John Kerry: “The Internet Makes it Harder to Govern” And That’s a Bad Thing How?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

John Kerry made a rare kind of statement recently-he shared liberal/regressive thinking, and didn’t even realize it.  Steve, from America’s Watchtower, has more…

Yesterday at the U.S. Embassy in Brazil John Kerry said the following:

I’m a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like [Henry] Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars,” Kerry said to a gathering of State Department employees and their families.

“And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky

  Okay, nothing wrong there, we are lucky to live in a world where it is much easier for countries to communicate with each other. But apparently the Secretary of State does not see it that way for he continued:

Well, folks,” he said, “ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

“It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest

  First he says that dictators were able to “tamp down” any “forces” which were “unleashed” but that it was complicated by “this little thing called the internet.” You would think that this was a good thing as well but then he laments the fact that we the people have too much information because we are basically too stupid to process it all at once, and because we have this information it makes it harder for the elitist political ruling class to govern because the people are more knowledgeable about what is going on. Does he actually believe that “tamping down” is governing? That is what it sounds like he is saying.

Here’s my translation of Kerry’s comments…

People know too much-makes it hard for leadership to bamboozle them!

(It’s also amusing to think of that being said by Boris of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame)

Steve nails it of course, it;s the elitist view that the rubes in flyover country would have inter-cranial explosions trying to comprehend the complex world in which we live, and we should leave it to our intellectual betters, like John Kerry, and perhaps Sarah Alcid, to ponder the big stuff.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

As for practical considerations, if it were not for the internet, how many people would know that hundreds of thousands of Americans have had their hours cut because of ObamaCare?

ANSWER:  None!

If it were not for the internet, would we have learned that Benghazi was not caused by a poorly made Youtube video that no one had watched?

ANSWER:  Nyet Comrade!

If it were not for the intern, would we know that “Fast and Furious” had a meaning other than that movie?

ANSWER:  Nope!

Would we know about all the “phony scandals” with tons of evidence, like the IRS, NSA, and the like?

ANSWER:  Not so much!

I could go on, but you get the point.  The idea that we can communicate and share ideas is terrible to the regressives.  They like compliant sheeple that know little, and question less.  Talk radio was bad enough for them- the internet made us an order of magnitude harder to control.

I’ve made the point that before that there is a psychological aspect to being able to share ideas.  When one finds out that they are no alone, and that other people think as they do, they become bolder in sharing and acting upon their ideas.  When people feel alone and isolated, they question themselves, and are inactive.  The affirmation of knowing that there are others that see the same things, and have the same beliefs grows confidence.  The regressives would rather have us rely on their MSM for all of our information, and we could be isolated and cut off from each other.  Then, we are more likely to be compliant, and manageable.

To Kerry, I must say the following…

Too freaking bad.

Share

Ed Schultz Asks for More Bias: References “Fairness Doctrine”

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Ed Schultz asked for bias in media.  Look at this, via Moonbattery.

Yes, I am aware that the clip is from last year.  I also know that the leftists were after gun control, but didn’t push until they had dead children to exploit.  In other words, the left will tell you what they want, but they might use a soft tone until they see their chance to strike.  Remember, all totalitarian regimes always move to control the free flow of information.  And they use all sorts of ways to justify it. In this case, they are neglecting that more people listen to talk radio because they want to. The left has tried to create a alternative to Limbaugh, but Air American failed miserably-because people didn’t listen! So, rather than look at the fact that their ideas basically suck, and no one wants to hear them, the socialists will force people into what they want.  For example, unions are apparently so great that people should be forced to join them.  Following that logic, the leftists, like Schultz, have no problem taking programs off the air that people like, and replace them with droning socialists.  Of course, when no one listens, it will be someone else’s fault.

Share

MSM DeathWatch: Even in San Francisco, People Don’t Listen to Liberal Talk Radio

Share

What does it say when a liberal talk radio station has to do a format change in San Francisco?  Well, it’s happening, and some of the fallout is hilarious.  For starters, here is some coverage from Dana Loesch, of Big Journalism…

Even in a far-left city such as San Francisco no one listens to progressive talk radio. Green 960 will be replaced by a conservative talker KNEW, and KNEW’s old spot on the dial 910 AM will be relaunched as KKSF AM, another conservative talker. Both stations are owned by Clear Channel, which was obviously tired of bleeding money on the previous failed enterprise.

Predictably, progressives immediately developed the vapors. Comments via JWF:

“Obama should have fixed this mess by nationalizing radio. Then the good stations like KGO could re-hire all the people they let go. Green 960 could stay on the air.”

“Dec 1st and near 70f here in the eastbay…and conservative radio will never even accept global warming..so Neanderthal talk will thrive.”

“Conservatives have time to listen to these cranks because they are sitting around in dead-end jobs, if they work at all, blaming their failures on liberals instead of their own stupidity. Liberals are too busy. ”

“Why don’t we liberals listen to talk radio? Because we don’t need the constant reinforcement that perpetually insecure, professionally paranoid conservatives do to valid our political ideas. Conservatives desperately need their “bubble.” But I recall seeing an article forecasting the end of conservative talk blather in the next 5-10 years, as its 55-dead demographic is both dying off and unattractive to sponsors. “

Nationalizing radio?  So no other ideas but your own can be heard?  Sure, let’s replicate the Soviet Union, just like OWS wants, right?

Conservative Talkers won’t accept global warming the big lie?  Have you heard of Climate Gate 2.0?

We don’t work?  Then why are we concerned about our jobs, and the taxes we pay?

Demographics are not so important, ideas are.  Following the logic of the quoted libpod, radio audiences are a zero sum game.  Limbaugh has been on nationally since 1989, and if his demographic never grew, his show would have ended when a large number of his “55-dead” target group would have died off.  The dirty secret is this; people listen to Conservative talk, and many find that it resonates with them  That, my friends, is why the left wants to control all media.  Socialists/Communists/Fascists always ban any other ideas.  When people see that the system is failing, and hear alternative ideas, they bolt.  Kindly refer to fall of the Soviet Union for evidence.  We tolerate the MSM, and their propaganda and outright lies.  We don’t call for their elimination.  On the other hand, statists always want to ban dissent, because they don’t want their sheeple getting ideas of their own.

At any rate, the quoted rant is filled with projection and failure.

That, and I know the proper use of the word, “validate.”

Share

"Tolerant" Lefties do not "Tolerate" Free Speech

Share

Conservative bloggers, radio hosts, and TV personalities have been pointing out something for a long time now; that the “tolerant” left does not “tolerate” anyone who disagrees with them.

For the latest example of that “inconvenient truth,” here is a video, via the Daley Gator.

Just remember folks, that “tolerance” means that the left only tolerates people that agree with them.  If you aren’t “approved,” it’s perfectly OK to violate your rights.

Share

Classic Conservative Hideout: Individual Rights Vs. The Collective

Share

When we speak about the rights of the individual, we are saying something very different than the left’s view of the topic.  Our founders carefully crafted a Constitution that is designed to protect us from the excesses of government.  However, a sufficient percentage of the people have not guarded those rights against government intrusion, until just recently.  Those excesses are readily apparent in our country today:  federal control of education, health care, environmental law, interference with personal property rights, and a litany of others, all in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and it’s writers, interfere with the everyday citizen’s ability to live as he or she pleases.  Limits on religious expression, speech codes, censorship, and oppression are all also beginning to take a toll in the rights of the American citizen.

