David Limbaujgh nails it precisely.
Noteworthy:
"This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas.
It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed.
It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots.
It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise "fair elections" and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country.
It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates.
It's how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
It's how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents.
It's how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted.
It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn.
It's how they can prevent the teaching of 'intelligent design' in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science."
It's also how they can package huge tax increases as "tax cuts for 95 percent of the public".
Last night (11/11) I watched “Warner at War” on Turner Classic Movie Channel. It was a special about Warner Bros. film work before and during WWII.
ReplyDeleteIn 1939 Warner Bros. produced “Confessions of a Nazi Spy” and thereby took a political position about Nazism and fascism.
The Warner’s were soundly thrashed by many left-leaning politicians and pro-German factions in the U.S. for fomenting fear and generating anti-German feelings. The German government filed a protest with Secretary of State Cordell Hull. It was called “seditious propaganda” and “Jewish propaganda” and termed anti-German. The movie was banned in several countries, and the Warner’s were called before the House Un-American Activities Committee to answer for their actions. Harry Warner told the Committee, “I will not censor… (or) conceal from the American people what is happening in the world… You can correctly charge me with being anti-Nazi. But no one can charge me with being anti-American.”
(http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/WWRoss.pdf)
All because they were trying to tell the truth about an impending form of government that would trample the rights of free citizens.
Will we see similar actions by the Obama government, such as a renewed Fairness Doctrine, in an attempt to stifle legitimate dissent?
"Will we see similar actions by the Obama government, such as a renewed Fairness Doctrine, in an attempt to stifle legitimate dissent?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
Chuckie Schumer (AKA Senator Asshole) has already made that clear by equating conservative talk radio with pornography.
"The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent."
How's that for a perverted justification for censorship?