What we have in this country are socialists--what Joseph Sobran once rightly termed "Alienists"--who pick up on the plausible grievances of "minority groups" (one of THEIR terms that has permanently tinctured our politic rhetoric) and amplify and magnify them across decades, even centuries and millenia, to gain state power. All socialist states have co-opted the grievances of certain groups endemic to their national history, and used them as a wedge to divide, inflame, and demand their form of politics as a panacea to the sins of the offending "majority groups". In this country, we have our own examples of this with our socialist Democrat parties holding black slavery--an evil, to be sure--up as the primary evil that can only be vanquished at long last by giving power to those whose voices are loudest and most persistent in its mention. But they also borrow the centuries-old, universal Marxist plaint of class warfare (!) and the plight of the proletariat (!), or as we call it in this country, "the gap between rich and poor."

To a constitutional conservative it all sounds a little concocted, but it works wonders for its practitioners in terms of assuming state control.

Ultimately the call for widespread redress of grievances against such groups--American blacks, in this case--is by no means an American phenomenon; it is a Marxist tactic at its finest tailored for use in the United States by socialist (read: Democrat) politicians, and it gets results.

Bad results? I assume you're speaking of government social programs? Depends on who you are, I guess.

They are nothing more than tax-payer funded voter drives, and they work like a charm. I used to see it as good intentions gone horribly wrong; now I know that they're really Democrat voter drives gone terribly right.

Does anyone else see the bitter irony of a member of the Democrats--who never cease to speak about the evils of centuries-old American slavery--believing they are entitled to practically "own" every person of a particular minority group?

Stern? Booooooring...Sorry, but when it comes to lampooning the sacred cows, no one holds a candle to Ms. Coulter and her work. Read her weekly column and column archives if you want something with some bite to it. Everybody in the lamestream media is just a liberal shill.

Cher's business model has always been, "Please don't look at my face."

Absolutely. In my bootlegged copy of the latest Liberal Reference Guide (Copyright 2010), on the Liberal Religion Respect-o-meter (scale 0-100), Christianity sits at a 2--well below Islam, which sits at 90.

Of course, Judaism is at 4, Mormonism clocks in at 7, Hinduism ranks at an 81, and Buddhism ranks at a 98. Algore Environmentalism, of course, is a perfect 100.

And what's more: why are the statists crying about Barack Obama's being falsely labeled a Muslim instead of "correctly" as a Christian? Haven't they been telling us for decades that Christians are the radical hate-mongers and Muslims are followers of their "peaceful" religion? Obama, being the true liberal that he is, should look at all the people who believe he's a Muslim and say, "I'll take that as a compliment." As a leftist, he should be offended by the people who believe he's a Christian.

But we all know Ann Coulter's right. He's obviously an atheist.

Let me ask a question: when was the last time Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao were mentioned in the world media as the paragons of evil, murder, and genocide? Comparisons of all kinds are drawn to Hitler and the Nazis when modern governments commit questionable human rights violations or do something so outlandishly evil as to threaten the lives of millions of a certain group of people.

The "Reductio al Hiterum" is an axiom in every corner of today's political dialogue of which everyone here grasps the concept. Yet there is nothing similar that calls into question or condemns the ideology or tactics of Joseph Stalin or Mao. Why is that? I'll answer that.

Hitler was a horribly evil man, and every reference to him in the media as such is certainly apt and well-made. I find something interesting, however, in Oliver Stone's complaint about Hitler never being truly understood for who he was. Oliver Stone misses entirely why Hitler's name invokes the most putrid evil the world has ever devised. It's not because the media is dominated by Jews who seek to ensure Hitler is synonymous with pure evil; it's because the media is dominated by leftists who proffer Hitler's name as such at a fever pitch to lessen the chances that history's genocidal leftist dictators with socialist and communist ideology--Stalin and Mao--will be mentioned as just as evil, just as murderous, and just as deranged.

I know plenty of liberals who say Hitler was a right-winger (he was not). But I also know plenty of non-ideological, politically-neutral people who believe the same thing. But that is enough. THAT's why Hitler is always mentioned as the archbishop of the church of Satan--because "he was a right-winger."

Society from time to time may ask, "But what about the dictators who killed more people than Hitler did? What was their politics?" Indeed this is a question that scares the leftist media, so rather than answer it honestly and hurt their own favorite ideological beliefs they just repeat how bad Hitler was.

This is what's causing Hitler's public image crisis that is so bothering Oliver Stone. But apparently the man is an anti-Semite, and those people will say just about anything--mostly something about Jew conspiracies. But he's also a leftist, so I'm surprised he's got his knickers in a twist about Hitler's street cred.

.....Because, "Hey, wasn't Hitler a right-winger, after all?"

Obama. He definitely voted for Obama.

Does anybody else find it funny at about 10:50 in the video when Geraldo Rivera gets tired of Shabazz's white oppression schtick and goes "Oh, stop with the "black" [comments]!!" as if Shabazz will see the error of this ploy and just discontinue playing his own race card in the interview? This man is a one trick pony with nothing else of substance to work with. He's not going to just "knock it off." I just found it hilarious that Geraldo expected this comment to find its target.

That's like interviewing a liberal and saying "Oh, stop with the "progressive tax rates for the wealthy' stuff!" Without it, their plans for society don't ever get off the ground.