AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Not So Fairness Doctrine

What is bogus and arrogant about anyone who promotes the so-called Fairness Doctrine is that there are not “two sides” to everything. Everything is not liberal-conservative or Democrat-Republican.

What about the side of Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Palestinians, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezb’Allah, “Moderates”, Independents, Black Supremacists, White Supremacists, Children, Senior Citizens, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Whatever-sexuals, Pedarists, and on and on and on and on?

Are they going to say that all these viewpoints MUST be discussed otherwise it’s not “fair”?

Advertisements

March 5, 2009 , 2:14PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Censorship, Democrats, Fairness Doctrine, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Not So Fairness Doctrine

McCainservatives are Supporting La Raza

Michelle Malkin finally pulls out the big guns and puts out the hard reality of what McCainservatives are really supporting when they support John McCain for President: the racist, unAmerican La Raza.

Anyone who supports a politician who supports La Raza has my utter contempt. I don’t want to hear anyone call themselves an American and a conservative when they support and vote for someone who supports La Raza.

And before you try and spread your bullshit and attack me, be sure to read the whole post by Michelle Malkin. If you want to apologize for McCain’s bullshit, take it elsewhere. If you want the Republican Party to turn into the La Raza Party, then fuck off.

Seriously. FUCK.OFF.

You McCainservatives talk about being Patriots and being Americans, yet you support a candidate who supports La Raza. Sorry, I call that unAmerican and yes, I question your Patriotism.

I’ve had enough of this.

McCainservatives tell me there is no other choice, but to vote for John McCain. If that is true, that the only choice is to vote for a man for President whose main support is for a racist, anti-America group, then this country has already fallen. And I am ashamed to call these people my countrymen.

[ … ] According to the WaPo/ABC News poll released this weekend, 47% of respondents said McCain was the candidate they trusted most on immigration; 22% said Romney; 10% chose Huckabee; and 5% went with Paul.

If those voters knew about Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, McCain would be in single-digit Paul territory.

You want straight talk? McCain’s tongue says he’s “listened and learned.” But his heart is with La Raza, the militantly ethnocentric, anti-immigration enforcement Hispanic lobbying group that honored him in 1999 and whose annual conference he keynoted in 2004.

Go back and watch McCain on the Senate floor during the amnesty debate. Refresh your memories. Here he is comparing guest-worker tax treatment to Jim Crow laws.

[ … ]

Crooked talk: He says he’ll build the fence.

Straight talk: He resents what he calls the “goddamned fence.”

John McCain and La Raza-The Race share a deep-seated contempt for grass-roots conservatives who worked successfully to defeat the disastrous amnesty bill. And they share a common impulse to marginalize their political opponents as “haters.”

Thus, La Raza-The Race has launched a new “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign – smack dab in the middle of the campaign season – to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” They protest that it is “racist” and out-of-bounds to talk about reconquista – even as the McCain campaign boasts a “Mexico First/”Just A Region”/”Free Flow of People” outreach director who’s practicing it out in the open for the leading GOP presidential front-runner.

Yes, an ethnic separatist group that calls itself “The Race” – a group that has embraced John McCain and vice versa – has the gall to crusade against “hate.” Chris Kelly notes that La Raza-The Race head Janet Murguia is calling for networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and that both La Raza-The Race and another open-borders group are pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes.

Read it:

Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights: “Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line. And that’s what we’re doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line.”

Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the “tapering down” of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: “With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.”

No respect for the rule of law. No respect for the First Amendment.

[ … ]

The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia told the truth about La Raza-The Race and refused to be mau-maued. I’m reprinting his response in full:

It is with great amusement that I read the National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) defense [from its president and CEO Janet Murguia.] against the facts contained in my article, “The Truth About ‘La Raza,'” that appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, April 10,2006. Instead of addressing the troubling facts outlined in the article, NCLR still seeks to hide from the truth through shrewd distractions.

Murguia claims: “Rep. Norwood mistranslates our name as the National Council of ‘the race.’ The actual definition of ‘La Raza’ is ‘people,’ referring to the Hispanic people or community.”

According to whom? The online encyclopedia Wikipeidia translation reads, “La raza: Spanish: ‘The race.'” Ditto with http://www.freetranslation.com, translation2.paralink.com, http://www.freedict.com/onldict/spa.html. But here’s even more online fun: Type in “National Council of the RACE” on Google, the world’s number one search engine, and it will take you straight to NCLR’s home page. Case closed.

NCLR’s second objection is where the real deception becomes glaring: “NCLR did not receive $15.2 million in federal grants last year and no federal funds of any kind were used to fund get-out-the-vote efforts or for any political purpose.”

