Skip to comments.Media Research Center Documents Liberal Death Wishes Against Conservatives
Posted on 01/12/2011 11:58:43 AM PST by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) The Media Research Center released today a list of comments made by members of the media in recent years that call for the death or suffering of conservative leaders. These quotes are evidence of the double standard that certain media exercise in blaming conservatives for the shooting in Tucson, Ariz., while ignoring liberals death-wish-like rhetoric against conservatives, said the organization in a press release.
The so-called news media have zero currency in this debate because we have documented the Left using hateful, vicious language far worse than any conservative, said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), a conservative watchdog group. Their attacks on conservatives are untrue and utterly hypocritical.
If they really cared about the effects of political rhetoric, they would have gone after any number of those left-wingers who have directly incited violence -- starting with the man with the worlds biggest audience: President Obama, said Bozell. After all, he did say, If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.
But that would be a ridiculous charge, he continued. And besides, the media arent really concerned about violent rhetoric. This is part of a much more insidious and calculated campaign to criminalize conservative thought.
Next they will ramp up support to regulate free speech on radio airwaves and the like, said Bozell. They want to illegalize opposition to liberal thought and are willing to accuse, indict and prosecute anyone who stands in the way of that socialist goal.
Founded in 1987, the MRC states that its mission is to bring balance to the news media. CNSNews.com, launched in 1998, is a division of the MRC.
In its press release of today, the MRC presented numerous quotes from members of the media that either call for or express delight in the death of certain conservative leaders. Some of these quotes include the following:
Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebodys going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and hes going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but well be there to watch. -- Chris Matthews on MSNBCs Morning Meeting, Oct. 13, 2009.
So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to -- or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone. -- Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Air Americas Montel Across America, Sept. 2, 2009.
He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country.... You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I dont even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here. -- Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.
Im waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out hes choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick! -- Radio host Mike Malloy on the Jan. 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show.
Im just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. Thats a fact. -- Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,
After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radios Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, I think he ought to be worried about whats going on in the Good Lords mind, because if there is retributive justice, hell get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBSs To the Contrary, then-USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux said of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.
Obama: They Bring a Knife
We Bring a Gun
Obama to His Followers: Get in Their Faces!
Obama on ACORN Mobs: I dont want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! Im angry!
Obama to His Mercenary Army: Hit Back Twice As Hard
Obama on the private sector: We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick.
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat
Obama to lib supporters: Its time to fight for it.
Obama to Latino supporters: Punish your enemies.
Obama to democrats: Im itching for a fight.
I’ll say this again, and I hope whoever was offended by it this morning reads it again -
the left’s wet dream is to use the power of the state to punish and kill their ideological opponents.
This is an historic fact.
There should be enough material there to fill a tankership, after what the Bush adminstration endured for eight long years....
/ state run media
Please - can’t we go for just one day without these “He said, she said” sorts of accusation? The Left hates the Right and points out their incendiary language. The Right hates the Left and points out *their* incendiary language.
No one on either side feels the slightest guilt about the way they talk, or the metaphors they use. Nobody is going to change the way they describe things.
All these repeated charges and counter-charges - that have been going on for years now - do is strengthen the mutual distrust, antagonism, and even *hatred* on both sides.
Okay, we get it. We understand! The Left is worse than the Right! Of course, the Left argues that the Right is worse than the Left, and produces its OWN list of evidence.
And then both sides ignore the arguments of the other. It’s getting repetitious. And it’s not solving a damned thing.
Assuming that neither they nor we are about to change the discourse anytime soon, what, then, do we do? Seriously?
Do we want to learn to talk to each other, or is it just impossible?
If it’s impossible, what is your proposed solution?
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. I never knew I had this much hate in me, she wrote. But he deserves it.
It seems MRC took the time to look up the facts and state them on the record.
This is an historic fact.