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation”

-James Madison

Our Bill of Rights is a prime example of the founder’s intent.  It guarantees the rights of the individual, while at the same time; the other sections vastly restrict the powers of the government.   The document was created with those concepts in mind.  Today, many liberals lament the fact that the Constitution stresses what the government can’t do, rather than what it can.  To this, I must respond, “That’s the way it’s supposed to be!” Our founders warned us about the threat from the left, even before the left existed.  Their warnings are valid because no matter the underlying philosophy, tyranny is tyranny.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny, whether it comes in the form of Monarchy, Fascism, Marxism, or “progressivism,” attempts to “solve” human problems by government dictate and action.  To my knowledge, there has never been a totalitarian government that has directly said, “ We’re going to oppress you!”  Instead, they appeal to the masses, sometimes with an offer of protection from a real or imagined threat, or other times, with an offer of “equality and justice.”  Some offer relief from economic chaos, while still others offer a sense of pride or belonging.  Some take control by using carefully coordinated media propaganda and the artificial crisis.  Others assume power by a personality cult, threats, or intimidation.  Their functionaries may create laws and regulations with the intention of creating a crisis.  They may build on pre-existing cultural or economic jealousies, building the tensions until they explode into a ”created crisis” that they can then “solve.”  They use mobs of converts to bully and oppress anyone who interferes with their plans.  They will persecute and vilify anyone who speaks out with knowledge of their true inventions.  Dissenters are branded as defenders of the status quo, unpatriotic, terrorists, or otherwise have their reputations destroyed.  They may be deprived of their work, subjected to frivolous lawsuits, or other “punishments” designed to silence them.  Some may face physical danger, even death.   They will accuse their opposition of doing what their own activists do.  No matter how it is presented, totalitarians use empty promises to decieve the people, convincing them that their particular “medicine” is the cure for the problems they face.  They back that up with social disorder designed to advance their point of view, while at the same time, silencing or discrediting those that disagree with them.  They are deceitful, not only about their intentions, but about the true content of their plans.  Their true goal is gain power, and then, to maintain said power.

“single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day…a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, to plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Rights hold a different meaning for the left than does the right.  The left see’s the people as a large collective mass, not as individuals.  Their plans and schemes to “help” this mass are top-down controlled programs that do not allow for the individual needs of the people.  Whether it is health care, education, housing, or others, the government places restrictions and requirements on each, eroding the freedom of the individual.  So, when the individual accepts the government “drug,” they lose control over an aspect of their life.  The more of these “rights” that are accepted by the people, the more freedom they lose, until, in the end, their cradle to grave experience is fully managed by the government.   The left also seeks, in the end, to provide these “rights” to everyone, granting them ever-increasing levels of control over the mass and what they can or cannot do.  Since they view the people as a collective mass, they talk about “rights,” like housing, education, and health care. They then apply these to the collective, at the expense of your individual freedom.    At the end of the day, so to speak, the people might have these  “rights,” but they will have no freedom.  After all, if your government controls where you live, your medical care, what you can eat, your salary or wage, your education, your transportation, and what you can say, and where you can say it, how free are you?  Note that all of these examples are now being done, being discussed, or in the process of being enacted.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

-Thomas Jefferson

Another concern with this view of rights is that the individual might be sacrificed for the good of the collective.  If a senior or a disabled person has to be denied care to supply those resources for others, it is acceptable to the left.  Ezekiel Emanuel has said as much himself.  If an individual or small group has to be economically ruined to satisfy a policy initiative, it is an acceptable sacrifice.  If a group of farmers has to be bankrupted to protect a fish, it will be done.  The top-down regulation cannot accept or account for the needs of individuals, only the collective.   In the last century, millions of individuals died in socialist experiments, five-year plans, and the Great Leap Forward.  These statistics were acceptable to the leadership, as long as the collective was maintained, and more importantly, the power of the leadership went unchallenged.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

-Thomas Jefferson

It is also important to note that the totalitarians do not always restrict  rights by direct action.  They will often create circumstances in which individuals will have no opportunity to exercise their enumerated rights.  Elected officials and government appointees have advocated for the control of web content, and the regulation of what one can say, and in what circumstances it can be said.  Similarly, talk radio is to be attacked by mandating changes in local ownership to those people that will not run conservative programming, in spite of the obvious advertising revenue.  The left  will, of course, say that people still have the freedom to speak; they’ll just close the venue.  In other situations, they will create regulations or taxes in order to create scarcity or make a product too expensive for a common individual to purchase or own.  Again, they will hide their intentions in claims of fairness, diversity, environment, and equality, but the true intention is again to gain and maintain power, while at the same time shutting off dissent.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

-George Washington

The left also views the human family with disdain.  In the communist nations, efforts were made almost immediately to disrupt the family’s influence over children.  Education was co-opted almost immediately, with children being placed in government sanctioned programs at the earliest age possible.  Home schooling was banned, and private schools were either required to adopt the government program, or were closed altogether.  The purpose was, and still is, to indoctrinate children to the leftist point of view.  Independent thinking and the ability to use logic and reason to address problems are enemies of the left.  A person that can look at their situation and realize that the government is the cause of their problems is a stumbling block for the left.

Also, the government schools have actively worked to separate children from any religious beliefs that they were taught at home or in Church.  In the leftist totalitarian state, there can be no power higher than the state itself.  Religion must be ridiculed as “unsophisticated” or held up as a sign of a limited intellect.  Discrimination and restrictions on religious expression are soon to follow, either passed as law, or mandated by courts.  In the end, the left is jealous of God’s influence, and wishes it for itself.

At the same time the left is creating “rights” that do not exist in our Constitutional Republic, they go about systematically limiting the individual rights that our Constitution guarantees.  Speech codes ban freedom of expression on campuses as “hate.” Religious expression, particularly when the religion in question is Christianity, is being banned from schools and in the public square.  Even in the face of last year’s Supreme Court decision, opponents of the Second Amendment are still working towards a “gun free” America.  Other groups are attempting to use environmental regulations and misapplying eminent domain the deprive property owners of the use of their land and homes.  The power of the states to manage their own internal affairs is being controlled and dominated in defiance of the Tenth Amendment.  Activist judges, some of whom openly boast about making policy, legislate from the bench, creating rights that do not exist, and striking down ones that do.  This is a slow transformation of America, from a free state, to a socialist one.

The left views each human life as a burden; one more mouth to feed, one more brain to indoctrinate, one more body to medicate, one more statistic to manage.  Conservatives view each human life as an opportunity.  We believe that each human being can make decisions for themselves, and manage their affairs without the interference of the state.  Additionally, we can point to examples of government interventions either increasing problems, or creating new ones.

If we are to maintain our freedoms, and recover the full use of them, Americans from all walks of life must stand up and demand them.  This has started, but there is much to be done to stem the tide of tyranny that threatens to overtake us.  The days of political apathy are over.

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

-Benjamin Franklin

 

Share

How New Media is Changing the Political Landscape

Share

Last week, The Mackinac Center hosted a panel discussion with John Fund, Frank Beckmann, Kathy Hoekstra, Ken Braun and Henry Payne on the topic of The Alternatives: “How New Media are Transforming the Political Landscape”.  You can watch it yourself by going to the Mackinac Center website, and I encourage you to do so, because each of their prepared remarks were very insightful as to how blogs, talk radio, and Fox are changing the way that the media affects the political system. I’m not going to repeat their remarks, but I would like to elaborate on and comment on some of the things that they said during their discussion.

As I tell my students, the media plays several important roles in the political process in our country, and one of the most important roles that it plays is to be the gatekeeper of the news. This means that there is news, information, analysis, and events occurring, but it is The Media that controls what is allowed through the gate into people’s homes. In the past, traditional media controlled that gate and as such could pick and choose what it wanted people to hear, and frequently traditional media would pick and choose based not on the importance of the news event or the quality of analysis, but rather on the bias and prejudices of the gatekeeper. The new media, such as blogs, Fox, and talk radio, have broken down those gates and widened them, so now the public has considerably greater access to the news in our nation, and that means will be more able to stay in touch with events, read different points of view or analysis, and get direct access to the sources that the old traditional media used to have a monopoly on.

