Serving on a board and having coffee in his living room does not make Ayers BO’s buddy. If someone believes that consider being in a church for twenty years and not hearing a word Wright said.
:hahahahah
BO has brought a new meaning to the phrase "Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining"
You’re kidding, right?
The GOPers - by that we mean Rep. Eric Cantor's office - are pouncing on an interview today on "Morning Joe" with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under this subject line: "Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report."
Today the Secretary went on Morning Joe but they were only allowed to ask one question.
"Apparently, when the Democrats promise an open administration, they really only mean open as long as you ask the questions they want asked and no follow-ups on controversial topics that everyone is reporting on," staffer Joe Pounder wrote in an email.
Anyway check out the transcript:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “I want to have a discussion afterwards about that interview.”
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski: “Now, we should be clear, they only wanted one question.”
Scarborough: “Yeah. So this morning, I got a call that she [Janet Napolitano] was going to be on the show and they said we could only ask one question …”
Brzezinski: “That was the agreement.”
Scarborough: “…about this story yesterday. And I initially said, well, we're not going to do it then, because we don't allow people to tell us what they're going to talk about.”
Brzezinski: “Right.”
Scarborough: “I said, we'll ask one question, see how she responds and since this Mexico issue is so huge, we want our viewers to watch. If she was coming on to, you know, name a new post office that would have been something or a book that would have been – but I want – let's talk about that afterwards.”
Brzezinski: “Okay.”
Scarborough: “We'll ask our audience whether we should have had her on the show or not under those conditions.”
Brzezinski: “Okay, because I actually – I have so many follow-ups.”
Scarborough: “I had a lot of follow-ups.”
:lol: I’ll bet these guys will be classified extremists.
The GOPers - by that we mean Rep. Eric Cantor's office - are pouncing on an interview today on "Morning Joe" with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under this subject line: "Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report."
Today the Secretary went on Morning Joe but they were only allowed to ask one question.
"Apparently, when the Democrats promise an open administration, they really only mean open as long as you ask the questions they want asked and no follow-ups on controversial topics that everyone is reporting on," staffer Joe Pounder wrote in an email.
Anyway check out the transcript:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “I want to have a discussion afterwards about that interview.”
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski: “Now, we should be clear, they only wanted one question.”
Scarborough: “Yeah. So this morning, I got a call that she [Janet Napolitano] was going to be on the show and they said we could only ask one question …”
Brzezinski: “That was the agreement.”
Scarborough: “…about this story yesterday. And I initially said, well, we're not going to do it then, because we don't allow people to tell us what they're going to talk about.”
Brzezinski: “Right.”
Scarborough: “I said, we'll ask one question, see how she responds and since this Mexico issue is so huge, we want our viewers to watch. If she was coming on to, you know, name a new post office that would have been something or a book that would have been – but I want – let's talk about that afterwards.”
Brzezinski: “Okay.”
Scarborough: “We'll ask our audience whether we should have had her on the show or not under those conditions.”
Brzezinski: “Okay, because I actually – I have so many follow-ups.”
Scarborough: “I had a lot of follow-ups.”
:lol: I’ll bet these guys will be classified extremists.
He does okay in some markets for sure.
But in most major markets he's on lower powered stations.
It doesn't hurt that his show broadcasts (I think) in evening hours when the only competition on AM band is mostly sports.
I mean, who's listening to the radio in the evening except for truck drivers, traveling salesmen and cops?
(great Americans all...heh)
But in most major markets he's on lower powered stations.
It doesn't hurt that his show broadcasts (I think) in evening hours when the only competition on AM band is mostly sports.
I mean, who's listening to the radio in the evening except for truck drivers, traveling salesmen and cops?
(great Americans all...heh)
Hey Republicans- whats the world coming too? Im watching Hannities America now instead of MSNBC and the Socialists. Screw Olberman and his dyke protige Rache spewing out their Commie pinko shit for the masses.
Now that Im on your side about almost everything Obama is doing in his own inimitable way to destroy this country - all I can say is- dont start the revolution without knowing what youre getting into.
First- will you accept the truth?
