Media Research Center Documents Liberal Death Wishes Against Conservatives

CNSNews ^ | January 12, 2011 | Michael W. Chapman

[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 world’s 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 aren’t 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 somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.” -- Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s 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 America’s 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 don’t 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.

“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s 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.

“I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” --  Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,

NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg.

After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

 

On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBS’s 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.”

[Diogenez]

The name is William Lawrence Shirer and I have read “The Rise and Fall...” Shirer in the view of many was Marxist or at least a socialist, himself.

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.

[devolve]

.

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?

FIATS
Alfa Romeos
Ferraris
Maseratis

etc.

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

‘Um’ ?

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.....

.

[OneVike]

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.

[AFreeBird]

As someone else here opined on another thread: “If liberals didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.”

[tutstar]

The article missed a lot!

[worst-case scenario]

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?

[worst-case scenario]

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.)

[Dogbert41]

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.

[worst-case scenario]

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.

[Diogenez]

Most on the left see themselves involved in a battle to overthrow existing social and political orders and for control of the future of humankind. They have no compunction about providing disinformation, distortions and what Plato called necessary lies so long as these serve the “greater truth”. I read the entries in Britannica and Wikipedia as being fairly neutral and they describe the economic policy of NAZI Germany as being a form of socialism whereby private property including businesses were owned by the state. Shirer’s contentions were closer to the party line of the communists: that “National Socialism” arose to protect and prolong capitalism.

[worst-case scenario]

I am just curious on what you base your opinion “Most on the left see themselves involved in a battle to overthrow existing social and political orders and for control of the future of humankind.”

I live in New Jersey, which is pretty evenly divided among Conservatives and Liberals. None of my neighbors or customers who are Democrats believe themselves as attempting to overthrow anything, aside from a difficult economic system. They certainly don’t want to have “control of the future of humankind.” They are just hardworking schlubs like myself, who have a different view on tax policy and how to deal with issues like health insurance for small business owners and the uninsured.

One question: what is your opinion of having the state owned by business, instead of the opposite?

[GOPJ]

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 ...

Sarah's right - it's worse than a double standard - it's blood libel...

[GOPJ]

Great list:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m 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: “It’s time to fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

[GOPJ]

They hit us in newspapers, national radio ( NPR), movies and TV - AND YOU object to answering them back on our little computers? Gimme a break.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Does anyone remember that was a line in the movie “The Untouchables”?????????
Hell they sued to accuse Reagan of using old movie lines what about Obama???????????????

[Captain Beyond]

bflr

[worst-case scenario]

I suppose the mutual hatred just got to me when I posted that. It must have been something to do with the tone of angry accusation that *everyone* was releasing around that event. The “tu quque” was getting kind of old.

I’m sorry that I ever made a statement that indicated we might do anything but hate and blame the Left for all of the country’s problems. It was indeed foolish of me. If we hate them enough, perhaps they will all go away. Or we could pass laws to eliminate them and forbid their ideas from ever being discussed in this country ever again. By teaching children the proper values in school, and never letting the ideas of the Left reach them, we can probably eradicate such notions from America forever.

Then we can use our supreme military might to defeat these ideas all over the world, in all countries where socialism (as we define it) is the dominant philosophy. We can and will hit “them” back. We were created as the exceptional Christian Capitalist country for a greater purpose - to shine the light of Freedom and Capitalism to the entire world.

[GOPJ]

Look, the free exchange of ideas is OK with me. I also don't need to pretend I'm OK with all beliefs - I'm not. I feel that what the liberals are doing by blaming people on our side - for a liberal committing a mass murder is evil.

The MSM basing their opinions on what letter is beside a person's mane is also not acceptable to me. If the table turns, and the MSM starts backing conservatives right or wrong - and making lame excuses for us - and none for dems - I'll attack them on that issue too. I'm against bias. I'm against a double standard. I'm against blood libel. And I proud of those beliefs.

Liberals are doing what they can to shut down our ability to speak, to intimidate us into leaving the debate, and to stop us from being part of the process. They accuse us of hate - so be it. I didn't hate them for years. I do now. I see them as little more than totalitarian narrow minded thugs. And NO, being open minded doesn't mean you pick your victim groups and denounce all others. I've never seen a liberal tolerant of anyone other than themselves. It's as silly as if we proclaimed how 'open minded' we were because we accepted people who believed in the Second Amendment. Gimme a break. We couldn't say that stuff with a straight face. Tell me, what group are liberals tolerant of that's NOT one of their groups? Name one.

[GOPJ]

From freeper astyanax

Great list:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m 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: “It’s time to fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

[worst-case scenario]

I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it and am not a Liberal. What groups aren’t one of theirs?

I know a lot of Liberals in my local Chamber of Commerce. They seem okay with that.