Bazzo Says: There Is No Such Thing As A "No Win" Situation
BY ANTHONY J.
OF YORKTOWN NEWS & MAHOPAC
• If you really wish to see how the entertainment industry
indoctrinates the low information voter, get the DVD set of “Boston Legal.” I
really loved that show, so I have all five seasons. Conservatives are gun nuts
and/or worse and liberals are pure of heart. By the time you get to the fifth
season, they are full bore into electing Barack Obama. They even trot out the
canard of Sarah Palin saying, “I can see Russia from my house.” Problem is,
Palin never said that. Tina Fey did on “Saturday Night Live” as she was
impersonating Palin. However, low information voters would never know that from
the “Boston Legal” episode. This was no different than in the ‘90s, when NBC
convinced the idiots among us that “West Wing” was a mirror of the Clinton
• The Wall Street Journal ran the headline: “Liberals mugged
by Obamanet.” This was not about the consumer. Again it was about controlling
the information you get. The template was that Washington was going punish the
ISPs (the Internet Service Providers) and the telecoms for all of the throttling
or for fast-lane preference to the highest-paying customers, and freezing out
the little guy. As with all liberal think, it is not fair that someone with
money can get better service that someone who has less money. Ah, the inequity
of it all. Think about this as an analogy. You want to buy a car. All you can
afford is a Ford Focus. However you want a Lincoln Continental. It would be like
the government forcing Ford to give you the Lincoln for the same price as a
Focus, bells and whistles included. What do you think would happen? If you think
the quality of the Focus would go up, you are a liberal. If you think the
quality of the Lincoln would go down, welcome to the real world—you are a
We went through this in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s with
cable regulation. We were told it would give us better service at a cheaper
price. However, as soon as the law was signed, cable prices doubled.
So it was again Washington playing the politics of envy to
mask their true agenda which is to regulate content. We have all used Goggle to
find something. For the most part, Google search results have nothing to do with
content. Not anymore, and don’t think the hand of government is not behind this.
Due to Obama’s Net Neutrality, Google wants its search results to return
websites that are “factual.” Of course who does not want the facts when doing
research? However this begs the question: Who gets to decide what’s factual?
This is where the control of content comes in.
Example: If Google does this, then in the not-too-distant
future if you search for information on, say, global warming, you will not find
any information contradicting the liberal view of man-made global warming
because Google is run by a bunch of liberals. What you will get however, is
every bit of liberal drivel about it.
The clowns in DC are once again trying to nationalize
something with unnamed bureaucrats writing regulations to control your life that
are backed up by the force of “law.” They have done that with healthcare. They
have done this with school curriculum. Right here in
Westchester, right now, Washington is trying to nationalize local zoning
codes! They are trying to do this with local police forces,
etc., etc., etc. (By the way, did anybody catch Attorney General Eric Holder
admitting last week that the words, “Hands up, don’t shoot!” were never said
prior to the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson? (Facts are silly, little
things), but it does not stop Washington from using the lie to
nationalize local police. Don't get me started with what they are doing to the
New York City police,l pleaaaaase!
• Last week, I told you there was a way to save this
fledgling nation of ours, and it began with Mark Levin’s latest book “The
Liberty Amendments.” The book details what Article 5 in the Constitution says
about amending the Constitution via the sates. It is called a
Convention Of The States. It is simply about amending the
Constitution, not nullifying as the South did before the start of the Civil War,
in which the southern states just passed resolutions succeeding
from the Union. It was not done through the amendment process.
Nullification has nothing to do with amending.
As Article 5 states, It outlines the fact that
two-thirds of the states need to sign on in order for this process to take
The Constitution—which crated a federal government with the
consent of the states—passed because the Bill of Rights was the first order of
business. Our founders proposed 12, but at that time unanimous consent of the states
was needed, so they settled on 10. As it was then, it could be now. Sure it
could be raucous; after alll, these days it would require 34 states.
As I implored last week, educate yourself. Do not take my
word for it. Read for yourself then judge. In a matter as serious as America,
you must not be a mind-numbed robot. Read, check out the sources and find out
for yourself what is real. I read the book. I checked out some of the sources. I
believe this could be an answer. I do not believe in the no-win situation and
apparently, according to Article 5, neither did our founding fathers.
Remember, the opening of the Declaration of
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
This is what I say. What say you?
• Wall Street Journal: Liberals mugged by Obamanet
• UK Daily Mail: Google to rank search results based on
accuracy of web pages