Absolutely and horribly corect. The history of the twentieth century is strewn with their killing fields. They are monsters - killers without conscience. So how do the worst get on top? How do these killers, these monsters, acquire what they should never in a million years get their hands on the apparatus of the state? Theyve got help, and lots of it. They are Antonio Gramscis heirs and disciples. The Lefts useful idiots. Heres a brief taxonomy of the killers without conscience and their enablers:
1. Wishful thinkers (and the mentally lazy) dont these people just wish that the world was a nicer place? If only everyone were just as smart, just as clever, just as enlightened as they think they are, it surely would be, wouldnt it? Wishful thinkers and those like them arent really up to doing the heavy lifting to achieve their utopia, but they surely do vote and applaud into power those whom they believe will usher in the New Age. The trouble is, those they empower typically have an agenda that doesnt quite match that of our dreamers. And no one is more surprised than they are when it all goes bad and the body count their body count - mounts up.
2. Coercive utopians they have a lot in common with our wishful thinkers, but they know that no one is going to do what it takes to usher in the new millennium, the New Man or that immanent eschaton. But theres a problem: put the sort of totalitarian regime necessary to achieve those goals - that is, socialism/communism and all of its imperatives and consequences - right out on the table in front of everyone, and no sane individual would buy it. Who would actively and openly cheer for the impoverishment and enslavement of humankind and the mass murder of those who wont go along with it? The hard Left, thats who, and theyve said as much - but thats beside the point for now.
The hallmark of coercive types is that they tend to be fairly bloody-minded. For example, Billy Ayers (0bama's good buddy andadvisor) and his wrecking crew thought that once they achieved power would have to slaughter over 25 million Americans too stubborn to toe their utopian socialist line that was back in the 1970s so were actually giving him a bit of a discount on that 25 million figure. But whats a few million here and there? Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian (now theres an oxymoron) has also said as much in a BBC interview where he allowed as to how the sacrifice of millions would have been worth it in order to achieve socialism. So is a little slaughter and a re-education camp or two or 10 not too much a price to pay for heaven on Earth? Not for the coercive utopians. Not by half.
3. Lord of the flies now were at the top of the pyramid of power, and those driven by that insatiable will to power. These are the ones who, once they achieve absolute power, really make things happen. And weve got over 260 million dead in this century and the last one to prove it. Now, lets say that again thats 260 million unarmed civilian non-combatants killed by their own governments. They were murdered by those exercising the power of the state. They were starved, gassed, tortured, shot, impaled, burned alive, drowned, frozen to death, hacked apart with hoes, axes and machetes a litany of brutality and atrocity beyond human imagination. Hundreds of millions more lived their lives enslaved, impoverished and in despair. Communism, socialism, the immanent eschaton who cares? Ideology is only the particular horse they ride in pursuit of absolute control of mankind.
Those who are driven by the will to power typically disguise their intentions under the guise of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number or under the rubrics of social or economic justice. They may claim that they are doing the business of the people or that they are acting according to the will of the people. The statement, Its for the children, should inspire instant disbelief and skepticism. When it has come to creating the New Socialist Man, or immanentizing that eschaton or ushering in that New Age, those who advance such arguments remain untroubled by the oceans of blood they would have to spill and the mountains of corpses they would have to pile up in order to realize their dreams. They are all animated by the unrestrained and unappeasable will to power. The Will to Power plays itself out at all levels. From the malice or indifference of the petty bureaucrat to the most savage and demonic mass murderers of recent times. As we have seen, power and the exercise of that power is more addictive than any drug.
The need is insatiable. The result is horror.
So where are our modern so-called progressives in all of this? Heres my question for a proud progressive: If youre a follower or apologist for todays political and social multiculturalism, an adherent of liberal democracy, or believe that our culture can continue without a basis in moral absolutes, which camp do you suppose you belong in? Are you a cynical but clever elitist intoxicated by the will to power? Are you on to the deception but support it out of pathological spite? Or are you simply ignorant of your role in the intentional destruction of your culture, even if you think you know what's best for the rest of us?
Finally, heres a purely practical consideration for all you precious 'progressives' out there: you may want to re-think your premises, because you are not likely to survive the consequences of the very bad ideas youre advocating. History is my witness.
Let’s go a little further, shall we? How many hundreds of millions of innocent people have been murdered by their many types of Socialist governments? You can call them “NAZI”, “Communist”, or “Fascist”, or even the morphed “Progressives”, but they are all the same and control the Democratic Party and almost all of the world’s media and education systems today.
