Rebuttal Daily Kos “Socialism, fascism, and other philosophies conservatives don’t understand”


The leftist rag the KOS is usually wrong but on  this one they’re not even close.  The start out with the leftist version of the political spectrum. From the article.

“Fascism is usually placed on the far right within the traditional left/right political spectrum.”

The author obviously doesn’t have a clue about the origins of the political spectrum.

Historical origin of the terms

The terms “Right” and “Left” refer to political affiliations which originated early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime (“old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while “The Left” implied support for republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties.[4] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original “Left” represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left, because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy

 So actually it was totalitarianism on the right and and freedom on the left.  Of course the modern left has flipped sides on that one as the support a strong overbearing central government. A more correct depiction of the left right political spectrum would be this one.

political_spectrum_left_right_wing

The author got part of Fascism correct but only part.

Fascism: What is it? Think Mussolini—he is the poster child for what a fascist is. While he started out as a socialist, he did not stay one, denouncing socialism in December 1914. The formal definition of fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Well Mussolini never denounced socialism, he and a few other Syndicalist socialist were booted from the party for wanting to use WWI to further the cause of socialism.

Impassioned Socialist

In 1902, Benito Mussolini moved to Switzerland to promote socialism, and quickly gained a reputation for his magnetism and remarkable rhetorical talents. While engaging in political demonstrations, he caught the attention of Swiss authorities and was eventually expelled from the country. In 1904, Mussolini returned to Italy and continued promoting a socialist agenda. He was briefly imprisoned and, upon release, became editor of the organization’s newspaper, Avanti (meaning “Forward”), which gave him a larger megaphone and expanded his influence.

The Break with Socialism and Rise to Power

Mussolini initially condemned Italy’s entry into World War I, but soon saw the war as an opportunity for his country to become a great power. His change in attitude broke ties with fellow socialists, however, and he was expelled from the organization. He joined the Italian army in 1915 and fought on the front lines, reaching the rank of corporal before being wounded and discharged from the military.

After the war, Mussolini resumed his political activities, criticizing the Italian government for weakness at the Treaty of Versailles. He organized several right-wing groups into a single force and, in March 1919, formed the Fascist Party—the movement proclaimed opposition to social class discrimination and supported nationalist sentiments, hoping to raise Italy to levels of its great Roman past.

Sounds an awful lot like the roots of Progressivism. Like the progressive movement Mussolini blended Syndicalist (Socialism) with nationalism. As one of the early progressive’s Herbert David Croly.

“Croly was one of the founders of modern liberalism in the United States, especially through his books, essays, and a highly influential magazine founded in 1914, The New Republic. In his 1914 book Progressive Democracy,Croly rejected the thesis that the liberal tradition in the United States was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. He drew from the American past a history of resistance to capitalist wage relations that was fundamentally liberal, and he reclaimed an idea that Progressives had allowed to lapse – that working for wages was a lesser form of liberty. Increasingly skeptical of the capacity ofsocial welfare legislation to remedy social ills, Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.”

As a matter of fact progressive Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech on this blending of syndicalist (socialism) and nationalism in his “New Nationalism” speech over 100 years ago.  As a matter of fact Mussolini’s actions were highly praised by the left in America.

Economist and Historian Thomas Sowell has written on the subject.

“It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book “Liberal Fascism” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.”

As a matter of fact fascism is socialism with the illusion of private ownership.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.”

No one could ever put it as eloquently as Ronald Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gone Bomb Thrower


A colloquial term used to describe people who stir up trouble, whether because of a legitimate grievance or simply because they are trolling. Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.

We all have some so called liberal friends who constantly post on facebook from their favorite leftist propaganda sites, The Daily KOS, Thinkprogress,Beer Party etc etc etc.  Of course they ignore the fact that these post also appear on their friends timelines. Today is no different than any other.  Today I got online to a series of them.

Original TEA Party

This is not the first time that I have seen revisionist history from these leftist.  They all seem very light on real history and chuck full of progressive revisionist history. I have another friend that posted Thom Hartman’s revisionist version of the Boston Tea party, more on that later. Of course this leftist post was in reference to the riots taking place in Baltimore.  But in the same vein if you call the looters and rioters “Thugs” these leftist will invoke their revisionist dictionary and claim that Thug is the new “N” word.

thugNow onto the other revisionist history perpetrated by Thom Hartman and the left on the TEA party.

To start with let’s look at their revisionist definition of fascism.

And their revisionist version of the TEA Party

On the first video you see they conveniently redefine fascism claiming that it is the corporate takeover of industry when it is in fact the opposite. It is the government takeover of industry through taxation and regulation.  No one in their right mind would argue that corporations controlled  Benito Mussolini or Adoph Hitler.  They both took power engaging in the same “class warfare” and “Race Baiting” as their fascist predecessors.  If you attempted to follow leftist logic you would find yourself running in circles.

CorporationsBut then the Fascist movement was the blending of Syndicalism and Nationalism just like the progressive movement as I have written about earlier. But on to the revisionist history of the Boston TEA Party.  While it is true that they dumped the tea of the East India Tea company, he ignores what led up to that act. Namely the Stamp Act, the Townshend acts.  All of these acts of taxation were only imposed on the colonist and not on those in England.  This caused the colonist to become creative and smuggle the goods from other sources.  The British responded by repealing the tax but only if you bought from British companies. This ignores the fact that even though they were considered British subjects they had no representation in parliament which brought out the rallying cry “no taxation without representation.


And on that note here’s another of his posts from the same day.

Of course the so called liberals are all for silencing the likes of the Koch brothers. They don’t believe that those who’s pockets they intend to pick in order to continue their bribes should have a voice in politics.

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates.

BribeThey claim that the likes of the Koch Brothers are buying elections. I have not received any money from them.  Have you?  On the other hand the so called progressives promise more and more free goodies to those who would vote for them.  Now that’s what I would call buying elections. Of course when the Koch brothers donate to a hospital the lefties protest. When the Koch’s donate to the United Negro College fund the leftist’s heads explode.  But then the only thing the Koch Brothers are guilty of is believing in the “Classic Liberalism” of the founders.  They’re libertarians who believe in “free markets” and free people.  Not crony capitalism aka fascism.

Now the leftist bribes are obvious.

bribe money

But Hey, let’s not let a little thing like facts get in the way.  The path down the road to Fascism started with the first progressive era.

So ask yourself the question.  Which forms of governments engage in race baiting and class warfare in order to gain power, and how did that turn out.

To my liberal friends, yes as long as your propaganda posts appear on my wall, and as long as you spew your propaganda.  I will continue throwing those bombs.

“Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Progressive Roots of Fascism


The modern liberal has hijacked the term liberal and as such also attempted to redefine the political spectrum.  They have attempted to claim that totalitarianism belongs on both extremes leaving themselves as the political middle or moderates. On the right they claim are the fascist using some “Newspeak” to define their version of the political spectrum.  But if one even takes a look at fascism one sees that fascism is the end result of progressiveism and it’s roots are firmly rooted in the progressive movement.

Fascism was crafted by ex-socialist as a third way between socialism and “liberalism” aka free market capitalism and individualism. It is correctly labeled as a nationalist movement but then so was the progressive movement.

First a look at the progressive movement in it’s heyday.

Teddy Roosevelt gave his “New Nationalism” speech based on a book by New Republic co-founder Herbert Croly called “The Promise of American Life

The book is said to “offer a manifesto of Progressive beliefs” that “anticipated the transition from competitive to corporate capitalism and from limited government to the welfare state.”

For Croly, the individualistic, libertarian America of the agrarian 18th and 19th centuries was gone, swept away by the forces of the industrial revolution, urbanization, centralization and modernity. He advocated a new political consensus that included as its core nationalism, but with a sense of social responsibility and care for the less fortunate. Since the power of big business, trusts, interest groups and economic specialization had transformed the nation in the latter part of the 19th century, only the embracing of a counterbalance to this power would serve the society of the future. Croly pressed for the centralization of power in the Federal Government to ensure democracy, a “New Nationalism.”

Herbert Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms.  Syndicalist is a form of socialism.  From Wikipedia;

Syndicalism is a type of economic system, a form of socialism, proposed as a replacement for capitalism. It is a proposal that industries be organised into confederations or syndicates . . .

Syndicalists state that society ought to be organised bottom-up based on direct democracy, confederation, workplace democracy and decentralised socialism.

In Teddy Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech he said.

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

Roosevelt were not anti-corporation in fact they were pro-corporation as long as long as the corporations served the “National interests”  His goal and, the progressive goal was to make corporations slaves to the state through regulations. He also didn’t have a problem with people getting rich as long as they used that wealth in the “national interest”  Again from his “New Nationalism” speech.

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

Everything envisioned by the fascist movement.  The only thing that kept the early progressives from turning our country into full fledged fascist country were the restraints put on them by the Constitution.

From Wikipedia.

Fascism /fæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy in the immediate aftermath of World War I,

L.K Samuels wrote an excellent piece called Hitler and Mussolini: History’s Dirty Little Secret

Here is an excerpt.

But how did fascism become anchored to Marxism? Historically, fascism arose in the 1890s out of a crisis in Marxist theory which was making Marxism archaic, obsolete and irrelevant. One of its major crises dealt with class conflict. The problem was, few workers were interested in class struggle. Instead, the populace was drawn to the flags of nationalism, especially with the unification of Italy in 1861 and of Germany in 1871. In an attempt to save Marxism, a number of notable Marxist intellectuals attempted to replace class struggle with revolutionary nationalism. In a well-documented article, “The Mysteries of Fascism,” David Ramsay Steele explained: “Fascism began as a revision of Marxism by Marxists…”[6]

That changed slightly in 1914, when Mussolini joined a splinter group of revolutionary syndicalists who supported Italy’s entrance into World War I.

The modern progressive would have you believe that fascism is the corporate takeover of government when history shows that quite the opposite is true.  Modern progressives as the fascist of old would also deny these industrialist their voice.  This country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation and on the principles that that taxation should be equally applied to all.  You hear the modern progressive scream at the top of their lungs “Corporations aren’t people” while they tax them as one while demanding that they have no political voice in relationship to the amount of taxes paid.  Thomas Jefferson wrote on this abuse.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

I take it a step further, the progressive tax amounts to bribery, it allows the progressives a means of expanding the power and scope of the federal government by promising a free ride to a segment of the population if they are kept in power. Thomas DiLorenzo wrote in “The Founding Fathers of Participatory Fascism

The interventionists eventually won out, so that today’s political/economic system (in the U.S. and in many other copycat countries) can be described as “participatory fascism,” to borrow a phrase used by Robert Higgs. It is a system of crony capitalism financed by a central bank, government borrowing, and pervasive taxation. It is a system that is of plutocratic elites, for plutocratic elites, and by plutocratic elites (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the true founding father of this system). The massive welfare state is merely used to buy enough votes to maintain the “legitimacy” of the system.

Of course the modern progressives ignore two truisms.

1. Daniel Webster’s quote “ An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy

When taxation is not uniformly applied to all or used by the government as a tool to modify behavior or society, freedom is lost and the “Constitutional Republic is Destroyed” The only fair tax would be a national sales tax or a flat income tax that only applies to individuals.  Then and only then will all of the people have a stake in holding the government accountable.

Corporations

2. Lord Acton Quote “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

The modern progressive repeatedly calls for more and more regulation on corporations while denying them a political voice.  They cite the corruption of crony capitalism while ignoring the fact that it was the “progressive movement” that created this unholy alliance in the first place.  It was one of the leaders of the movement Teddy Roosevelt who decided that he alone had the power to decide who was a good trust and who was a bad.  And the bad where to be destroyed.  This created the political necessity for business to throw loads of money at the “political class” in order to have a favorable standing and to insure that the regulations favored them.  Of course this put the small business owner at a distinct disadvantage.  The problem is the regulatory climate.  The cure is not more regulation but to take that power away from the politician and to punish the corrupt politicians. Thomas Sowell wrote about the advantages of the modern fascist state.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies,

It’s time to wake up America, take your country back and restore individual rights and reject this modern form of collectivism.

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Is America Is Ripe For Authoritarianism?


With the upcoming elections anyone paying attention will have noticed the left has ramped up it’s use of the fascist card and proclaim that fascism is a right wing ideology but they never really define what is left and what is right.  They simply state that communism is on the far left and Fascism on the far right.  If you ask them where anarchy fits in that spectrum, they are unable to answer.  Here is an example of a defined measure and it’s one that I use.

Yesterday on one of the political forums someone posted an article  called “America Is Ripe For Authoritarianism.”  They frequently use the circular reasoning that corporations control the government and therefore government needs more control.

Continue reading

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Video | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

First Amendment Victory and Freedom of the Press


Left wing squawker Sue Wilson has attempted to shut down Right Wing talk radio for the better part of two years. Sue founded Media Action Center a left wing attack group.  I remember the day that she responded to me with

WI Broadcasters Assn knows the rules, don’t you?

To which I responded

You have to read the whole thing. Again equal access only applies to the  candidates themselves, if say WMIN has Scott Walker on then Tom Barret has 7 days to ask for equal time. PERIOD! The time the talking heads spend talking about the candidates means nothing. See pages 2-5 of your own document.

She made several false arguments.  First is that the government owns the airwaves.  The FCC is a regulatory body and they don’t even make such a claim.  However the bulk of her claim was based on the Zapple Doctrine which was an offshoot of the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine. A court case she repeatedly cited was Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCCRed Lion’s radio station, WGCB, aired a program that attacked an author and journalist, Fred J. Cook. Cook requested “equal time” but was refused; the FCC supported his claim because the agency viewed the WGCB program as a personal attack.

