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.
Pages: 1 2
Orwellian indeed. One need only run some of the Left's latest phrases through a newspeak translator to see in what kind of intellectual totalitarian world they would have us live. "Incendiary rhetoric?" Well, that would be any effective argument that might compel a citizen to oppose any number of kicked-in-the-head ideas the Dems want us to blindly accept.
All of a sudden the Left has some weird and unrealistic expectation (or is it just wishful thinking?) that Americans will become docile sheep if they are sternly lectured to about the consequences of "Incendiary rhetoric" . When has that ever been the case? Like never? These political dipsticks must think we're living in Candyland.
So there you go Ed Markey. Was that incendiary enough for you?
If someone on the Right still has doubts that we, the People, are at a war against Leftist/Fascist totalitarian regime, and/or is shy of saying it openly, should promptly have their head examined, and then immediately enroll in the regime's "re-education camps" (Write or Call Toll Free to "Democracy Now", the Goebbellian Propagand Ministry of the Party.
"If someone on the Right still has doubts that we, the People, are at a war against Leftist/Fascist totalitarian regime, and/or is shy of saying it openly, should promptly have their head examined"
Yes, you're perfectly correct, and its why I was so angry at the Republicans who signed up for this "bipartisan" seating arrangement during the State of the Union speech. The Republicans so badly need to wake up to what the real battle is about here. They have been losing for years because they still foolishly believe the Democrats have good intentions. They need to say- "You sit there and we'll sit here, for not only do we not want to sit among you, we really do not want you sitting among us." My further thoughts here.
In Canada, Canadian hate crime laws and the Human Rights Commissions which operate outside the courts system have been used, in the past, to silence conservatives who criticize homosexuals, multiculturalism, the politics of the left, and among other things, Islamic terrorism.
Exactly what this will lead to. After all, our President agrees with the UN and would subject the US to their proposed international law forbidding hate speech against religion. Which means anything said against or even challenging Islam would be a crime. Remember in Nazi Germany one of the first objectives was to control what was said…and heard. Remember also that once our right to disagree (speak freely) is taken, all our other rights are in the balance.