CNN’s Extremist Shill

Where's the blood?

For some reason, the media has decided to respond to right wing outrage for perceived ‘liberal’ biases by allowing access to any one with a half truth to tell or some radical right viewpoint.  It’s one thing to air the views of a politician holding a public office–like Michelle Bachmann–whose grasp of reality, history, and science is demonstrably lacking, it’s completely another thing to hire and continually promote some one with extremist views and agendas.  This is especially true when it is for no other reason than to air a given view point in some perceived act of fairness when no equally extreme voice on the left exists any where on the network.  In fact, no equally extreme leftist voice exists in any media outlet.

Again, I say perceived fairness  because there is never a real left wing equivalent out there equal to the likes of Red State’s Erick Erickson.  If so, they’d have also hired at least some equivalent of Noam Chomsky or some one who is honestly liberal and honestly left wing.  The continued employment of  Erick Erickson goes beyond even the lowest standards set by the likes of the Buchanans.   He’s about one hyperbole short of Pat Robertson; but just barely.  The deal is that this guy is no Bob Novak or George Will conservative.  He’s an extremist and radical because he constantly advocates violence and uses revolutionary rhetoric.

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

Size or physical location?   WTF kind of demented language is that? This man just made a call for women to be dehumanized into incubators, to have their liberty and privacy removed, and to have their personal religious viewpoints usurped by his own.  How can CNN justify maintaining the likes of Erickson without–minimally–giving air time to a Marxist which would be a leftie equivalent.  Bet yet, they need to fire him.

Nearly every one who has cracked a legitimate history book and read documents written by the founders knows that the basic ‘state’s rights’ vs. federal government’s rights was about slave ownership. The constitution was crafted carefully so that slave owning states could find enough leeway in the ‘state’s right provision’ to allow slavery.  That was  the purpose of the entire deal in a nutshell.  The 13th amendment was required to close that particular loophole.  The descendant’s of those folks that scream state’s rights now and limited constitutional authority support similar devious schemes that prevent key individuals from fully exercising their constitutional rights.  They used it for Jim Crow Laws until specific laws and SCOTUS findings closed the loophole.  They’ve extended its use to women’s bodies and medical treatment and relationship status for GLBT.  Erickson’s terminology of judicial usurpation is justification for involuntary servitude and seeks to deprive certain classes of people of their liberty.  That is radical.  How can CNN provide a safe harbor for a radical?

Any one who invokes the term ‘state’s right’s’ invariably is evoking the use of state laws to abridge  some one else’s liberties and freedoms.  Putting Erickson and his arguments on TV is like handing the public airways over to slave owners and folks that rationalized Jim Crow Laws.  He’s absolutely no different.  His outrageous positions are far out of the mainstream .  My guess is that CNN would never hire Noam Chomsky or socialist Brian Patrick Moore a seat for one segment, let alone an ongoing salaried position.  But Erickson not only uses radical language, he uses revolutionary language.  This makes him an extremist.

This man is not a conservative.  What this man is advocating suggests that all woman in the U.S. that have had  an abortion should be held up for the capital offense of premeditated murder.  It follows, they should be executed under the law for premeditated murder.  This would be the situation even if a woman simply takes the morning after pill.

This isn’t the only extremist thing this man has said or written.  This one goes to the heart of why I’m suggesting his leftie equivalent isn’t just some benign Social Democrat but a Marxist. Again, he speaks in violent rhetoric and talks of situations when violence is required to overthrow the government. That is the language of a revolutionary.

CNN’s new contributor Erick Erickson claims to be toning down his incendiary rhetoric now that he’s more in the spotlight. But on the radio last week, Erickson said he would “pull out [his] wife’s shotgun” if a census worker came to try to jail him for not filling out his census form.

“This is crazy,” Erickson said last week on WMAC’s In the Morning with Erick Erickson of the census. “What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I’m not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They’re not going on my property. They can’t do that. They don’t have the legal right, and yet they’re trying.”

Don’t forget Eric Erickson’s appalling comments on the day that Jewish Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot.  His commentary was pure proselytizing of a specific, narrow religious view.

CNN’s Erick Erickson is upset with what people aren’t saying about the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:

Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

For the record: Rep. Giffords is Jewish, so “a saving faith in Jesus Christ” might not be “the one thing that should be talked about.”

Erickson concludes:

The topic of faith in Christ makes people cringe. But whether you believe it or not, here is the reality: beyond us is a world we cannot see with our eyes. It impacts us on a daily basis. It is a world of very real angels and very real demons. It is a world of a very real God and a very real Satan, a very real Heaven and a very real Hell.

The back and forth and accusations and lies surrounding Jared Loughner should be a constant reminder to us that there is more at play in our world than what we see. And, frankly, at times like this I am more and more mindful of the great chasm in this world between the saved and damned.

This man is not a conservative.  He wants to radically change the basic nature of our country and its laws.  He’s an extremist because he advocates violence. What doesn’t CNN get about this?

Eric Erickson ( “at what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?”

Yes, that’s a quote from Eric from a thread he entitled “At What Point Do People Revolt?”  Here’s another taste.

But it is going to have to get back to “leave me the hell alone” style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.

Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.

CNN, people that continually advocate violence are extremists.  People that consider using the morning afterpill to be premeditated murder are not the least bit mainstream or conservative.   Take this man off the airways and take him off now. His extremism has no place on anything prime time unless you’re sitting him next to his leftie counterpart–radical Marxist–to give your viewers some idea of what extremists of all type look like.

22 Comments on “CNN’s Extremist Shill”

  1. janicen says:

    I rarely watch CNN, but for some reason I tuned in recently and I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that Erick Erickson was a commentator. It’s beyond shocking especially since not very many people know who he is or have ever heard of Red State, so people might unwittingly pay attention to what he has to say.

    • dakinikat says:

      I’ve quit watching them too except when it’s breaking news and it’s between them and fox. I can only image MSNBC will turn into right wing shill land now too.

      • WomanVoter says:

        NationalNOW National NOW
        Read latest entry in NOW’s Media Hall of Shame: ‘Mass Bloodshed’ and CNN Shouldn’t Mix – Erick Erickson must go!

        Other voices are joining and seeing Erick Erickson as an extremist. Hopefully more people will join and soon the hate filled pure yelling will stop. Not once during the health care debate, weren’t people allowed to have an honest testimony with their representatives and some how people thought that was acceptable behavior.

      • dakinikat says:

        I hope that people follow this link and take time to email cnn and ask them to TAKE HIM OFF the air.

  2. madamab says:

    I remember when Phil Donahue was given a show on MSNBC. It was the best-rated show in its time slot, but he was kicked off the air for being too much of an anti-war. The same thing happened to Ashleigh Banfield for tying to tell the story of what the war was doing to the Iraqis. Apparently telling the truth about an unjust war is “anti-American,” whereas blowing the head off an unarmed census worker is “patriotic.”

    The wingnuts are tolerated and encouraged as “mainstream” because they espouse policies that help keep the oligarchy/patriarchy in power. Real liberals and leftists encourage real change; therefore, they must be suppressed at all times.

    • dakinikat says:

      I can’t believe he’s getting away with what he says on TV and writes on REDSTATE. I thought for sure that the call to Jesus on prime time TV when a JEWISH congresswoman got shot was going to be the thing that did him in … still he sits there.

      • madamab says:

        Don’t you know that this is a “Christian” nation, Dak? Congress even said so! Calls to Jesus are NEVER controversial in a “Christian” nation. 🙄

  3. Minkoff Minx says:

    Why the hell did CNN get rid of Beck, I mean it looks like they found a perfect replacement. I am so disgusted with this remark. And the freaking people who talk out of their ass about “tone down the rhetoric” then one of them says this crap.

    I don’t watch CNN anymore, ever since they got rid of Soledad. (I know she is still technically there.) This kind of crap warrants an action from CNN. They need to fire the bastard.

    Thanks for posting this Dak.

  4. Minkoff Minx says:

    Well, I have sent CNN an email and tweet to fire Erickson. I know that it won’t do much, but if felt damn good to tell them exactly how I feel.

    • dakinikat says:

      I’m sure he’ll say something more outrageous eventually. It’s still an outrage. This guy is a right wing revolutionary. They’d never tolerate this kind of rhetoric from a some one on the left.

      • Branjor says:

        I don’t know why everybody calls extreme right wingers radicals and revolutionaries. Isn’t the proper term for them reactionaries?

      • dakinikat says:

        Extremists advocate violence which is what this guy is doing. A reactionary doesn’t take it that far.

      • Branjor says:

        I never said he wasn’t an extremist. He certainly is. I was going by the definitions I learned. A radical (generally left wing) is someone who wants to go forward into the future. A conservative wants to remain in the present status quo. A reactionary wants to go back into the past. Since these people want to take us back to the 13th century, they seem very reactionary. The definitions do not address whether or not they advocate violence.
        Another definition of radical I know is “going to the root.” For example, radical feminist – one who goes to the root or source of a problem.

      • dakinikat says:

        Well, reactionaries usually like oligarchies and not democracy. They’re rightest yes, conservative yes, but they generally prefer monarchies and an aristocracy. They also usually use military coups are military tactics to get in power. We usually don’t home grow people that want to put the King of England back in charge.

      • B Kilpatrick says:

        There’s nothing wrong with being an “extremist.” Some of the most horrible things that have been done by people to people, have been done by perfectly Respectable people. Bob McNamara was eminently Centrist, but that is probably cold comfort for the many Vietnamese still dealing with keloid scars thanks to his wonderful, democratic war machine.

        Henry Morgenthau was a perfectly respectable secretary of the treasury. Didn’t stop him from formulating a plan to permanently de-industrialize Germany and starve several million Germans to death in the process. Truman, Respectable also, and an atomic mass murderer to boot.

        Etc, etc.

        Hell, I’ll take the extremists over that sort any day…

      • B Kilpatrick says:

        Well, if I have to choose shooting or stabbing, I’ll choose whichever’s likely to hurt less. And in this case, it’s the guy who says things that will make 50+% of his audience immediately ignore him.

  5. Woman Voter says:

    dredeyedick Dave Manchester
    The Robert Gibbs (EOP) Daily is out! ▸ Top stories today by @nbcfirstread

    Watch Michelle Bachmann SCARE people in the video section and how she goes on and on about the Pilgrims, hemm…NO INDIANS? Her history has no Native or Brown people…

    Was Thanksgiving Socialism? 😯

    • Fannie says:

      Lordy, she carried me back to Ole Virginny………and didn’t have one word about the women who gave their all.

  6. B Kilpatrick says:

    So when California ignored federal marijuana laws to allow state-licensed dispensaries, they were secretly doing it to keep black people down? Or what?

    I’m confused
    -scratches head-

    Or was this just an attempt to restore balance by smearing a huge number of people with diverse opinions by saying that they’re all secretly racists because of what some other people who used similiar words did 100+ years ago?

    Either way, no offense, but it smells more than a bit like what my cat just did in his box.

  7. B Kilpatrick says:

    And you may also want to read this.

    One of the most blatantly obvious counterexamples to your “trope” (which seems to be a new favorite word) is that of the resistance to the fugitive slave laws. I’m sure you’ve read about those, and about the (apparently) evil racist sorts who resisted them in some convoluted plot which, while it lacked an obviously racist element, must have been racist or otherwise discriminatory because it involved resistance to the federal government.