The battle between Obama and Fox News has heated up and shown yet again the true colours of an insanely corrupt White House. These "champions of free speech" can't seem to help doing everything they can to silence any critical opposition they can, and believe it or not, they aren't even trying to hide it. Yeah, Obama sends out his cronies to deliver his message so he can continue to appear "above" the whole debacle, but anyone with a brain knows who the marching orders are coming from. Unfortunately, there are still far too many who appear to lack the aforementioned grey matter, and keep buying into the slickly packaged platitudes of the new totalitarian regime.
Anybody remember the whole "fairness doctrine" the Liberals tried to smuggle past the public in previous years, and which will no doubt be resurrected as soon as they see the next good opportunity? Essentially it was advertised as intended to make a more fair playing field to allow left wing points of view to be promoted on talk radio at least in equal measure to conservative views which tend to find more ears in the medium.
But the reason that liberal talk has never prospered is because talk radio attracts a completely different sort of audience, primarily conservatives and traditionals who are more apt to prefer in depth analysis and demonstrate patience rather than quick news bite fixes that draw liberals. In short, talk radio is not suited for liberals by their nature, and even massive efforts like Air(head) America inevitably fail, despite massive financial support.
While it was touted as an effort for "fairness" and "balance", the truth is that it was an effort to suppress or even destroy the transmission of conservative thought. By forcing owners to take on unpopular programming that would not "sell," this would have left them little choice but to eject most conservative programming that was profitable to avoid the substantial losses amassed by liberal programming, and the liberals knew it. This remains one of their little agendas, to silence dissent against liberal dogmas and propaganda.
But while we wait for them to raise the "fairness doctrine" from the ashes to impose on the public in their Marxist fashion, we now see just another manifestation of the same efforts to kill free speech, in the form of the current bitter war against Fox News.
Fox is almost exclusively the only news channel that is critical of the Obama Administration. We should ask ourselves why that is. Unless we are actually willing to believe that Obama actually walks on water, then we must conclude that there is something terribly wrong with the current practice of absolute compliance between the liberal networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS) and the current Administration. The complete lack of criticism of Obama on virtually any front clearly demonstrates that these outlets are no longer institutions of any integrity, leaving Fox to fill the massive void. And this is why Obama and his legions despise them, because they will not sing his praises where the others do.
We are living in dangerous times when a sitting President has the nerve to proclaim who is and who is not a carrier of official news (meaning those who do not agree with him). Furthermore, when the President exerts power to pressure those outlets that will not carry his message as he wants it to be carried, our civilization is in peril.
This is not hyperbole, my friends. It would do us well to remember that many times evil comes with a smile on his face and what he considers the best of intentions. And this was supposed to be the post-partisan transparent Administration of change, wasn't it? Oh, we're getting change alright.
Here's an article by Charles Krauthammer, who may put it better than I.
It is a shame that we live now live in a society so dominated by the superficial pop-culture mentality that we actually elect our leaders according to their ability to best BS us with slick talk and a bright Hollywood smile, rather than any genuine character or wisdom. Speaking of wisdom, here are some insights from the greatest President of the last century, all of which we seem to have forgotten in our self-indulgent vanity:
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is is the beginning of the end of any nation." - President R. Reagan
At a time when we are witnessing the takeover of elements of the private sector by proponents of government power, and when we are actually considering the forfeiture of one sixth of the American economy to the government, all in the name of "change" from a caring government, it is wise to ask ourselves a few critical questions.
What government service has ever run efficiently, and do we want our health governed by an entity with such an abysmal track record? And I don't know about you, but I have almost never had a good "customer service" experience with a government employee. Is this the kind of service we want in our health care, the heavy handed and disinterested attitudes of unionized government bureaucrats?
Virtually all government run services are going bankrupt (Medicare, Social Security, Postal Service, the list goes on and on...), and we want to trust them with a health care system? Other countries with socialized health care are forced to demand high taxes to support their systems, which consumes a large portion of government expenditures. Take it to the bank, if the government gets its claws into health care, you will end up paying far more that if you had just bought your own policy from an insurance company in the first place, and you will receive far less quality for that money...guaranteed.
Most importantly, what will we do when they inevitably screw the whole thing up? Short of another revolutionary war, how will we force the government to actually relinquish again to the public the power they will be assuming with this health care takeover? Government almost never gives up power without violence. That is why our government was set up with limited powers from the beginning, because unchecked the nature of government is to assume more and more powers unto itself.
Think, people, think. Stop sipping the Kool-Aid and chanting the hopey-changey thing for a minute and actually consider where we are heading with this stuff. We are committing slow suicide here, folks.
Okay, I’m not going
to rant too much about this one, since it should be obvious to even the most
The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Nobama? You
have got to be kidding me.
But really, am I surprised? Yes and no. It
takes me aback slightly, because typically, as much as I might hold the whole
Nobel thing in low regard, at least up until this point they actually awarded
it to someone who actually did something. So yeah, I guess it does leave me a
little miffed as to why they awarded it to the Community Organizer in Chief,
who has a relatively blank record of significant accomplishments. But according
to Geir Lundestad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, it was hoped that
the award would help advance his (Obama’s) agenda.
So I suppose we should consider the source.
The Nobel committees have over the last several decades devolved into nothing
more than a circle jerk for rewarding left wing goofballs compliant with Euro-trash
style socialist idealism.
Al Gore puts out a movie full of junk science,
and they gave him the prize. Jimmy Carter got it too, apparently for efforts to
“find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.” Fair enough, but these
“solutions” always ended up with America taking it in the shorts, and an international display of American weakness. And then
there is Yasser Arafat and the peace loving PLO. Hmmmm. Maybe we can give it to
Ahmadinejad next. He hates freedom and capitialism, and Americans in general
too. More importantly, he shares the same hatred of the Jews and sees the primary peaceful solution to middle east problems as their necessary
annihilation. That should qualify him at the outset for this ridiculous booby prize.
The Nobel Peace Prize was officially nothing
more than a joke as soon as it was given to Gore. So it should come as no
surprise that it was next awarded to the current liberal President, apparently
for nothing more than his pleasant hopey-changey message. That and appearing to
be a weak President willing to cave to international pressures rather than
defend the interests of Americans...you know, doing his job. In this respect he
joins the esteemed company of Carter, who also earned his reputation as a
So I was just
sitting here debating what my next entry should be, and lo and behold, the
first news item I stumbled upon this morning should scream for my attention. Apparently the National Republican Congressional
Committee issued a statement that it, in essence, hopes that Gen. McChrystal,
commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, puts the Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, in her place concerning Afghan policy.
Now it should be obvious to all what exactly
was meant by this statement, but if not, let’s clear it up at the onset.
Democrats, particularly those like Pelosi, typically possess an intelligence
deficit when it comes to military matters. Let’s face it, liberals, despite
their rhetoric about “supporting the troops”, generally loathe the military.
This is a holdover mentality from the 1960’s, where the hippy generation demonstrated
their “support” for military members by spitting on them and rendering unto
them highly coveted titles of honour, such as “baby killer.” The methods may
have changed, but the disdain has not. Nowadays the libs conduct their warfare
on the military by gutting it, either through denial of funding that is
necessary to adequately achieve mission objectives, or by the imposition of
social engineering schemes that please the politically correct whackos, or by a
vast array of other subtle schemes. Let there be no doubt, the Dems are
squarely in the business of denying support to the military, and are the worst
abusers of it. Ironically, the military is arguably the only successfully run
institution answerable to the government, but it is becoming much less so the
more that the libs are able to sink their claws into it. But back to the
The obvious position of the NRCC is that
Speaker Pelosi is very poorly suited to address U.S. policy in Afghanistan, and
hopes that Gen. McChrystal, who is far more qualified and informed concerning
military strategy, will have the dominant voice in determining the policies in
But it gets better. In reaction, and in
typical liberal fashion, Speaker Pelosi has used one of the standard tactics of
the left, which is to say that she pulled the sexism card. Without missing a
beat and right on cue, arguably the most powerful woman in the country, and in
fact one of the most powerful in the world, seized the opportunity to interpret
the desire to put her “in her place” as a sentiment motivated by disdain not
for her incompetence, but for her gender. You see, apparently the Republicans
just hate women, or so we are constantly told, since they fail to see that a liberal woman (or any “minority”
group) can do no wrong, as horrendously ignorant as she may be.
Now I want to know, can anyone picture
Margaret Thatcher behaving this way? Or how about the woman libs love to hate,
Sarah Palin? No, you can’t. The sexism / racism game is played almost exclusively
by the left, and they play it because it is unfortunately effective in its
ability to silence opposition or debate. But you would think that the Speaker
of the House should be above this childish and utterly dishonest tactic of
name-calling, wouldn’t you?
The days of race and gender games are far
overdue to fade into shameful history. If this were a sane world, any
politician who played those cards would be promptly escorted out of office, or else
such charges would have to be rigorously substantiated to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, too many of us have no interest in a sane world.
again, it is my opinion that if Mrs. Pelosi qualifies as a woman, then it is
only in the most technical of senses. Therefore, this shrill excuse for a human being should not be entitled to employ the charge of “sexism.”
To those who might stumble upon this page, I welcome you to this initial rant. I want to clarify first that this page may or may not be updated regularly, as time might allow.
The purpose for this page is twofold: To allow an opportunity for me to vent on various topics (like Obama-care, for instance), and to both attract like-minded readers and possibly give pause to others to consider what might to them be an alternative point of view.
The perspectives presented are from what some might consider an unlikely source, that of a politically conservative Wiccan. I, of course, maintain that these are not at all contradictory categories, but perfectly harmonious, despite the evidence suggested in the Wiccan community, which tends to be almost exclusively tailored for the nut-job left.
Like most, I began my early adulthood with a fairly liberal perspective, which was heavily reinforced in my college years. In contrast, I was also exposed to a generous amount of conservative Christian values in my youth. Therefore, my opinions (which I fully intend to merit their classification as "rants") come from a full understanding of the breadth of opinions on a multitude of issues.
To dispense with any possible suspense, many of my areas of irritation are those commonly held by conservatives in general. I tend to vote Republican (or Progressive Conservative (one hell of an oxymoron in today's common parlance) in Canada), and yes, I do think Fox News is by far more "fair and balanced" than the mainstream media that now promotes the fringe. This is not to say that I find the Republicans of today without fault, hence my identification with the Libertarian Party. Therefore, it can be fairly said that I am critical of both parties where deserved...it's just that the Democrats make it too damned easy. Unavoidably, a party that considers virtuous its various intellectual and moral bankruptcies is just asking to be despised.
Where my political views might find some broad acceptance, my religious views as a Wiccan place me in the minority. Those same traditional values further place me in a distinct category on the outside of what I call mainstream Wicca, if there can be such a thing. This is of course due to the overwhelmingly leftist socio-political worldviews chanted ad nauseam by the so-called "balanced" Wiccan community, a group-think position which I find entirely absurd.
So there we have it. This page is intended as a venue to rant about politics and religion, the two things we are taught not to talk about, and which likely need most to be discussed. The view is that of one who resides on both the side of the "traditional" mainstream and that of a "fringe" group.
In the end, these are merely the opinions of one person. I again welcome any who might visit, and with any luck I can offer to some a little food for thought.