Posted on 09/13/2010 4:29:25 PM PDT by Michael Zak
Michael Barone has called attention to threats made by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against private companies that dare to criticize Obamacare. The Obama administration, Sebelius warned, would impose a "zero tolerance" policy against dissent. Barone denounces this latest outrage as gangster government.
Actually, it's worse than gangster government, much worse.
Take a good look at the Obamacare logo. An eagle with wings outstretched atop a circular emblem of the regime. Where have we seen such an image before? What socialist regime, in Europe not so many decades ago, used such imagery? Hmmmm....
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
This is quite ominous.
That's what I was thinking. Hitler.
"We have ways to silence you."
...
Recently, the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, let slip the truth about what the Obama administration has planned for this country. Upset that most Americans oppose nationalized healthcare, she said: “We have a lot of re-education to do.”
This is a threat. Sebelius is threatening you.
...
Hmmm is this WHY Lagan belives that there needs to be LIMITS on “free speech”?
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Your FREEDOMS are being hijacked right before your eyes!
I note that your source is NOT on the excerpt list.
Why the excerpt? Why not post the full content?
Is there offensive language? Porn perhaps?
Or are you just looking for blog hits like a common blogpimp?
I’d appreciate an answer if you have one.
Hmmm is this WHY Lagan belives that there needs to be LIMITS on “free speech”?
OOOPS it should be Kagan NOT Lagan.
Recall:
Elena Kagan and free speech
May 14th 2010, 13:38 by Lexington
JACOB SULLUM reckons that Elena Kagan is a fickle friend of free speech:
[Her] understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by euphemisms. In Kagan’s view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize freedom or promote robust debate, but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.
He explains:
While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on “neutrally conceived harms,” Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on “hostility toward ideas.” But as she more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful.
Whether the issue is pornography, bigotry, dog-fight videos or political ads sponsored by corporations, would-be censors always claim the speech they want to outlaw causes harm. Without a theory about what sort of harm (if any) can justify speech restrictions, we are left with the “ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits” that the First Amendment was intended to prevent.
This is discomforting. It is unclear how far Ms Kagan would go in restricting political speech, but the words President Obama used to introduce her this week suggest that she shares his cramped view of the First Amendment.
...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/05/kagan_and_free_speech
Gee, is it ME or do YOU see a PATTERN HERE?
Call me any name you like if you disagree. I’m a BIG person and I can deal with it.
This is quite ominous.
As usual, also quite unoriginal. This GOP blogpimp gets hits for his site, promotes himself, tries to sell his book, yada yada.
Every day I read something that makes me think that violence is the only way to protect the nation from these tyrants.
You said that like an American.
“Vee hahve Vays to silent djou”.
fixed
Just another free service from Vendome. Don’t forget to tip the waitress.
The Louisiana Phenomenon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.