Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Illegal Aliens and Terrorist Protesters Have More Rights Than Law Abiding Citizens

You may remember hearing about the May Day melee in MacArthur park in Los Angeles, during which the LAPD was drawn into a situation where they found it necessary to use force against a crowd of thugs and rambunctious illegal aliens holding a so-called "peaceful protest" calling for special privileges and amnesty for illegal aliens. The LAPD has undergone a lot of criticism for their handling of the situation, especially as a lot of bystanders and press members who failed to comply with police orders were caught in the crossfire.

Of course, what the liberally biased media often fails to report is that the police were provoked by a group of slime-ball agitators and anarchist terrorists, who hurled insults, frozen bottles of water turned into rock-hard missiles of ice, bottles filled with urine, and other peaceful protests at the heroic officers, all the while hiding behind a wall of "peacefully assembling" accomplices (with children!) who acted as a shield during the seditious attacks on police officers. Buying into the politically correct but factually erroneous version of events, LA's mayor, city council and police chief also refuse to lay any blame on, or make much mention of, the rioters who were directly responsible for causing and escalating events. TV camera-persons claiming that they were attacked by the LAPD can be seen on tape being pushed over by their reporter colleagues. Everyone refuses to acknowledge the fact that TV reporters on the sidelines hit with rubber bullets were most likely hit by accident, and never take into consideration that guns and rubber ammunition are hardly 100% accurate, nor that sticking around during a melee in order to grab some footage when they've been ordered to leave puts oneself at risk of getting hit by stray bullets. And that this is a risk the media chose to take by ignoring police warnings.

To add further insult to injury, as the public, the media and city officials take the side of the criminal rioters and foreign invaders over our own brave and much maligned protectors, another incident occurred this past weekend further proving that the media and the LA city government is in league with criminals, pandering to the interests of illegals over their own citizens.

An anti-illegal immigration rally was planned in Leimert Park on June 24. However, another group of violent agitators were allowed to take over this park, and the groups with the legal permit to hold their rally had their right to peaceful assembly violated. The LAPD, stinging from a lack of community or official support, were justifiably unwilling to clear out the terrorists a second time. And the police blocked access to the park so that the anti-illegal immigration could not enter, fearing a "mini riot." Read a slightly slanted story on the events here. Of course, a group of people not in line with the leftist view on illegal immigration being violently intimidated by radicals and morons like ANSWER Los Angeles will not generate as much news as perceived infringements against the rights of the press or antagonistic leftist organizations.

Totalitarian, bullying and violent leftism wins again.

Obama's wife calls him The Answer

Yesterday, addressing a crowd at a Harlem community center, Barack Hussein Obama's wife Michelle had this to say:
"I am married to The Answer. And I'm not just saying that because I'm his wife."
The Answer to what question? "Who is the biggest fraud in politics"? Obama has about as much integrity and authenticity as a designer purse you purchase from a hidden room in a souvenir shop in Chinatown. The Emperor's New Clothes of the current political arena is nothing more than a puff of hot air, an empty shell of a politician, who feels more like he was created by a PR firm or a kinda liberal television script writer than an actual person with real ideals and principles. Here are some other questions to which B.O. might be "The Answer":
Whom am I never voting for?

Who can read a pretty, vague speech once at a convention and thusly convince a lot of brain-dead zombies he's the second coming of Kennedy?

What's uglier than Hillary Clinton, slicker than Bill Clinton, less tolerable than Al Gore on stage, and more of a hypocrite than John Edwards?

Who thinks that by tossing around nebulous terms like "hope" rather than addressing real issues or actually thinking during a debate, he can win over the hearts rather than minds of the American people, who are all too willing to vote image over substance?

Who is a big enough arrogant prick to have his wife refer to him by a hyperbole like The Answer?

John Kerry on the Fairness Doctrine

Nobody is likely surprised at fascist-leftist John Kerry's views on the Orwellian titled 'Fairness Doctrine' which has been rearing its monstrous head again, due to the fact that citizens are exercising their right to free expression and daring to disagree with the Washington unrepresentatives.
“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…”
Frightening. As I read the first amendment, there is some reference to a "freedom" of the press, which as I understand it means the government should not really have control over media output, whether it be liberally biased, or conservatively so, or just plain lame and uninformative. I suppose Kerry has never picked up a copy of tiny papers like the LA Times or the New York Times to see just how well a few AM radio discussion shows have completely controlled public opinion and squashed the expression of differing opinion. Amazingly, Kerry focuses on a single forum, and idiotically suggests that since this particular form of editorial expression is not in sync with his vision of tyranny, then they must be controlled. Does he address the one-sidedness of the satirical news programs on cable TV networks? Of course not. The editorial pages of major newspapers or magazines? Nah.

The most insulting implication of his quote is the idea that if someone holds a view differing from his own, then they must be brainwashed. Talk radio must be warping the opinions of the American public, rather than the public forming their own opinion and tuning in to programs that represent their views. What utter arrogance to think those that disagree with Kerry are too stupid to formulate their own opinions. They must just be parrots, unable to think for themselves. Beyond wet-dreams of dictatorship, there is no excuse for Kerry's threats on free expression in this nation. If a leftist types up a blog, calling for activism, then he or she is probably a hero and a leader in Kerry's eyes; but if a conservative does the same vocally over a different medium, that broadcaster is a mesmerist and disrupter.

Everyone across the political spectrum who cherishes liberty and personal freedom should be sickened to the core at Kerry's (and other Senators') calls for totalitarianism. Except for governmentally sponsored networks, the government has no right to be ramrodding some insane concept of "equal time requirements" down the throats of privately owned forums. And most especially not some doctrine aimed at a tiny segment of the media overall, and at particular opinions and stances of one group of people. What about rock music stations playing a song bashing George Bush? Will they then be required to play a pro-Bush song right after? Or at least provide equal time for a right-wing pundit to debate the lyrical content of the song? How about Christian stations? Will they be required to provide equal time to atheists and muslims?

Whether or not you agree with anything said on talk radio at all, you should respect and defend the rights of these individuals and stations to say whatever the fuck they want. Challenge their ideas all you want, wherever you want. The sphere of public debate encompasses more than any single medium. But for God's sake, don't take the socialist route and attempt to control speech and thought and challenge their RIGHT to speak and express their views. And don't be a big fucking cowardly loser baby, and stamp your feet like a worthless shithead over the idea that huge segments of the population just simply disagrees with you. Calling Kerry a "pussy" would be an insult to female body parts. Enough of your political tantrums. I've heard liberals and Democrats bitch and moan about the dangers Republicans pose to "civil liberties," (and sure a lot of them call for similarly detestable legislation), but they're no better. Honestly, fuck the whole lot of you, those of you, especially our "leaders," who wrap yourselves in the Constitution and pay lip-service to it while at the same shit all over it.

John Kerry, as horrible of a President as Bush has turned out to be (fiscally un-conservative, inept as a commander in chief, a downright traitor on the issue of illegal aliens), you would have been 1,000 times worse. Or maybe just 999 worse. But we might as well have had Hugo Chavez as our top executive as you. He likes to punish members of the media for disagreeing with him too.

I'm a little pissed that Obama didn't give me a chapter to express my views about him in his book. What are you going to do about that?