Bill O’Reilly: Column – Ferguson, Truth, and The End of Time

Bill O’Reilly: Column – Ferguson, Truth, and The End of Time.


Ferguson, Truth, and The End of Time
By: Staff Friday, November 28, 2014
Remember Time Magazine? The weekly journal that was once must-reading for informed Americans died long ago; in its place is a publication that shares the Time name but none of its former prestige or relevance.

So why bring up an irrelevant magazine? Because of all the idiotic things said and written about the Ferguson rioters, Time wins top prize for mind-numbing stupidity. A contributor named Darlena Cunha used her platform to praise the rioters who looted and burned and rampaged. Violent protests, according to Ms. Cunha, are “a necessary part of the evolution of society.” That is, as long as they’re not in her neighborhood.

Not to be too far outdone, the esteemed New York Times published the name of the street on which Officer Darren Wilson lives with his new bride, further endangering a man who is already a target of death threats. Meanwhile, a state senator in Missouri joyously proclaimed that this is “our race war,” and assorted other pundits and politicians casually tossed around terms like “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.”

So the anti-American crowd, as expected, used the non-indictment to vent their hatred and resentment, to insist once again that blacks and other minorities don’t get a fair shake from the criminal justice system and our capitalistic economy.

To be fair, most Americans recognize that young black men are often viewed with more suspicion than, say, young Asian men. Not just by cops, but by shop owners and people walking down the street. Is it fair? No. But is it at least in part understandable? Of course.

All one has to do is examine a few stats. As the brave black columnist Jason Riley points out, blacks commit violent crimes at about ten times the rate of whites. Blame it on poverty or lack of education or anything else that makes you feel better, but the fact remains that black criminality is disproportionately high.

Not coincidentally, that mirrors another horrible statistic: More than 70% of black newborns don’t have a caring father in the home. That is a recipe for mayhem, anti-social behavior, and lack of discipline. It has been pointed out that fatherlessness has done a far better job of destroying parts of black America than the Klan could have dreamed of.

Al Sharpton knows all of this. So does the pompous professor Michael Eric Dyson, who accused former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of harboring a “white supremacy” mentality. Dyson’s evidence: Giuliani had the impudence to point out that black men are killing one another in America’s cities and that cops are needed to protect the many decent residents in those precincts.

All of the above is often ignored by the mainstream press. It doesn’t fit their biases, which led to so much misinformation being spread from the very beginning of the Ferguson saga. The media painted Michael Brown as an angelic figure, a latter-day Emmett Till, when in fact he was anything but that. As Jason Riley put it, Brown was “much more of a menace than a martyr.” Who could watch the video of Brown strong-arming a diminutive store clerk and come to any other conclusion? But many in our corrupt media follow a simple mantra: If the facts don’t fit the fable, print the fable.

There will inevitably be another racial incident in some American town. Will the media have learned anything from Ferguson, from the Duke lacrosse debacle, from the Trayvon Martin killing? Or will they once again go off half-cocked, crafting a story before knowing the truth? The odds are not great. Stories like Ferguson pump up ratings for some desperate cable outlets and give racial hustlers the attention that is their lifeblood.

But each one of these incidents chips away at the idea that we live in a fundamentally noble and just nation. Every fire set, every insult hurled, every stone thrown damages America itself. This nation has a unique ability to right its wrongs, to get incrementally better with each generation. But the America-haters believe our nation was born in sin, remains fundamentally flawed, and must be ripped apart. So they are absolutely gleeful every time another Ferguson comes along, providing another chance to spew anti-American poison. Without an honest media to set things straight, it’s imperative for the rest of us to fight back. With facts, with honesty … and without fear.

Let’s start by calling out Time Magazine for publishing garbage. The aforementioned Darlena Cunha asks a question in her execrable column: “Is rioting so wrong?” Yes, Ms. Cunha, it is. And nearly as wrong was Time’s decision to publish your incendiary diatribe.