Frank Beckmann pointed out the impact that the changing of the gatekeeper role will have on our nation when he talked about how today, because of the new media and the ease of access to it, political power is now returning back to the people and allowing the citizens of our nation incredible access to information. This access to information and analysis has been a contributing factor in the Tea Party movement, where citizens are accessing and reading proposed legislation and discussing it and analyzing it and then attempting to communicate their opinions about that legislation to their Congressman. In the past that information and analysis was controlled and biased and not fully accessible and Congressman could pass a bill without reading it and never be called out by a citizen, but that was the past, and the new media is changing that landscape.

Another interesting tidbit that I heard from John Fund was about the important role and power that citizen journalists are playing in today’s political system. In the past, you had to spend long years going through liberal Ivy League schools and learning both the trade and the slant before you could become a journalist, but with the advance of flip-phones, blogs, youtube, and the internet, anyone can be a journalist. Even a public school teacher like me has the potential to break important stories and bring the news to do you, reporting on events (like this one) that the traditional media ignores or doesn’t know about. The power of information has flowed to us, the citizens, and it is up to us to seize it.

My blog is the new media, and I believe that it is within my power to change the political landscape for the better. All I need is readers, and that is where you come in. If you haven’t already linked to my blog from yours, please do so. If you haven’t made my blog one of your favorites or bookmarks, please do so. You don’t have to read my blog every day (mom, I’m talking to you), but you should read it at least once a week, otherwise you are ceding back to the old media the gatekeeper and watchdog and information resource roles that the new media like me have struggled so hard to grasp. Let’s change our habits and change the direction of our nation by changing the ways that we access the news and information and analysis of the world- let’s all jump on the new media bandwagon.

John Fund is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy andHow the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections.

UPDATE: By the way, congratulations to fellow bloggers theblogprof and Michigan Taxes Too Much, both of whom were mentioned by name for the contributions they have made in changing the political landscape recently. We’ve got quite a powerful little group of bloggers here in Michigan, and we’re lucky to have them!

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

The Left Continues its War on Free Speech

Share

Doug over at the Resistance posted this yesterday, and I thought it needed the good old CH treatment.  For this post, I will fire up the CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE Translation Matrix.  For those of you that were around for the original incarnation of this blog (hell, only Snarky read it back then), you’ll remember that it is a device that translates liberal into reality, often with amusing results.

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on “hate speech” and “misinformation” in media. “Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news’,” they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Holy Sh*T, they’re exposing our agenda!

As for the Internet, it “gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before,” they charge. “Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.”

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: If we knew who they were, we could send the SEIU to beat the hell out of them!

“Hate speech against vulnerable groups is pervasive in our media—it is not limited to a few isolated instances or any one media platform,” NHMC warned the FCC in 2009. “Indeed, many large mainstream media corporations regularly air hate speech, and it is prolific on the Internet. Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Cumulatively, hate speech creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.”

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Only we’re allowed to do that!  Those dirty Teabaggers!  We ought to beat up more black teabaggers while calling them the “n” word!

The coalition has asked the agency to request public comments on hate speech in the media, inquire into its extent, explore “the relationship between hate speech in the media and hate crimes,” and look into options “for counteracting or reducing the negative effects of such speech.”

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: WAAAAAAAHHHH!!!  Censor anyone who disagrees with us!

Original Source

Doug’s Post at the Resistance: How much does the Left love free speech?

We know that among the goals of Marxism, Fascism, or “progressivism,” control of information is among the highest priorities.  Imagine if the bloggers, talk radio, and FOX would have gone away in 2009.  Would you know about what is in ObamaCare, and the results that are already occurring?  Would we be paying $7.00 for gas because Cap and Trade passed?  Would we have card check and people being beaten daily because they didn’t “sign the freakin’ card?”  All of us had a great deal to do with stalling Obama’s agenda, and the left does not like it a bit.

Let’s face it, all through that article; the left accuses us of doing what they do.  The MSM have lied through their teeth about every single issue.  They smeared patriotic Americans that chose to disagree with the messiah.  It is the left that has had violent protests, yet we are blamed with no physical evidence.  They smeared us again when we pointed out what was in ObamaCare, and ignore the fact that every bit of what we said is coming to pass.  The created narratives then changed them again and again.  And none of it stuck.  If they had control of the media, it would have.

They know November will end badly for them.  Unless, that is, they tilt the playing field in their favor.  If they take out our ability to communicate or share ideas, they can do whatever they want in November, we’d never know about it.  Then, it’s game over.

Better start harassing your local congresscritter.

Share

Hugo Chavez Update: Owner of Last Opposition TV Station Arrested

Share

Well, Mark Lloyd’s (AND Sean Penn’s) favorite dictator is at it again, and Lloyd is probably doing a “happy dance.”  Ever since assuming dictatorial powers, Chavez has been shutting down any media outlet that dares to oppose him.  The rationale seems hauntingly familiar.  Here is some coverage from NewsBusters:

Is this what Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd meant when he said (on camera) Venezuelan thug dictator Hugo Chavez (take that, Sean Penn) had begun “to take very seriously the media in his country”- while praising Chavez’s “incredible…democratic revolution?”

The Associated Press (AP) late Friday night reported “Chavez criticizes US as arrests stir concern.”  Which plays down the lead in the headline, but gets right into it in the story itself.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday defended the arrest of a major TV channel owner, calling him a criminal and denying the government is carrying out an assault on press freedom.

The back-to-back arrests this week of two government opponents – including the owner of Venezuela’s only remaining anti-Chavez TV channel – have drawn accusations that Chavez is growing increasingly intolerant and authoritarian as his popular support has slipped.

Opposition leaders and human rights groups condemned Thursday’s arrest of Globovision’s owner Guillermo Zuloaga, who was detained at an airport and released hours later after a judge issued an order barring him from leaving the country.

Zuloaga is accused of spreading false information and insulting the president at an Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba last weekend, Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.

Well, well.  Someone in the media who speaks out against a sitting president is accused of lying, and that represents a “crime.”  Where have we heard that before?  And Mark Lloyd is applauding it, right?


Of course, Lloyd has come out on the record as saying that he didn’t say that.

Allow me to clear away some mud: I am not a Czar appointed by President Obama. I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host. I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez. The right wing smear campaign has been, in a word – incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And I do support free speech.

I still get a hearty laugh out of that, even though I wrote about it months ago.  And that points to a massive failure of the left.  They still haven’t quite come to the understanding that the media paradigm has changed.  They just can’t lie in public and assume that millions of people can’t find their earlier statements on the Internet.  If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video of the guy contradicting himself has to be worth a million.

Now that we have the blatant lie out of the way, let’s revisit this issue at hand in our country.  How many times have “progressives” accused Limbaugh, Beck, and the others, of lying, inciting violence, or being propagandists for the rich?  How many people on the “progressive” side have advocated removing them from the air, or publicly wish that they suffer or die?  How many times has the “progressives” smeared any one who disagrees with them as a “racist?”  Doesn’t it sound a lot like Chavez and his cronies?  The themes are similar, but the process is identical; smear, discredit, and criminalize dissent, then use that as a justification to control the means of communication.

Whether you like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, or any of the other Conservative voices out there, or not, the government that has the power to silence them, has the power to one day silence you.

Share

Air America Ceases Operations

Share

Low ratings finally killed the Air America network.

“It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding down of the business,” the chairman of Air America Media, Charlie Kireker, said in a memorandum.

His statement was published on AirAmerica.com.

The news did not come as a complete surprise to staff members. The company, which was founded in 2004, never found a substantial audience or sound financial footing. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, but managed to stay on the air at that time. The network churned through several owners and several attempted reinventions, with little to show for it.

“The fact of the matter was, it was always a very challenging business proposition, and it never had the right management,” said Sam Seder, who hosted programs on Air America until last year.

The headwinds were enormous, he said, adding, “Radio is a dying industry.”

Radio, a dying industry??  Tell that to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Savage.  They get great  ratings!  In fact, didn’t the left’s attack on Limbaugh give him a 30% spike in ratings?

Maybe there were management problems, but the real problem was, Air America didn’t have enough of an audience to stay alive.  To have a successful media enterprise, you actually have to have people willing to read, listen, or view your product!  Air America is in the same boat as other left leaning media outlets.  They are all losing audience and money.

There was a difference with Air America; they weren’t pretending to be objective.  They were true to what they were.  I have to respect that.   However, many of the newspapers, and well as MSNBC and CNN, pretend to be objective, but since they refuse to cover important and relevant stories and provide cover for their leftist brethren, people don’t pay attention to them.

So, Conservative talk radio continues to dominate, as does FOX News on TV.  Why?  They cover stories, like ACORN, ClimateGate, Kevin Jennings, Van Jones, And a host of others, that the left leaning media refuses to touch, or tries to discredit.  People are becoming increasingly aware of the liberal bias of the “objective” media, and are changing the channel.

So, I imagine that the left will lament this loss, and blame the right for destroying or conspiring against Air America.  However, we didn’t need to, as no one was listening anyway.

H/T: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin

Share

Another Example of What Reagan Knew

Share

Thank goodness for YouTube.  There is a lot of archived material there; like these comments from President Reagan…

Many of us have been talking about these very ideas.  I think Reagan’s observations and suggestions are just as wise now as they were then.

However, have we held up our end of the bargain?  Reagan speaks of “informed patriotism.”  Have we worked at spreading that?  I think yes, but only more recently have we begun in the volume needed to make any changes.  I fear that we have not come even remotely close to achieving “informed patriotism” among the people.

Through the “Reagan Revolution” in the 80’s, and the “Republican Revolution” in the 90’s, Conservatives  took political power, but did not engage the culture sufficiently to achieve a long lasting change.  Conservatives could regain the White House again, as well as both houses of Congress.  However, the left still owns the culture (as evidenced by it’s continued decline).  They control most of the media, most of entertainment, and almost all of the public educational establishment.  We can gain position, but without making inroads into the popular culture and institutions, we will still have powerful forces aligned against liberty, freedom, and the America we love.

While the situation seems grim, there are signs of change.  Real change-the kind that results in a major switch in public opinion.  We see Fox News drawing more viewers than every other cable news network combined.  Talk radio ratings are also up.  Print is dying, and in particular, the major liberal leaning newspapers.  People are becoming disenchanted with the media (formerly known as mainstream), and they are turning to more right leaning source of information.  And, when they do, they find out what the mainstream media has been refusing to report, or has been distorting.  If these trends continue, we may be able to see real change.

I sometimes get the sense that Conservatives take the fact that the media, culture, and the  educational establishment are against us, and always will be.  I think that this is a mistaken concept.  It is certainly true right now, but we are seeing the country move to the right.  As the left continues to wreck the country, that trend will continue.  Conservative voices in entertainment are speaking out, and Conservative groups like Campus Reform are trying to spread the word.  If we support them, and others find their voices, we can start to see the actual retaking of these institutions.  It might take a long time, even decades, but the end result will be well worth the wait.

What is to be done?  I think many things need doing.  For those of you that read my Cultural Marxism post, you know that the left began what they called the “long march through the institutions”  decades ago.  Their goal-to infiltrate and eventually take control of our major institutions.  Then, turn those institutions against our cultural.   They have been incredibly successful in that regard.  Think back to Reagan’s words for confirmation.  He discusses that children would learn about patriotism at home, in the community, in school, and in the popular culture.  How many people get a sense of patriotism from the last two sources now?

I believe that Conservatives need to retake those institutions, by having interested people gaining access, opening the doors to others, and changing the system from within.  The left will resist.  But if we all help, their resistance will fail.

In the end, we can win all the elections we want, but as long as the left still controls much of the culture, all victories will be temporary.  We have to stop thinking about delaying and impeding the left, and start working towards re-taking the country.  We can’t think of doing big government in a “conservative way.”  That is antithetical to our beliefs, and it will be just as illogical and dysfunctional as any government bureaucracy invariably becomes.  We need to tear out the liberal power structure, as any concentration of power WILL eventually be corrupted and abused.   The concentration should not  just  be about  stopping the left from implementing more destructive policies, but undoing and abolishing earlier ones.

So, as usual, one of my posts touches on expansive issues.  There is now way to cover all of this in one post.  Please consider this an open thread.

Share

Some Thoughts on the Media

Share

So, the White House is attacking Fox News.  Of course, that will, in the end, only drive more people to Fox, but that doesn’t seem to stop the administration.  Their attack on Rush Limbaugh caused him a 30% percent increase in his ratings, so I’m not inclined to protest  their tactics.

So why attack Fox?  Why say that they’re NOT a news network?   Why accuse them in engaging in a “witch hunt” against the President’s advisers?  To explore this, let’s answer another question; what is Fox doing?

Well, in terms of the advisers, Hannity and Beck are showing videos of the czars making some pretty extreme statements.  They are also showing excerpts from books that some  czars wrote.  They are using the WORDS of the czars.  They are citing their associations and memberships, and essentially exposing them for what they are…radical leftists that want to change our nation, and FOX is helping to raise awareness of this fact.

Additionally, they showed videos of the POTUS and others stating their support of  a single payer plan, and (for some) that the public option is designed to lead to single payer.  All of this was reported during the time that the administration was denying that a single payer plan was the objective.  This has cause many people to doubt the sincerity of the POTUS and his allies in Congress.  Combine that with…

1.  The mad rush to pass a health care plan that doesn’t take effect until 2013.

2.  That the legislation itself was filled with unclear legalistic jargon.

3.  That the legislation was to be passed prior to the August recess, insuring that no one would have been able to even read it.

..and you can see that FOX’s coverage of the health care debate was instrumental in at the very least creating more public debate on the issue, as well as arming people with information with which to debate.

So, at least in terms of information, they were again using the WORDS of public officials.  All sources are well documented and verified.

For another example, take Keith Jennings, the “safe schools czar.”  Fox reported that Jennings wrote about an encounter in which a HS sophomore told him that he was having sex with an adult male.  Jennings response?  He advised the kid to use a condom!  The left has attacked Hannity for saying that the student in question was 15.  The student has come forward and said that he was 16 at the time, making the incident legal, but still, in the opinion of many, unethical.  Two things are missed here.  One is that Hannity quoted Jennings for the age, from MULTIPLE sources.  Again, this is easily verified.  Hannity also acknowledged that the student came forward, and that the quote regarding the age came from Jennings, but the left  seemed to ignore that.  The second issue is the one that most everyone seems to have missed.  Jennings initial claim was that he was not properly trained in the guidelines for being a mandated reporter.  The incident did occur in the 80’s, so  the left ran with that.  However, he was still relating this story in public appearances and print, as late as 2007.  So,  two years ago, he was still not making the connection that an adult having sex with a 15 year old was statutory rape?  Again, it was Jennings that said the kid was 15.  So, after a long career, we’re supposed to trust a safe schools czar that as of two years ago STILL didn’t know about when a case of abuse is to reported?  Unfortunately, this question is not asked, as the administration is too busy attacking the people that exposed the situation, and the MSM is too busy supporting the administration to report anything against them.

