Indeed, if all campaigns were doing it, the playing field might well be leveled.
Mr. Bowers said he did not believe the practice would actually deceive most Internet users.
But of course for the left, it's OK to try deception, while admitting that it might not work. Ever wonder why? Whether it is a stunt like this, or a misleading Oreo cookie analysis of the economy, or a parade of misleading victim testimonials on TV, the left will do anything to get their full power back.
Their goal: to trade the principles that made this country great for the principles that caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Oh, but to paraphrase John Kerry, they'll do it better than the Soviets.
Now when I confront a liberal with that comparison to the Soviets, there is always a denial that the goal is anything like Communism, or even Socialism. But what other label fits? "Progressivism" is meaningless, describing a state of perpetual change rather than an actual ideal state of being. Look at the specific goals:
To marginalize all religious practice and engender a total reliance on federal government solutions to every problem.
To bring down those filthy capitalists who run billion dollar companies (the rhetoric always leaves out what should be done about top sports and move stars and somehow you get the notion that its OK for them to make big bucks).
To take away almost any freedom of choice in personal matters (with the sole exception of course of those things that go on in the bedroom).
To install political correctness as the primary state sanctioned religion. This is thought control in as blatant a form as ever envisioned by George Orwell. they do it in their campaigning (as this stunt is a perfect example) and they'll carry the notion to its conclusion if empowered to do so. You can bet that the "Ministry of Education" will simply instruct Google and other such providers where certain search terms should take you. No need to "Google bomb".
The air-head actors of Hollywood threatened to leave the country when Bush got elected, but as far as I know none of them did. Of course they had plenty of places they could have moved that were closer to their ideal of an all-powerful central government, Canada simply being the closest, while the countries of Europe being more ideal. Why didn't any of them leave?
Where will you go when there is no freedom of thought (at least not that can be expressed openly) in America? Will there be pockets of such freedom in such places as Australia? Don't count on it.
Marx understood that for his theories to work, all avenues of escape must be cut off. World Communism wasn't just a nice goal, it was an absolute necessity for the system to succeed. There are those among us who have the same idea regarding our countries founding principles. They don't like states rights, which are all but gone thanks to judicial activism. States rights allow pockets of freedom to shine forth and attract those who love it. The existence of private (to their way of thinking) schools makes it impossible to make public education work, just as the existence of medical people who opt out of government subsidies make their ideal of health care impossible to achieve.
Where will you go after the revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment