Liberal Tyranny

The original intent of the liberal ideology of 'political correctness' was to curtail speech and actions which might offend someone. Through it, the left has been able to declare that particular ideas, expressions of speech, and behavior, which are legal, should be forbidden. While most, so called, 'politically incorrect' speech and behavior are unwritten prohibitions, some have been written into law in many jurisdictions; i.e., hate speech statutes. Today, 'political correctness' has grown far beyond its original design. PC is the rule of law on the vast majority of university and college campuses in the U.S. where it is being used to marginalize conservative ideology and activities.

In a free society the people have a right to speak and to write freely. They also have the right to support the advocates of ideas and policies which best represent their interests with their time and their money. Tyranny begins with the suspension of these basic human rights.

In 1949, the FCC adopted a general policy to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues was fair and balanced. This policy was interpreted by many to require station owners and operators give persons with opposing viewpoints equal time to air those viewpoints, usually free of charge. Because broadcast stations were not disposed to giving away air time and were also not to fond of having the FCC breathing down their necks, the 'fairness doctrine', as it came to be known, had the effect of limiting free speech.

Since the FCC was an agency of a Democratic party controlled government, broadcasters soon learned that avoiding government scrutiny was simply a matter of avoiding the airing of conservative Republican opinions. Conservatives found themselves in a crippling situation. Broadcasters were unwilling to give them a forum and the vast majority of publishers were liberal. Free speech effectively suspended! That is, until the 'fairness doctrine' was abandoned during the deregulation of the Reagan administration.

When Rush Limbaugh exploded onto the airwaves in the late eighties, broadcasters all over the country realized that there was a huge market for conservative talkers. Today, there are enough conservative talkers in so many markets, that one can literally listen to conservative talk all day long, even while traveling. Additionally, the popularity of conservative talk has opened up many other opportunities for conservatives to get their message out.

Liberals are in a panic. They desperately need to stop all this unwanted free exchange of ideas. 'Political correctness' works well to suppress free speech in the microcosm of a university campus, but it can hardly be applied to the same extent to the whole of a free society. Liberal Democrats in Congress are currently trying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine', as well as using 'campaign finance' law to again suppress free speech.

Fortunately, I believe that that horse has been too long out of the barn. Conservative authors are turning out a great number of best selling books each year. Conservative bloggers are confounding the efforts of the left wing media to misrepresent the facts. Newspapers lose subscribers when they publish blatant left wing opinions. Fox News Channel is now the #1 cable news network, and it already has an arguably fair and balanced format. And, worst of all, at least as far as the left is concerned, conservative students have begun to organize to fight the PC system on our nations campuses.

The monopoly that the left has held over public discourse is diminishing, and they are understandably frustrated. They know, or ought to know from their experience trying to compete with conservatives on talk radio, that in a 'real' fair and balanced atmosphere, their ideas will not prevail. They have no choice but to return to their radical revolutionary roots. In fact, they have already begun. Conservative speakers have been attacked during their lectures by left wing radicals at universities across the U.S. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Pat Buchanan are a few of those who have been attacked with a pie in the face or doused with salad dressing.

It is the beginning of what will eventually become a campaign of domestic terror, the purpose of which is to intimidate Americans into allowing a return to the tyranny of the past. However, the movement at present is to small. The radicals need an issue, a catalyst which they can use to recruit thousands of young idealist across America. They may have just what they are looking for very soon. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President of the United States, the radicals will have the catalyst they are looking for. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they are counting on it.

Peace With Honor?

The fact that the Democratic Party is fully vested an American defeat in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone who is a student of American history. The Democrats have a long and dishonorable history of capitulation to the enemies of America and its' allies, and a serious distaste for victory in military conflicts.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold millions of people in eastern Europe into communist bondage at the Yalta Conference. On Roosevelts' watch, the Soviets took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Albania. Between 12 and 20 million Europeans were murdered and at least 10 million were sent to slave labor camps.

