Unpatriotic Liberals Push Fairness Doctrine

A few weeks ago a commenter on My Point Radio's site told me that I was in the wrong for accusing those who were against the War In Iraq as being unpatriotic. He cited an example of a conversation he had with a World War II veteran who is against the war. He dared me to call a WWII war veteran unpatriotic. I wimped out, on that date, and stated that nowhere in the article I wrote did I accuse Liberals of being unpatriotic, only that I believe their stance was a poor one considering the enemy that we are up against.

We fight an unreasonable enemy, bent on our destruction, and if you don't believe that, pay attention to what the Jihadists say, every once in a while.

A common argument used by the Left regarding the invasion of Iraq is that there were no Iraqis involved in 9/11. Another common argument is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so we should have left because our intelligence was in error. In both cases, the answer is, "Just because you don't see something on first inspection doesn't mean it was never there."

Weapons of Mass Destruction were present in Iraq, and were either hid well, or shipped out to Iran or Syria, or wherever. The "Bush Lied" argument associated with the WMD's is a poor one at that. All of our intelligence pointed toward there being WMD's in Iraq, as well as the historical use of such weapons by Saddam prior to the invasion. The argument, like most liberal arguments, is just a matter of not being well informed. If is funny how liberals are always crying out for cited sources, yet make many claims without their own proof, or give only part of the story without full disclosure, or cite sources that are questionable at best.

Another fact is regarding this is, Saddam Hussein, and many other Iraqis, were directly linked to 9/11. One such link was confirmed in 2004. Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, was in close contact with an Iraqi intelligence official during the time approaching 9/11. (Link to one of the Sources) Another story, one I read in a military magazine, claimed that in New Guinea, on a lay-over of a flight bringing some of the terrorists to America to perform their dastardly deed, the terrorists met with a Iraqi for their paperwork and identification papers as well as instructions. Iraq was involved in those attacks on America, and so far a number of key Iraqis (Saddam and Zarqawi for instance) have been removed.

Speaking of Zarqawi, that brings up another lefty argument. They say, "We should be going after al-Qaeda, not Iraq! Iraq is a distraction from the real war." Zarqawi was the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yesterday, his replacement, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed just north of Baghdad. He was the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Hear that? Al-Qaeda in Iraq. By being in Iraq we are going after al-Qaeda, or at least a part of the organization. Once again, liberals, your argument falls flat.

How about that conspiracy theory that idiots like Rosie O'Donnell likes to throw around. You know the one. Our own government planted explosives in the World Trade Center buildings (Building 7 which was not hit by a plane is used as an example often) because physics says, "Fire can't melt steel!" Well, first of all, fire (a very high temperature fire, mind you) is used to melt iron and other alloys to create steel. But just to be fair, she must have meant a situation created by the tragedy of a blazing fire caused by a crash, or something. You mean like the one last Sunday when a tanker full of gasoline crashed and exploded shooting flames under a highway on-ramp in Oakland, resulting in its collapse? Guess what? The fire weakened the steel, causing the collapse. Once again, the liberal argument has been proven wrong.

And so far any liberal reading this will still deny these facts, argue the point, and claim that the obvious facts are wrong. You see, facts are only accurate if they support their agenda.

Want more facts? How about that Global Warming agenda the Left loves to embrace so much. I was reading the paper the other day and it said: "Global Warming Opponents Concede that the Earth is Warming." The Left always tries to make it sound like Conservatives are giving in, or something. Honestly, I never said the Earth wasn't warming. I have always said that it is a natural occurrence, and not caused by humanity. Humans pump less than 1% of the Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, which is too small of an amount to matter if the environmentalists were right in their claim that all the CO2 in the air is causing the globe to warm. They love to show pictures of collapsing glaciers, and polar bears standing on blocks of ice floating around in a vast ocean. First of all, when glaciers grow, the ends break off, causing those fantastic pictures. I don't have the stats in front of me, but a friend of mine that grew up in Alaska (half Inuit as well) told me that in the last few years the glaciers have grown by six feet, not melted away, and of the twelve major polar bear populations, ten experienced a rise in population. The other two remained steady. However, that is not the kicker. For those that watched the video I once had on Political Pistachio, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," you already know the facts. For the lefties and folks that don't know, let me spell it out for you. Global Warming is caused by sunspot activity, among other things. And increased CO2 does not cause the Earth to warm, the warming trend causes an increase in CO2. Wow, what an amazing concept! The warming of the Earth is caused by the Sun! Who'd have ever thought?

