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.”

[jazusamo]

The enemedia love these leftists.

[astyanax]

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.”

[MrB]

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.

[SueRae]

There should be enough material there to fill a tankership, after what the Bush adminstration endured for eight long years....

[lormand]

Nothing to see here...just move along people....

/ state run media

[worst-case scenario]

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?

[Tex-Con-Man]

...But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

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.”

Public radio producer fantasized about watching Rush Limbaugh die on Journolist

[jazusamo]

It seems MRC took the time to look up the facts and state them on the record.

[Noumenon]

"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.

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? They’ve got help, and lots of it. They are Antonio Gramsci’s heirs and disciples. The Left’s “useful idiots”. Here’s a brief taxonomy of the killers without conscience and their enablers:

1. Wishful thinkers (and the mentally lazy) – don’t 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, wouldn’t it? Wishful thinkers and those like them aren’t 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 doesn’t 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 there’s 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 won’t go along with it? The hard Left, that’s who, and they’ve said as much - but that’s 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 1970’s so we’re actually giving him a bit of a discount on that 25 million figure. But what’s a few million here and there? Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian (now there’s 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 we’re 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 we’ve got over 260 million dead in this century and the last one to prove it. Now, let’s say that again – that’s 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, ‘It’s 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? Here’s my question for a proud ‘progressive’: If you’re a follower or apologist for today’s 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, here’s 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 you’re advocating. History is my witness.

[Dogbert41]

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!

[astyanax]

Sorry, but you seem to be implying that both sides are the same, or equally guilty.
Find anything conservatives have done that compares to this:
The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010
And no, I don't believe you can talk to people who behave like this. Nor do I have any desire to.

[worst-case scenario]

Okay, you don’t want to talk to Liberals. How, them are you proposing that this country overcome its problems?

[devolve]

[WilliamofCarmichael]

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.”

"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.)

[jeffc]

Wow!

How did the left-stream "media" miss all this?

I think I just answered my own question...

[worst-case scenario]

Read William Shiere, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.”
Nazis were NOT socialists. Their name “National Socialist”, was an attempt to ingratiate themselves with the German public in the 30s, when the Socialists *were* popular in Germany.

When they got into power, they sent Socialists and Communists to the death camps right along with Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

[astyanax]

"Okay, you don’t want to talk to Liberals. How, them are you proposing that this country overcome its problems?"
Let me return the question to you.
Do you believe the country can "overcome its problems" by pointing out to liberals that "No, George Bush ISN'T the antichrist" and "No, monkeys do NOT defecate on McCain's head"?
In other words, what exactly do you think dialogue can accomplish with people whose beliefs and actions are not based on facts or logic?

[slowhandluke]

When a bully pushes on you, you need to push back or you will eventually be rolled over.

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.

[devolve]

.

OK - Right!

Now spin this lameØ:

United Soviet Socialist Republics

.

[M. Thatcher]

Okay, you don’t want to talk to Liberals. How, them are you proposing that this country overcome its problems?

By utterly defeating them.