If Time is still taking nominees for its Person of the Year, the magazine might consider honoring one of the masked rioters who ruined the lives of business owners in Ferguson. Because, like many of those little shops on West Florissant Avenue, Time Magazine has gone down in flames.

Ferguson in Flames | FrontPage Magazine

Ferguson in Flames | FrontPage Magazine.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, “Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.”


APTOPIX Ferguson_Schu(29)Grand jurors in Ferguson, Mo., refused to indict local police officer Darren Wilson yesterday, heroically resisting pressure from President Obama on down to lynch an innocent police officer who fought off a violent attacker.

The decision is infuriating left-wingers across America because it rebuts the underlying assumption they embrace which is that white police racism caused the death of Michael Brown, a young black thug who tried to seize Wilson’s gun in an attempt to do the officer harm.

As fresh rioting was already underway in the St. Louis area, the decision also angered President Obama who could barely contain his hostility in a disgraceful, unprecedented television appearance following the release of the announcement about the non-indictments. Obama urged activists to refrain from using violence. The president himself bears direct responsibility for fomenting the combustible situation, however.

The county’s elected prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, calmly explained the process in detail last night that the grand jury employed in choosing not to return indictments in five potential charges from first-degree murder to lesser offenses.

McCulloch is a white Democrat who has come under heavy fire from race-baiting members of his own political party. His partisans hate him because he does not share their antipathy for police officers, and presumably, because he is the wrong color. McCulloch easily secured the Democratic nomination for his office in a primary election four days before Brown was killed. In that contest, he handily beat former state public defender Leslie T. Broadnax, a black woman, by a margin of 71.4 percent to 28.6 percent.

McCulloch said many witnesses gave testimony that was not believable. Witnesses fabricated events, admitted they were in error, clung to discredited factual accounts, or gave evidence inconsistent with the physical evidence.

McCulloch said grand jurors were “the only people who heard every witness … and every piece of evidence.”

“These grand jurors poured their hearts and soul into this process,” he said. The grand jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks and was meeting every week since Aug. 20 to hear evidence in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. The panel convened for 70 hours and heard from 60 witnesses.

Perhaps in a conciliatory gesture to those who wanted Wilson strung up, McCulloch referred to the death of Brown and the events surrounding it as tragic. Obama too used the word tragic.

But that is the wrong word.

Recall that Brown, an 18-year-old black male, was killed in Ferguson, Mo., on Aug. 9 by white police officer Darren Wilson after he attacked Wilson and tried to grab his handgun. Brown’s defenders characterize him as a gentle giant even though a few minutes earlier he was captured on video committing a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store, roughing up a much smaller clerk in the process. At autopsy Brown’s height was 6′ 5″ and his weight was 289 lbs. As previously reported, autopsy results were consistent with witness accounts that Brown reached for Wilson’s gun during their fateful altercation.

Brown’s death was not tragic. He was a villain. The evidence shows that he initiated potentially deadly force against an officer of the law and suffered the consequences of his actions. Grand jurors only needed a little bit of evidence to indict Officer Wilson. The evidence needed only to establish that probable cause existed to charge Wilson with a crime. The prosecution couldn’t even satisfy that low legal bar. The Wilson case may never have made it to a grand jury at all were it not for the antics of left-wing racial grievance groups working with and taking directions from the Obama administration.

The decision not to indict Wilson is not a tragedy. Far from it. The decision is just, proof that the grand jury system that was created to prevent governments from railroading unpopular defendants still works.

The tragedy is that Wilson had to be subjected to a three-month-long circus in which he was wrongfully accused of being a racist, murdering cop. He was demonized in the media day in and day out, a process that continues in the nation’s newsrooms even after last night’s announcement.

Petulant, as America’s childish Commander-in-Chief is wont to be when he fails to get his way, Obama sounded angry that grand jurors failed to indict Officer Wilson. The plot by Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Obama operative Al Sharpton to lynch Wilson in the courts failed.

Coming across like a Latin American caudillo, Obama sounded disgusted with Ferguson police and police forces across the nation in a press briefing last night.