They are obviously making a big push right now. Stand firm and for God’s sake, don’t give in!
Okay, you don’t want to talk to Liberals. How, them are you proposing that this country overcome its problems?
"No facts please, we're Democrats."
The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky street/campus revolutionary rabble and their ideological issue, the Democratic Party Establishment, don't do debating.. they rail, they rant, they move on to the next "issue." Turmoil, that's their ticket.
It's called mau-mauing.
Responding as though they want discourse makes you nothing more than flak catchers. RE: Tom Wolfe's book Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers
I think conservatives today are doing the right thing, they are addressing the independents and apolitical and telling the mau-mauing Left to pound salt.
We have the Internet and modern talk radio today we cannot let them take away our free speech rights this time (I am referring to how the left used the "Fairness Doctrine" against us a generation ago.)
How did the left-stream "media" miss all this?
I think I just answered my own question...
When they got into power, they sent Socialists and Communists to the death camps right along with Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and homosexuals.
Yes, it gets tiresome. But it is necessary. One side doesn't have the unilateral choice to end the fight peacefully, only the unilateral choice to surrender -- or to fight to win.
OK - Right!
Now spin this lameØ:
United Soviet Socialist Republics
By utterly defeating them.
That she meet up with a gang of young black men in Harlem in the middle of the night or some such thing?
I'll see if I can find the video.
It was Sandra Bernhard (who looks like she’s perpetually smelling poo)
talking about Sarah Palin.
0h0m0 to democrats: ooooooh, I'm itching for a pounding!
“Nazis were NOT socialists.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.....
Shirer was HIMSELF a socialist, and did everything he could to disassociate Nazism from Socialism. His books are colored by this.
“VAMPIRE ECONOMY: Doing Business under Fascism”, written in 1939 by Gunther Reimann
“Industrialists were visited by state auditors who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company or individual businessmen for the preceding two, three, or more years until some error or false entry was found,” explains Reimann. “The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error.”
Reimann quotes from a businessman’s letter: “You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’ Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.
“While state representatives are busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and salesmen are handicapped because they never know whether or not a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a ‘profiteer’ or ‘saboteur,’ followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain.
Everywhere there is a growing undercurrent of bitterness. Everyone has his doubts about the system, unless he is very young, very stupid, or is bound to it by the privileges he enjoys.”
I did find a youtube video in which Joyless challenges Sharron Angle to "come to the South Bronx, b*tch" and a few seconds later says, "that b*tch is going to hell!"
Good, you found it. I found a short Brit Hume video referencing it.
Regardless of what wikipedia says, the Nazi’s were socialist. The left cannot abide by that definition because it eliminates a major opportunity to vilify the right. However, the far right is bounded by anarchy (no government), not fascism, which is an extremely strong central government. It is the far left that is the two headed monster of communism and fascism. They are two sides of the same coin.
The differentiation between fascism and communism is that one is nationalized socialism and the other is international socialism (exports ideology). The german brand of fascism under Hitler could most closely be described today as State Capitalism, where the government allows some form of private enterprise, but the enterprises are owned by the state ... much like what Obama is trying to do to America. Think Volkswagen (aka People’s Car) and compare that to GM.
If you do not think Germany was socialist, please explain the Hitler youth, Brown Shirts, Gestapo, takeover of private enterprise, confiscation of wealth and property of non-arian’s and communist. Concentration camps for non-arian’s and communist.
Oh, but they treated communists bad too!! Yes, and like many royals over the millenia that have had challengers to their throne, Queen Elizabeth had Mary, Queen of Scots imprisoned and executed, even tho they were cousins. Only one could survive, and so the fascists executed thier ideological cousins.
A documented hundred million victims of Communism from the 20th Century would agree with you - if they were still alive.
When you learn the secret of genuine discourse with liberal fascists, please inform us all.I would love to talk to them.
But it is a fact. Talking to them is ideed impossible.Its all simply used against anyone who does so.We are truly entering a completly adversarial era.And for good reason: securing the constutution of our nation, the left either follows it or gets out of town.
of course the Fascists weren’t socialist, they were very individualist. There was nothing collective about them.
