The Hate Speech Inquisition

Lead Story

The Hate Speech Inquisition

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2011 08:36 AM


Tucson massacre + Red Queen politics = Hate Speech Inquisition.

I noticed a new game the blamestream media is playing this week. It’s the same game they played with Sarah Palin last week: Blame the victim. After a slew of Democrat leaders issued open threats against talk radio, conservative radio hosts rose up to defend themselves. And now, the BSM is deriding those who work in talk radio for inserting themselves into the Tucson massacre story and for having a “persecution complex.”  No, really.

This week’s column also spotlights the repeated attempts by Red Queen open-borders radicals to insert themselves into the Tucson shooting rampage that had no more to do with illegal immigration than it did with talk radio.

On a related note: The worst sheriff in America is still mugging for the cameras.

***

The Hate Speech Inquisition
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There isn’t a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews, the feds “remain stumped” about his motives, according to Tuesday’s Washington Post. But that hasn’t stopped a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting rampage, Democratic leaders mused openly about reintroducing the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” – a legislative sledgehammer targeting conservative viewpoints on public airwaves. New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter assailed the Federal Communications Commission for failing to police broadcast content and vowed to “look into” more aggressive language monitoring. Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey blamed “incendiary rhetoric” for triggering “unstable individuals to take violent action.” In his own manifesto calling for resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic Rep. James Clyburn pressed public officials to “rethink parameters on free speech.”

This week’s fashionable new media meme is to deride talk radio hosts for taking these speech-squelching threats seriously. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman sneered at the “persecution complex” of conservative broadcasters who reacted to Slaughter and company. Politico’s Keach Hagey dismissed concerns about the Democrats’ chilling campaign against right-leaning media outlets and knocked conservative talkers’ “defensive posture.” (Sound familiar? This is the same tactic they used against Sarah Palin and all those on the right falsely accused of being accessories to the Tucson massacre: Attack ‘em. Attack ‘em for responding. Accuse the smear victims of playing the victim card. Repeat.)

Make no mistake: The Hate Speech Inquisition is real. And it’s being fought on all fronts. Last week, using the non-radio-inspired Tucson massacre as fuel, the National Hispanic Media Coalition called on the FCC to gather evidence for the left’s preconceived conclusion that conservative talk radio “hate speech” causes violence. It’s Red Queen science — sentence first, research validation later.

The head of the NHMC is Alex Nogales, who has filed more than 50 petitions to deny broadcast licenses and has led anti-corporate crusades to “force” broadcast stations across the country “to hire Latino reporters and anchors” and adopt “diversity initiatives.” Grabbing the Tucson shooting limelight, Nogales told Broadcasting and Cable magazine last week:

“We can’t stand there with our arms crossed and make like there isn’t a reason why this is happening. … We started this dialog(ue) in the last immigration debate four years ago. We could see that it was just out of control. It started with just an issue of immigration, then every pundit on radio and TV who wanted an audience started talking about it and started using the worst of language, and now it has spilled out into mainstream.”

Loughner’s wild Internet rants and creepy campus meltdowns clearly demonstrate that crazy doesn’t need a motive. But progressive censors need their bogeymen, and Nogales isn’t about to give them up for reality’s sake. The NHMC first filed a petition in October 2009 demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration. The petition followed on National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia’s call for media outlets to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

Nogales’ group is part of a larger “media justice” coalition dedicated to curtailing and redistributing conservatives’ political speech under the guise of diversity and decency. As left-wing philanthropists at the Media Justice Fund put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” But, hey, we better just ignore these communications control freaks lest we be accused of suffering a “persecution complex.”

The Praetorian Guards of civility keep telling us that “words matter.” Threats should be taken seriously, they insist. Except, of course, when those words and threats are uttered by those hell-bent on regulating their opponents’ discourse out of existence.

Liberals cheat… again.

Judson Phillips

The election is behind us now, but some parts of it will not go away.  One of the brighter moments of the 2010 election was seeing liberal Nevada Congressman Dina Titus get voted out of office.   Seeing a liberal lose is always a source of joy.

However, the back-story here gets more interesting.

Titus, for almost thirty years, was a professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV).    As a part of the liberal-political complex, she has always relied on the government for her living.   Now she is going back to UNLV as a tenured professor.  But it is her actions during the campaign that have raised an issue and the response of the Nevada Democratic Party shows the NDP’s true colors.

On October 14th, 2010, Titus was engaged in a televised debate against her opponent, Joe Heck.  The agreed rules were that neither side would be able to use notes.  What does a good liberal do?  Ignore the rules and cheat.  We know liberals cannot stand competition.  They hate it because in the free market of ideas, they lose.  They try to kill competition every chance they get.  When they cannot kill the competition, they avoid it.  When they cannot avoid it, they cheat. 

During the debate, Titus repeatedly referred to her notes, even after being advised by the moderator that she was breaking the rules. She even read much of her closing statement, even though that was against the rules.

The College Republicans of UNLV took exception to that and have exercised their First Amendment rights and created a website that shows Titus’ actions.

They have also filed complaints with the University, citing the University’s academic dishonesty policy.   UNLV’s President has basically weaseled out of the complaint by saying UNLV had nothing to do with the debate. 

Now, the Nevada Democratic Party, thought its Chairman Sam Lieberman has issued a threat to the UNLV College Republicans. Lieberman said, “If I were the College Republicans, I would not be messing with Dina Titus, who is returning to their turf.”