Instead of accepting the grand jury’s wise decision, Obama set about stoking the flames. After spending months stirring up racial antagonism, Obama pontificated as if an innocent bystander of the events.

The decision “was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in Ferguson, but across America, so I want to just say a few words suggesting how we might move forward,” he said, without noting that Wilson’s use of justifiable force against Brown became a national issue at his instigation.

Ignoring the fact that the death of Michael Brown had everything to do with his threatening, abusive behavior and absolutely nothing to do with his race, Obama implied cops hate minorities.

“We need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation,” Obama said, even though no broader challenges that we face as a nation played a role in Brown’s death.

“The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color,” he said, without noting that he and his comrades-in-arms in the world of community organizing have created distrust and disharmony where none previously existed.

Obama then blamed white people for Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson.

“Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country,” Obama said even though there is no evidence that the residue of racial discrimination played any role in Brown’s death.

“And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates,” Obama said. “The good news is we know there are things we can do to help, and I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement.” Obama said this even though the case at hand provided no evidence that there is a problem between communities and law enforcement.

The president then pivoted to make a pitch for affirmative action in police departments:

That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody’s goal, and that is to prevent crime.

These are mere policing platitudes Obama is lip-syncing as he advances the notion that only black police officers are suited to work in black communities. We do not know that it makes a difference. In fact, enforced diversity can be deadly.

We know that in the rush to furnish communities with cops of the correct skin color corners are likely to get cut and people will die as a result. Economist John Lott found in a 2000 study that the apartheid approach to police staffing led to increases in violent crime, especially in black neighborhoods. This is because the forced lowering of standards put less-qualified officers of all skin colors on the streets.

Even though the justice system ultimately worked in Ferguson, Obama pretends there is still a problem because there aren’t enough blacks in the local constabulary, in his view. He urged communities “interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform,” even though the Brown-Wilson saga does not prove any reform of the criminal justice system is needed.

Obama continued ignoring the facts, insisting there is a problem.

“We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades … but what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up,” Obama said, again ignoring that there is no evidence of a problem.

“Those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we do have work to do here, and we shouldn’t try to paper it over,” he said without proving there is any work to be done. “Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds up and America isn’t everything that it could be.”

It is as if the psychosis our troubled president suffers from regarding Ebola, the virus Obama is lovingly importing from West Africa, has spread to other issues as well. Only Obama and his fellow travelers say there is a problem in Ferguson.

The mass hysteria over Michael Brown’s death that Obama and his allies generated continues.

It is yet another success for America’s first Alinskyite president.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

Why Does Washington Want to Hide Science Data From the Public?

Why Does Washington Want to Hide Science Data From the Public?.


When federal bureaucrats drive up costs for American families and businesses through heavy-handed regulation, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for a solid scientific underpinning for that regulation.  And it shouldn’t be too big of a burden for the federal government to make its data available to the public.  Congressman David Schweikert’s, R-Ariz., Secret Science Reform Act (HR 4012) would address this.

HR 4012 would force the Environmental Protection Agency to disclose all scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.  Doing so would allow for independent analysis and allow qualified experts to reproduce the results.  The public would have access to the data, computer codes and models, as well as descriptions as to how to use and run the data. The legislation would be an important check on an agency running rogue and landing punch after punch to the American economy.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he “received a letter of support for the Secret Science Reform Act that was signed by more than 80 scientists, including physicians and professors of environmental science, physics, statistics, economics and engineering.” He added:

Subscribe to updates and alerts

The signatories included George Wolff, former chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in the Clinton administration, and Forrest J. Remick, former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the George H.W. Bush administration. They wrote that the bill would ‘make the agency’s regulations more accountable, credible and enforceable‘ and that its transparency requirements ’can be accomplished without imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research or raising confidentiality concerns.’

The federal government has been blazing a regulatory trail that significantly increases the compliance costs for businesses. Those businesses then in turn pass those costs onto families.  If a company absorbs the costs, it will prevent them from investing, innovating and employing.