Your teachers in school rewrote history for ya bud.
Was that directed at me???
What the framers of the constitution said. FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
As explained in the Federalist Papers by Publius (AKA J Jay, A Hamilton, J Madison), “spirited partisan debate”, and by that they meant insults, calumny, etc. is a feature, not a bug of a healthy democratic society.
Partisan debate defuses societal tensions by working the arguments through. When heated rhetoric is suppressed, the convictions behind the heated rhetoric come out in heated ACTIONS, which is always worse than the rhetoric. Democracy is always loud, uncouth, and messy.
No, to worst case, sorry about that. replied to your response and not his post.
Um, I never said that the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist. I said the *Nazis* weren’t socialist. How does that make me a “LameO”? Because I make a historical distinction between the Nazis, who sent Socialists to death camps and fought the USSR, and the USSR itself?
Oh, you beat me to it...
That’s undeniably true, but it’s a subset of their goal, which is absolute power over everyone, regardless of their supposed idealogy. I can’t find it, alas, but somewhere on FR, within the past month or so, someone posted a quote about the real purpose of propaganda, which is to degrade the populace by compelling them to accept and even espouse nonsense beliefs.
I think I read it in a thread about the global warming hoax, but pretty much any leftist nonsense could have been referenced.
Flooding the zone. DailyPOS Markos, desperate to become relevant again after the beating his Leftist cadre took in November, twatted moments after the news broke "Fucking American Taliban." and then was off to the races, trying to tie in Palin 17 min/4 posts later.
Note also that Markos had ample reason to deflect the focus away from himself, given that his DailyPOS poster "Boy Blue" was the primary suspect until Loughner was named.
So what really happened here? Markos and his uber alles forced a meme that didn't pan out. They suck. They know they suck. Like monkeys flinging poo, they threw their filth at the wall and it didn't stick. Turns out Loughner was one of them. Another deranged, degenerate Leftist. How many more Loughner's are DailyPOS diarists?
And then there’s propaganda in the guise of explaining propaganda:
Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America.
Texas Mercury ^ | Paul Weber
Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 2:00:42 PM by enrg
You speak for me exactly!
Of course, Hamilton actually ended up dieing over a dispute about his choice of words (in spite of the fact he could not recall uttering them.) So heated words can have their own dire consequences.
The National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi) was seen as a like-minded socialist party by the Socialist Party of Germany which offered to merge with the NSWP, an offer that was turned down by the NSWP by only 1 vote. Party line Marxists always maintain that NWSP was not socialist at all but was instead secretly capitalist.
Shirer was a long time on air commentator with CBS News.
BS in 3D
Muzzies kill other Muzzies all the time
Hitler signed as partner to Stalin
But Hitler wanted more elbow room
democrats decided being called liberals was chasing away voters
So they once again called themselves ‘progressives’
In the late 19th century and into the 20th century many ‘progressives’ were know to just be NYU Limo-Commies (Socialists as you just admitted) hiding under a CS label
Now democrats claim they are ‘moderates’ and prove it by firing the CEO of General Motors, confiscating GM, nulling GM’s bondholders, and installing Socialist (even Commie) union jerks on the Board of Directors - and giving unions a huge share of Government Motors.
As for Chrysler - they finally tied up with FIAT - which was back a bit owned by the government of Italy.....
But you did not know that -
Today the CEO of FIAT-Chrysler is an Italian citizen - the CEO of FIAT - with headquarters in - Italy
What does FIAT manufacture in Italy?
and motorcyles - and more
But FIAT is not owned by 0ponzi or any of his pansy Socialists thugs
Deny 0pansy is a Socialist now
Run back through all of his early friends and (many gay Commie) mentors
Like murderer Bill ‘the gay rapist’ Ayres - Weatherman founder and bombmaker and tosser
Why do lamØs say ‘Um’
You sound like you are related to the NYT’s Durante who worked for the Commies in Moscow while sending back Russkie propaganda disquised as ‘news stories’ to the NYT in NYC - in effect ‘prize-winning’ Durante was a spy, a collaborator, and a traitor
You can take Wiki (where anyone can edit or create) and stuff it with Snopes.com (run by an uber-leftie couple) in the Red Zone.....
How is it you could be a Freeper since 2002 and still not know that the NAZI party was socialist?
Please enlighten me as to when you took leftists words over the truth?
Finally, why would any Freeper use Wikipedia as a trusted source of information?
Please, enlighten me, because inquiring minds want to know.
As someone else here opined on another thread: “If liberals didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.”
The article missed a lot!
I don’t restrict myself as to the sources of my information. I read as many sources as possible and make up my own mind about issues. It’s called being a skeptic. Must one absolutely be an Objectivist in order to be a Freeper? Is there some sort of intellectual straitjacket that one agrees to wear, that prevent all intellectual critique and analysis?
No, absolutely not. Nor would have our Founders ever proposed such a system. The debates found in the Federalists Papers, and in the recently-printed records of the debates held at the Constitutional Convention, show that the original representatives of the colonies held vigorous and often widely divergent views. That has continued until today.
Is there a law that a Freeper *has* to believe that Nazis are Socialists? I have read a tremendous number of history texts — it was my major in college. I have a particular definition of Socialism - one that is used in Universities and by historians all over the world:
“a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”
According to this definition, the Nazis were not Socialists. They did not assume ownership of all means of production. I’ve read both von Mises and Reisman, and see their points regarding government direction of production. I agree, along with Hannah Arendt, one of my great influences, that Socialism and Nazism shared the common traits of fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and police state status. However, co-ordination of state and business interest sis not, technically, socialism. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was a feature never seen in Nazism.
However, this is fascist *corporatism,* not socialism. The fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to socialism. Socialists claim their power from the people.
There is a huge and contentious debate over this topic, which I’ve been following for decades. I am not convinced by von Mises’ arguments. There is no confirmed “truth” on this topic.
Obviously, you and I do not agree the definition of what makes someone a “leftist,” just as we may not agree over the definition of socialism. “Please, enlighten me, because inquiring minds want to know.” Do you really seek enlightenment, and are you asking in a true spirit of inquiry?
Shirer “in the view of many was Marxist or at least socialist.” Hmm. And I should reject the man’s extraordinary and well-documented, not to mention highly-critiques, work because ... “many,” whom I do not know and have never heard of, said so?
He was a “commentator for CBS News”. So what? You are disputing his scholarship because he worked for CBS News during WWII, smuggling his first-hand accounts out of Nazi Germany at great personal danger to himself? Because he covered the Nuremberg Trials for CBS? He left CBS after his argument with Paley in 1947!
It’s not only “party-line Marxists” that maintain the Nazis were not “socialists.” It’s the great majority of historians all over the world for the past 70 years. There was never a “dictatorship of the proletariat” under Nazism. The workers never controlled the means of production.
The Nazis were statist, corporatist, and totalitarian. They maintained a police state like Stalin did.
But the state and the corporation were *never* controlled by the working class. The Nazis were much more similar to the Fascists state of Mussolini than they ever were to Stalinist Russia. That’s why the Fascists remained part of the Axis until they were defeated. That’s why the Nazis sent Socialists to the death camps, and marched on Moscow.
Do you let your political beliefs and your own ideology determine what histories you read? Or do you read history and use your own faculties to build your opinions? Because even writers and sites that are Leftist have valuable factual information if you sort it out from the political spin. (But then, it’s the same with arguments produced by Conservatives.)
They were national socialists, as apposed to international socialists of the Soviet Union, and Progressives of today. They were “Germany First” socialists. But they were definitely socialists. Early marques by Hitler included the hammer and sickle. Germany and Russia were allies until Germany attacked. That was after they both invaded Poland together and shared the spoils.
History was rewritten and you learned it well.
History was being written *at the time.” The consensus then was that Nazi Germany was a different animal from Soviet Russia and its satellites.
History was rewritten, we agree - from several different approaches and perspectives. You’ve obviously got your preferred version.
What historians have your read on this question that you find most persuasive? Perhaps it’s someone that I am not familiar with. After all, there are many more obscure historians that are constantly coming up with new interpretations and uncovering new facts. That’s how dissertations get written, year after year - some good, some bad.