Saturday, August 16, 2008


Democrats and Totalitarianism

Wikipedia defines totalitarianism as:
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.
American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition:
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed:

More from Wikipedia:
Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.
State regulation and governmental control over all aspects of live makes up one of the core principles of totalitarianism. Even a perfunctory look at Democratic policies and actions shows that Democrats hold totalitarian beliefs and use totalitarian tactics.

The Democratic approach to "opposing political and cultural expression" is suppression. Although liberal Democrats have an already liberally biased media, "20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center...," Democrats plan for further suppression of opposing view points. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently expressed her support for reinstating the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Lurking in the gloom of the Democrat agenda is a resuscitation of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would allow the federal government, at the behest of liberal special interests, to selectively harass and intimidate radio stations whose broadcasting format it finds objectionable. Thus, the proliferation of conservative talk-radio and virtually all of the alternative media would be threatened with eventual extinction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unquestionably moving in such a direction once again. In only the past few weeks, she has castigated what she terms "right wing hate-radio," while refusing to allow even for Congressional floor debate on a measure that would ensure political discourse on the radio, like all other forms of public dialogue, is protected from the specter of government regulation.
Although the "Fairness" Doctrine enacts an obvious breach of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, labeling radio talk show hosts who oppose Democratic viewpoints as "right wing hate-radio," it makes totalitarian tactics OK.

How do Republicans feel about the "Fairness" Doctrine? U.S. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana strongly opposes it and has introduced a bill to prohibit enacting the "Fairness" Doctrine.
U.S. Congressman Mike Pence gave the following speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today calling on Democrats to sign a discharge petition that would bring H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to the floor of the U.S. House. The Broadcaster Freedom Act would ensure that no future president could bring back the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ without an act of Congress.
Of course, Pelosi is preventing Pence's bill from coming to a vote.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
Liberal operative, former Washington Director and lobbyist for , Tom Matzzie, has a different plan for suppressing opposing viewpoints where he will "will unleash what The New York Times describes as "a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." Apparently, it doesn't bother Matzzie that his actions may be in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act.
"A key federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)), popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, may be applicable if ‘two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.’"
Next, look at "political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life" or political authority exercising "absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life..." Examples of this from liberal Democrats abound. From Al Gore forcing us to use "Gore approved" commodes, current global warming "solutions", forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense contraceptives and perform abortions, and other procedures against their religious beliefs.

The liberal National Education Association opposes school vouchers partly on the grounds that beliefs of which they don't approve might be taught.
About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction.
This is the part of The Constitution that "prohibits" vouchers: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Looks to me as if government must take a neutral position on this, neither prohibiting or endorsing. If the child's family freely chooses the school, as opposed to being forced a particular school as in most today's educational system, is that subsidizing a religion or subsidizing a good education? Plenty of religious colleges and universities get federal money.

The truth is that the NEA want to force their values upon gullible children in "a great public school," i.e a school they control.

Liberal Democrats brought us political correctness which grossly intrudes into our expression of our thoughts. Even the slightest politically correct comment can ruin a career.

There are the ever increasing efforts of the largely liberal based "nanny state" to control what we eat, drink, breath, do, etc.

When it comes to "personality cults" only two names need to be mentioned: Barack Hussein Obama and Al Gore. Nuth said.

Calls by liberal Democrats for a "central state-controlled economy" occur routinely, whether it's threatening oil companies or the constant call for nationalized health care. Some liberal Democrats seem to think government should control everything.

Conservatives aren't entirely void of these urges but the overwhelming charge of totalitarianism comes from the liberal Democrats. How far will this go? I don't know but we need to fight it with all our vigor.

UPDATE: An current example of Democratic totaltarian tactics where they take away you livelihood if you disagree with them. I don't agree with the form of livelihood but for liberals that promote equal opportunity, etc., it's a completely hypocritical move. To have fired him for religious belief, race, nationality or gender would have been illegal. But not for supporting John McCain.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]