You might be thinking: The environmental benefits we receive through cleaner air justify the massive costs imposed on our economy. But that’s not the case.

The fact is that federal bureaucrats are regulating all aspects of the economy at extreme costs where the marginal benefits are almost nil. At the heart of this matter is Particulate Matter or PM 2.5. According to a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority report, “up to 80 percent of the benefits associated with all federal regulations are attributed to supposed PM2.5 reductions.”

To illustrate how this works, consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury air and toxic rule. The EPA claims that the mercury air and toxics rule would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. But the agency vastly overstates the environmental benefits by including estimated benefits from reducing particulates already covered by existing regulations.  Not including these particulates lowers the projected benefit to only $6 million, at most. In other words, these co-benefits account for 99.996 percent of the agency’s estimated benefits – much of that being PM2.5 co-benefits.

Here’s where the secret science comes in.  The two studies that represent the scientific foundation  for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.   Because the data is unavailable to the public, the two studies used to justify the federal government’s regulatory ambush have never been reproduced, independently verified or validated in any way.  In fact, even without the data available, the studies have come under intense criticism.

Opponents of HR4012 label the bill as anti-science and a roadblock for the agency.  But the reality is the bill is simply anti-secret science.  Is that too much to ask for from a taxpayer-funded agency?

Furthermore, a roadblock is just what this agency needs to prevent bureaucrats from unjustifiably extracting trillions out of the American economy and destroying millions of jobs for no meaningful environmental benefit.

In March 2009, President Obama released a White House memo stressing that “the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.”   If that’s the case, the administration should welcome an opportunity to give the public access to the science and data to ensure politicians aren’t altering the outcomes.

Swiss Central Bank Admits Buying Shares of Stock Market! Preventing Deflation Collapse! | THE FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON BLOG

Swiss Central Bank Admits Buying Shares of Stock Market! Preventing Deflation Collapse! | THE FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON BLOG.

Central banks around the world are printing currency out of thin air and buying shares of their stock markets! There is now public evidence of this being a global mandate in order to keep the markets continuing higher. Low interest rates and trillions of QE aren’t enough.

Every central bank needs to be directly in the market to pump it up as REAL deflation is

 SNB Swiss central bank buying shares equities
EU says Starbucks’ ‘very low’ Dutch tax deal may be illegal
Tax Revenues Set Record for October; Feds Still Run Monthly Deficit of $1,050 Per Household
Portugal Finds Chinese Make 90% of Bids at Property Sale
The first and the most obvious: the build-up of financial imbalances risks a future financial crisis, an impaired financial sector and a debt overhang.
Weather, tight supplies drive U.S. cattle prices to new high
Conflicts in New York City Parks as Homeless Population Rises

The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more


You might also like:
G. Edward Griffin – We Should Ignore The FED
America: A Police State Story
The New US Emperor is Here.



Pfarrer: Americans sold a bogus story of bin Laden kill mission | Human Events

Pfarrer: Americans sold a bogus story of bin Laden kill mission | Human Events.

Defense & National Security


Pfarrer: Americans sold a bogus story of bin Laden kill mission

Pfarrer: Americans sold a bogus story of bin Laden kill mission

Chuck Pfarrer



Retired SEAL Team commander Chuck Pfarrer, author of SEAL Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden, told Guns & Patriots that the Obama White House manufactured their own narrative of the SEAL raid that killed bin Laden for the purpose of a quid pro quo with Hollywood.

The 2012 action thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” allegedly tells the story about the May 1, 2011 SEAL raid code-named “Neptune’s Spear” on bin Laden who was hiding in Abottabad, Pakistan, is fictitious, said the former SEAL commander, who spoke to members of the SEAL Team Six, and other principals involved while gathering information on his book. “Look at the movie – it’s preposterous.”

The movie mimics Obama’s then counterterrorism advisor, John O. Brennan’s version of events, when he describes a bottom-up SEAL operation and a 45-minute, three-flight firefight that never took place, he said.