By “last year” my article refers to the last fiscal year reported by NCLR on its official website, which is fiscal year 2004. NCLR very cleverly fails to mention this fact, even though they surely knew precisely where the $15.2 million the article mentioned was coming from.

According to page 48 of the National Council of La Raza Consolidated Statements of Activities, Year Ended September 30,2004, NCLR itself reports it received $15,170,182 in federal grants. [See Figure 1 on page 9.] In the same statement, under “Advocacy and Electoral Empowerment” NCLR reports on page 27, “while in 2002 activities centered on Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts, in 2004 the project expanded to include voter registration, modest GOTV, and some elements of election protection,” and reports on page 48 that it spent $327,585 directly on “Legislative Advocacy” and another $2,611,827 on “Research, Advisory, and Legislation”-all while receiving that $15.2 million in federal grants.

Did NCLR’s receipt of $15.2 million in federal funds allow them to redirect other donations towards their combined $2.9 million in political activities? You be the judge.

But the real outrage in NCLR’s objections to the article is their disingenuous denial of their links to radical, racist and anti-American groups: “NCLR … unequivocally rejects, the motto Tor La Raza Todo, Fuera de la Raza Nada.’ (For The Race everything, for those outside The Race nothing.)”

No group can “unequivocally reject” a position while quietly paying out money to groups that support it, which is exactly what NCLR does.

The motto in question is that of the radical group MEChA and can be found online at the homepage of the Georgetown University MEChA Chapter. On the same site, you can read Georgetown MEChA’s Constitution, which contains the requirement that Georgetown MEChA maintain current membership in NCLR.

The Internal Revenue Service reports NCLR was actively funding the Georgetown University MEChA Chapter as recently as 2003, as documented in NCLR’s IRS Form 990, 2002 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, Exhibit 1, Page 1. [See Figure 2 on page 9.]

If NCLR is sincere in objecting to the facts in the article they should have no problem publicly agreeing to all six points mentioned in my article:

1. Denounce the motto “For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada,” as repugnant, racist, and totally incompatible with American society or citizenship-and stop funding groups who support it.

2. Acknowledge the right of all Americans to live wherever they choose in the U.S. without segregation.

3. Commit to sponsorship of nationwide educational programs to combat racism and anti-Semitism in the Hispanic community.

4. Denounce and sever all ties with MEChA and other organizations which hold to the racist doctrines held by MEChA.

5. Acknowledge our borders, the democratic right of U.S. citizens to determine immigration policy, and the right of the U.S. to enforce immigration law and secure its borders against unauthorized entry.

6. Repudiate all claims that current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico.

Based on the documented and independently verified statements in the original article, not only does HUMAN EVENTS owe no correction to NCLR, NCLR owes the entire American public an apology for deceptively supporting groups seeking to undermine our national unity and sovereignty.

But perhaps the best solution would be for NCLR, from this day forward, to simply start living by the six points above.

February 4, 2008 , 10:23PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Fairness Doctrine, Illegal Immigration, John McCain, La Raza | 4 Comments

The ACLU – Founded Upon a Goal of Communism for America

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose — the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.” –ACLU Founder, Robert Baldwin

I have seen a lot of comments from Modern Liberals, Leftists, so-called “progressives” and Democrat-voters on blogs wondering why Conservatives do not like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Well, the next time they ask, just send them this information about the founding of the ACLU and its goals for America.

Here is the profile of American Civil Liberties Union founder, Robert Baldwin, via Discover the Networks: Discover the Networks: Robert Baldwin

Exerpt:

As World War I progressed, Baldwin co-founded the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), again with the aim of promoting a pacifist, internationalist agenda. In 1920 he joined with several of his colleagues in the American Left to establish the ACLU. Baldwin was named the organization’s first Executive Director, a position he would hold until 1950.

The ACLU soon became enmeshed in a variety of high-profile causes; the Scopes Trial; the Sacco and Vanzetti case, which has long been a cause celebre of the Left; and the publication of James Joyce’s Ulysses.

Baldwin showed much sympathy to the Soviet economic system in his statement in his Harvard classbook, and in the foreword he wrote to Letters from Russian Prisons (1924). He embraced the view that the Russia of his day was “a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world.”

In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR.

In 1934 Baldwin authored a piece titled Freedom in the USA and the USSR.” He wrote: “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. … [There] I saw … fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.”