The Red Lion case had its origins when author Fred J. Cook criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in his book, Barry Goldwater: Extremist on the Right (1964). A radio station operated by Red Lion Broadcasting Company in Red Lion, Pennsylvania, ran a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis criticizing Cook. Hargis claimed that Cook had been fired from the New York World-Telegram newspaper for false charges against a New York city official and that Cook, writing for The Nation (which Hargis characterized as having “championed many communist causes”), had attacked Federal Bureau of Investigation directorJ. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency.

When Cook heard of the broadcast, he demanded free reply time to address the attack. The broadcast station refused to allow Cook to reply to the allegations. On appeal, the FCC declared that the station should give Cook an opportunity to reply to allegations against him.

The FCC won the appeal based in part on the claim that broadcast stations were scarce. But she conveniently left out a key part of the ruling.  And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. The fairness doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect.”

In fact it was the leftist group California League of Women Voters and Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who sued the FCC to put biased editorial content not on for profit radio but on taxpayer funded “Public Radio”  The finding of the court included the following.

Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380]   of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.

The oral arguments for the FCC’s case were argued by now Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito and was celebrated by the leftist site “Democracy Now” in their piece FCC vs. The League of Women Voters: A Look at the Case That Pitted Samuel Alito Against Pacifica Radio, where they celebrated their victory in putting leftist editorials on taxpayer funded radio. This ruling caused the FCC to reevaluate the “Fairness Doctrine”

In 1984, the FCC began a comprehensive reexamination of the public policy and constitutional implications of the fairness doctrine. . . Commission concluded that the doctrine no longer serves the public interest in access to diverse sources of information. In re Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations Concerning the General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 F.C.C.2d 143, 147 (1985) (hereinafter 1985 Fairness Report) (Pet. App. 77a, 81a). The Commission also questioned whether the doctrine remained consistent with the First Amendment as it had been applied in Red Lion. Id. at 82a-93a.

Of course the leftist groups were no satisfied with the fact that they helped kill a regulation that they used to stifle free speech so they went to the courts yet again in order to force enforcement of the “Fairness doctrine” The SYRACUSE PEACE COUNCIL (an anti-nuclear power activist group) demanded equal time to the editorials that favored a nuclear power plant.  Initially the FCC found in favor of the activist and the station WTVH petitioned for reconsideration. The station then appealed it  to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge Silberman ordered the commission to reconsider the case because the commission had failed to address WTVH-Meredith Corporation’s claim that the fairness doctrine was unconstitutional.

The court said that the FCC had been “arbitrary and capricious”1 for insisting that WTVH-Meredith Corporation obey a policy that the Commission believed was a First Amendment violation.  The court stated that the FCC would have to address their complaint and/or prove that the doctrine was no longer serving the public interest. The FCC on reconsideration found that the “Fairness Doctrine no longer served the public interest and did violate the First Amendment.  The court concurred.

What this does show is that the left only wants free speech when it suits their agenda and is willing to use both the courts and regulatory agencies to stifle speech they don’t approve of and use them both to push speech that they do.  Sue Wilson’s case is no different.  But ultimately the FCC agreed with every one of my arguments and not Sue Wilson’s.  The following is the FCC’s response to Sue

apstar TX LLC (“Capstar”) for renewal of
its license for WISN(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (“Station”). We also have before us a Petition to Deny
(“Petition”) filed by Media Action Center (“MAC”).
In addition, we have before us a political programming complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Sue Wilson on behalf of several individuals ( “Wilson”). MAC alleges in its Petition and Wilson alleges in the Complaint that Capstar refused to provide air time
on the Station to supporters of Tom Barrett, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Wisconsin, so that
they could respond to statements aired on the Station in support of Scott Walker, the Republican
candidate for that office. MAC and Wilson argue that this refusal violated both the Zapple Doctrine and
the First Amendment. MAC also asserts that Capstar lacks the character qualifications necessary to be a Commission licensee.
4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and the Complaint and grant the Application. . . .  While MAC purports to make Zapple Doctrine (and First Amendment) claims, we find that its real complaints relate to the Station’s programming choices. It is well established, however, that the Commission cannot exercise any power of censorship over broadcast stations with respect to content based programming decisions.A licensee has broad discretion – based on its right to free speech – to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.  In any event, we note that we have no basis to enforce the Zapple Doctrine. The doctrine was  based on an interpretation of the fairness doctrine, which the Commission abrogated in Syracuse Peace Council in 1987 after concluding that it no longer served the public interest, was not statutorily mandated, and was inconsistent with First Amendment values. In 1989, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that the fairness doctrine no longer served the public interest, without reaching the constitutional question. In August 2011, the Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director characterized the fairness doctrine as “defunct” and deleted rules referencing the fairness doctrine as “obsolete” after finding them to be “without current legal effect.” Given the fact that the Zapple Doctrine was based on an interpretation of the fairness doctrine, which has no current legal effect, we conclude that the Zapple Doctrine similarly has no current legal effect.