Next, lets consider Anita Dunn, who has been seen on video (courtesy of FOX), bragging that the Obama campaign controlled the media during the election.  They certainly controlled ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, but did they “control” FOX?  I think we all know the answer to that.  So, we are left with a situation in which the administration has a tight lock on every major TV news source, with the exception of one.  The one that is not controlled is exposing the administration’s broken promises, their false statements, their high level of radicalism, and the potential crimes and irregular behavior of their allies.   Considering these circumstances, is it any wonder that The White House is attacking them?

There is more.  This “attack” on FOX is nothing more than a variation of the Alinsky method perpetrated by  community organizers.  Remember Rules for Radicals?  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  Now, the situation was already polarized, they are certainly personalizing it, particularly in the case of Beck, and they are attempting to freeze it with the attack.  They haven’t stopped FOX, but from what I have seen in the least two nights, the FOX hosts are covering the attack extensively.  However, while FOX is covering this, and in essence, defending themselves, are they covering the substantive issues concerning Obama’s agenda?  I think that this is also the administration’s attempt to seize the initiative, and force FOX into responding to the attacks, and not what the administration is saying or doing.  They may not be able to eliminate FOX, or it’s influence, but they can try to manipulate them into being less of a threat.

When I’m looking at the claims against FOX, especially some of this weekend’s comments from the administration, like Rahm Emanuel’s masterpiece that FOX isn’t a real news network because they have “perspective,”  I start to draw comparisons.  This is a common claim against FOX, but there is a simple answer.  For one, for the majority of the day.  FOX is simply a straight up news network.  They report breaking news, interview people involved in events, and so on.  Then, FOX’s evening/night schedule has several opinion shows.  But there is something about those shows that set them apart.  For example, I know that Beck is a Libertarian and that Hannity is a Conservative.  How do I know this? They state it openly!  I know that they are biased-they have openly disclosed their beliefs.  I know that Hannity’s show is Conservative.  It’s advertised that way.  They make no pretense in that regard.

Now, contrast that with the MSM.  All summer, we were told that we were  racists, astroturf, wearing Nazi uniforms, terrorists, ignorant rednecks, and so on.  All these claims were either made or echoed by the MSM.   This was offered as objective news, allegedly unbiased, with no one from the  “other side” to explain the views of the opposition.  They showed no videos or images, or even witnesses to justify their claims, they simply made them with no substantiation.   Conversely, there was little to no coverage of single payer, the czars and their statements, Obama’s broken promises, or ACORN promoting child prostitution.  For all of these stories, there were significant amounts of video evidence.  But ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC… they’re objective?  They are the ones that are disingenuous.  They cloak themselves with “objectivity” yet, they are biased from top to bottom.  A short look at the Newsbusters website will show you the daily bias perpetrated by MSM.

That leads us to another question; Would you prefer honest bias, or fake objectivity, in your news coverage?  The only difference is that one is lying, and one is being truthful.

Update: I have been writing this post for two and a half days now.  Every time I come back to it, there’s more to the story.  Here’s the latest.

David Axlerod gave us this classic:

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”

“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

So, do I detect a hint of intimidation here?  It really reads to me like…

“If ya know what’s good for ya, you won’t be covering any of these stories.  Ya wouldn’t want to get on our bad sides, would ya?”

Also, MoveOn has decided that all Democrats should boycott FOX.  So the George Soros funded President and the George Soros funded astroturf organization are in lockstep.  How nice.

Interestingly enough, there are some encouraging signs.  There are members of the MSM starting to question the administration on this.  Whether or not this is some feigned concern remains to be seen, but it might be an encouraging sign.

For today, at least, let me sum this up with a question for the MSM; Are you going to continue being a lapdog for these people, or are you starting to see them for what they are?  If you have a single shred of integrity left, you MUST resume your Constitutional duty as the watchdog of this Republic.  Report it all, good, bad, and ugly.  No matter what side of the political spectrum it falls, regain some sense of objectivity.  You are NOT activists, you are supposed to tell the truth-all of it!

Share

Censorship and Isolation

Share

I saw this on Beck last week.  The topic isn’t the most important thing.  Kindly pay close attention at around 1:25, and again at about 3:05.

The comments about being feeling alone and being empowered, are, in my opinion, why the left wants to ban talk radio, eliminate FOX News, and eventually regulate blogs out of existence.   If a person has an idea, sometimes even vague, that something is amiss in society, they may shrug it off.  If that same person makes observations that the government isn’t being truthful, or that the promised change isn’t changing a thing, they may let it go.  However, if a person reads a blog, watches a news broadcast, or listens to a radio show that explains those observations, and notions, they may hold onto those beliefs.  How many of us have had an “OMG” moment when we first read a Conservatively oriented book or blog, or heard a talk-radio or TV program?   It’s the idea that they are not alone in their beliefs that encourages people to delve further, to read more, to look into events and policies.  We are social beings, and knowing that others believe as we do strengthens those beliefs.  Then, the evidence that the right has to support our claims “seals the deal.”  (A sense of belonging can go far, but having the truth serves to keep things going for the long term.)

It does not stop there.  Ideas are strengthened by social consensus (Not the belonging to a group type of approval, but the validation of what one see’s hears, and thinks).  These ideas are confirmed, tested, and debated.  Once they are accepted as accurate, they can also be taken to action.  A person who knows that others believe as they do will find the strength to speak out, write a blog, show up at a protest, write their elected officials, and otherwise become a thorn in the side of the left.  As time wears on, people compare notes, share information, and eventually form movements.  As more and more people find that their observations fit what they are hearing, the movement(s) gain momentum, and eventually can change the balance of power.

This is intolerable to the left.  Since their success relies upon the elimination of dissent, unsanctioned media must be controlled and eliminated.   It happened in the Communist countries, Nazi Germany, is happening now in Venezuela, and will happen soon in this nation-if the POTUS and his Czars are able to pull it off.

Why?  The answer is simple.  They want us to be disconnected, isolated, discouraged, and (especially) silent.  By removing the means to exchange information, they seek to disconnect us from our sense of belonging, and more importantly, real news.  They mean to isolate us from information that proves what we see and think.  Obviously, this post, or the Conservative Hideout for that matter, wouldn’t be here to allow me to make these observations, or for you to read them…that’s the idea.  They want us silent, uninformed, and inactive.  That would end our ability to disrupt their takeover of America.

I think this takes me back to some ideas I presented in the past.  We need to save videos, quotes, screencaptures, and the like.  We may need to move to foreign servers to host blogs or forums.   The intrusions will come, perhaps slowly at first, but eventually they will come.  We need to be prepared.

H/T: The Classic Liberal, which is on the blogroll here, helped inspire me.  Of course, FOX News for covering things the MSM would rather us not know.

Share

Free Speech for we, but not for Thee

Share

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the state. (emphasis mine)

Karl Marx- Communist Manifesto

With so many of the President’s advisers being either avowed communists, or at least functional communists, it was only a matter of time before I ended up quoting Marx.  Up for discussion today, is the “Diversity officer” of the FCC, Mark Lloyd.  He seems to have some interesting ideas about media.  To illustrate this, here are some quotes from CNS News:

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

“Citizen access to popular information?”  Like the fact that millions of people choose to listen to Conservative talk shows?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  The phrase “popular information”  likely means something very different.