Typical of the Democrats, instead of debating a legitimate issue (Did Titus cheat and if she did, how is she going to enforce an academic honesty policy against cheating), the NDP instead wants to threaten the College Republicans.   As is typical of the party of treason, they do not believe in free speech, unless it is free speech for liberals.   The UNLV College Republicans are not backing down from this fight.  Good for them.

Just be warned, when you fight the Democrats, they will cheat.  Of course, the College Republicans have seen Dina Titus in action, so they know that first hand.

For more details on this story, visit the website they have set up, http://www.womanwithoutintegrity.com/  You can also send a message of encouragement to these students at their email, contact@unlvcr.org.

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

2010 June 26

It’s getting rather old, but the Left continues to attack one of the most influential conservative women alive today: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

When she was invited to speak at Stanislaus university in California last Friday, leftist students immediately went through trash cans, trying to figure out how much Palin was being paid. They organized protests, asked their friends of the mainstream media for help, and altogether did their best to ruin what eventually became the most successful fundraising dinner in the university’s history.

The material recovered by the students, which detailed perks such as first-class airfare for two and deluxe hotel accommodations, prompted California Attorney General Jerry Brown to launch an investigation into the finances of the university’s foundation arm and allegations that the nonprofit violated public disclosure laws.

Would they have done the same thing if Palin was a leftist? Have you ever heard of progressive students protesting against the speaking fees of, say, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton? No, of course you haven’t. That’s because this is not about fairness or money but about Palin’s ideology. She is a conservative, and that’s reason enough for leftist students to ruin her evening and to disgrace the university that invited her.

This non-scandal once again proves that conservatives are engaged in a political war with progressives. Too often conservative pundits and politicians think we should be ‘civilized’. We should not, because our enemies certainly are not either. When you are engaged in a war all that matters is that you win. If this means you have to fight dirty every now and then, so be it. The Left understands this, too many on the Right do not. Let Palin’s treatment at Stanislaus serve as a wake up call for those who still believe that manners matter.

1,300 Prison Inmates Get $9 Mil In Homebuyer Tax Credits

1,300 Prison Inmates Get $9 Mil In Homebuyer Tax Credits

Do the crime, get below prime. What’s good enough for Chris Countrywide Dodd is good enough for America’s convicts. One home was used by 67 different people to claim a tax credit. Someone call Stimulus cop, Sheriff Joe Biden, $26.7 miliion is a big effin’ deal!

Nearly 1,300 prison inmates wrongly received more than $9 million in tax credits for homebuyers despite being locked up when they claimed they bought a home, a government investigator reported Wednesday. 

The investigator said 241 of the inmates were serving life sentences.

In all, more than 14,100 taxpayers wrongly received at least $26.7 million in tax credits that were meant to boost the nation’s slumping housing markets, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The Left Airbrushes History to Neuter America

The Left Airbrushes History to Neuter America

2010 June 20

The doctoring of Churchill’s photo reflects the Left’s larger-scale attempt to doctor historical accounts with biased left-wing ideology.

The Left has a long and sordid history of rewriting historical narratives in order to promote its radical agenda. The late and infamous Howard Zinn was perhaps the most well known left-wing propagandist, but there are many others like him in academia, the media and politics.

I’m reminded of the Left’s attempt to rewrite the past so as to control the future because of a recent blog post by the esteemed Michael Ledeen.

Ledeen references a recent story in the London Telegraph, which shows the famous picture of Churchill now on display in a British museum. Churchill is without his trademark cigar. The cigar, you see, is no longer politically correct; and so it has been airbrushed out of the picture.

This may seem like no big deal. However, as Ledeen notes, it is indicative of a much bigger problem:

[O]ne that existed long before Soviet airbrushes and Reuters photoshops: the battle for control over the past.

He who writes history manipulates contemporary consciousness in order to affect the future. As Voltaire nicely put it, “History is a bag of tricks we play upon the dead.”

Which brings me to the central crisis in America today: increasingly, our people don’t know much of anything about the past.

Look at the history curricula at the top universities, and marvel, as I do, at the near-total lack of courses in military history. It’s been airbrushed out.

I can’t help believing that this is purposeful. The academic elites don’t want Americans to know that the history of man is basically the history of war.

Peace has many dangers, including the potentially fatal belief that all disputes can be negotiated.

Before conservatives can truly win politically, they first must recover America’s past. This will not be easy, given that the Left dominates the academy. But as Ronald Reagan once said, “facts are stubborn things.” America’s real history is irrepressible: It will not be denied; it will be heard; and conservatives must ensure that it is so.

That Stench of Rotting Bull is Just Obama’s Oval Office Speech

That Stench of Rotting Bull is Just Obama’s Oval Office Speech

Posted By Jeff Dunetz On June 16, 2010 @ 5:03 am In Environment, Federal Spending, News, Obama, Politics, Regulation, taxes |

Putting aside for a second the fact that this speech was given about 50 days late, last night’s oval office speech proved that the President is not ready to be honest with the American people.  For the first 30 days of this crisis, President Obama was ignoring the fact that the crisis existed, and now when he uses the oval office to give the people confidence that he is on top of the problem  he spends more time trying to sell cap and trade than discussing capping the well. Essentially, he is still ignoring the crisis.

Lets take a look at the key points of the President’s speech. He begins by trying to convince America that he has been doing a great job at managing the disaster:

“…  I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.”

Nobel prizes have not been impressive since  Obama recived one for doing nothing and Al Gore got one for a hoax.  The key is how the ideas from those great minds are implemented. The President’s management of the crisis has been horrible.  Even the progressive bible  the NY Times [1] trashed Obama’s  management of the crisis:

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

In other words,  the leadership and management coming from the executive branch of the government has been a disaster.

Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers