A long standing question on my radio program is to simply reiterate the question, “who are the radicals?” The left has done an admirable job of propagandizing the public through their media control. Those with mainstream conservative thoughts are labeled “far right” or “right-wing extremist.” Those with liberal thought usually don’t get a label, and if they do, it’s something along the line of, “expert” or “scholar.”
That’s why I consistently ask listeners to look at the views, the opinions, the ideas being espoused by individuals and ask themselves personally whether they find those ideas to be “radical” rather than relying on biased media to tell them that they are or aren’t. For instance, is it really radical to believe that every human being is worthy of a right to life and that we shouldn’t be allowing infants to be murdered? Isn’t it more radical to believe that half-delivering a child, keeping its face buried inside the birth canal to prevent anyone from hearing the screams, and stabbing it to death with scissors is a “legitimate medical procedure” as Obama called it? You ask the majority of Americans that question and it’s a no-brainer, despite what the liberal media tries to convey.
And it’s not confined to abortion. Take the vast majority of what is liberal thought in America, and simply tell people the idea or the position, stripped of any labeling, and they will see who the radicals are in this society. Let me give another example of what I’m talking about. Several of you have probably heard about the Miami Marlins baseball team suspending its new manager Ozzie Guillen for making the idiotic remark that he “love(s)” Fidel Castro, the brutal communist thug dictator of Cuba.
Most people in America would understand why they did that – certainly anyone who knows anything about communism. But check out what the liberals at the Daily Kos had to say about it, as though that’s tough to figure out from the title of the piece, “Ozzie Got Screwed”:
First, let's think about what Ozzie really said. "I love Fidel Castro."
On prior occasions, he admitted that he thought he was courageous, that he stood up to everyone in the world, and that he succeeded where his enemies had failed.
Now what the f*** is wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing. Castro did not wipe out millions of his own people. Castro did not start world wars. For all his faults, and there were many of them, Castro managed to confound and outlive a super power which faces his shores, despite the fact that that super power has never, not once, since 1918 had a year in which we did not use our military for one reason or another. We even invaded several of his neighbors, and succeeded in deposing those nearby rulers who managed to anger us. Especially if they won democratic elections. And still he survived. And still he managed to raise his country's literacy rate from 65-70% to 98%.
Courageous to brutalize your own people, repress dissent, throw your opponents in jail or execute your families? Castro succeeded where his enemies failed? What kind of a warped view of reality is this? A liberal one. Who are the radicals?
And by the way, with all due respect, is this liberal writer honestly suggesting that had the United States decided to depose Castro through military action that he could have withstood the full force of American military might? Castro survived the Bay of Pigs because JFK got cold feet. He survived subsequently because JFK played the game of diplomacy with the Soviets and vowed that the U.S. would never invade Cuba or aid anyone who did. Intellectual honesty would certainly suggest that something like that be mentioned in praising Castro’s “staying power,” don’t you think?
And here’s one more fantastic assessment from the lefty:
Castro survived Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, despite every one of them stating it was in America's best interests to have a Castro free Carib.
Yeah, it still would be. But that’s a bit different than those presidents stating they were committing their presidencies to regime change in Cuba, isn’t it? What does he mean “Castro survived” these men? Does he mean that he survived their attempts to kill him? If so, that’s dumb. If he means Castro’s power lasted longer than those presidents, that would be because in democratic republics like the United States, we believe in the transfer of power as opposed to the heavy-handed, oppressive rule of dictators. Nice to see leading liberal voices standing in awe of the latter.
Who are the radicals?