Here’s some more…

“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.
Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”

Sounds all “touchy-feely” and somewhat harmless, doesn’t it?  This is loaded with liberal catchphrases that have a whole other meaning.  For example, when he mentions “equality,” it has nothing to do with equal opportunity.  He’ talking about equal outcomes, which is an entirely different concept.  He’s talking about there being an equality of results and outcome, which is Marxist in nature.  The idea is to bypass the citizen’s ability to choose what media they consume, as well as attempt to force feed leftist media to the people.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Take a look at some more…

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:

1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. …  Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “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,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

I think this man’s plans speaks for itself.

So, when he talks about “equal ability to communicate,” he is talking about changing the concept of media.  It will go from hosts and personalities being able to say what they think, and the listener being able to watch what he or she wishes, to everyone doing what the government tells them to do.  Additionally, he discusses “democratic deliberation,” which, in his way of thinking, completely undemocratic.  Here’s why-in the free market, the people vote with their remote controls, radio dials, computer keyboards, ipod playlists, by which newspaper or magazines they buy (if they do it at all), and so on.  The people get to choose what media they consume.   That’s about as democratic as you can get…right?  Not so, according to the diversity czar!  According to him, the fact that people CHOOSE to watch FoxNews, CHOOSE to listen to Rush Limbaugh and the others, and are TURNING OFF the MSM in massive numbers is UNFAIR!  He believes that Conservative media should be silenced, and that Public Broadcasting should be fully funded at the expense of the private sector. That’s real democratic, isn’t it?  Would this put most, if not all,  private broadcasters out of business?  That would seem to be the goal.  And what does that leave us with,  a “public option” for media?  What kind of programming would be carried by this newly expanded Public Broadcasting?  I think we all know the answer to that.

Now, this czar likes to blame major corporations for the his perceived problems with major media. This is little more than a smokescreen.  For example, if the major news/entertainment corporations were all powerful, and manipulating the masses, every movie they make would be a blockbuster… Every TV show would be a runaway hit…  Every CD would go platinum…right? No, the fact  that people choose to consume right  media, and are doing so in ever increasing numbers,  is the issue for the left.  The corporations are irrelevant, because if the left had huge audiences, the corporations would go where the advertising revenues are! Now, if the this situation were reversed, and the MSM owned both the broadcast and cable/satellite arena, I doubt there would be much of a complaint from the left.  You see, that would be fair! Just like it would be fair to the left once they ban any dissent.

This also neglects that the left has had a highly funded radio network, Air America.  The DNC and the Unions funded it, and the result?  No one listened!  People demonstrated, with the radio dials, that they weren’t interested, and advertisers followed suit.   Now that they have failed in the marketplace of ideas, they will attempt to force their ways into our homes, cars, computers and offices.  He specifically says that he doesn’t care for freedom of speech, and attempts to discredit it.  This is a classic Marxist attack.  Their claim usually runs along the lines that the rich hide behind freedom of speech to exploit the little folks.  They then use that as a justification to ban any ideas other than their own.

Now, if the left controlled all means of communication, would there have been Tea Parties?   Maybe, but they would have been small, and the only thing we would have heard from the state owned media would be how terrible they were and how great it was when the government took them away.  Would we already have single payer?  YES!  How else would the people have known what is in HR3200?  How would we know that “public option” is meant to lead to single payer?  How would we know what the President and so many others have said about single payer?  Will rationing be covered, or just spun to suit the government?  The right wing  media is the only  one covering the true agenda of this administration.  Without it, we would be stuck with leftist cheerleaders that can be seen daily on MSNBC.

For the left, there is a functional aspect to controlling the means of communication.  For the state to become all powerful, and for the socialist system to function “smoothly,” dissent must be banned.  Since socialism creates such misery, such waste, such corruption, so much death, and “screws down everyone equally,” people discussing alternatives might be very appealing to the populace.  Additionally, the left attempts to indoctrinate all citizens with public education from the earliest age possible.  They have no desire to see all of that indoctrination be undone by someone talking about observable facts, pointing out corruption, and talking about a way of life that is not completely managed by the government.  This causes the glue that holds the socialist state together, force, to melt away.  Once the people loose faith, and in particular, their fear of the state, it collapses like the house of cards that it is.

Share

Individual Rights Vs. The Collective

Share

When we speak about the rights of the individual, we are saying something very different than the left’s view of the topic.  Our founders carefully crafted a Constitution that is designed to protect us from the excesses of government.  However, a sufficient percentage of the people have not guarded those rights against government intrusion, until just recently.  Those excesses are readily apparent in our country today:  federal control of education, health care, environmental law, interference with personal property rights, and a litany of others, all in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and it’s writers, interfere with the everyday citizen’s ability to live as he or she pleases.  Limits on religious expression, speech codes, censorship, and oppression are all also beginning to take a toll in the rights of the American citizen.

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation”

-James Madison

Our Bill of Rights is a prime example of the founder’s intent.  It guarantees the rights of the individual, while at the same time; the other sections vastly restrict the powers of the government.   The document was created with those concepts in mind.  Today, many liberals lament the fact that the Constitution stresses what the government can’t do, rather than what it can.  To this, I must respond, “That’s the way it’s supposed to be!” Our founders warned us about the threat from the left, even before the left existed.  Their warnings are valid because no matter the underlying philosophy, tyranny is tyranny.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny, whether it comes in the form of Monarchy, Fascism, Marxism, or “progressivism,” attempts to “solve” human problems by government dictate and action.  To my knowledge, there has never been a totalitarian government that has directly said, “ We’re going to oppress you!”  Instead, they appeal to the masses, sometimes with an offer of protection from a real or imagined threat, or other times, with an offer of “equality and justice.”  Some offer relief from economic chaos, while still others offer a sense of pride or belonging.  Some take control by using carefully coordinated media propaganda and the artificial crisis.  Others assume power by a personality cult, threats, or intimidation.  Their functionaries may create laws and regulations with the intention of creating a crisis.  They may build on pre-existing cultural or economic jealousies, building the tensions until they explode into a ”created crisis” that they can then “solve.”  They use mobs of converts to bully and oppress anyone who interferes with their plans.  They will persecute and vilify anyone who speaks out with knowledge of their true inventions.  Dissenters are branded as defenders of the status quo, unpatriotic, terrorists, or otherwise have their reputations destroyed.  They may be deprived of their work, subjected to frivolous lawsuits, or other “punishments” designed to silence them.  Some may face physical danger, even death.   They will accuse their opposition of doing what their own activists do.  No matter how it is presented, totalitarians use empty promises to decieve the people, convincing them that their particular “medicine” is the cure for the problems they face.  They back that up with social disorder designed to advance their point of view, while at the same time, silencing or discrediting those that disagree with them.  They are deceitful, not only about their intentions, but about the true content of their plans.  Their true goal is gain power, and then, to maintain said power.