Under President Truman the Soviets took the rest of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Romania and North Korea. Truman abandoned our ally, Chiang Kai-Shek and supported Mao Zedong. Truman believed that Mao Zedong was an "agrarian reformer". This "agrarian reformer" murdered between 34 and 65 million Chinese.

President Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur over differences on how to conduct the war in South Korea. General MacArthur wanted to win it. Truman's precedent setting policy of non-victory was continued by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. At a point when America could easily have had a victory in the Vietnam conflict, President Kennedy refused to order an invasion of the north. President Johnson escalated the ground war in Vietnam and refused to bomb the North Vietnamese, preferring instead, to have thousands of American soldiers come home in body bags.

When Republican President Richard Nixon brought the communist to their knees with continuous bombings in the north, a truce was finally negotiated in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords. However, the Democrats were determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democratic congress took full advantage of the watergate scandal and refused to allow Nixon the wherewithal to enforce the truce. Not surprisingly, the North Vietnamese invaded the South. The Democratic congress continued their policy of abandoning South Vietnam into the Ford administration, and in late 1975, South Vietnam fell to the communists. As a result, 2.5 million innocent people in Indo-China were murdered. The Democrats have long referred to this abandonment of our ally as "peace with honor".

President Carter abandoned our pro-American ally, the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran. The Ayatollah repaid Carter by allowing a mob of Islamic students to seize 52 Americans and hold them hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President. It would seem that the tender ministrations of Democrats only work when a Republican is elected who has threatened to bomb them.

During the Clinton administration there where numerous terror attacks on Americans and U.S. Forces both at home and abroad. Clinton did nothing in response. In addition, Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at the United Nations and Clinton gave only lip service to taking action until the day before he was to be impeached by the Congress. Then he ordered air strikes in Iraq. Saddam was undeterred. President Clinton continued the Democratic Party's tradition of capitulation when he coaxed Israel into offering the PLO everything they wanted in the way of concessions, save one; the destruction of Israel. The talks failed.

Since the Iraq war began, the Democrats have been trying to sabotage the effort. Even though they saw the same intelligence reports that the President saw, and, on the basis of that intel, voted in favor of the operation, they insist that the President deceived to them. They have mis-categorized the war in every conceivably heinous way imaginable. They have falsely accused our troops of atrocities. They have insisted we are bogged down, in a quagmire, and that we cannot win. They draw repeated comparisons to the war in Vietnam. An apt comparison indeed. Just as in Vietnam, the Democrats are determined to achieve an American defeat in Iraq and abandon yet another ally. If they are successful, they will no doubt call it 'peace with honor'. There is nothing, whatsoever, honorable about it!

The Myth of Bipartisanship

I recently saw a poll online which showed that nearly ninety percent of Americans want the two major parties to work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems in America. I was really surprised by that number. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how widely divided the two major parties are ideologically. Probably the only issue in the past year that Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that Michael Vick is a really bad person for running a dog fighting ring and being party to the death of a few dogs.

Americans need to come to an understanding of the fact that for the last fifty years there has been an ideological civil war going on in this country. The battle ground of this war has been the hearts and minds of the American people. There is a 'right' and a 'left', a 'conservative' and a 'liberal', a 'capitalist' and a 'socialist' viewpoint for every single issue, and, they are as far apart as they can be. Bipartisanship can only maintain the status quo. It isn't as if the two parties are trying to get to the same place and are just in a disagreement on how to get there. They are trying to go in opposite directions. Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. Republicans believe in a uninhibited free market economy and Democrats want more government control bordering on socialism. Republicans believe that Americans know better how to spend their own money and Democrats think that the government would do a better job. Republicans believe in supporting America's interests abroad and Democrats seem to be more interested in supporting the interests of our enemies.
Where is the common ground?

In this election season there has been a lot of clamor about change. Americans want change and are sick and tired of the status quo. If Americans want change they need to join the fray. They must stop sitting on the fence. They are going to have to examine the ideologies of both parties and pick a side. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke. It is time to choose!