Based on the FCC’s response I would say that the answer to the first question that you posed would be a resounding yes. And your attack on me and my fellow broadcasters is unfounded.

Given their response — and the disinformed Rightwing knee-jerkery it has now inspired across the web, from the likes of Brian Sikma at Media Trackers (“Liberals Pressure Obama Admin to Muzzle Wisconsin Talk Radio”) and Marshall Keith at People’s Republic of Madison (“The Queen of Censorship is Back”!) — it’s no surprise that these folks would have no clue about what “bonafide news” actually is.


 

Posted in Libertarian | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Thom Hartmann’s Revisionist History


I have had issues with Thom Hartmann’s revisionist history, he tends to take pieces out of context and create an alternate history. His latest piece is no exception.

 

 

 

 

At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
It’s a debate we haven’t had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn’t be had again in this generation.

But it’s a debate that’s vital to the survival of democracy in America.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, “If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree…”

Of course this begs the question how much wealth becomes a threat to the state? Who gets to decide? And what Due Process is the estate granted before this theft takes place. What Thom ignores are the words in the same paragraph that says otherwise.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

Now why would Thom leave that little tidbit out of his piece and why didn’t he link to the source? Of course it’s because it demolishes the entire concept of the theft in the name of Redistribution called the progressive tax. Thomas Jeffeson was a proponent of the flat tax plain and simple. Now Thomas Jefferson was not heartless, he did make provisions for those too poor to pay, he would have exempted those who made too little. From the same letter.

To this a single observation shall yet be added. Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all.

But it gets even worse for Thom, if it was decided that the tax was an income tax Thomas Jefferson would have abolished all other taxes. The gasoline tax, the coercive sin taxes. Even the Obamacare Penalty aka Tax would be abolished as it amounts to double taxation.

For example, if the system be established on the basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.

So no Thom he did not call for a blanket death tax. His out of context quote “If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State” First you would have to prove in a court of law that the wealth amassed is so great that it’s actually a threat. To do otherwise violates the fifth amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Come on Thom, no more revisionist history.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When Fascism Comes to America


Many have called President Obama a Socialist, they are wrong. He is a Fascist, before anyone invokes Godwin’s law look at the facts. The left loves to claim that Fascism is a right wing philosophy but it is in fact socialism with the illusion of ownership. But that is what ownership in America has become, an Illusion every aspect of the use of your land or business has been regulated to the point that ownership itself is a mere illusion.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

This is not new for the progressive movement it follows the same path of its Progressive predecessors who believed that they could force society to live their utopian dream by banning products such as Alcohol and smoking. We had Prohibition and Tobacco Bans early in the first progressive movements. They failed because they were overly intrusive all at once. On Smoking I can’t do any better then Dave Hitt did at his “Hittman Chronicles“. On Prohibition we see it every day with the tightning of DWI laws to the point that if you even use a mouthwash you are probably in violation. With the extreme takeover of the healthcare industry (1/6th of the economy) we can only expect this to accelerate.

I don’t think when Mitchell said those words but even the ACLU see’s the implication on freedom.

But it’s not only there that this Fascistic regime is attempting to control you life. Obama couldn’t get Cap and Trade passed so he used a regulatory agency the EPA to drive up costs for regular energy in order to force his “green initiative” Of course this will have a devastating effect on working class people making them even more dependent on the government which of course is the goal. But since its inception the EPA and the regulatory climate has been the enemy of freedom and free enterprise as shown by John Stossel’s illegal everything. Yes it’s a long video but it shows that people are thrown in jail not because they harmed someone but because they violated the protected interest of the political elite It also shows that people are stripped of the use of their property based on the whims of the government and they depend on the ability to out spend you and it was money extorted from you.

This was all exposed by Ronald Reagan fifty years ago.

Yes, Yes he did not mention Fascism but he put it bluntly here.

Why would a Marxist like Obama chose Fascism over Communism, well the answer is simple and Thomas Sowell puts it bluntly.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

We may have passed “A Time for Choosing” but the transition is not yet complete. We can take back America and restore the individual rights that we deserve.

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Video | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments