Juan Williams Was Fired from NPR Because He’s a Liberal and They’re Leftists

The Democratic Party of JFK is no more. Now you have the Democratic Party of Saul Alinsky, Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci. This is why NPR would fire its best reporter for the thoughtcrime of appearing on FNC.

Amplify’d from www.newsrealblog.com

Scientists estimate that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. Some species simply adapted into others. Some were obliterated in mass die-offs. Others could not adapt to changing environments. And more recently, others were hunted to death.

Within the jungle of American politics, one animal has been in steady decline for the past thirty years: the liberal. After the shot fired last week at Juan Williams by his former employer NPR, this trend should be even more apparent.

Williams is not a leftist. He’s a liberal in the tradition of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Just take a look at the books he’s written on the Civil Rights Movement.) He’s not an Obama leftist who drank from the cup of Saul Alinsky, Billy Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.

A “liberal” properly defined is someone in the middle of the political spectrum — an individual open-minded to different ideas and willing to consider all manner of solutions. That’s what Williams is. That’s why he’s willing to appear on Fox News regularly. And that’s why genuine leftists from Glenn Greenwald to Media Matters are throwing him under the bus. (Leftists hate genuine liberals even more than they hate conservatives.

Williams wasn’t really fired for his mild comments. That was just the tipping point. Really NPR could not handle him being a genuine liberal by going on Fox News. From Williams’ column:

I say an ideological battle because my comments on “The O’Reilly Factor” are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.

Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on “The Factor.” When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.

Read more at www.newsrealblog.com

 

Radical Conservatives & Reactionary Liberals

This beautiful piece lays out the problem with the words we use, Liberal and Conservative, that are used to mean the opposite of their plain English meanings.

Amplify’d from www.americanthinker.com
Our political titles are fundamentally dysfunctional. It used to be that a liberal was what we now call a classical liberal, an adherent to a political philosophy aligned with what we would now call libertarian values.

A liberal in the past was an advocate for greater freedom from government control, more individual responsibility for our own success or failure, and greater opportunity for our own individual pursuit of happiness. A liberal sought to create a more merit-based, egalitarian society through removing the entrenched structures of political power and privilege, freeing up the energies of the individual citizen to rise or fall based on his effort, abilities, and courage.

A conservative, on the other hand, sought to conserve cultural traditions and could find him or herself at odds with liberals in terms of wanting to preserve such things as government privileges for established families or groups or male-only voting rights. A conservative in the past would not be considered, in anyone’s wildest dreams, a radical. A conservative by definition wanted to keep things as they were.

So now we find ourselves in an odd position. The self-described liberals in America are those who want to maintain the present status quo — the insane body of draconian regulations, the huge tax burden, and the massive governmental work force that sucks up to 30% of our national income.

They want to maintain this and build upon its ossified structure like coral on a pacific reef. They want to bring further government control to health care, financial transactions, and industrial activities. There is nothing radical about this; this is government as it has always been — dictatorial, arrogant, and full of people impressed with their own power, ideas, and vision for how the rest of us should live.

The justification for their use of force is the progressive notion that true freedom is the freedom to have the government take care of all our basic necessities so that we can, in theory, fulfill their vision of our human potential.

Nice, warm, and fuzzy ideal. But it is no different from any other ideal imposed by force — the ideal of the Spartans to have a warrior society based upon absolute discipline, with everyday needs supplied by their Helot slaves; the ideal of Alexander the Great, or Napoleon, or Hitler to conquer the world; the ideal of the early progressives to weed out genetically inferior people through euthanasia and sterilization; the ideal of communists for a worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat.

Read more at www.americanthinker.com