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.

Read the rest of this entry »