Back to the war, it is interesting how the Left not only fails to support the Global War on Terror as it branched into Iraq, but anything that may protect our nation against another attack. The border issue is a great example of that. On May 1st thousands of protesters nationwide marched calling for immigration reform, an open border, and a stop to raids by the federal government against illegals. These are people that have no respect for authority. They jump the border, violating the law in the process, and then ignore the police or border patrol when apprehended. At the rally in Los Angeles the protesters got out of hand, so the police used non-lethal force to control the crowd and herd them to where they needed to be. And what was the response? They defied the police, and then when police became forceful, cries that the police overstepped their bounds came out. But here's the real kicker. They claim they want free immigration for all people wishing to come to America. That would be a billion bodies of people coming from Third World countries with their hands held out for a freebie. Most of those people coming to America would not be here to work, and many may not even come for the free handouts. Many will come with other things in mind. With this free border, it makes one wonder, how many terrorists and WMD's have crossed the border along with the illegals?

Now, why would the Left do such things? Are they stupid? Do they not recognize the facts?

The answer, my friends, becomes apparent when we also take into consideration HR3302 (The Media Ownership Reform Act - or the new Fairness Doctrine if you want to call it that). The bill basically is an attempt by Liberal Democrats to muzzle conservative talk radio. What this is in a nutshell is an assault on free speech. Hitler quelled all dissenting voices when he took power. The communists of the Soviet Union crushed dissent in a manner not unlike this as well. Now, the National Socialists of America (better known as the Liberal Democrats) seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media, specifically talk radio.

With the failure of "Air America" which is now bankrupt, and the small listenership of NPR, the liberals are finding themselves losing the airwave battle because of popular shows hosted by the likes of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly (not counting thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters like Glenn Beck, Jerry O'Doyle, John Zigler, Roger Hedgecock, and so on). Liberals close to Nancy Pelosi are promoting this legislation which will, if passed, take off the air the above mentioned conservative radio hosts, and possibly bleed into shows like yours truly's Political Pistachio Radio, or my friends at My Point Radio, and so forth. This so-called "Fairness Doctrine" states that all views are to be given equal time on the radio. The FCC would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content. The idea is to take away the advantage the Right has accumulated on the nation's air waves.

The real force behind this is secular-progressive George Soros, a radical leftist billionaire that hates conservatives, and envisions the United States as becoming a militaristic fascist empire, supporting abortion on demand, legalization of drugs, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, open borders (unlimited immigration), and a one-world government built upon a socialist platform headed by the United Nations. According to Soros, and the supporters of HR3302, conservatives (specifically the conservative talk show hosts) pose a threat to American national security, and under this bill, would be fired.

But why is it that conservative talk shows are so prominent? Could it possibly be because that is what the listeners like to listen to? Right-leaning shows have been gaining momentum because people desire alternative news and commentary to the liberal mainstream media. This "Fairness Doctrine" is a direct assault on the freedom of speech. It is the liberals trying to silence the voice of truth because they are losing the battle in the marketplace of ideas. They are unable to compete with conservatives in debate because the facts are against them, so their response is to silence the facts. This is a Stalinist method of stifling dissenting points of view. Hey, liberals, if you don't like what I have to say, or what Limbaugh has to say, or what O'Reilly has to say, or what Hannity has to say, or what Savage has to say. . . go buy the New York Times, tune in to NPR, or watch MSNBC or CNN. You'll get your lefty, socialistic, America hating crap there.

Liberalism is designed around the socialistic idea of transforming America into a society of collectivism. The Left is trying to restructure the economy, our values, and the United States of America into their Utopian ideal. But the people know that it is a load of crap, so the Left relies on coercion to pass much of their agenda. They raise taxes and push their programs in an attempt to increase the power of the state, and push immoral items like abortion and homosexuality in order to expunge Christianity and Conservatism. Now that they pulled off the last election and gained control of Congress, they are going for broke, confident that the people will fall for their Nazi-style tactics. They are doing whatever they can to silence their ideological opponents.

We must stand united now, under God, and under conservatism, and stop this insanity, or we will no longer be the United States of America that we know and love.

Our grandchildren, if we don't stand up to the liberals now, will grow up in a nation nothing like our beloved America. Instead, they will live in a Union of Soviet Socialist American States.

The left is unpatriotic in all that they do. Hear that Jon? Unpatriotic!