Posted on 01/25/2006 3:59:15 AM PST by saveliberty
| TAKING LIBERTIES Shut Up, They Explained The left's regulatory war against free speech. BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST The rise of alternative media--political talk radio in the 1980s, cable news in the '90s, and the blogosphere in the new millennium--has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what's going on--and resist it. |
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Thanks for posting this!
While good americans were trying to defend freedom, the $$$$ leftists were selling that which you hold most dear right down the river.
You're welcome!
They are willing to give up political for monetary "rights"
An important article. Well researched. Lays out the leftist attack to silence free speech. Recommend that it be read by every Freeper.
|
A whiffed high five
by Paul Mirengoff
I haven't had anything to say about Hillary Clinton's MLK day statement about Congress being run like a plantation because, frankly, I didn't see much in it. Substantively, the import of the statement may well be true, and there's nothing terribly noteworthy in a leading Democrat (especially one named Clinton) playing the race card before a black audience. But Kathleen Parker has managed to come up with an interesting take on Hillary's comment. She sees it as evidence that Hillary lacks what it takes to be "the first black female president." As Parker puts it, "Watching Clinton's soul-sister moment was like watching a whiffed high-five, embarrassing as watching middle-aged white guys playing air guitar. Stop it." Posted by Paul at 08:50 PM | Permalink
|
He makes a very good case.
What really galls me is how these liberal creeps, like Rus
Finegold, the Chappaquiddick Kid, et al, cry crocodile tears about the administration invading Americans' civil liberties while those same vile Marxists are up to their eyeballs in this immensely elaborate conspiracy to deny all of us our most important constitutional right, free speech. Don't even get me started about what they're trying to do to the Aecond Amendment.
Their whole effort is actually to destroy the real constitutional rights that serve real, legitimate purposes, like keeping politics reasonably clean through freee speech, self defense, and protection of private property while they promote creation of non-existent "rights" like killing unborn babies and being a terrorist.
Exactly, they want despotism and they disguise it as humanity
BUMP
PING 4 L8R
Bump and ping for the historical files.
This is not a road they should persist in gong down...
President Bush is doing his level best to protect us, our lives, and our freedoms from despotism. These pieces of walking human filth want to expose us to the tender attentions of our murderous foreign enemies, who are their friends and whom they support, while they simultaneously destroy our most vital freedoms.
They want us to be hurt as they are hurt that we are not complying. Then they want us to lose so they can win.
It's a deadlier version of whatever you're for, I'm against it.
bumparoni
"Seems we have need for freedom right here in the good USA."
We need far more than freedom. We have a real need for another revolution.
Politically if possible
Violently if necessary.
We weren't given the 2nd amendment to hunt deer or kill criminsals.
Your last statement is right on the nose - which is why they'd like that taken away from us too!
I have a little something to send you. It's titled "The Real Intent of the Right to keep and Bear arms" if you're interested.
The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly
Front Page Magazine ^ | 24 January 2006 | Brian C. AndersonSame article, different title.
According to the essay, HR1606 had been introduced in the House, a bill that threatens our free speech rights. Everyone should learn more about it. I intend to do so.
Recognizing that McCain-Feingold is out of control, liberty-minded Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling introduced the Online Freedom of Speech Act (HR 1606) in the House last April. (Harry Reid has sponsored identical legislation in the Senate, showing that not all Democrats are lost on the issue.) The bill reinforces the Internet's current regulation-free status by excluding blogs and various other Web communications from campaign-finance strictures.
The House Democrats torpedoed HR 1606, but they had surprising help from about three dozen Republicans.
Incumbents all. The first inclination or power is the retention of power.
Good one... thanks for the post.
OMG
:-) You're welcome
Exactly
Perhaps this fall, once Machine Gun Sammy is installed, we need to shop a test case to the right federal judge and send CFR back to the Supremes before the 2008 elections. And no, it doesn't bother me at all to use their own tactics against them.
I know what you're saying, but my fear is that the cartridge box will be invoked by the left first as their tenuous hold on even minority representation further slips.
When they are talking about Slate or DailyKos, the "new media" is "brilliant" and "promising." When it's FR or Powerline, it's "dangerous" and "irrational."
And this surprises us why?
"Mr. Treglia urged grantees to keep Pew's role hush-hush.
"If Congress thought this was a Pew effort," he confided, "it'd be worthless. It'd be 20 million bucks thrown down the drain."
At one point, late in the congressional debate over McCain-Feingold, "we had a scare," Mr. Treglia said. "George Will stumbled across a report we had done. . . . He started to reference the fact that Pew was playing a large role . . . [and] that it was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress. . . .
The good news, from my perspective, was that journalists . . . just didn't care and nobody followed up." The hoaxers--a conspiracy of eight left-wing foundations, including George Soros's Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation--have actually spent $123 million trying to get other people's money out of politics since 1994, Mr. Sager reports--nearly 90% of the spending by the entire campaign-finance lobby over this period."(emphasis mine)
SO that's it in a nutshell. Just a few good ol' liebrals trying to maximize their propaganda dollar -- and save a few million here and there--by shutting the opposition up.
And waaaay to many 'useful idiots' (or collaborators) in Congress.
It's hard to imagine that kind of skulduggery except if you are in the practice of doing it yourself (ala HRC).
I don't see it as capitalism, but feudalism with a mask
In their minds, they are the elite, the only real humans.
The rest, the 'great unwashed' and 'unenlightened' mean nothing to them--less, even than livestock, which can be sold for a profit. The lower class, the sub-humans, exist solely as a useable resource, to be managed, worked, and taxed, and cajoled or even flogged into submission if necessary.
See? That's why it's not capitalism as people are not for sale. A person has ownership of his or her services and enters into a contract freely. Or declines the contract.
:-)
I hate to break the news to you. From their viewpoint, we are not people. We do not rate that high.
The Soros' of this world see us as livestock that individually cannot be sold, but the herd can be--right along with the company.
They are the elite. No one with a net worth under 10 figures need apply.
There are a few trick ponies, to be sure, and prized pets, but they are ultimately expendable if they get too uppity.
Why not manage the population by inciting conflict, legalizing and promoting abortion?
Enslave them by dumbing them down, distract them with baubles, shackle them with credit, and remember the all important Roman lesson: give them their bread and circuses, but make them work for them so they think they are free.
Sell you fifty--no a hundred--no two hundred flavors of dreck on your TV--and you work for it!! Whatta deal!
And then use it to tell you how 'free' you are.
I am just trying to get a grip on the arrogance of the minds that would perpetrate this crap on us.
From our viewpoint, of course, it is a feudalistic system--because they'd consider all of us serfs. Among themselves, though, it's all about the money.
We are in agreement. The only distinction is that I don't worry as much about what they think as they are their own worst enemies. And we are free, which unnerves them no end.
bump
It not only unnerves them, it scares the Hell out of them. (8^D)
Understanding your enemy is never a wasted past time, it exposes their weaknesses and their strengths. You can exploit the one and avoid the other that way.
:-) Oh I read and understand my enemy. I just don't take on their problems as mine.
:-)
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.