“Pakistani investigators found seven hand grenades on the third floor after the raid,” he said. “If the assaulters came from the ground floor, bin Laden would have certainly used them.”

As detailed in Pfarrer’s book, there was no evidence of a three-flight firefight, no spent cartridges and no bloody boot-prints. According to eye witnesses Neptune’s Spear was a top-down operation, not a bottom-up one, he said.

The helicopter landed on the roof of the compound, as planned, and the SEALs jumped down into the third floor, shot and killed bin Laden and one of his sons, said Pfarrer. “It was over in about 90 seconds.”

Eye witnesses said about 10 to 15 minutes into the operation, the helicopter came off the roof, unmanned, crashed nearby and was later deliberately blown up by the departing SEAL Team, he said.

“The American media stuck to the crashed-on approach story even though Pakistani news sources quoted bin Laden’s neighbors who saw the helicopters land on the roof,” he said.

Pakistan’s own investigation, the Abottabad Commission Report, quoted Pfarrer’s book and cited it as the most accurate description of the actions in the compound, he said. “The WhiteHouse did not get the story right, twice, so they clamped down on the last narrative–and stuck to it.”

A month before the raid, Sony pictures hosted President Obama for an in-studio fundraiser that took in a million dollars, said Pfarrer. Days after operation Neptune’s Spear, the White House gave Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal access to the situation room, classified documents, and interviews with officials who rolled-out the same false narrative, he said.

The press was complacent, he said. “Nobody asked about this symbiosis in the White House briefing room.”

Judicial Watch, a D.C. government watch group, met with closed doors in its attempt to receive information from the Obama administration. In July, they filed joint federal lawsuits against the Department of Defense for failing to produce answers to its FOIA request.

In a July press release, Judicial Watch said:

“We have assiduously pursued the Obama administration for the bin Laden death photos for more than three years, and we are not about to stop now,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “President Obama’s decision not to release the bin Laden photos is at odds with his promises to make his administration the most transparent in history. And we just want the truth so we can complete the public record on one of the most significant military operations, and successes, in United States history. We are concerned that the Pentagon, as this administration has repeatedly done, has destroyed documents or played other games in order to deceive the public and the courts. The fact that we have to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit about our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows just how insane this administration is when it comes to secrecy.”

Pfarrer said he was similarly stonewalled by the DOD and the Central Intelligence Agency while preparing his book. “I met with the CIA and got the run-around.” They refused him access to the situation room, composite pictures and live video that is in their possession, he said.

“My manuscript was vetted by the DOD who made changes to it,” he said. “At the highest levels of government my story has been confirmed.” Yet, when his book was released, the White House issued a character assassination of him, he said. “History deserves better. I stand by my story.”

The SEALs are the best in the world and the operation was a brilliant military success, he said.

“Nobody has to tell me about duty,” said Pfarrer. “Someone needs to tell the truth.”


Enter email for 2nd Amendment alerts

Sign Up



Those who read this also read




Military scolded: ‘You don’t protect my freedom’

Military scolded: ‘You don’t protect my freedom’.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

141110soldiersilhouetteJust in time for Veteran’s Day on Tuesday, a leftist writer at has penned a column saying it’s “childish” to honor America’s men and women in uniform as “heroes.”

In a column titled “You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy,” writer David Masciotra argues it’s been 70 years since American soldiers fought a war about freedom and “forced troop worship and compulsory patriotism must end.”

“Put a man in uniform, preferably a white man, give him a gun, and Americans will worship him,” Masciotra writes. “It is a particularly childish trait, of a childlike culture, that insists on anointing all active military members and police officers as ‘heroes.’”

Citing police brutality, sexual assault in the ranks and alleged murder of civilians by the U.S. military, the author claims calling today’s troops “heroes” “betrays a frightening cultural streak of nationalism, chauvinism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism.”

“Even saluting a Marine, while holding a coffee cup, is tantamount to terrorism,” Masciotra insists.

His reasoning continues:”The war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. … Wars that are not heroic have no real heroes, except for the people who oppose those wars.”