Keep this in mind with regards to the catastrophic “man-caused global warming” debate. These activists have first tried to use junk science to pursuade people to accept Socialism/Communism being passed off as “global climate change” prevention. Since most people are not idiots, just simply ignorant, the more people have studied the “global warming” facts, the less people are falling for the sham. Because of that, the activists are now looking to shut down debate and force Socialism/Communism on the country. Just as Robert Baldwin said was the plan.

Be aware of this and make no mistake about it: the Democrats and the Left are Socialists/Communists and their goal for America is Communism. Since they cannot pursuade people to accept socialism/Communism, they are going to work to force it on us. The first step to doing that is shutting down debate and censoring opposing viewpoints. Don Imus situation starting to make sense to you now? Fairness Doctrine?

Pay attention, for if we do not, little by little more socialism will be implemented in this country until we have become a Communist country… just as the Communists planned.

April 20, 2007 , 11:09AM Posted by | ACLU, American History, Communism, Democrats, Fairness Doctrine, Fascism, Global Warming, Joseph Stalin, Liberalism, Robert Baldwin, Socialism | Comments Off on The ACLU – Founded Upon a Goal of Communism for America

The Real Agenda of the Imus Controversy – Democrats to Silence Conservatives

Steve Gilbert at the Conservative blog Sweetness and Light highlights in great detail the fascist agenda of the Democrats in the whole Don Imus situation. The hidden agenda in all of this is to shut down Conservative speech. In other words, the American Left is finally showing their true fascist colors.

They gave us a sneak peek when they threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license over “The Path to 9/11” mini-series which aired last year. They also give us sneak peeks periodically every time they shout down or throw things at Conservative speakers or rush the stage to shut down Conservative speeches held across the country. The most infamous example is when Leftists at Columbia University rushed the stage when the Minutemen were giving a speech about illegal immigration and shut down the speech. They also are giving us a sneak peek in their efforts to shut down debate about apocalyptic “man caused Global Warming”. Any scientific facts that are presented which counter their theory, they discard and disregard. Any scientist who presents facts and data which counter their theory, they threaten with taking away their funding or they smear them by saying they are paid by oil companies or call them the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. And let us not forget the push for the Democrats to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”, which they are doing specifically to shut down popular and successful Conservative talk radio. (Thanks to Cory in the comments for the reminder)

And now, taking advantage of the mountain the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made out of the molehill of the comments by Don Imus, the Democratic National Committee’s Media Arm is working to censor Conservative voices. This, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism. And it is coming from the Democrat Party. Also, of note, is that David Brock is connected to Hillary Clinton. This is just one more example of what would happen if we allow Democrats to take power in the White House. We will officially become a fascist state.

You will notice that the only people Media Matters calls out for censorship are personalities who are Conservatives. Apparently the racist, sexist, bigoted humor of such Left-wing outlets as Air America, Bill Maher and ABC’s The View are just fine and dandy.

This is not about censorship of racist, sexist and/or bigoted things said on the public airwaves. This is about shutting down thoughts and ideas of those opposed to Liberalism, Socialiasm and Communism. In other words, shutting down Conservatives. Liberals cannot defend their positions with logic and facts, so they have to use fascist tactics to win the debate.

We are heading towards dangerous, Orwellian times ahead if people do not wake up and fight the Left’s plans.

Via Steve Gilbert at Sweetness and Light: DNC’s Media Matters Wants Censorship of Airwaves

Have no fear fellow citizens, Media Matters For America is going to protect you from hearing “hate speech” on your radio.

As many here know, Media Matters is run by the professional propaganda hack David Brock.

Mr. Brock jumps on any chance to try to control free speech in this country. And the “nappy-headed” Imus incident is proving to be no exception.

From Media Matters:

It’s not just Imus

Thu, Apr 12, 2007 6:55pm EST

On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC’s simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus’ reference to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.” The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS — which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus’ program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program — has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show.

But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson…

[ . . . ]

And by “a higher standard” and “the fundamentals of journalism” Mr. Brock means barring the expression of any opinion that differs from his own — or more precisely, from the Democrat National Committee’s doctrine.

For while most people around here know that Media Matters is largely bankrolled by the self-confessed Nazi helper, convicted insider trader and fugitive from justice George Soros, it is also backed and run by top Democrats.

Go read the whole thing. It should anger you and make you sick to your stomach to know just how fascist is the Left in this country and their true evil plans they have in the works for America.

April 14, 2007 , 6:39AM Posted by | Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly, Censorship, David Brock, Democrats, Don Imus, Fairness Doctrine, Fascism, Glenn Beck, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Media Bias, Media Matters, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Racism, Rush Limbaugh | 6 Comments