grayson referred to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as a “has-been hypocrite loser” who “was more lucid when he was a drug addict.”
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao weren’t too keen on being criticized, either.
I just clicked on the website, and that $3K is now over $10K.
It’s not just Alan Grayson. It’s the Democrat Party. It’s Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and yes, the Demagogue-in-Chief Barack Obama (remember his numerous attacks against Fox News? Remember his attempts to compile an enemies list against critics of his ObamaCare?). It’s just who these people are at their core.
Could you imagine Democrats rushing to his rescue if Rush Limbaugh needed a bailout? Even if he was a black man (Alan Keyes), or Asian (Michelle Malkin), or Hispanic (Linda Chavez)? Would a conservative minority broadcaster get a helping hand from Democrats if his or her station were failing?
How naive do you have to be to say “sure, they would.”
High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is leading an effort to convince Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to take “decisive action” by extending credit to this sector of the broadcasting industry.
Clyburn and other senior members, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), argue that minority-owned broadcasters are sound businesses, but that the recession could undermine the government’s efforts to diversify the airwaves.
A number of members from the Congressional Black Caucus signed the letter, too.
“While many jobs are at stake, a more important principle — the government’s fundamental interest in promoting a diversity of voices, including service to underserved communities — is severely threatened,” the members write in a draft of a letter that was scheduled to be sent Tuesday.
Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s have a “Congressional White Caucus.” Let’s have them start pushing to give government money to WHITE media broadcasters so they can push the hard core “white conservative agenda.”
Oh, wait. That would be racist. Big time racist. Just like the Congressional Black Caucus is officially racist. And incredibly ideological and partisan. This isn’t a racist country. We’ve elected a black president, whom the media continually tell us is incredibly popular. Yet these people nakedly play the race card day after day in the most shrill, partisan, and hateful tones.
You want to see racism today? Just listen to liberals talk about black conservatives.
Funding one group of broadcasters over another is just another form of the Fairness Doctrine – and conservatives have been pointing that out. Either way, they have no intention of allowing people and their ideas to compete on a level playing field. They are determined to tilt that field to favor their side.
When asked if it was time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, Senator Debbie Stabenow said:
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
Stabenow is in the process of forcing hearings on “radio accountability,” and doesn’t regard the fact that her husband Tom Athans – the executive vice president of failed liberal radio program Air America – would directly benefit from her Fairness to Fascism Doctrine.
“I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
And then there’s Dianne Feinstein:
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”
Clinton said that there needs to be either “more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions.”
I saved the Clinton line for last because was accompanied with the lovely line by the evil conservative:
In a classic liberal hypocrisy, the Democrats who use words like “tolerance” and “civil liberties” are showing their true intolerant selves, and preparing to trample on our Bill of Rights. They are starting with the First Amendment.
It’s a warmer, fuzzier brand of fascism. With Oprah and Obama replacing Mussolini and Hitler. The same ideas hold sway, however. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
The Democratic Party is the engine of totalitarian fascism today. They want big government. REAL big government. They want government control over every single facet of society. They are very tolerant, as long as you see things exactly as they do – otherwise, they will come after you and use the power of both government and media to destroy you.
Republicans never sought to advance particular media outlets or particular media personalities because they understand how dangerous it is to mix government and media. But liberals – just like the Marxists, just like the fascist that likewise come from the left – seem to be perfectly at home with growing government over the sphere of media just as they have grown government over everything else.
Behold one of the new “Fairness” Doctrines – “media diversity” – coming soon to a radio station near you.
President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released the names of the thirty-one members of their Advisory Committee On Diversity For CommunicationsIn The Digital Age. This May 7 gathering is made up of a laundry list of left-wing grievance groups, with a smattering of radio and television companies included to break up the monotony.
Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this Commission – more than a dozen Leftist groups are. A little ironic for a “diversity” panel, is it not?
Chairing the meeting is Henry Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who was (and presumably still is) a strong proponent of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine.
Many, many liberals in Washington have over the last several years called for a reinstatement of the Doctrine. But push-back from people who have read and actually understand the First Amendment led the Left to realize that the political price to bring it back was too high, so they MovedOn.org.
Of course, their desire to silence the lone voices of their opposition had not lessened in the slightest. They’re still just as dictatorial, just pragmatically so.
On February 26, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin – one of the myriad past “Fairness” Doctrine champions – sponsored an amendment, passed via a 57-41 Party-line vote, which forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
About which Durbin said at the time: “”No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative. When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature.”
As to his first statement, we have our doubts (see below).
And with the second, Color-Blind-America notion in mind, here is just a fractional listing of the organizational attendees of next week’s gathering:
Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media (Rivera’s outfit)
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Black Entertainment Television Holdings, Inc.
Afro-American Newspapers
Inner City Broadcasting
National Urban League
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (yes, again, NABOB)
Spanish Broadcasting System
American Women in Radio and Television
Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Asian American Justice Center
Rivera got the gig heading up this racial grumble group because he has long championed the concept of “media diversity.”
The proponents of station owner affirmative action are the same Leftists who were so ardently in favor of reinstating the Doctrine. One can thusly be forgiven for seeing this as an alternative route for the Left to reach their long-sought original destination – the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio via governmental regulatory fiat.
And it’s not just our imagination – it’s also our lying eyes. The Center for American Progress is a left-wing hack outfit headed by former Clinton Administration and Obama Transition Team adviser John Podesta. And they released on January 22, 2007 a report entitled “Local Media Diversity Matters – Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values.”
The name of the report is right up this Committee’s alley and instantaneously gives any sensible person the Willies. So anti-free market a title is but a prelude – the recommendations are a series of assaults on the broadcast industry so as to effect their desired ideological outcome – less conservatives on the air.
Many on the Left see the media pantheon as fraught with racism and sexism. And of course the airwaves are dominated by ideological monopol-ism. There are too many white men owning too many radio and television stations that broadcast too many conservatives to suit liberal tastes.
They truly believe the former is the only possible explanation for the latter. The existence of Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, Tammy Bruce and other un-white males in the talk radio universe fails to persuade them. Neither does the ratings argument – thems that get the ratings get the airwaves. Conservatives have listeners; liberals do not.
According to the Left, these white male station owners don’t put conservatives on the air because they make them money, they put them on the air because they are conservatives. The anti-free speech/anti-free marketeers remain as always steadfastly impervious to facts.
Again, the CAP report’s subtitle is “Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values.” Why would the Left care about the bottom line of a bunch of white male station owners? There’s a media world to be re-made, and these liberals don’t care how many billions it it costs these racist-sexist bigots to make it happen. Besides, they deserve to get the shaft; it’s only fair.
The broadcast license is of course a station’s lifeblood; take it away, or make it impossible to meet the regulatory obligations to keep it, and they are literally out of business. The Left, no longer comfortable with trying the top-down, all-out assault that is the “Fairness” Doctrine, intends instead to silence conservative and Christian talk via this broadcast license manipulation.
If they can succeed in making it impossible for talk radio to operate as a business, talk radio will cease to operate. Leftist problem solved.
“Media diversity” is just the latest Leftist attempt to get this done.
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.
Keith Olbermann and his many liberal carbon copies in television media won’t have to worry, of course. Nor will musicians like Bruce Springstein, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, etc. etc. Or movie stars like Sean Penn and, well, pretty much any of them. Or newspapers like the New York Times. This “fairness” only applies to conservatives.
At some point Americans will recognize that they elected a hard-core leftwing ideologue. It’s only a matter of time before Obama becomes the next Carter (who was more popular than Obama after his first hundred days in office).
Start Thinking Right 