“single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day…a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, to plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Rights hold a different meaning for the left than does the right.  The left see’s the people as a large collective mass, not as individuals.  Their plans and schemes to “help” this mass are top-down controlled programs that do not allow for the individual needs of the people.  Whether it is health care, education, housing, or others, the government places restrictions and requirements on each, eroding the freedom of the individual.  So, when the individual accepts the government “drug,” they lose control over an aspect of their life.  The more of these “rights” that are accepted by the people, the more freedom they lose, until, in the end, their cradle to grave experience is fully managed by the government.   The left also seeks, in the end, to provide these “rights” to everyone, granting them ever-increasing levels of control over the mass and what they can or cannot do.  Since they view the people as a collective mass, they talk about “rights,” like housing, education, and health care. They then apply these to the collective, at the expense of your individual freedom.    At the end of the day, so to speak, the people might have these  “rights,” but they will have no freedom.  After all, if your government controls where you live, your medical care, what you can eat, your salary or wage, your education, your transportation, and what you can say, and where you can say it, how free are you?  Note that all of these examples are now being done, being discussed, or in the process of being enacted.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

-Thomas Jefferson

Another concern with this view of rights is that the individual might be sacrificed for the good of the collective.  If a senior or a disabled person has to be denied care to supply those resources for others, it is acceptable to the left.  Ezekiel Emanuel has said as much himself.  If an individual or small group has to be economically ruined to satisfy a policy initiative, it is an acceptable sacrifice.  If a group of farmers has to be bankrupted to protect a fish, it will be done.  The top-down regulation cannot accept or account for the needs of individuals, only the collective.   In the last century, millions of individuals died in socialist experiments, five-year plans, and the Great Leap Forward.  These statistics were acceptable to the leadership, as long as the collective was maintained, and more importantly, the power of the leadership went unchallenged.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

-Thomas Jefferson

It is also important to note that the totalitarians do not always restrict  rights by direct action.  They will often create circumstances in which individuals will have no opportunity to exercise their enumerated rights.  Elected officials and government appointees have advocated for the control of web content, and the regulation of what one can say, and in what circumstances it can be said.  Similarly, talk radio is to be attacked by mandating changes in local ownership to those people that will not run conservative programming, in spite of the obvious advertising revenue.  The left  will, of course, say that people still have the freedom to speak; they’ll just close the venue.  In other situations, they will create regulations or taxes in order to create scarcity or make a product too expensive for a common individual to purchase or own.  Again, they will hide their intentions in claims of fairness, diversity, environment, and equality, but the true intention is again to gain and maintain power, while at the same time shutting off dissent.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

-George Washington

The left also views the human family with disdain.  In the communist nations, efforts were made almost immediately to disrupt the family’s influence over children.  Education was co-opted almost immediately, with children being placed in government sanctioned programs at the earliest age possible.  Home schooling was banned, and private schools were either required to adopt the government program, or were closed altogether.  The purpose was, and still is, to indoctrinate children to the leftist point of view.  Independent thinking and the ability to use logic and reason to address problems are enemies of the left.  A person that can look at their situation and realize that the government is the cause of their problems is a stumbling block for the left.

Also, the government schools have actively worked to separate children from any religious beliefs that they were taught at home or in Church.  In the leftist totalitarian state, there can be no power higher than the state itself.  Religion must be ridiculed as “unsophisticated” or held up as a sign of a limited intellect.  Discrimination and restrictions on religious expression are soon to follow, either passed as law, or mandated by courts.  In the end, the left is jealous of God’s influence, and wishes it for itself.

At the same time the left is creating “rights” that do not exist in our Constitutional Republic, they go about systematically limiting the individual rights that our Constitution guarantees.  Speech codes ban freedom of expression on campuses as “hate.” Religious expression, particularly when the religion in question is Christianity, is being banned from schools and in the public square.  Even in the face of last year’s Supreme Court decision, opponents of the Second Amendment are still working towards a “gun free” America.  Other groups are attempting to use environmental regulations and misapplying eminent domain the deprive property owners of the use of their land and homes.  The power of the states to manage their own internal affairs is being controlled and dominated in defiance of the Tenth Amendment.  Activist judges, some of whom openly boast about making policy, legislate from the bench, creating rights that do not exist, and striking down ones that do.  This is a slow transformation of America, from a free state, to a socialist one.

The left views each human life as a burden; one more mouth to feed, one more brain to indoctrinate, one more body to medicate, one more statistic to manage.  Conservatives view each human life as an opportunity.  We believe that each human being can make decisions for themselves, and manage their affairs without the interference of the state.  Additionally, we can point to examples of government interventions either increasing problems, or creating new ones.

If we are to maintain our freedoms, and recover the full use of them, Americans from all walks of life must stand up and demand them.  This has started, but there is much to be done to stem the tide of tyranny that threatens to overtake us.  The days of political apathy are over.

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

-Benjamin Franklin

Share

The Libs Give Kindly Advise

Share

The libtards have been soooo kind lately!  How, you might ask?  They’ve been giving the Republicans advise on how to be more successful!  That is clearly an act of kindness in these polarized times.  Not only that, the Legion of Doom has been repeating all these tidbits of wisdom- informing the sheeple of just how REALLY NEAT they all are.  Here are some of the sagely statements made to the Republicans

1.  To be successful, you have to appeal to moderates.

2.  You have to “disown” Rush Limbaugh.

3.  You have to ignore that “radical” Conservative  wing of the party.

4.  Ya better not challenge the SCOTUS  nominee or pay attention to her record and  public statements.

Aren’t the libtards just great!  I mean, they’re being so magnanimous in their victory that they can offer advise to the lowly Republicans!  Kinda makes ya want to shed a tear, amirite?

Well friends, this got me thinking.  What if the Legion of Doom covered EVERYTHING like this, and what if everyone talked like the libtards?  Let’s take a look, shall we?

The following is a presentation of the messiah Sports Commune

Bringing You Bread and Circuses Since 2009.

ALL HAIL THE MESSIAH!!!

Generic Commentator: “Hello everyone, we’re here to interview Coach Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers.  We’re interested in knowing about the upcoming Super Bowl against the Arizona Cardinals.  Welcome Coach Tomlin.”

Mike Tomlin: “Thanks, glad to be here.”

Generic Commentator: “You’re welcome Coach Tomlin.  What advise would you have for the Cardinals as they face your Steelers next Sunday?”

Mike Tomlin: “Well, I would recommend that they completely ignore James Harrison.”

Generic Commentator: “Really?  Isn’t he a force at linebacker?”

Mike Tomlin: “Well, we have polling data that indicates blocking or interfering with James Harrison would be considered “divisive.”  In these difficult times, we can’t afford to be separated by petty arguments about whether or not the quarterback is crushed. ”

Generic Commentator: “I see, what else would you tell the Cardinals coaching staff?”

Mike Tomlin: “Well, we have seen that throwing the ball to Larry Fitzgerald seems to make things unfair.  I’ve appealed to the commissioner to see if that can be banned.  With Fitzgerald catching so many passes, the other receivers don’t get a chance.  It’s a question of “fairness.”  This ought to be a “doctrine,” in my opinion. ”

Generic Commentator: “Amazing!  Any parting words of wisdom?”

Mike Tomlin: “Yes!  Don’t cover Santonio Holmes!  I guess I would also add that they should always throw the ball to Troy Polamalu!”

Generic Commentator: “Thanks Coach Tomlin.  It should be a great game!”

Mike Tomlin: “Why yes, it will!”

This interview was brought to you by the messiah Sports Commune

Citizens, don’t forget to report any independent thought to your local messiah Youth Corps Community Organizer

ALL HAIL THE MESSIAH!!

Well, well, well, a pattern emerges.

Disclaimer: I am a life-long Steelers fan.  GO STEELERS!!!

Share

Legion of Doom Losing Viewers: I Lol

Share

Well then, it seems that the Legion of Doom is losing viewers at ever-higher rates.  Mind you, this current rate is higher than at the same time last year!  I guess when your entire newscast consists of “OMG the messiah leik rulez,” viewers go somewhere else.  Better get the (un)fairness Doctrine passed before too many people figure out whats going on!

I guess it bears repeating the FoxNews has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED!

Did I mention that Limbaugh’s  ratings went up 30% when the demonrats were attacking him?

Yes libtards, ban it.  Ban it all, and ban it quick.  If you let people listen to what they want, it won’t be to your minions!

How ya likin’ that change?

Share

New Poll Item

Share

If you haven’t noticed, there is a new poll item.  I’m testing a theory.  It’s not scientific in any way, but i thought it might be interesting to see what people think.

My theory is that without Conservative talk radio, AM radio will pretty much collapse,  costing the economy jobs and eliminating a valuable community resource. I believe that once the only talk radio is libtard talk radio, viewers will just turn off the radios and go to the internet, satelite radio, or do podcasts from Conservative hosts. Until, that is, the libtards try to control those outlets as well.  I also think that the libtards know that, and that the collapse of the AM radio “industry” represents an “acceptable loss” to them.  Getting Rush and the others off the air is the goal.  Any other impact is a secondary concern.

So, hit a button and vote.  As with the Uselful Idiot of the Month Poll, it’s set up so ACORN zombies can’t vote 50 times each!

Share

Cracks in the Demonrats Armor?

Share

One has to ask the question, “do all demonrats like the thuggery of the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS and his minions?”  Maybe not, as this letter published on American Thinker might suggest (I’m displaying some excerpts).

I didn’t know any better. I thought the whole world lived in areas where the streets are filthy, aggressive street behavior is allowed because the perps are victims of capitalism, and where you can easily get mugged walking down a street or eating in a restaurant at noon. (By the way, with the Left in charge, expect gangs, crime, indoctrination of 5 year olds and general anarchy to be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.)

Given that the media is pretty much censored (good luck finding a conservative book in your local “independent” book store or hearing a Republican speak anywhere), you didn’t know that a party of grown ups even existed that didn’t advocate screaming at others as the preferred mode of communication. So to my dear Robin, apologies for what I put you through, what I deprived you of, and my pledge to do better.

Cousin Joe, Sam, et al, you may be wondering how I did a l80 in 1 1/2 years. How did I go from a rabid, sanctimonious liberal whom you steadfastly avoided at family gatherings to a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage? Recovery encourages us to share our story, so here’s mine:

In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.

We both suddenly became aware that something had grown really dark in the Democratic Party. I started hearing about many other incidents where loyal Democrats were being physically and emotionally threatened for supporting Hillary. A woman in Berkeley had her front window broken because it displayed a poster of Hillary. Randi Rhodes, an Air America talk show leftist, called Hillary a f______ witch. (Rhodes was recently promoted to a national talk radio show, illustrating another disturbing trend: the deafening silence about what Rush Limbaugh has dubbed the new “thug-ocracy.)

An acquaintance had her car broken into, and the only item stolen was a NoObama bumper sticker. A South Park episode featured an episode where a nuclear weapon was being aimed at Hillary’s genitals. My local greeting card store sold very flattering cards about Obama, insulting ones about Hillary, and a Hillary “nutcracker.” When I complained, the young male manager literally laughed in my face.

Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale “wilding” ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.

Actress Sarah Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her. When Palin’s church was torched with children inside, the press was missing in action (somehow I imagine the press would have been all over this if Obama’s church were torched). Not only was the misogyny disgusting, but the classism was abhorrent. The Democrats, by ridiculing Palin’s voice and her education, were acting like arrogant snobs. The party had changed, I had changed, and the differences looked irreconcilable.

The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn’t supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.

Suddenly a light went on. The peace and love and flower power of the old left was dead and gone (if it even existed to begin with except in my imagination). The Democrats had morphed into a power hungry Thought Police, and I was done with them. My new motto in life: don’t PC on me.

So this is my letter of amends, and I hope that I can be forgiven by all whom I’ve offended. I knew not what the heck I was doing. But now the problem is: how in the world does one be a conservative these days? How to stay brave and committed when conservatives are being targeted, punished, and shunned on a daily basis? How to sleep at night knowing that the country I have finally come to love may be destroyed from within by a massive Big Brother government?

I guess I’ll just have to do a step one, as we 12 stepper’s call it, and turn it all over to my Higher Power.

Love,

Robin

Well Robin, let me welcome you to the “right side.”

What does this mean though?  Well, it could be indicative of some sheeple waking up!  The messiah won the election by winning over many mainstream sheeple who were unaware of, or ignored, the messiah’s past, as well as the true meaning of his intentions.  That’s what you deserve for getting your information from the Legion of Doom!

Now that the messiah and his minions are showing their true nature, they risk alienating much of the traditional demonrat base.  The far lefty crowd will always stay with the messiah, as many of them are in his army of useful idiots.  However, the useful idiots are far from the majority.  To get a better picture of the situation, let’s look at some of the challenges that the messiah is facing.

1.  He’s had to re-brand cap and slave, because too many people recognize what it means.  Will CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE work?

2.  Over 20 states have passed, or are deliberating sovereignty laws.

3.  People are starting to find out what his health care plans mean.

4.  Tea Parties are a problem, especially if the July 4th protests are larger than the Tax Day events. The Legion of Doom will have a harder time trying to ridicule them the second time around.  They may try to ignore them again.

5.  Nancy Pelosi getting Pelosied.  It’s jamming up the efforts to attack Bush and his former staff in order to distract from the messiah’s plans.  The Legion of Doom continues to cover the Pelosi story, leading me to believe that they intend to throw her under the bus.  Myself, I’d throw water on her and watch her melt, but that’s just me!  Also, the CIA isn’t playing ball.  They’re releasing more and more documents showing how many demonrats were aware of all the things that they now describe as “war crimes.”  I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

6.  ACORN is being investigated, or indicted, in over a dozen states.  That’s making his plans to use them in faking the census a bit sticky.

7.  The messiah’s more affluent supporters are finding out that “OMG, he REALLY IS a socialist!”

8.  More and more people are taken back by his intimidation of lenders and auto executives, as well as his dictating of salaries and benefits.

9.  His minions in the Legion of Doom continue to lose in the ratings and circulation.  Fox News, on the contrary, now has more viewers that CNN and MSNBC combined! Are more and more people not “buying” the message of the messiah?

10.  The MIAC and DHS reports have caused a public outrage, and Napolitano has thoroughly discredited herself.  You can’t marginalize the opposition if your mouthpiece is an idiot (NOT the useful variety).

That’s a pretty full plate, if you ask me.  By nature, the messiah will likely respond to any of these will more and more threats, intimidation, lies, manipulation, and so on.  As he does so, more and more people will refuse to play ball.  History shows that even the most repressive governments can fall if the people decide not to play along.  Might that happen here?  It’s an interesting question.

This also brings me back to the point I made last week; does the messiah have enough minions, goons, lawyers, rent-a-mob, and other resources to go at all of these problems in a short time frame?  Let’s face it, the guy’s a community organizer.  They’re used to using strong armed tactics in a community or city, not an entire country.  It’s a question of scale.  I actually think that he may get a bit over-extended if he tries all of this at once.  After all, he hasn’t been able to ban talk radio yet.  He hasn’t been able to censor the internet.  He doesn’t have his national defense force, AKA, his army of useful idiots.  He will likely get the Thought Crimes Act, but will the sheeple play along once preachers get arrested for reading from the Bible, or people get hauled in for praying in public? (I don’t think that they’ll do that right away, they’ll let the sheeple get used to the law first, but that’s another post entirely!)  With people still being able to communicate and get information outside of the Legion of Doom, can he clamp down on the truth enough to keep the sheeple asleep?

In the end, the messiah is playing a risky game.  His history shows that he’ll resort to thug tactics in the face of resistance, but doing so threatens to expose his true intentions.  That exposure cannot be hidden by the Legion of Doom forever.  The greater the exposure, the greater to potential loss among the demonrat base.  The longer this continues, the more I think the messiah is in over his head.  He’s a little fish in a big sea, and he’s trying to fight out of his weight.

Sorry if you were expecting another parody.  There will be more!  I have to be honest, I like going over the  facts  and try to figure out what might happen next.  It’s fun!

Share