opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Brent Bozell
L. Brent Bozell
18 Apr 2014
'Close Observers of History' Hate Ollie North

For its second season, the creators of the FX series "The Americans" have chosen a new source for insight … Read More.

16 Apr 2014
Helping the Democrats Avoid the Victims

For a moment, imagine yourself back in 2006, at the height of liberal aggression about the "imperial hubris" … Read More.

11 Apr 2014
Brandeis Bows to Islamic Censorship

It's graduation time. Many college students are preparing for their commencement ceremonies. On some campuses,… Read More.

Fox News, 'America's Poison'?


The New York Times really loathes Rupert Murdoch. The Gray Lady almost achieved nirvana on the front page the other day when a group of laborites in the British Parliament asserted in a "damning report" that Murdoch was "not fit" for major media ownership. Bill Keller, recently the paper's executive editor, devoted his latest column to Fox News with the headline "Murdoch's Pride Is America's Poison."

The man who edited The New York Times is blunt: "I would argue that — at least for Americans — Fox News is Murdoch's most toxic legacy." If that's not ridiculous enough, try this: He claims the problem is not that Fox is conservative, but because ... wait for it ... Fox pretends to be objective instead of openly admitting it's partisan. Unlike, say, The New York Times.

"My complaint is that Fox pretends very hard to be something it is not, and in the process, contributes to the corrosive cynicism that has polarized our public discourse," he declares. Whether he was giggling uncontrollably as he typed this was unclear.

Can these liberals be more clueless? Actually, yes. Keller is smart enough to understand why the American people believe the media elite is shamelessly slanted to the left and is presently huckstering for President Obama like he's a struggling brand, a political new Coke. Keller concedes his media critics "probably are convinced that what they have created is the conservative counterweight to a media elite long marinated in liberal bias."

But then comes another passage that really deserves its very own laugh track. Keller insists the conservatives are wrong. They're not biased at The New York Times because "we try to live by a code, a discipline, that tells us to set aside our personal biases, to test not only facts but the way they add up, to seek out the dissenters and let them make their best case, to show our work. We write unsparing articles about public figures of every stripe — even, sometimes, about ourselves."

Quick, let's disprove Keller in a sentence or less. (It can be done.) Here's Bill Keller reporting from Moscow in 1989: "Watching the Supreme Soviet invent itself is a little like speed-reading the Federalist Papers." In 1996, he asserted that dissenter-murdering Mikhail Gorbachev was "a man of impeccable character."

Unlike Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes, they poison America.

Anyone who reads The New York Times can easily disprove Keller. In stories about global warming, does the Times "seek out the dissenters and let them make their best case"? What about gay marriage? Abortion? Waterboarding? Dick Cheney?

Keller concedes the Times has "often been condescending to those who don't share our secular urban vantage point" on the social issues, but then insists, "It's also true that we have sometimes been too evenhanded, giving equal time to arguments that fail a simple fact-check." There's not a single conservative anywhere fishing in the deep end of the sanity pond who would agree with that.

Keller tut-tutted that Fox can't really believe its shows are "fair and balanced," because "that's just a slogan for suckers." And "All The News That's Fit to Print" is for scholars? Isn't the "fair and balanced" just as implied when Keller talks of how the media elites have a "code" where we "set aside our personal biases"?

But think of that Times slogan for a minute. The key words for Keller are "fit to print." In the glory days of pre-Fox journalism, if the Times insisted a story — let's just guess a story that gores the liberal ox — was not "fit to print," the story was deep-sixed. Spiked. Axed.

The real reason Fox is somehow "America's Poison" is because of its willingness to go around the liberal censorship wish list and define what is "fit to print" in a different way. If Keller really liked "seeking out the dissenters," wouldn't he applaud Fox instead of comparing it to metaphorical cyanide?

Instead, Keller unspools the classic liberal complaint that what's wrong with "news" consumers these days is they often seek "an information diet that simply confirms your prejudices." The elitists in "traditional news organizations ... see it as their mission see it as their mission to provide — and test — the information you need to form intelligent opinions. We aim to challenge lazy assumptions. Fox panders to them."

Ah, those insufferable elites. But here's what really, truly gets them: We don't have to suffer them any more. We don't have to rip up our morning papers daily. Only the subscription notices, once.

Now conservatives have choices. Now we can insist that it's liberal twits such as Arthur Sulzberger who are "not fit" for media ownership, at least not the kind we want to bankroll. The republic will survive without having its information diet loaded with the empty calories of The New York Times.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



23 Comments | Post Comment
Here is a theory. Fox news in just another part of the liberal media and is controlled by liberals. This seems crazy, but think about it, conservative people have to get their news from somewhere. They don't want them turning to underground news sources like blogs and podcasts, where you get actual good information. So they prop up a "conservative" news network to feed these types of people the conservative stories they think they want to hear while filtering out stories that matter. I have a very low opinion of any sort of media. They let too many important stories slip through the cracks and they never talk about the loss of civil liberties.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed May 9, 2012 6:52 AM
Sir;... What may be concluded for freedom of religion is true also of freedom of the press: that it has not added significantly to our freedom, nor protected us, but has empowered those who control them at the expense of the people, and with the cost of many lives...The superficiality of both religion and press, fighting occasionally against obvious evils without considering the roots of evil, and often even fertilizing them, -makes them appealing to the simple, but useless as privilages... It was never in the interest of democracy or of a democratic country to have the people mired in magic, and unfree even in their own bodies to do as they see fit; but that is the message and aim of religion, and it dominates school curriculums, slants text books and otherwise inhibits education in order to feed bias and prejudice; and that is exactly the result of freedom of religion...It has never been in the interest of democracy to fight foreign wars, to be unarmed at home, to be empoverished and without representation, to be set neighbor against neighbor in defense of rights, and to be agitated into a lather about trivialities while the bigger issues remain untouched; but that is what the press and media does for us in private hands...

I am not saying people should not be allowed to speak as they wish or believe as they wish; but keeping press as power brokers and keeping churches as tax dodges is something we can no longer afford...They never served the purpose of the people, and do not today... Is there some argument for the press having a monopoly on truth or for one man with money having a monopoly in the press??? Is there some defense of the churches having a monopoly on morality when it should be clear they are the greatest enemy of morality??? Let me propose that communities should own their own news and elect their supervision independent of government... Let me propose a community church, big enough for all, with offices for each, and kitchens and beds and showers for the homeless that all the denominations have to share... And if they want their private this or that for members only, that they pay tax for the privilage of thinking and preaching that they are superior... When it comes to the public airwaves, it should be essential for those who use them to prove a pure and good public purpose... Why should the commonwealth allow any people to act against the best interest of the commonwealth???... We may have good reason for seeing some of the commonwealth in private hands; but if we should allow a corporation of individuals to act with the power and rights of a single person -should we not know, and should they not be able to prove, that they are acting in our interest for our good as well as for their own????... It is a mystery to me why on principal we allow individual people to act against the whole people presuming some good will come of it without any evidence of good being forthcoming... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 9, 2012 7:29 AM
Re: Chris McCoy;... Sir, .. I hate to find myself in agreement with you, but in a sense we have moved beyond the press and the media... Why should we talk through them when we can talk to each other???... The limits of communication have always been the limits of democracy, and if we can talk to everybody with relative ease, why are we not directly democratic??? We could vote on every issue every evening... We would soon find ways to limit the danger of excessive democracy but even today we have that...When you think it possible for a majority vote can tell you what rights you may enjoy, and what rights you have not then the power of the majority is too great, and we are all in danger...

The limit of rights is rights... My right to speed on the highway is limited by your right to life... A democracy that does not respect the rights of the individual to do as he or she sees fit so long as it injures no one is a democracy... Why am I voting on some issue that affects a handful of people in Dead Crab Florida??? Why am I not voting on issues likely to affect everyone in the world??? Making federal cases of local issues is what the parties do to maintain their power, but the fact is that my rights to interfere with your rights is limited... The burden of proof is not on those who demand rights, but is on those who would deny rights to show some injury or evil growing out of them... Like the parties, the press feeds partisanship, and this is unconstitutional in that one great aim of the constitution is a more perfect union, though it is difficult to say we have any sort of union to perfect at this point... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 9, 2012 7:45 AM
Re: Chris McCoy... Sorry;... Supposed to be welding on my porch... I meant to say that a democracy that does not respect rights that injure no one is NO democracy... and I am correct... All primitive democracies existed to protect and defend rights, and only those with privilages in this society actually do attack right, and it is natural for them to be in conflict because people find rights essential for their happiness or life, and privilages are not; but to have privilages they must be taken out of rights, and must be worked for and defended by those with rights, and it has not been unusual in our history for people with rights to die for privilages they would never enjoy and would always have suffered had they lived... Thanks...Sweeny..
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 9, 2012 7:55 AM
Welding on your porch? Are you serious or is that some kind of metaphor? What kind of welding? Arc welding? Resistance welding? Anyhow, what we need is a whistle-blower that just comes out and says the MSM is just a giant scam. I doubt that day will be soon, especially since the Obama adminstration has been very anti-whistleblower.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed May 9, 2012 9:35 AM
Re: Chris McCoy;... Yes, Arc welding... I designed my own front porch, and the actual roof is a smoky corrugated polycarbonate... But nothing is nailed on the roof itself...I have half inch by a quarter straps welded together at the peak and laying in about a third of the valleys of the polycarb sheets... It is part porch part sun room... Sun in the winter, shade in the summer... In the years I have had it I have had it blow up in stiff winds enough to lose a sheet once, but also have some of the top sheets of the two it takes to cover from peak to eave slide down a little leaving gaps at the peak...Now, I don't mind it though it allows a little rain and snow in because it also allows enough wind out to keep the whole roof on the structure... Finally I had to give in to just demands, and pull the sheets up where they go, but that meant I had to tie in the peak with some cross pieces and tie the bottom together as well with cross pieces to resist the wind...If I had tried to fasten it nails it would have been blown away long ago... You will have to come by and see it some time, though my wife actually draws more compliments with her garden... I agree that we need whistle blowers more than C S ers, but the whole country is a shell game... If they had wanted it to last they would have designed it like the Iroquois Confederacy rather than the Roman Republic...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 9, 2012 12:41 PM
Chris McCoy says more in his first post than Bozell does in the entire article I never thought about it, but you could be right. Certainly no one is reporting on anything significant. I distrust the whole media conglomerate.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Tom
Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 AM
It is obvious that Fox and MSNBC both dispise Ron Paul based on their "fair and balanced" propagandaI. recently started looking at CNN more because they seem to give Ron Paul honest props. Since looking at CNN more I noticed occationally they will put out conservative leaningarticles in the opinion section that MSNBC one would never ever see in MSNBC. Of course they have the social progeressive nonsense you will never see on Fox but that is to be expected from a career field dominated by leftist. Anyway. If we as Americans fail to do our own research and make stupid choices then we deserve to go the way of the Romans. Social progressives are Socialists to. And Republicans, please stop calling yourselves conservatives.
Comment: #8
Posted by: SCOTT
Fri May 11, 2012 4:16 PM
Liberals are the biggest crybabies. It isnt enough to have every single news organization in your favor but one. You want them all biased towards your outdated, failed ideas. You are for freedom of the press as long as you agree with the speech. When that crook, corrupt idiot Eric Holder was forced to admit that he hadn't even bothered to read Arizona's illegal immigration statute before bringing suit, which is very significant news as it shows the partisanship and incompetence of Holder, Fox was the only major news organization to report it. Liberals are afraid of anything that sheds light on their failed ideas and corrupt, incompetent idols. They would prefer a completely biased media that makes up stories about Romney being a bully in high school.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Thetruth
Fri May 11, 2012 8:31 PM
Re: Thetruth;... Sir, I must agree with you that liberals are crybabies, but what is the alternative??? Would you prefer that they wipe away their tears for a failed society, and pick up guns or brickbats??? Some of the biggest lies in the world begin with the statement: There are only two kinds of people in this world... There certainly are the kinds that celebrate injustice, and often so they can enjoy for a moment what they usually suffer; and there are the kinds that weep at human tragedy, and the lost potential of a nation found in every failed human life...I honestly cannot even think of some of the battle fields upon which my own flesh and blood fought without a tear for freedom they risked all to have, only to see it slipped away... To allow to some people with money in this land the freedom of speech which is to them a licence to lie, and to really maim the truth which is an essential element in any democracy, and in all relationships is to stand by and watch the powerful abuse the weak...It is a famous lie told of Socrates, that he said there would be justice in Athens when those not injured by injustice were as indignant as those who were...And there was never justice in Athens...The tears of the liberals are tears of indignation... The tears of the liberals shed for the life of this land may turn again as once they did to bullets and blood falling on battlefields in this nation, to decide IF we will be a nation, if freedom, liberty and justice for all will mean anything...If I were you, I would celebrate those tears as a sign of life, as evidence of a soul, and proof of a conscience...Consider dear truth, that with wealth goes rights, and with rights goes freedom, and with freedom goes hope; and save a bitter tear for this people...The tears of the liberals means hope that government, for and of this people, shall not perish from this land...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #10
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat May 12, 2012 8:20 AM
Thanks..Sweeney - nah, they just the tears af babies not getting their way. Worse, sometimes they are crocodile tears and the media plays along.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Tom
Sat May 12, 2012 3:20 PM
Re: Tom;... Sir... I think you underestimate the affection of some for the ideals that made this country and made this country great, and with what pain they see their ideals of love of country, freedom, and fellow human beings torn to shreds for a quick buck...You people on the right think you are the only ones with principals only because your principals have replaced your morals, and in that state you are blind to your obligations to your community...Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #12
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat May 12, 2012 6:11 PM
Thanks..Sweeney, you speak of the ideals that made this country and made this country great. Will you please name three of these ideals? Otherwise we are dealing in pastels instead of black and white. I mean this post in all respect, name three of the ideals that made this country and made this country great. I think I will learn something if you will kindly reply. I desire speciics, can you provide an answer?
Comment: #13
Posted by: Tom
Sun May 13, 2012 5:49 PM
Re: Tom;... Our Alma Mater, Soul Mother, to you, is Justice, which is the ideal behind democracy... The father of this people is liberty, the sinequanon, the without which not of all our possible aims- which may be summed up easily as survival and happiness...You are the child of these two ideals, though real, with your rights and powers are the last defense of liberty and justice, which you must preserve for yourself so that your children have them to defend...All the goods, though they are but ideals, which Aristotle says all governments are formed to achieve, are clearly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution...It is because no one wants to judge the organization against its reason for coming into being that the constitution is still revered... Otherwise it would be seen only as the rag it is that has often put us on the edge of destruction, and has forced us into civil war...
The goals are worthy, but unreached... Even the bill of rights is flawed since we had to give privilages to have rights, and the privilages are considered unassailable while our rights are always under attack...Social forms are built out of moral forms, that is, out of ideals... Our ideals are ideal, and none have ever been better...Clearly those people wanted to do good who wrote and sold the constitution; but they also wanted to do well, and they envied the lords and kings they had bannished from this land...Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #14
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon May 14, 2012 11:45 AM
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The current administration (and I believe any subsequent administration) wants to fly drones over our cities for "security" reasons. Anybody who promotes big government promotes this sort of ugly action. The government no longer trusts the citizens and feels a need to protect whom? Why, the need to protect itself. That is the "security" being protected. Liberals have great affection for this sort of government? The government needs our medical records, our financial statements, lists of the web sites we visited, and now drones overhead. I'll say it again, when you promote big government this is what you actually bargain for. A tightening grip of power over the people. Go ahead and cry, liberals, because you don't understand what facts are driving a Republican. Drones overhead. That is the more perfect union you are achieving.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Tom
Tue May 15, 2012 5:04 AM
Re: Tom;... I think you are correct to fear your government because your government was designed by the rich and for the rich; and that to protect their wealth and privilage they would nuke us as they now bombard us with propaganda... That is why the last Czar died, and Leroy in France... Those people wanted to escape revolution so they could turn the guns of strangers on their own people... Those who own the property, and those who own the technology and science and law are so unlike real Americans, that to kill us would cause them no grief... That is why all should be wary of war, because what the government finds expedient to do to others it will most certainly do to us when it is expedient ...
The people are angry and they feel they have no choice, and they don't know what to do... I'm not going to tell them what to do... The changing of forms that is talked of in the Declaration is the key to all human progress; and it is frightening, and it is necessary... And I am not going to tell people what sort of economy and government and society they need to build, because the best ideal does not beat an accceptable real; but they need to start talking to each other instead of past each other, and at each other if they will do anything...
I think we are good people, and there are good people everywhere, and I do believe we can construct a democracy that will protect for a time our rights and freedom... When people in time grow to use that form and turn it to their own profit; then let people of that day and age change it... Which is easy if you know what you are doing...We do not need to build for eternity...
People cannot change what they are... The difference even between a slave and a free man is slight...History is a lesson that people adapt rather than change themselves by way of changing their forms; and looking at history all laid out, you can see that such changes are common, and it is only when forms cannot be changed that societies are washed away by the tide...
People engrossed in the details of their lives may feel the pain and express it; but few have the perspective to understand what they are experiencing, and what they can do about it...You see that we are angry, and at present that anger is being turned toward each other... I fart and fume about the rich; but their happiness and security is not greater than our own... I pity them and us... We are all suffering the frustrations of living in a failed society...The more our anger and frustrations build up the more dangerous the situation becomes for all... A change of forms is not rocket science, but it is as dangerous, and it is better if people can talk about what they intend before they do it...We only seem to be talking at this point... We are actually miscommunicating...And a lot of these commentators are paid miscommunicators...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #16
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue May 15, 2012 5:48 AM
Thanks.. Sweeney, I would like to note a contradiction. In 12 you say,"I think you underestimate the affection of some for the ideals that made this country and made this country great, and with what pain they see their ideals of love of country, freedom, and fellow human beings torn to shreds for a quick buck..." and then in 16 you say,"I think you are correct to fear your government because your government was designed by the rich and for the rich; and that to protect their wealth and privilage they would nuke us as they now bombard us with propaganda..."

If our Republic and its documents were formed only to protect the wealthy how can liberals have affection for the ideals that made this country, and made it great? You can see these statements are dichotic, no?

I won't quibble except for one point. In twelve you scold Republicans thus, " You people on the right think you are the only ones with principals (sic) only because your principals have replaced your morals, and in that state you are blind to your obligations to your community.." So I ask some questions: Do the poor people have an obligation to the community? Should they be expediant in becoming productive members of the community instead of takers from the common well? Are those taking from the system exempt from obligation to the community? How long does that exemption last, one generation, two, three, or is this exemption eternal? Would a government that encourages some parts of the community to live off the hard work and earnings of another part of the community be contributing to what you call "a failed society"?

47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. That makes me an unlucky 53 percenter; And you question my morals? Tell me I am blind to my obligations to the community? The best way I can contribute to the community is to take responsibility for myself and those I choose to bring into this world so we present no burden to our community and are able to donate a little time and money each year to that community. No, sir, you are wrong. Wrong to place your morality above mine. Wrong to insinuate that I don't fulfill my obligations to the community. I agree that people are talking past each other, but it seems that the left is doing all of that talking, and doing so while neither listening to their own arguments (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of this post) or listening to opposing arguments. And then to justify not listening to others by insisting the opposition's morals are substandard to your own, well sir, that takes a huge dose of hubris. An insufferable amount of hubris, if you ask me. What did Senator Welch say?
Comment: #17
Posted by: Tom
Tue May 15, 2012 9:05 PM
Re: Tom;... Sir.. What the people fought for was life, liberty, and happiness...The constitution represents the end of revolution and the success of counter revolution, but the counter revolution was so successful that it threatened all freedom, so that whites had to end slavery to protect themselves from slavery...After the Civil War, property rights were made even stronger though we had just fought a war over property rights...
What people have fought for is not what they have gotten out of the bloody business...Our ideals are great, but they bring civil rights into conflict with property rights, and property owners are winning on almost every score... That is what you are seeing... People asking for rights and freedom, and the privilage of press and religion denying... Over all is the pressure of a class which has taken all the commonwealth worth having that is refusing taxation, and so forcing more of the support of the poor, the old, and the wasted on to other poor people, to be sooner driven into the dire poverty the rich force them to support...The government should work for the people, but it represents only one sort of people, the rich; and it misrepresent all the people...
So we should fear our government, and at the same time not fear the idea of government especially of self government... Things, and forms get old, and when they do they need to be replaced... We need to talk about that day because government will not talk about that day though it trembles before default...It does not work, and every amount of effort directed at making it work is wasted... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #18
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 16, 2012 5:05 AM
Re: Tom... Certainly, I do question your morals because that is what I do as a moralist...Gentile societies, nations in the true sense of the word, -of springing from a common mother (natal) were certainly moral, and this meant having certain rules for those within and for those without...I am certain you can hear the similarity between the words ethnic and ethic... If you say: This group within society is fair game for exploitation, or that they can be denied rights common to all, then you are immoral...We have reached such a miserable level of demoralization that families will not even care for their own, in part, at times because they must survive as individuals to survive at all...Is this choice to survive in an animal state, really, as an outlaw- one that we should-, if we were a nation, force upon any of our members???
Now; you complain about taxes... I don't... If I pay taxes then the two feet under me helps to carry the nation forward...I can hardly ask those who have nothing to pay more without means, or without ability, many of whom are poor, or young or disabled...It is to my honor and credit that I pay; but it is to your dishonor that you imagine the poor should pay while those with the ability and the influence and support of government should pay little or nothing...
Since the rich were given such privilages by government, and in many respects, even charge of the government, -who are we to question the wisdom of those who wrote the constitution...They could not imagine our world... The income tax was a change to the constitution that was clearly designed to attack the power of the financially wealthy... When it first came into being, it affected only 11 to 13% of the population, and the fact that it has been pushed down onto everyone who can pay anything, your 53%, only means we are carrying the rich who refuse to pay their share...And this is not moral...