Masciotra even goes so far as to suggest Americans “should do everything they can to discourage young, poor and working-class men and women from joining the military.”

And rather than give soldiers the blanket title of “hero,” Masciotra suggests America start using the term for teachers, hospice workers and social workers.

Several social media outlets, like Twitter, have erupted with criticism of Masciotra’s column.

Even television personality Montel Williams was incensed over Masciotra’s screed, launching a Twitter campaign demanding apologize for the column.

Williams has blasted out several tweets, including the following:

  • “This piece by @DavidMasciotra is as offensive to #Veterans as it is intellectually dishonest.”
  • “Glad someone fought to defend ur right to prove ‘stupid is as stupid does’ from cheap seats.”
  • “I’d encourage you all to let @salon and @davidmasciotra know just how offensive this piece of mindless stupidity is.”
  • “@Salon owes #veterans an apology. This is as asinine as it is offensive, intellectually flawed.”
  • “Is this really @Salon editorial position? An apology is owed.”

A quick survey of the @Salon and @davidmasciotra Twitter feeds finds several sources taking up Williams’ call, though @Salon has yet to issue any kind of response. The Twitter handle @davidmasciotra does not appear to be linked to Masciotra himself.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger


Democrats hate ‘fairness,’ ‘free speech’

Democrats hate ‘fairness,’ ‘free speech’.

I grew up in a Democratic Party home.

My Dad was a labor leader, on the board of the American Civil Liberties Union, a yellow-dog Democrat.

I remember cheering the election of John F. Kennedy as a kid and, as a family, mourning his assassination in the turbulent fall of 1963.

To us, you’d have to be insane to vote for Barry Goldwater. It was all the way with LBJ in 1964.

That’s about the time the wheels started coming off the Democratic Party. The process of anti-American radicalization was all but complete by 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern. Democrats have never looked back since. Today the party is indistinguishable, quite literally, from the Communist Party USA, which no longer sees any point in running its own candidates for president as it did through the 1970s.

You could point to any number of issues to illustrate the radicalism of the Democratic Party:

  • It prefers socialism to free enterprise.
  • It prefers redefining marriage from a union of one man and one woman to anything goes.
  • Though it loves government regulation of just about everything – from the size of soft drinks to your choice of medical care to public smoking – it tirelessly opposes any restrictions on the killing of unborn babies whatsoever.
  • It believes requiring identification to vote is equivalent to “voter suppression.”
  • In fact, it proffers that requiring Democratic presidential candidates to provide proof of constitutional eligibility for the office is akin to racism.

I could continue ad nauseam. And, believe me, I get a little nauseous reviewing what this party stands for today.

But perhaps the most striking change in the character of the Democratic Party can be witnessed in its growing hostility to “fairness” and “free speech.”

An illustration of this can be seen in the way Democrats, whose political allies dominate the news media, the entertainment industry, academia, education and all of the major cultural institutions, are pushing to stamp out any dissent from their party line coming from independent Internet news sites like this one.

A week and a half ago, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to reiterate a warning that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

“A re-examination of the commission’s approach to the Internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue,” said Democratic FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel.

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising, which posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny Internet campaigns like “Obama Girl” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he said. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

The sea change in Democratic Party thinking reflects a war-like attitude the new ideologues have toward domestic politics. It’s the kind of mentality that eventually leads to totalitarian, police-state tactics. That’s how dangerous the Democratic Party has become.

It isn’t willing to compete on an even playing field in the battleground of ideas. It’s isn’t even willing to compete on a playing field that is heavily stacked against its opposition. It seeks to destroy the opposition, deny it any meaningful platform or forum, to label its ideas hate speech and worse.

And that’s why Americans need to continue their opposition to all members of this party beyond Election Day.

It’s about preserving the Constitution. It’s about saving the American way of life.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact

Receive Joseph Farah’s daily commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Joseph Farah’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

  • Name*
  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Joseph Farah’s daily commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.