The Fema camps await the right wing Timmy McVeigh pissed off righty types like Zit and they can find and arrest a terrorist in anyone who opposes gun confiscation and all the other rights you hold dear to your Hunter/Gatherer Neanderthal hearts- because you need to be stopped. Mike Savage was only half right. If Liberalism was once a mental disorder for you Bushies then Conservatism now is a terrorist mentality for the Obama-ites. The spate of shootings will be used as propaganda to get us ready to really really fear people who insist they need their guns- gang members in L.A. alongside guys who like to shoot Bambi for sport. Beware- and you are the new pushovers. Liberals look down on you now. You on the Right for the next 4 years are going to be relentless demonized by the media. You will be called every name in the book and pushed into a corner. You will be marginalized until you do what they want. Revolt.
They are using people like Beck to stir up and agitate the gun owning masses. They even pay homage to us kooks - that we were right about them trying to take our sovereignty and combine us with Mexico and Canada. That we were right about them acceding to the wishes of China who wishes that a new currency (the SDR) can be created until we become the North American Union. Beck is paid well by Fox to rabble rouse us with "proof" that Russian and Chinese soldiers are in this country now. Ready to take posession of all that foreclosed property their Ninja loans successfully garnered. Northcom awaits orders to bring out the new riot control toys (lethal and non-lethal) they tested in Iraq and perfected just for us.
Hannity waves the flag every night like he's the new Davy Crockett at the Alamo- he is telling us its time to take a stand and fight for what this country used to stand for.
Now they suddenly repect and want to defend the Constitution? Where were they the last 8 years but up Bush's can do no wrong azz.
Meanwhile Obama does one of the best Freudian slips Ive heard lately- He calls for an end to Privacy (meant to say Piracy) around the globe. Tell us something we dont already know Mr President- whose job it will be to usher in the NWO as painfully as possible until we cant stand it anymore.
Somehow I knew it would get to this point for you Rightys- all f*cked up with nowhere to go but down to the local Militia to talk it over with the good ol boys who have that whole Confederate seccesionist thing going again and loving the smell of napalm in the morning. While Liberals are doing their little pansy tea parties you guys are thinkin of some rough stuff arent you?
A fair warning to all gun owners. Theyve got their eyes on you. They know where you live. Theyre holding seminars as we speak on how to spot you- the righty gun toting domestic terrorist. Dont even think about it warns the Neopolitian woman.
We know what youre thinking she says. You think resistance is not futile? We shall show you it is.
"Open the FEMA Camps !!!!!"
Remember Orwells warning. Its no longer actions. Its thoughts that are a crime against the NWO.
Thats where they get the Red List and Blue list. The Red list is for the Action Right and Blue list is for the Intellectual Left.
Red list will be killed immediately on arrival at one of the 300+ newly outfitted with gas chambers FEMA camps you arrive at. Good luck.
hno:
Now that Im on your side about almost everything Obama is doing in his own inimitable way to destroy this country - all I can say is- dont start the revolution without knowing what youre getting into.
First- will you accept the truth?
The Fema camps await the right wing Timmy McVeigh pissed off righty types like Zit and they can find and arrest a terrorist in anyone who opposes gun confiscation and all the other rights you hold dear to your Hunter/Gatherer Neanderthal hearts- because you need to be stopped. Mike Savage was only half right. If Liberalism was once a mental disorder for you Bushies then Conservatism now is a terrorist mentality for the Obama-ites. The spate of shootings will be used as propaganda to get us ready to really really fear people who insist they need their guns- gang members in L.A. alongside guys who like to shoot Bambi for sport. Beware- and you are the new pushovers. Liberals look down on you now. You on the Right for the next 4 years are going to be relentless demonized by the media. You will be called every name in the book and pushed into a corner. You will be marginalized until you do what they want. Revolt.
They are using people like Beck to stir up and agitate the gun owning masses. They even pay homage to us kooks - that we were right about them trying to take our sovereignty and combine us with Mexico and Canada. That we were right about them acceding to the wishes of China who wishes that a new currency (the SDR) can be created until we become the North American Union. Beck is paid well by Fox to rabble rouse us with "proof" that Russian and Chinese soldiers are in this country now. Ready to take posession of all that foreclosed property their Ninja loans successfully garnered. Northcom awaits orders to bring out the new riot control toys (lethal and non-lethal) they tested in Iraq and perfected just for us.
Hannity waves the flag every night like he's the new Davy Crockett at the Alamo- he is telling us its time to take a stand and fight for what this country used to stand for.
Now they suddenly repect and want to defend the Constitution? Where were they the last 8 years but up Bush's can do no wrong azz.
Meanwhile Obama does one of the best Freudian slips Ive heard lately- He calls for an end to Privacy (meant to say Piracy) around the globe. Tell us something we dont already know Mr President- whose job it will be to usher in the NWO as painfully as possible until we cant stand it anymore.
Somehow I knew it would get to this point for you Rightys- all f*cked up with nowhere to go but down to the local Militia to talk it over with the good ol boys who have that whole Confederate seccesionist thing going again and loving the smell of napalm in the morning. While Liberals are doing their little pansy tea parties you guys are thinkin of some rough stuff arent you?
A fair warning to all gun owners. Theyve got their eyes on you. They know where you live. Theyre holding seminars as we speak on how to spot you- the righty gun toting domestic terrorist. Dont even think about it warns the Neopolitian woman.
We know what youre thinking she says. You think resistance is not futile? We shall show you it is.
"Open the FEMA Camps !!!!!"
Remember Orwells warning. Its no longer actions. Its thoughts that are a crime against the NWO.
Thats where they get the Red List and Blue list. The Red list is for the Action Right and Blue list is for the Intellectual Left.
Red list will be killed immediately on arrival at one of the 300+ newly outfitted with gas chambers FEMA camps you arrive at. Good luck.
hno:TC, I wouldn't go thinking the gov will have a cakewalk against the poeple should it come to that for the fallowing reasons;
1. The world's best miliary took years to subdue 3rd world insurgents in Iraq. How are they gonna control 300 million plus here?
2. "A fair warning to all gun owners" - LOL! Almost everyone has a gun in America...all 450 million of em. Many will give up there guns but only after they give up their lead first.
3. 20 million plus well trained ex-military..many of whom far better trained then today's troops.
4. Many of the cops, military and reserves will not go along with this. They will quit, run away, or turn and join the revolt.
1. The world's best miliary took years to subdue 3rd world insurgents in Iraq. How are they gonna control 300 million plus here?
2. "A fair warning to all gun owners" - LOL! Almost everyone has a gun in America...all 450 million of em. Many will give up there guns but only after they give up their lead first.
3. 20 million plus well trained ex-military..many of whom far better trained then today's troops.
4. Many of the cops, military and reserves will not go along with this. They will quit, run away, or turn and join the revolt.
I own 7 guns had over 20 but sold some. I was a member of NRA in the late 50's and early 60's. Quit when instead of covering national championship shoots they started raising money to lobby Congress for assault type weapons.
Dont expect help from the tens of thousands of gun owners like me in your quest for private ownership of cruise missiles.
Dont expect help from the tens of thousands of gun owners like me in your quest for private ownership of cruise missiles.
The great Patriot Michael Savage filed a lawsuit against
Janet Napolitano today.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/filesSavage/Complaint_Against_Department_of_Homeland_Security.pdf
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs.
Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”
Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:
Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Janet Napolitano today.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/filesSavage/Complaint_Against_Department_of_Homeland_Security.pdf
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs.
Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”
Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:
- Opposes restrictions on firearms
- Opposes lax immigration
- Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
- Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
- Opposes same-sex marriage
- Has paranoia of foreign regimes
- Fear of Communist regimes
- Opposes one world government
- Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
- Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
- . . . and the list goes on
Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
It’s time to back peddle…..
By Jared Allen Posted: 04/19/09 11:03 AM [ET]
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Sunday portrayed veterans as victims – not perpetrators – of right-wing extremism as she sought to combat the political controversy arising out of an April 14 Homeland Security memo warning that returning soldiers could be ripe for domestic terrorism participation.
“The report is not saying that veterans are extremists. Far from it,” Napolitano said on CNN’s State of the Union. “What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that.”