Moral societies carry their old and their young, and a person in one life time had to make enough to provide for the balance of his life, and we are reduced to absolute fear that social programs which denied us the income to afford more children will not support us as children might have in old age... And why should our children support us on their meagre wages???
If we were moral they would not be in the condition they are in... They could let us starve in the streets and say: What have you done with our commonwealth but let it into the hands of the rich who refuse taxation or pissed it away for empire that only feeds more wealth to the rich beyond the rich of the tax collector??? Why should they support us when we have not raised a hand to defend our freedom or theirs from power of plutocracy... You see; that it is very moral to demand justice; that those with the means pay for their society, and that all wealth be returned in due time to the commonwealth... Why any of the rest of us should pay for a society that mainly serves the rich is a question unasked or answered...
Morality is community, and there cannot be one community of rich feeding off the labor of another community of poor that has any claim to morality...You can cry about all those without means who were deprived of means on purpose not paying more of the cost of the society which deprived them of wealth and rights... I will shame the rich while you do so, knowing that it is moral to do so while you simply kick the injured... It is not hubris that makes me moral... It is hubris that makes the rich think they are too good to pay taxes, that the commonwealth in their hands cheaply, that was possessed out of our general dispossession should be free of taxation even while it demands protection from the government, by law and right out of all proportion to the good that it does us...
It is hubris the puts the rich outside of the society of human kind, into the company of gods, where they enjoy rights without responsibility, where they can sport with us, turn us against each other like cocks or pitbulls for their entertainment...
If we are ever a nation it will be because we have the courage to exclude those people who think they are too good for us, too good to support the many out of their own commonwealth bought with the blood of many for the benefit of all... Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #19
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 16, 2012 5:55 AM
I have long believed that the left had to kill God so they could anoint themselves in his place. Confirmed!
Comment: #20
Posted by: Tom
Wed May 16, 2012 10:06 AM
Re: Tom;... God was road kill after the right got done with him...Consider NIetzsche... He is the first one to say God was dead, and was everything but a Nazi before the Nazis, and a solid cheerleader for the Overman, your hero, the all time winner... You have to understand that when God becomes an impediment to the right doing exactly as they please they go around him or trash him... What Nietzsche said about Jesus supporting slave morality is correct, only because the slaves were the only ones with morality, and Jesus in his time was abused for his morality... In a sense, a real relationship with God transcends morals without stepping all over them the way the right does...And Jesus had it right, and Nietzsche and those who were scandalized by Jesus had it wrong...The people of Israel exploited the poor people of Israel, but they did not preach that behavior...The rich were loaded, and the poor were sueing each other for their tunics...Jesus never taught that people should use one another, and use the institutions of the state to expedite that use...What he left humanity was the understanding that we would be judged according to our treatment of others, and by our very thoughts and desires...What the Christians have done to Christ is the second original sin... It is spiritual murder...This is not to say that most Christians, and most people everywhere are not moral... Most people know and do what is right naturally... What their churches and denominations do is an abuse of their earthly authority....They deny Jesus as certainly as did Peter...They deny with all their power the right of the people to do good through the institutions of government that will not be done if government does not do it... Why; because it is immoral to make people act morally through the means of taxation??? Give me a break... Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #21
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 16, 2012 1:28 PM
So according to Sweeney the government has the answers to all of our problems. Yeah Sweeney these corrupt, lying, clueless incompetent idiots have such a strong record of achievement. Open your eyes and grow up already.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Thetruth
Fri May 18, 2012 7:44 PM
Sweeney's a moralist and as such has license to judge others. He judges government good, republican citizens bad. Eyes shut, growth over, case closed.God talks to Sweeney the moralist and Sweeney the moralist tells everybody else what God says.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Tom
Sat May 19, 2012 4:52 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
L. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 20 Apr 2014
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 19 Apr 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 18 Apr 2014

19 Oct 2011 A Green Whitewash

8 Jan 2010 The Soul of Tiger Woods

26 Sep 2012 Making ‘Earthquakes' for Romney