Free Speech: Use It or Lose It
“We’re from the government and we’ll have to revoke your blogging license if you keep spreading too much ‘misinformation.’”
A few years ago, such a warning would have seemed far-fetched. But recent developments threaten to turn this from bad science fiction into grim reality. If bloggers and independent journalists wish to avoid this nightmare, we must speak out now to defend freedom of speech — and we must defend it for the right reasons.
Recently, independent journalism and blogging have come under attack on multiple fronts. Congress is considering a new DISCLOSE Act that could force bloggers to file reports with the government stating whether their political speech was coordinated with efforts by corporations or labor unions — whereas traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio would be exempt.
Special-interest groups have recently petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to launch a probe against “misinformation” and “hate speech.” The Michigan state legislature is considering licensing journalists to ensure that they are “credible” and of “good moral character.” The Federal Trade Commission is considering new subsidies and tax breaks for certain categories of traditional journalism, while penalizing new media by imposing additional taxes on iPads and internet service providers — a move that Mark Tapscott warns would “put government in position to define who gets to report what and how.”
Some of these attacks are in response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, protecting corporate free speech. But as attorney Steve Simpson (who helped file an amicus brief in the Citizens United lawsuit) has written in a detailed article on the history of campaign finance laws, these are just the latest skirmishes in a long-running intellectual battle over two vastly differing conceptions of freedom of speech. The laissez-faire or “classical liberal” approach regards freedom of speech as a fundamental individual right that government must protect, whereas the “progressive” approach views speech as worthy of protection only insofar as it helps promote the “public interest.”
On freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very clear: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
For classical liberals, this means the right to express one’s ideas without government censorship. The government could not suppress speech, regulate its dissemination, require licensing before one could state opinions, or promote one form of speech over another.
This is just an application of the broader principle that the only proper function of government is to protect individual rights. Unless we violate others’ rights through force, fraud, or threat thereof, we should be left free to live according to our best rational judgment — including the freedom to express our ideas without government interference. (Speech that violates others’ rights, such as fraud or death threats should not and would not be protected.)
Equally important, the right to free speech does not mean the right to the means of speech, such as an alleged “right” to newspaper space or broadcast time. A private publisher has no obligation to allow you to express your views on his pages. There is no such thing as a “right” to an audience. Private parties who choose not to publish your ideas are not engaging in censorship; only the government can commit censorship.
But as Steve Simpson noted, the early 20th century Progressives sought to redefine freedom of speech not as a basic right but rather as a privilege to be allowed only if it served the “public good”:
Led by intellectuals such as John Dewey and Herbert Croly, the progressives actively opposed the limited, constitutional government established by America’s founders. … They opposed private property and capitalism, sought to redistribute wealth, and believed that inequalities among citizens justified overriding constitutional limits on government action. Because businesses and the wealthy often lobbied and campaigned against the progressives’ efforts, the progressives championed early restrictions on lobbying and campaign spending.
Speech, they said, should be protected only to the extent that it serves the “public interest” — which, in their conception, did not include the interests of businesses and the wealthy. The progressives pejoratively dubbed the interests of businesses and the wealthy “special interests”—interests contrary to the “public interest” — and held that the First Amendment did not protect speech in the service of such interests.
These ideas are now part of the academic and political mainstream. Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and former dean of Harvard Law School, has argued that free speech should be permitted only if its social value outweighs its “societal costs.”
Similarly, Yale Law School professor Owen Fiss has stated that the government “may even have to silence the voices of some in order to hear the voices of others. Sometimes there is simply no other way.” [Emphasis mine.]
But free speech is important not merely because it facilitates some progressive notion of the “public interest.” Free speech is essential to human life. Man’s primary means of survival is his mind. In order to live, we must be free to reason and think. Hence we must be left free to acquire and transmit knowledge, which means we must be free to express our ideas, right or wrong.
Classical defenders of freedom of speech understood this crucial point. They held a robust view of both the nature of truth and the rationality of ordinary men. They recognized that in the sometimes-heated debate between differing viewpoints, truth would eventually win out over falsehood. And ordinary men using their rational minds would be capable of deciding the truth for themselves.
In contrast, the Progressives presumed that without government “protection” we would be like children uncritically accepting poisonous ideas fed to us by special interest groups. Hence, the government must instead spoon feed us ideas they deem appropriate. They wish to usurp our responsibility — and our right — to disseminate and discuss ideas as we see fit.
