World NUT Daily Crazy Called For Political Witch Hunts, Purges and Ultimately, Executions of Liberals if Romney Had Won!

WND Columnist: Prosecute Liberals, Journalists for Treason

Submitted by Brian Tashman

For years, conservatives have claimed that liberals seek to criminalize Christianity and conservative opinions through imaginary hate speech laws. But today, WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush writes that the government should prosecute liberals and members of the press… in order to defend freedom, of course. He accuses journalists of “treasonous collusion” with the Obama administration and said the Founders would have wanted journalists to be “found guilty of high crimes.” “Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply,” Rush says, “and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.” He claims that progressives’ “seditious, anti-American” speech is “excepted from protection under the First Amendment,” hoping that “the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.”

Assuming that all goes well and that we are rid of Obama in January, there will be a nation to repair – but what about the causes for this necessity? Yes, many Americans are now cognizant of the fact that progressives have “progressed” America dangerously close to being a Marxist-socialist nation and that we are collectively responsible for not having checked that progress. But aside from grass-roots efforts toward electoral and political reform, there are other widespread, organized threats to America’s ongoing concern as a representative republic with guaranteed personal liberties, free speech foremost among them.

Here, I am speaking of the press, the conglomeration of national broadcast, digital and print media organizations that has been incrementally packed with ideological liberals and socialists, and so has disqualified itself as the impartial government watchdog it once was. During my lifetime, I have seen the press become an advance force for social engineering and global socialism. The degree to which they have deceived Americans and enabled the agenda of radicals in recent decades is beyond shame. As former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell said recently, the press has become an enemy of the American people. In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion. One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama. Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event.

…

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

Related articles

• Dispatches From Birtherstan – 8-9 November 2012 (badfiction.typepad.com)
• Free Republic Geniuses Would Like To Be Part Of England Again, To Escape Socialism (wonkette.com)
• WND Publishes Column Calling For Imprisonment And Execution Of Journalists Should Mitt Romney Win (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Dispatches From Birtherstan – 6-7 November 2012 (badfiction.typepad.com)
• Wingnuts Launch Impeachment Site (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• 5 Signs Racism Still Rules Politics (urbantimes.co)
• President Barack Obama Is Much Better on Most Issues and Worse on None! (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)

Obama Wins Debate | Better In Style Stronger On Substance

Self-assured Obama recovers with better balance of style and substance

Mitt Romney puts up a fight against a more decisive opponent but can’t overcome the president’s sharp delivery

Obama won the best lines of the night as Romney came off overly aggressive in an attempt to maintain his lead. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Barack Obama had one thing going for him coming into this debate: he couldn’t be any worse than the last time. Mitt Romney had one drawback: he apparently couldn’t be any better.

As it turned out Obama was much better. Clearer, sharper, more decisive and passionate, he challenged Mitt Romney on the facts and rhetorically he overwhelmed him. It was a rout every bit as conclusive as the first debate. Only this time the victor was Obama. Last time he barely showed up; tonight he showed Romney up.

Self-assured without being too cocky, focused without being too wonkish, he managed to strike the right balance between being firm with Romney and empathetic with the questioners. There was little of substance that he said that was different; but there was a great deal of difference in the way that he said it.

To him were gifted the best lines of the night. When taking on his Republican challenger over his shift from supporting a ban on assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts to opposing them as a presidential candidate, he said: “He was before an assault weapons ban before he was against it.”

When Romney pushed him on investments in his pension funds Obama, asking if he’d seen his pension recently, Obama responded: “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.”

When Romney was corrected by the moderator, Candy Crowley, after suggesting that Obama did not call the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi a “terrorist attack” Obama shouted with a smile: “Say it louder, Candy.”

Romney did put up a fight. Approaching the debate with the same style as he did in Denver he brought his best self. Probably his best line came in an answer about why, given the hard times of Obama’s first term, he should be trusted with a second. “We just can’t afford another four years like the last four years,” said Romney.

It is difficult to equate the stiff and impersonal figure of the conventions with the man who showed up tonight. But it simply wasn’t enough. Indeed, if anything it was too much. For in his effort to reassert the control he enjoyed during the first debate he overreached.

Where he once appeared animated he now came off as aggressive. His interruptions looked desperate and his interjections were shrill. In the two weeks since his triumph in Denver he went from persuasive to petulant.

The other loser tonight was US politics. Two men circling, talking over each other, drawing on different facts and calling each other liars looked like a metaphor for much that has gone wrong in American political culture over the last generation. Town hall meetings are supposed to be less confrontational. But more caustic than consensual, this was a bad-tempered affair.

Obama’s performance will energise his base and shore up the doubts of those shaken by his earlier drubbing. It will staunch the bleeding of support towards Romney but it is unlikely to reverse the flow.

They called it a town-hall meeting. But in truth there are very few towns like it. It was a room full of undecided voters: the nation is not.