Free speech for me, but not for thee

« Pat Condell on the Saudi-ization of England *UPDATED*Gwen Ifill’s outrageous conflict of interest *UPDATED* »

Free speech for me, but not for thee

Bookworm on Oct 01 2008 at 8:15 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Free speech

A righteous Andrew McCarthey puts together in a single place what astute observers have long known: Obama is an active enemy of Free Speech. Using tried and true Leftist tactics, including coopting sympathetic officials in the current administration, Obama and his team are doing everything they can to stifle speech.

It’s just the beginning of the curve, of course. But when you get to the end of the curve, you have the former Soviet Union, which routinely saw the Communist powers-that-be get voted into office by an amazing 99% of the citizens. (And I’m sure the other 1% enjoyed their comfortable stay in a Gulag of the government’s choice.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: Barack Obama, Censorship, Free speech

Email This Post To A Friend

14 Responses to “Free speech for me, but not for thee”

on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:19 am 1Danny Lemieux

The Democrats are the socialists, which is soft-fascism but fascism no less. They are only showing their true gang colors.

Watch. The more the Dems get called out on this, the more they and their fellow travelers will accuse the Republicans of exactly that of which the Democrats are guilty. It’s the Alinksy way. The tighter the race, the more desperate and thuggish they will become.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:32 am 2Ozzie

Using tried and true Leftist tactics, including coopting sympathetic officials in the current administration, Obama and his team are doing everything they can to stifle speech – Book

Oh, how I wish these “tried and true” tactics were limited to the left.

I’m still convinced that when fascism comes to America, ony one half of Americans will see it.

Poor Kathleeen Parker dared speak out against Sarah Palin last week, and now she’s facing the wrath:

Speak correctly, or build a big bunker
Kathleen Parker
October 1, 2008

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1001parkeroct01,0,3151779.column
on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:40 am 3suek

>>Poor Kathleeen Parker dared speak out against Sarah Palin last week, and now she’s facing the wrath:>>

Ah yes…all those emails…sure equate to public officials considering prosecution of stations that air ads against Obama, or requests to the DOJ for prescution of stations who air unfavorable ads….

Sure they do.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:42 am 4Bookworm

That’s the point I was going to make, suek. Americans are free to express their opinions, even if they’re ugly. (Although threatening is something different.) What Obama wants, though is to use the instruments of government to strike down speech. That’s censorship, and that is what is antithetical to our Constitutional freedoms.

As for trying to shout down TV stations, that’s ugly because it’s a coordinated effort coming from a political figure — which is, again, different from individuals expressing their hostility to someone’s point of view.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:45 am 5suek

And Ozzie doesn’t want those who hold “wrong” views to be able to express them.

Sounds facist to me.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 11:28 am 6Ozzie

Ah yes…all those emails…sure equate to public officials considering prosecution of stations that air ads against Obama, or requests to the DOJ for prescution of stations who air unfavorable ads….

Sure they do.- suek

Have you been paying attention to what occured during the Bush administration? There is a long list of those who were penalized simply for speaking out.

The atmosphere and tone across the political spectrum, from politicians and citizens alike, has grown increasingly authoritarian.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:03 pm 7Danny Lemieux

Me – “Watch. The more the Dems get called out on this, the more they and their fellow travelers will accuse the Republicans of exactly that of which the Democrats are guilty”.

“I’m still convinced that when fascism comes to America, ony one half of Americans will see it,” and “Poor Kathleeen Parker dared speak out against Sarah Palin last week, and now she’s facing the wrath”.

I sure called it, didn’t I? Sooooooo predictable!
on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:07 pm 8McLaren

There is a long list of those who were penalized simply for speaking out.

And those names would be…?