Ironically, the speech regulations supported by progressives stifle precisely the smaller voices they claim to be protecting. Only large corporations can afford the lawyers to help them comply with the thousands of pages of political speech laws, whereas it is the smaller grassroots citizen groups that are stifled by such laws.
According to the Institute for Justice, 36 states have laws requiring citizen groups to register with the government before they can talk to their neighbors about politics. Duke University professor Mike Munger has described how such laws have a chilling effect on the political process.
Similarly, it is the independent bloggers and journalists who will be stifled by the proposed DISCLOSE Act, not the entrenched mainstream media. But note how it was the blogging community, not the mainstream media, which took the lead in reporting stories such as the RatherGate scandal, the ClimateGate memos, and the rise of the tea parties.
The numerous independent bloggers covering the ClimateGate disclosures provide a perfect example of how truth emerges when ordinary people are left free to debate and discuss contentious issues. If the bloggers who dissented from the government-backed climate science orthodoxy had instead been punished for spreading “misinformation,” would Americans have ever learned the truth?
If bloggers, independent journalists, and ordinary thinking Americans value our free speech, then we must do the following:
- We must articulate and defend a proper definition of free speech and of censorship.
- We must defend free speech on the proper grounds of individual rights, rather than on utilitarian grounds that it promotes some “social good.” This includes defending free speech in principle, even when some people express views we consider odious. For liberals, this includes defending speech they may find bigoted or offensive. For social conservatives, this includes defending speech promoting alternative lifestyles they may find morally repugnant.
- We must defend the principle of free speech not just in politics but throughout the full range of our culture — including science, art, and philosophy. We must defend the freedom of individuals to criticize another’s scientific or religious views as vigorously as their right to debate banking regulations.
As President Ronald Reagan once warned:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
We face a fundamental choice today with respect to our freedom of speech: Use it or lose it.
Which choice will we make?
Hooray! We get to have our very own Commissars now. Fantastic feeling of security. Maybe we can attach a Commissar to every combat unit in Iraq and Afghanistan so our boys don’t do anything against the public interest (Big Brother).
This is one prong of the left-liberal strategy for sealing itself permanently into power. Since they can’t prevail in the marketplace of ideas, they must monopolize the market so that popular opinion cannot be informed of the evidence against them and their views. Licensure of journalists, and subsidies to favored ones, will achieve that aim quite as surely as a federal takeover of the presses and the airwaves could.
Note that, though left-liberals have long maintained that the vote is the essence of freedom, that’s under a coordinated attack just as severe as freedom of expression. The Left’s “secretaries of state” project threatens to render the vote meaningless in the very near future.
All of which has a single thought running through my head, as I imagine “journalists” and “bloggers” queueing up for licenses and freebies:
A very good commentary Dr. Hsieh. It gives a vision of the future of what began 20 years ago as “political correctness.” Orwell and Rand both saw the power in controlling first speech and then thought. From the beginning when the left began to hyphenate-American, they also began to accumulate power over language; they knew that to control language you control the person. They then insinuated themselves into colleges/universities and the MSM.
And we have let the left gain this power over the years. Either by intentional acquienscence or unintentional stupidity our side (politicians) stood by and let the left control all the sources of information and power in and outside of D.C.
Unless we can politically stop this takeover, I see a combination of “Red Dawn” and “Demolition Man” in our futures.
“Ironically, the speech regulations supported by progressives stifle”
ironically, adj., (said of) an easily forseeable consequence; a goal feverently desired.
Congratulations on a hard-hitting essay on the perils of resignation and belonging to a “silent majority.” The attack on freedom of speech is wholly commensurate with the political trends of the last few decades, but especially with the actions of the Obama administration, which is unabashedly collectivist, specifically fascist. Lured by Obama’s (and Congress’s) contempt for the Constitution and the ideas that made it possible, the nascent gaggers and censors are coming out of the closet, lured by the smell of unobstructed power-grabbing and moved by a fear that the Tea Parties and the Internet have demonstrated a power that threatens the hegemony of collectivism. So, they want to shut up anyone and everyone who pursues and exposes the truth. They want a captive electorate as dumbed down and indoctrinated exclusively by government approved news and “journalists,” as captive as school children forced to ignore American history but instructed in the ways of Islam and the environment and Patagonian culture.
“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom,” wrote Ayn Rand. “Political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.” The current administration has made clear its attacks on intellectual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. An attack on one has always implicitly meant an attack on the other two. This is what those who would defend the First Amendment must understand. They must grasp that integration of freedoms. One cannot uphold freedom of speech to the exclusion of the other preconditions of it, as liberals have done for over a century, which is uphold freedom of speech while advocating the seizure or control of property. Logical consistency required that they now attack what they once defended.
Well said Dr. Hsieh. Once rights are subordinated to the “public good” they cease to be rights at all. Freedom loving individuals find ourselves in the midst of Benjamin Franklin’s challenge to keep our Republic, and I thank you for your willingness to stand on the front lines of that battle.
you should brush up on the basics. First off, if you join the United Nations you must agree to conform your laws to those of the United Nations. See US Law: United Nations Participation Act. We have agreed.
next: read united nations document on civil on political liberty and in particular Article 19:
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
~~~~~~~
The First Amendment is still in force today except it does not protect anyone from prosecution for various criminal activity such as but not limited to: issuing false alarms, writing false police reports, defacing property with grafitti, slander, conspiracy, &c
the Campaign Finance Reform Act attempted to define Political Discussion as a “soft money” contribution to various political campaigns and to thus make such publications illegal as though they were campaign donations.
SCOTUS denied this, although only by 5-4 vote.
the issue that is currently before us lies in getting political dialog clearly exempted from control
this should not be difficult because the protecting political dialog was part of the original intent of the First Amendment
but getting a clear definition now will be the issue
issuing false alarms, or making false reports, or slander, or vandalism will clearly remain violations
you wouldn’t think we would have trouble seeing what is and is not protected by the First Amendment bu then when you get quibblers into the act you have trouble with every aspect of language
What you “conveniently” forget to mention is that the same document also states that no such right can conflict with the goals of the UN.
Dictators in America will not end well…for the self-proclaimed dictators…
Brilliant article!
“Equally important, the right to free speech does not mean the right to the means of speech, such as an alleged “right” to newspaper space or broadcast time. A private publisher has no obligation to allow you to express your views on his pages. There is no such thing as a “right” to an audience. Private parties who choose not to publish your ideas are not engaging in censorship; only the government can commit censorship.”
Damn right! This is a point that we really have to make clear, it is of such confusion that the right to Free Speech is being eroded.
This is one of the scariest things I’ve ever read.
Excellent article Dr. Hsieh. Those (very) few of us Canadians who believe in true freedom desperately need the US to be the beacon on restoring our free speech rights. As many readers of Pajamas may know, Canada already legally bans so called “hate” speech i.e. anything that our lords and overseers have determined somehow insults one group or another. To add insult to injury, these bans are not even enforced through the regular court system but by kangaroo courts full of incompetent political appointees. I fear that such nonsense is on the way in the US also but I also hope that the American sense of life and love of freedom is still present enough to reverse this trend.
Paul Hsieh has written a very important essay on the one right we dare not relinquish without a fight: Freedom of speech. The idea that this right is a privilege, that it can be overruled if the majority decides that an individual’s speech is not “in the public interest” is evil and ought to be rejected. The first amendment states clearly: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” It is time our courts and legislatures challenged the constitutionality of any regulation, local, state or federal that interferes with this basic individual right.
It will soon come to the point where to defend free speech, Red State America may have to seceded from Blue State America, and declare an international free speech zone, where all websites that offend Leftist/Islamist sensibilities can reside.
Are you listening, Messrs. Perry & Jindal?
Lest you think that all this crap always comes from the left, consider that it wasn’t too long ago that Orrin Hatch (republicrat dufus senator from Utah) wanted to let corporations blow up your computer if you were suspected of copyright violations.
The camel’s nose entered the tent long ago, led in by demopublicans and republicrats alike, even those from the “reddest of the red states”, all in the guise of serving special interests. (I really doubt most Tea Party folks and the RIAA/MPAA have much in common.)
Now its up to us to get this three-humped beast out of our living room where it keeps eating all the pizza and defecating on the rug.
Vote all incumbents O-U-T!
Absolutely! it will probably take 18 years to get all those owned by other interests out of the US Congress, but vote in new ones every time until they get the idea that the people won’t stand coming in second to mere money.
Great idea. Chance of execution = 0.005; because the fact is that in the entitlement society built up by Democraps and Republicraps alike, there are enough people who will vote who are tied to the corruption, tied by their jobs, their relatives, their strange ideologies (such as the Marxists that predominate in the friend category of the current president), and self-interest for businesses so that the US is pretty much stuck with the best federal legislature money can buy, unfortunately.
This, perhaps this is time to talk about the reinstatement of the Estate System, since it is a reality but merely not recognised as such.
This is true. John McCain is a great example. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was an attack on free speech. As Paul Hsieh said, it gets back to individual rights (which are in the Declaration of Independence).
Modern intellectuals are largely bankrupt and are taking us to hell on earth. Obama, we should remember, is a left wing intellectual straight out of the university and loaded for bear, armed with postmodernist “thought”. These men are intellectual pygmies, but they are the men our our time.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man.” — Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a man from a better time.
This article is very true, and very depressing. Progressives just keep on coming, they never stop with their destructive power-mad agenda. While I personally may actively support the principles outlined by Dr. Hsieh, and while I will vote accordingly in November, ultimately this does no good whatsoever if our judicial system has been thoroughly taken over by progressives. Without a massive legal challenge led by Conservative legal think tanks that are creatively and unceasingly fighting these battles, the whole edifice of our freedoms will be destroyed. It seems very late in the day… how in the world did it ever get to this point?
“how in the world did it ever get to this point?”
One step at a time, beginning with John Dewey’s considerable influence in the public educational system and journalism. (He had a lot of help, of course.) Or, if you want to go further back to more fundamental causes, look to the importation of Hegel’s philosophy, abetted by large doses of Rousseau, in the mid-19th century. John Hopkins University, for example, was a hotbed of such ideas, later Columbia and, to a not inconsiderable degree, the University of Chicago. From there, the virus spread – to the popular intellectual publications, and from there to the general public.
Don’t throw in the towel yet! Besides voting, you can help fund organizations like the Institute for Justice, which is doing outstanding work in defending free speech and other individual rights. As Paul Hsieh mentioned, they filed an amicus brief in the recent Supreme Court case in which free speech rights were *successfully* defended.
The enemies of free speech may currently have the numbers on their side, but history is made by motivated minorities.
Scratch a liberal;find a Stalinist.If any of this legislation is ever passed at the federal level,then it will be time for the second American revolution to begin.This is nothing less than the beginning of totalitarianism in our nation.As patriots, we should warn the Stalinist scum that supports the blatantly unconstitutional repression of free speech,that we will not hesitate to use the second amendment to redeem the first.
Excellent article! Without the right to speak, i.e., to think, no other rights are possible. Countering the threat to free speech manifest in so-called “hate speech” codes, campaign finance laws, assorted fairness doctrines and others identified by Dr. Hsieh, must be the primary front for the Tea Party movement. The only way these despots can permanently seize power is to censor the truth.
“First Amendment” is neocon code. You are a racist bigot.
Pajamas- I like the updates. Can we please have a spam button now?
Alice Wigglebottom: Why is the First Amendment a “neocon code”? Code for what? Who is the “racist bigot”? Dr. Hsieh? Other commentators here? Going by the caliber of remarks here, I doubt many of them have been written by “neocons.” Radicals for capitalism, perhaps. Defenders and valuers of freedom, yes. But, I would defend to the death your right to indulge in such “hate speech,” even though your words are offensive to my sense of justice and decorum. As is your rather puerile screen name. You may ask: To the death? Yes. For if I refuse to defend your right to say what you will, who will defend my right? You?
Special-interest groups have recently petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to launch a probe against “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
Standard procedure for those incapable of dealing with competing ideas: demonize them as “hate speech”. It avoids the risk of actually addressing them on a level playing field.
Ezra Levant can tell you all about it on the receiving end.
Want to see where the “progressives” are ging with this? Take a look at campus speech codes… .
Your article did a great job of describing a short history of free speech as well as showing how to properly defend it.
I think the whole premise that is used to attack free speech is the denial of free will. Opponents of free speech are subjectivists, and so they believe that there’s no reality and no truth. To them human beings have no rational choice, they’re just like infants who will unquestioningly believe whatever the most prominent voices tell them. And so you hear them regard the right as a “noise machine” that just bamboozles the stupid.
What is traditionally seen as the modern American Left is not alone in this cynical view of human beings. The religious have their own version regarding people as inherently “fallen” and flawed. On the left or right, a cynical view of humanity as tragic automatons without free will leads to power lusters who will decide what is best for them.
Sometimes we need to be reminded not to criticize our government when Democrats run the country. They know what’s best for us even if it means keeping our speech from being too offensive. Free speech is over-rated and is being misused in their country.
*this country.
You may have been right the first time.
A Freudian slip – no doubt.
It is too late. The most effective form of censorship is already fix established and was accepted, by too many, without protest. It is called: “Political Correctness”
Mr. Capio,
There is a huge difference between large numbers of people accepting a bankrupt ideology like multiculturalism and having it enforced at the point of a gun. And if we give up just because of the former, we may soon learn the difference on our own hides.
The only way to head this off is for us to start making the kinds of positive arguments Dr. Hsieh outlines to whomever will consider them.
Gus Van Horn
Right-wing Conservatives/Libertarians want to control free speech —
just kidding, all I know is that the first amendment should protect the rights whether whatever party, but it’s so quick that the anti-Democrats/Liberals seem to have this instant bull dog barking tactic at the party in control.
I’m getting a freakin’ headache what with the assault on my liberty and freedoms over the last 50 years coming to a climax in this time we have come to.
It looks like the time in nigh when we are heading for a bloody revolution if there is not a reversal of the subjugation of Americans to special and elite interests. One day if it goes too far a civil war is going to be the only form of redress of the transgressions and usurpation’s of our principles of constitutional republican governance by Rule of Law, and the sovereignty of We The People.
The Declaration of Independence and its founding tenets of casting off tyranny are becoming ever more pertinent to the slippery slope of treason and tyranny being foisted on America by evil forces within our government and its hand maidens of misery.
I surely hope it does not come down to revolution. The way things are going though it may be inevitable. Those who are working to undermine our founding laws and principles are pushing with no sign of letting up until their agenda of destruction of our Republic is utter and complete. Consistently throughout human history forces of evil and enslavement of others has justifiably led to the many, subjugated by the few, to uprising in order to throw of the chains of tyranny.
These unbridled attempts that attack one of our great nations most cherished and vital Liberty’s are the most heinous forms of tyranny. It is tantamount to overthrow and installation of dictatorship. It robs We The People of our most valued sovereign power that is the bulwark against tyranny in all its evil forms.
What is to become of my country, my homeland, my way of life if these forces of darkness cross the Rubicon? They are darn near close to it.
Excellent article, it deserves to be circulated far and wide!
To those commenters who focus exclusively on the Democrats’ role in this, remember that campaign finance laws (which erect many prohibitions on speech) were largely enacted at the urging of John McCain. Both parties have paved the road to where we are today.
While we are looking at overt efforts to regulate free speech, do not forget the back-door methods by which the free dissemination of information can be quashed.
Many people are still unaware that a law passed by Congress, and signed by President Bush, bans the distribution of children’s books printed prior to 1985, because of alleged levels of lead in the inks used to print them.
This is an act of grotesque cultural vandalism. Many out of print and hard-to-find volumes, containing not only important writing but superb illustrations, will be trashed. The beauty of this erasure of history is that it is being done under the guise of “health”—something which, thanks to Obamacare, is going to be an excuse to reach into every corner of our lives.
Progressives have been running a stealth campaign for years now to hoodwink the public that “freedom of the press” refers to professional journalists taken as a whole, but that is absolutely false. Freedom of the press refers to the right of each and every one of us to put our words into print as well as into speech. At the time of the Bill of Rights, “the press” referred only to the contraption in the back of the printer’s shop. It’s modern meaning of the media only began to get established in the 1930s.
I’ve put a ‘W’ just to the left of the word recovery on our nearby “recovery” act street sign. Obama and his goons will not tread on me or my liberty. Great article, Dr. Hsieh.
“Free speech is essential to human life. Man’s primary means of survival is his mind.” Well said. When thought / expression are choked, the club (or gun) is all that you can defend yourself with.
I am not comfortable with many restrictions on speech, but most Americans also know that if you can’t restrict in any way the amount of money spent on “speech” that the rich and huge corporations have the clear advantage in keeping themselves that way. You also get the best representatives that money can buy.
A better alternative is not clear to me, but part of our problems come from what the big boys have bought, not just what the progressives are trying to take away. In fact, no one would listen to the progressives, if they did not see and feel all the advantages that the rich have. Some people respond by saying, “I want to be rich too.” Others say, “let’s take the rich down a peg or two. Both responses are reasonable human responses and are (at least since Andrew Jackson) are at the core of American political conflict.
Is either side…evil? I have the freedom of speech to claim so, and plenty here do. So it goes.
Excellent work, Paul. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention & articulating it so well.
If spreading “misinformation” on-line becomes an actionable offense, the Obama administration should be liable for indictment under the RICO Act.
Herr Obama, will it suffice if I reject my Jewish heritage and waive my First Amendment rights?
Heavens to Betsy. What do I know about politics? I’m just a girl who likes to blog. And if I had to be licensed, that would suck. So maybe we can work this out.
Although Obama’s new Disclose Act (with a forward from Helen Thomas) smells a tensi weenie like it came right out of Joseph Goebbles back pocket, I’m torn. Either stage a preemptive attack on the Nazi style Disclose Act or go along with it like a little lamb to slaughter.
Having been advised that the Disclose Act would require a permit to allow me to continue infecting the internet with my anti-establishment thoughts and feelings, I’m in a quandary. I mean, considering my history of cutting Obama to shreds much like he does to the Constitution, I’ve decided to do the unthinkable; to formally apologize to any government official or family member who I have recklessly insulted or sullied. This, of course, includes the President and his wonderful family. I do see the error of my former ways, and therefore retract my foolish, girlish statements which may have been a bit over the top; both offensive and disrespectful. As part of this disclosure, additionally I freely admit that I’ve received valuable compensation for spreading vile and baseless rumors for years on websites too numerous to mention. Specifically, Ann Coulter has been providing me with talking points and specific people and groups to target with hurtful words of defamation and slander. Whew. I’m feeling better already. Confession is good for the soul.
I guess, I’ve been kind of like a combat pilot who’s been given license to shoot at anything relating to the Obama administration that moves. Unfortunately, much of my ordinance has found its targets, and given the unsuspecting public a false view of reality. Obama’s approval ratings are falling like a blind roofer and, obviously, he must take action. Along with a plan to quell free and fair voting, MyBama has decided to silence his detractors on the internet. Consequently, I’ve decided to write only glowing, white, light, fluffy things about the good President Obama. When I hear him give a speech, nowadays a tingle goes down my index finger. Gosh, I feel like a school girl.
Anyway, here’s the list of my ObamaSins which is as comprehensive as I can make it. Like John Edwards and Bill Clinton are wont to do, I’ve detailed my transgressions in no particular order; as they come into my mind I’m writing them down and asking President Obama’s forgiveness. Without further adieu, here’s as comprehensive a list of my transgressions as I can make. My retractions are as complete as possible. Think of this as a good act of contrition.
I take back:
My article demanding Obama and Michelle condemn the TV show I called out as practicing the “Politics of Toddler Destruction” in which 3 year old Trig Palin was mocked for infecting himself with Down Syndrome. As Michelle was quoted as saying, “the kid is a joke, why Palin didn’t abort the little bugger, I’ll never know.” Right on, Michelle. Maybe tonight Sarah will read this and snuff out his imperfect little life with a pillow.
Then there was that piece accusing Obama of bowing and kowtowing to Commie wannabees all over the globe. Historically, I now realize, the United States has been an instrument of evil and corruption, doing everything from saving the world over and over again from madmen who want to enslave it, to fighting disease all over the world while being the world’s most charitable nation. Now, after getting an advanced degree from the Tom Hanks school of Marine Corps racism, I understand that it was this nation that didn’t respect the borders of the Japanese and Germans in WW II. We should have realized the concentration camps in Germany really were a German version of the TV show, “Concentration.” Still, the Jews were admittedly on the bad side of the Germans. As an Obama supporter and closet Nazi progressive, Helen Thomas has stated many times. “The problem with Jews is that they live so long. They have more money than God.”
My missive that conveyed the outrageous idea that Obama doesn’t believe a penny saved is a penny earned. Creating government jobs by putting us 19 trillion dollars in the hole by 2016 I now realize is the surest way to cure the ills of our economy. Inspired thinking.
Accusing Obama of committing a federal crime by offering Joe Sestak a job if he got out of the race. What was I thinking? Obama’s own lawyers investigated and determined nothing untoward occurred.
My insane attack on what I called ObamaCare which I stupidly said not only would kill the best medical care in the world, but would end up sending premiums through the roof and costing us trillions rather than saving us billions. Wrong again. My apologies.
And I was going down a slippery slope when I said Obama wasn’t out in front leading the way when OilGate began. On reflection, his handling of the disaster has been magnificent. He got the best scientific minds in the world together in Washington and came up with ingenious plans to quell the spill. I ask you. Where would we be without President Obama?
Then there’s Obama’s incestuous, or so I claimed, relationship with ACORN, the poster children for voter fraud and election stealing. As Al Franken once said, “if you can point out a single time ACORN stole a vote, I’ll show you Patrick Kennedy after 9 pm sober.”
Chiding Obama for stepping up annual abortions from 1.2 million to 1.4. I can understand it. Obama wants the slaughterhouse at three months vote. {Now this was a low blow for Obama. He never pretended to be pro-life.) Speaking of low blows, though, we naturally come to the queen of low blows, Kevin Jennings.
Rachel admits she claimed over and over that Obama’s school safety Czar, Kevin Jennings was a range rider out NAMBLA ways. Rachel also spread the notion that Kevin never gave Obama a heads up that he planned to request seed money for a local NAMBLA chapter.
Saying Obama squandered taxpayer money to keep unemployment under 8%. Implying that Obama sent billions in Stimulus money to Florida districts that don’t even exist. Claiming Obama lined the pockets of supporters, making them millionaires on the backs of hard working American taxpayers. I take it all back.
Stating the fact that Obama hired into his administration more than ten documented tax cheats, putting one of them in charge of the IRS. (I didn’t think anyone would believe such an outlandish fabrication.) Then last week I said Rahm Emanuel was caught not paying taxes on Chicago property. Another unbelievable claim I callously showered on the President’s chief of staff.
Charging Obama with giving the go ahead for union thugs to terrorize a young boy in his own home. The kid turned out to be a scaredy cat who needed some toughening up.
Letting the Black Panthers go scott free to demonstrate how little the Obama administration values the Constitution; desecrating the sanctity of the free and fair election. I take it all back.
Slight change of subject.
As to the bloggers who did things like discovering RatherGate and ClimateGate, which the mainstream media ignored with the persistence of a woman who’s nine months pregnant and contends it’s too many chocolate bars, I agree with President Obama that bloggers of the right should be refused a license, preventing them from spewing their anti-liberal, hate Obama venom on the internet. The hopelessly left biased mainstream media, of course, should not be controlled by the White House. In fact, the leftist bloggers are notorious for telling the truth so they also should be left alone. It is the right bloggers that don’t deserve first amendment protection. As Saul Alinsky said, if we’re careful who gets first amendment protections, there’s less chance of being infected by the truth.
Between “vote sanitation” in close elections and cleaning up the right wing blogosphere; dolling out hefty jail terms for blogging without a license, I believe this anti-Obama rhetoric can be liquidated. And why not? Opposing opinions are potentially hurtful and damaging. And could sway what Rahm Emanuel calls “fragile” public opinion.
Obama’s Disclose Act. Damning the Constitution and full speed ahead. Obama’s not only skating on thin ice, but the madman is likely to run the traitor ship Obama right into his own personal iceberg. And why not? The boy king deserves a good dunking.
> free speech should be permitted
> only if its social value outweighs
> its “societal costs.”
Translation: If you disagree with the government’s decision about which position has “social value”, then you may not speak. “Societal costs” means incumbent politicians might get voted out; we can’t have that.
Paul Hsieh has written an exceptionally clear and logical outline of the problem and solution in the number one battle we face in this intellectual war. As Paul eloquently wrote, the right to freedom of speech must be understood and defended as a tool for our very survival:
“… Free speech is essential to human life. Man’s primary means of survival is his mind. In order to live, we must be free to reason and think. Hence we must be left free to acquire and transmit knowledge, which means we must be free to express our ideas, right or wrong.”
The right to speech, is the right to communicate what we think. For the government to want to control speech, they are admitting they want thought control.
Can the desire to coercively re-program the thoughts of those people who are not “with the program” be far behind?
Roxanne A.
Important instructions
How to control freedom of information;
1. discredit the main stream media (e.g. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and so on…)
2. eliminate local news papers (e.g. renewable paper bad for environment, finite electronics good)
3. control the bloggers (e.g.. read this article)
4. don’t educate the youth to read or think (e.g. Watch MTV and then attend a classroom)
I hope people wake up and realize this is an actual agenda by one world idiots who want to control the whole show, and at the rate things are going we’re only a few years away from such a powerful faceless top down type of control. (e.g. go to UN’s web page, see the agenda)