From extremists to victims in less than a week….
:cripwalk:
By Jared Allen Posted: 04/19/09 11:03 AM [ET]
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Sunday portrayed veterans as victims – not perpetrators – of right-wing extremism as she sought to combat the political controversy arising out of an April 14 Homeland Security memo warning that returning soldiers could be ripe for domestic terrorism participation.
“The report is not saying that veterans are extremists. Far from it,” Napolitano said on CNN’s State of the Union. “What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that.”
From extremists to victims in less than a week….
:cripwalk:
Fuck them, I'm not too concerned. At the end of the day, even the Loonies know you need producers, not everyone can be a fucking recipient.
Who will support the inner city difference makers if they chase right wingers away?
and that chick is one dumb bitch too. Further proof that the best and the brightest simply do not work in government. Astonishing that so many think bozos in DC can improve their lives.
Who will support the inner city difference makers if they chase right wingers away?
and that chick is one dumb bitch too. Further proof that the best and the brightest simply do not work in government. Astonishing that so many think bozos in DC can improve their lives.
Looks like the american taliban pulled off another attack today. hno:
Holocaust Museum Shooting, Other Recent Attacks Prove Domestic Extremism a Threat
A month before a suspected white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington and opened fire, the Department of Homeland Security warned that domestic right-wing extremism was the most pressing domestic terrorist threat that the country faced.
Conservatives were outraged that the DHS analysts had singled out antiabortion and antitax radicals for scrutiny. But the report was part of a series that DHS compiles on domestic dangers from all sides of the political spectrum, an area that's taken a back seat to overseas threats.....
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...ttacks-prove-domestic-extremism-a-threat.html
hno:Holocaust Museum Shooting, Other Recent Attacks Prove Domestic Extremism a Threat
A month before a suspected white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington and opened fire, the Department of Homeland Security warned that domestic right-wing extremism was the most pressing domestic terrorist threat that the country faced.
Conservatives were outraged that the DHS analysts had singled out antiabortion and antitax radicals for scrutiny. But the report was part of a series that DHS compiles on domestic dangers from all sides of the political spectrum, an area that's taken a back seat to overseas threats.....
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...ttacks-prove-domestic-extremism-a-threat.html
On Wednesday, according to news reports, James W. Von Brunn, a longtime belligerent racist and anti-Semite, walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and opened fire, murdering a security guard before he himself was shot and neutralized. Good people everywhere recognize the vicious criminality of his attack, and the particular insidiousness of his motivation to lash out where he did.
In reflecting on this tragedy, it is an appropriate time to contemplate the sanctity of innocent life, the horror that is unleashed by bigotry and intolerance, and the fragility of peaceful human relations. We should all be thankful that such hate-motivated violence is rarer in modern America than it has been in other places and times.
Unfortunately, many commentators have found a political, even partisan, lesson to be learned. They have said this vindicates the Department of Homeland Security document circulated earlier this year that warned against "right-wing extremists." Specifically, they have said that those who criticized the report were wrong all along.
But what were the criticisms? I recall no one arguing that anti-Semitic murderers were not criminals whose acts were horrific and uncivilized. There was no critic of the report, so far as I know, who complained that such antisocial elements as Ku Klux Klan members, Timothy McVeigh wannabes, and bigoted criminals, did not deserve the condemnation that all of civil society heaps upon them.
The problem with the report was that it painted all so-called "right-wing extremists" with an absurdly and obscenely broad brush. It lumped together the above violent agitators with peaceful political activists and recently returning veterans. It warned about people who are anti-government, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration and anti-abortion.
The facts that von Brunn himself was a veteran -- from World War II, not exactly fitting the profile -- and that he had a very incorrect conspiratorial, anti-Semitic understanding of the Federal Reserve, even trying to kidnap Fed officials back in the 1980s, have been noted, but it still does not justify this broad brush. (Liberty lovers oppose the Fed not out of racism or hatred of Jews, as von Brunn apparently does. In fact, many of us have come to oppose it having been thankfully influenced by the most brilliant analyses ever written on central banking by Jewish economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.)
Consider what "right-wing extremism" actually means.
Some would call Barry Goldwater a rightwing extremist, although he was incredibly socially liberal on issues ranging from homosexuality to drugs and even abortion. Was Ronald Reagan a rightwing extremist? He busted the budget, legalized abortion in California, favored gun control and enacted immigration amnesty. Whatever you think of these actions, they demonstrate the limits of such labels.
Some would say George W. Bush was a rightwing extremist, although it would be disingenuous to say he represented "anti-government" sentiment in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, it was the agency he created, the DHS, that began work on this report, while he was still in power.
The Nazis, whose current admirers have reportedly associated proudly with Von Brunn, are often considered the paragon of rightwing extremism, but Hitler and his followers were definitely not anti-central bank or anti-gun control and certainly not anti-government. Indeed, it does not take much to realize that the Holocaust had nothing to do with being anti-government.
And so apparently "rightwingers" can include peaceniks and warmongers, libertarians and fascists, radical individualists and racist totalitarians and everything in between.
A similar broad brush was used under Bush, but against different groups of people -- Muslim terrorists, normal followers of Islam, leftist activists and antiwar patriots were often thrown together as enemies of America. Peaceful Americans who opposed the war were lumped in with fanatics who slit the throats of innocents. "You're either with us, or against us in the fight against terror," the president said.
This failure to differentiate among different people is actually very similar to the root problem with racism. Racists see the world in terms of groups, defined most often by skin color, rather than acknowledging the unique character inherent in every individual. Instead of appreciating the dignity and human singularity of every man, woman and child, racists see the world in terms of black and white, where all people fall into one of several groups of dubious significance. The very worst of them not only fail to understand these differences; they disregard the human rights of individuals and countenance or even perpetrate criminal acts against the lives, liberty and property of people merely on the basis of their perceived racial group.
This bellicose racism is incompatible with an open, tolerant society, and to say so is uncontroversial. Those of us who believe in liberty and oppose big government tend to believe that a free society of open exchange, free trade and individual liberty will foster interracial tolerance and social peace, whereas government tends to divide and amplify social and racial tensions.
To take it further, now that the topic has been opened up for political discussion, let us consider the political atmosphere most conducive to the worst racial atrocities. As horrific and inexcusable as the occasional neo-Nazi or hate-motivated violence is in our own society, what was it that allowed the actual Nazis, the ones who controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945, to translate bigotry into mass murder on an unspeakable and technologically systematic scale? There are people in every society with views as immoral and disgusting as Adolf Hitler's. But what made Nazi Germany, a regime that terrorized Europe and murdered millions of Jews, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, handicapped persons and Gypsies, among others, possible?
The answer is centralized political power. The answer is unlimited government.
The Nazi regime was a hate crime multiplied millions of times over. It was only possible because Hitler was not just a thug with a gang of criminals -- he was a thug in political control of a whole country.
And here we see the profound irony behind associating Nazi nutcases with good old American anti-government sentiment, as some have been doing. Nazism, or National Socialism, was an ideology concerned not just with racist nationalism but also with building the total state.
The Nazi regime was the antithesis of the old liberal ideal of a free society. Aside from aggressive war, the demonization of "the Other," the elevation of The Leader above all, the suspension of civil liberties and a free press, and aggressive war, it embodied an economic program of fascism -- rightwing socialism. As Lew Rockwell has pointed out in ""The Violence of Central Planning," once in power, Hitler
"suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. . . .
"So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia."
Interestingly, much of Hitler's economic program would have bipartisan support today. This is of course not to say that Americans who agree with some of these policies are comparable to Hitler. But it is worth noting that the entire Nazi program was contrary to liberty and restrained government, even on relatively mundane questions like unemployment insurance, and so anyone who is actually "anti-government," or opposed to central banking, gun control, central economic planning, or the growing federal bureaucracy is to that extent emphatically opposite of the Nazis in ideology.
We at the Campaign for Liberty, and all who join us in a consistent opposition to unlimited government, not only oppose the poisonous racism that feeds occasional and more or less isolated atrocities like the one on Wednesday, but uphold an ideology and political agenda that would prevent racial hatred from manifesting itself in racially motivated atrocities on the grand scale that only an unleashed government is capable of producing.
In our own country, things are not as dire as they were in Nazi Germany, thanks in part, we would hope, to having a more tolerant culture. But it is mostly because of our classical liberal tradition that we have had a better racial history than some nations. To the extent we have strayed from the ideals of liberty, we have seen shameful acts committed in our name, and acts throughout history that have blemished the legacy of our nation.
Slavery would have been impossible to maintain without government support. The mass slaughter of American Indians was facilitated by the federal government. Innocent foreigners have been killed in great numbers by the U.S. in wars of choice. Those seen to be different from the norm -- from the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II to the African-Americans disproportionately locked up in the war on drugs to the Branch Davidians killed by the FBI at Waco, Texas in 1993 -- have always been the most vulnerable.
This reflects the need for both a culture that respects innocent life, individual rights and tolerance as well as strict limits on government power. The cultural element and the political are related, and reflect on each other. A free society at peace with itself is less likely to be bullied into huge governmental power grabs, whether in the name of economic crisis or national security. Just as these were the excuses Hitler exploited to do the unspeakable, they are the excuses that have allowed American politicians to compromise our liberties, expand their own power and send young Americans to kill and die in aggressive war.
Again, this is not to say that Obama or the liberals who favor expansive government are in the same league as Hitler. But given that the DHS report tarred so many people with the same brush and that it is being brought up again, we should note that the ideology of totalitarianism and mass murder is anything but an anti-government, anti-establishment ideology, despite what many are today saying and implying. Quite the reverse.
As we look at the national security state built up by Bush in the name of the war on terror -- preemptive war, the suspension of civil liberties, indefinite detention, torture and warrantless surveillance -- and as we consider the corporatism, the nationalization and federal control of industry, the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush and continuing and accelerating under Obama, we have to ask ourselves: What is the way to guarantee that America never repeats the horrors which the Holocaust Museum was intended to make us never forget? Bush was not Hitler and neither is Obama. But just as seemingly benevolent Weimar policies and precedents were seized upon and expanded by Hitler so as to conduct the most ghastly of evils, today's indefinite detention centers, centralized economic powers and unlimited presidential military powers could one day be seized by a powermad "leader" with not just the bad judgment and hubris of Bush and Obama, but with the worst of intentions.
If any political lesson is to be taken from the shooting on Wednesday, it is not that those concerned with protecting individual liberty and limiting government are the problem in our society. It is not that the DHS report is in fact beyond harsh criticism. There will always be sick minds in the world. Occasionally, a crazed killer will act out of hatred and commit a violent crime, and the seriousness should not be minimized. But the way to actually prevent such attitudes from gaining ground is to hold up the opposing ethic of individual rights, dignity and respect. The only way to make sure such madness never translates into nationwide or global horror is to keep political power constrained.
In reflecting on this tragedy, it is an appropriate time to contemplate the sanctity of innocent life, the horror that is unleashed by bigotry and intolerance, and the fragility of peaceful human relations. We should all be thankful that such hate-motivated violence is rarer in modern America than it has been in other places and times.
Unfortunately, many commentators have found a political, even partisan, lesson to be learned. They have said this vindicates the Department of Homeland Security document circulated earlier this year that warned against "right-wing extremists." Specifically, they have said that those who criticized the report were wrong all along.
But what were the criticisms? I recall no one arguing that anti-Semitic murderers were not criminals whose acts were horrific and uncivilized. There was no critic of the report, so far as I know, who complained that such antisocial elements as Ku Klux Klan members, Timothy McVeigh wannabes, and bigoted criminals, did not deserve the condemnation that all of civil society heaps upon them.
The problem with the report was that it painted all so-called "right-wing extremists" with an absurdly and obscenely broad brush. It lumped together the above violent agitators with peaceful political activists and recently returning veterans. It warned about people who are anti-government, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration and anti-abortion.
The facts that von Brunn himself was a veteran -- from World War II, not exactly fitting the profile -- and that he had a very incorrect conspiratorial, anti-Semitic understanding of the Federal Reserve, even trying to kidnap Fed officials back in the 1980s, have been noted, but it still does not justify this broad brush. (Liberty lovers oppose the Fed not out of racism or hatred of Jews, as von Brunn apparently does. In fact, many of us have come to oppose it having been thankfully influenced by the most brilliant analyses ever written on central banking by Jewish economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.)
Consider what "right-wing extremism" actually means.
Some would call Barry Goldwater a rightwing extremist, although he was incredibly socially liberal on issues ranging from homosexuality to drugs and even abortion. Was Ronald Reagan a rightwing extremist? He busted the budget, legalized abortion in California, favored gun control and enacted immigration amnesty. Whatever you think of these actions, they demonstrate the limits of such labels.
Some would say George W. Bush was a rightwing extremist, although it would be disingenuous to say he represented "anti-government" sentiment in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, it was the agency he created, the DHS, that began work on this report, while he was still in power.
The Nazis, whose current admirers have reportedly associated proudly with Von Brunn, are often considered the paragon of rightwing extremism, but Hitler and his followers were definitely not anti-central bank or anti-gun control and certainly not anti-government. Indeed, it does not take much to realize that the Holocaust had nothing to do with being anti-government.
And so apparently "rightwingers" can include peaceniks and warmongers, libertarians and fascists, radical individualists and racist totalitarians and everything in between.
A similar broad brush was used under Bush, but against different groups of people -- Muslim terrorists, normal followers of Islam, leftist activists and antiwar patriots were often thrown together as enemies of America. Peaceful Americans who opposed the war were lumped in with fanatics who slit the throats of innocents. "You're either with us, or against us in the fight against terror," the president said.
This failure to differentiate among different people is actually very similar to the root problem with racism. Racists see the world in terms of groups, defined most often by skin color, rather than acknowledging the unique character inherent in every individual. Instead of appreciating the dignity and human singularity of every man, woman and child, racists see the world in terms of black and white, where all people fall into one of several groups of dubious significance. The very worst of them not only fail to understand these differences; they disregard the human rights of individuals and countenance or even perpetrate criminal acts against the lives, liberty and property of people merely on the basis of their perceived racial group.
This bellicose racism is incompatible with an open, tolerant society, and to say so is uncontroversial. Those of us who believe in liberty and oppose big government tend to believe that a free society of open exchange, free trade and individual liberty will foster interracial tolerance and social peace, whereas government tends to divide and amplify social and racial tensions.
To take it further, now that the topic has been opened up for political discussion, let us consider the political atmosphere most conducive to the worst racial atrocities. As horrific and inexcusable as the occasional neo-Nazi or hate-motivated violence is in our own society, what was it that allowed the actual Nazis, the ones who controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945, to translate bigotry into mass murder on an unspeakable and technologically systematic scale? There are people in every society with views as immoral and disgusting as Adolf Hitler's. But what made Nazi Germany, a regime that terrorized Europe and murdered millions of Jews, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, handicapped persons and Gypsies, among others, possible?
The answer is centralized political power. The answer is unlimited government.
The Nazi regime was a hate crime multiplied millions of times over. It was only possible because Hitler was not just a thug with a gang of criminals -- he was a thug in political control of a whole country.
And here we see the profound irony behind associating Nazi nutcases with good old American anti-government sentiment, as some have been doing. Nazism, or National Socialism, was an ideology concerned not just with racist nationalism but also with building the total state.
The Nazi regime was the antithesis of the old liberal ideal of a free society. Aside from aggressive war, the demonization of "the Other," the elevation of The Leader above all, the suspension of civil liberties and a free press, and aggressive war, it embodied an economic program of fascism -- rightwing socialism. As Lew Rockwell has pointed out in ""The Violence of Central Planning," once in power, Hitler
"suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. . . .
"So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia."
Interestingly, much of Hitler's economic program would have bipartisan support today. This is of course not to say that Americans who agree with some of these policies are comparable to Hitler. But it is worth noting that the entire Nazi program was contrary to liberty and restrained government, even on relatively mundane questions like unemployment insurance, and so anyone who is actually "anti-government," or opposed to central banking, gun control, central economic planning, or the growing federal bureaucracy is to that extent emphatically opposite of the Nazis in ideology.
We at the Campaign for Liberty, and all who join us in a consistent opposition to unlimited government, not only oppose the poisonous racism that feeds occasional and more or less isolated atrocities like the one on Wednesday, but uphold an ideology and political agenda that would prevent racial hatred from manifesting itself in racially motivated atrocities on the grand scale that only an unleashed government is capable of producing.
In our own country, things are not as dire as they were in Nazi Germany, thanks in part, we would hope, to having a more tolerant culture. But it is mostly because of our classical liberal tradition that we have had a better racial history than some nations. To the extent we have strayed from the ideals of liberty, we have seen shameful acts committed in our name, and acts throughout history that have blemished the legacy of our nation.
Slavery would have been impossible to maintain without government support. The mass slaughter of American Indians was facilitated by the federal government. Innocent foreigners have been killed in great numbers by the U.S. in wars of choice. Those seen to be different from the norm -- from the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II to the African-Americans disproportionately locked up in the war on drugs to the Branch Davidians killed by the FBI at Waco, Texas in 1993 -- have always been the most vulnerable.
This reflects the need for both a culture that respects innocent life, individual rights and tolerance as well as strict limits on government power. The cultural element and the political are related, and reflect on each other. A free society at peace with itself is less likely to be bullied into huge governmental power grabs, whether in the name of economic crisis or national security. Just as these were the excuses Hitler exploited to do the unspeakable, they are the excuses that have allowed American politicians to compromise our liberties, expand their own power and send young Americans to kill and die in aggressive war.
Again, this is not to say that Obama or the liberals who favor expansive government are in the same league as Hitler. But given that the DHS report tarred so many people with the same brush and that it is being brought up again, we should note that the ideology of totalitarianism and mass murder is anything but an anti-government, anti-establishment ideology, despite what many are today saying and implying. Quite the reverse.
As we look at the national security state built up by Bush in the name of the war on terror -- preemptive war, the suspension of civil liberties, indefinite detention, torture and warrantless surveillance -- and as we consider the corporatism, the nationalization and federal control of industry, the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush and continuing and accelerating under Obama, we have to ask ourselves: What is the way to guarantee that America never repeats the horrors which the Holocaust Museum was intended to make us never forget? Bush was not Hitler and neither is Obama. But just as seemingly benevolent Weimar policies and precedents were seized upon and expanded by Hitler so as to conduct the most ghastly of evils, today's indefinite detention centers, centralized economic powers and unlimited presidential military powers could one day be seized by a powermad "leader" with not just the bad judgment and hubris of Bush and Obama, but with the worst of intentions.
If any political lesson is to be taken from the shooting on Wednesday, it is not that those concerned with protecting individual liberty and limiting government are the problem in our society. It is not that the DHS report is in fact beyond harsh criticism. There will always be sick minds in the world. Occasionally, a crazed killer will act out of hatred and commit a violent crime, and the seriousness should not be minimized. But the way to actually prevent such attitudes from gaining ground is to hold up the opposing ethic of individual rights, dignity and respect. The only way to make sure such madness never translates into nationwide or global horror is to keep political power constrained.
Heres the rest of the stations-Take your pick
<!-- end header -->
The Savage Nation (Conservative)
- Visit the show website
- Call 1-800-449-8255
- Michael Savage Legal Fund
Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
- Next available on KYCA 1490
- in 2 hours 23 minutes
- Listen locally on SuperTalk 1560 <SMALL id=pd_program_next_local>Today at 6pm (Eastern)</SMALL>
- Find another station or time for this show on one of 250 other stations & times
- Host: Michael Savage
- An independent-minded individualist, Michael fits no stereotype. He attacks big government and liberal media bias, but champions the environment and animal rights.
- Add to Presets<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var addthis_pub="radiotime";</SCRIPT>
-
Share with others<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></SCRIPT><!-- AddThis Button END -->
- Genres: Conservative, Talkers 100
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Language: English
- Networks: Talk Radio Network