Also I recall the reporter Taheri (sp?) getting multiple death threats from Obamanauts after his article on Barry’s meeting with senior Iraqi officials.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:27 pm 9BrianE

Ozzie’s example of the right stifling free speech is a column by Kathleen Parker in the Chicago Tribune commenting about mail she received after a column suggesting Palin quit.
I read 120 of the 214 online comments posted after the 9/29 column and found most of the comments supported Parker’s column, before deteriorating on who’s to blame for the subprime mess, etc. One of the 120 comments was actually demeaning of Parker, telling her to shut up.
Mean Republicans!

Speak Correctly or Build a Big Bunker 10/1
Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party—not a “true” conservative.

Palin’s fans say they like her specifically because she’s an outsider, not part of the Washington club. When she flubs during interviews, they identify with that too. “You see the lack of polish, we applaud it,” one reader wrote.

Of course, there’s a difference between a lack of polish and a lack of coherence. Some of Palin’s interview responses can’t even be critiqued on their merits because they’re so nonsensical. “Let Sarah be Sarah” has become the latest rallying cry among my colleagues on the right. She’ll be fine if we just leave her alone, they say. Between prayers, I might add.

Not all my mail has been mean-spirited. A fair number expressed polite disappointment; others relief and gratitude. Still others offered reasonable arguments aimed at changing my mind. I may yet.

Here’s an example of her columns supporting Sarah Palin:
If this is an example of supporting a candidate, I’m not sure I’d want her support.

Who Needs Feminists 9/3
A notable exception to the ugliness has been Barack Obama, who was both manly and gentlemanly in reiterating his position that candidates’ families—and especially their children—are off limits. Bravo. He also reminded Americans that his own mother gave birth to him when she was 18…

There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn’t be among them. Her candidacy, meanwhile, has cast a bright light on the limitations of our old ideological templates.

Should Palin and McCain prevail come November, feminism can curtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won’t be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there.

Good Ol’ Girl and Arugula Fatigue 9/10
She gets small-town America because she is small-town America. The question is: Does she get the Great Big World? And can she lead it, if necessary?

McCain seems to think so. Or does he? Whatever the case, his political judgment in selecting the Alaska governor was keen. With that singular flourish, he signaled the Republican base that he isn’t a RINO (Republican In Name Only) after all. And he co-opted the Democrats’ claim to represent women’s interests by picking a woman who makes feminists look like sissy-girls.

Both a frontier woman and a beauty queen, the square-jawed Palin not only neutralized the sisterhood, she animated the brotherhood. Men are suddenly riveted as never before by the frontal lobes of the vice presidential candidates.

Here’s the column that she claims raised controversy. What is interesting is it’s the same column reprinted twice with different titles.

Sarah Palin Should Bow Out 9/26
How Palin Can Save McCain 9/29
Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:39 pm 10BrianE

Ozzie,
Since you are a centrist, do you ever go on liberal-leaning blogs and suggest that Obama is just a tool of the marxist left and there’s not a bit of difference between Democrats or Republicans?
That I’d like to see.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:49 pm 11Mike Devx

Ozzie, you say,
Have you been paying attention to what occured during the Bush administration? There is a long list of those who were penalized simply for speaking out.

Were these people in the Executive Branch? I’d go after them too, if they were in my administration. Were they in Congress? Especially members of the Republican party? I wonder how often that has gone on throughout our history… I don’t have any other answer for that one, though.

Were they in the media? If they were, I agree, being punitive against the media is a dangerous game and a mistake. I wouldn’t limit their access, but you can bet that during press conferences, every answer I’d give to them would include info about any unfairness, if they’d been unfair.

Were they not in the admin, Congress, or media? Then they were in the public? That would be *really* interesting if it occurred! I can’t remember any incident.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 1:24 pm 12Danny Lemieux

Radar clutter, folks. It’s just radar clutter.
on 01 Oct 2008 at 6:22 pm 13Danny Lemieux

“And those names would be…?”

Ozzie, McLaren asked you a question…are you there?
on 01 Oct 2008 at 6:44 pm 14Zhombre

Don’t bother, Oz. She’s listening to her Dixie Chicks CD while watching Michael Moore’s latest movie. You know, in this time of repression, it’s a samizdat thing.