The Democrats’ attacks on free speech on their approach to the immigration bill demonstrate what good strategists they are.

Democrats are very organized.  I’m not just talking about their ability to whip up a rally at a moment’s notice or to elect a President with the help of a substantial voter fraud and government chicanery.  (I’m referring to the IRS scandal.)  Those were just the visible signs of Democrat organization.  As Mitch McConnell explained in a speech he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, the Democrat effort to squelch conservative free speech goes back many years and does indeed start with Obama — but not quite in the way you’d expect.

I have to admit that I’m not usually very good at reading the transcripts from long speeches, but this was riveting.  McConnell reminds us that, when Democrats speak or act, there are no coincidences.  They are the well-ordered, always-got-a-plan crowd, while Republicans just muddle through, batting at balls as they come their way.

Whenever I look at the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I’m reminded of the Germans and the British in World War I.  The Germans, either because they realized early that trench warfare would last a long time, or because they were simply more meticulous, built trenches that were things of beauty:  deep, secure, and comfortable (given the limits on long ditches in the ground in the middle of battlefields).  The British, by contrast, simply dug slap dash holes in the ground, and then made do with them for the next several years.  The men had no protection from the elements, and simply wallowed in louse-ridden mud and filth for years.  That the British prevailed was due to the resources of her Empire, the quality of her fighters, and the fact that America came in and finished the war for her.

When it comes to organization versus chaos, it’s no coincidence that the Senate is set to pass another 1,200 page monstrosity that no one has read, this time on immigration.  The Democrats know precisely what’s in it and they do not want anybody to read it.  If the public finds out what Democrats know, they’d be screaming to the rooftops.  As it is, they’re supine as a bill that destroys American sovereignty and remakes her population (without any citizen input) is rushed into law.

My suspicion is that the Senate Dems actually don’t care if the House stops the bill.  In that event, all they have to do is scream that the Republicans are racist immigration enemies.  The fact that the bill is a disaster that no one should pass is irrelevant.  Since no one knows what’s in it, the Dems and their media can simply set the narrative.

In other words, it’s a win-win for Dems:  either they get a bill that turns us into a permanent low-income, welfare economy or they get to call Republicans racists.  And, with all the aplomb of the British in WWI, the Republicans will stand there shell-shocked, unable to figure out what hit them.

If you go below the fold, I’ve included McConnell’s entire speech here.  You’ll see that McConnell is trying to arouse Republicans and conservatives to intelligent efficiency.  Good luck to him!

Full text of Mitch McConnell’s June 21, 2013 prepared speech to the AEI, as copied from McConnell’s Press Release:

WASHINGTON, D.C.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered remarks at the American Enterprise Institute on the use of government power to stifle speech and proposed solutions that protect the individual rights that are guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. Sen. McConnell spoke on the issue at AEI in June of 2012 highlighting the growing threat to free speech, particularly the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, calling on Americans to unite in vigilant defense of the Constitution. While some on the Left dismissed his remarks then, the growing IRS controversy has shown the need for vigilance. The following are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Thank you Arthur; and thanks for the energetic leadership you’re providing at one of the most indispensable institutions in Washington. Arthur’s what you might call a player-manager in the think-tank world. He’s not only steering the ship here at AEI, he’s generating some of its best research. He’s also got a lot of fans up on the Hill. I think it’s safe to say that Arthur is a model and an inspiration to college dropouts and disillusioned French Horn players everywhere.

Last June, I stood here and warned of a grave and growing threat to the First Amendment. That threat has not let up. Our ability to freely engage in civic life and to organize in defense of our beliefs is still under coordinated assault from groups on the Left that don’t like the idea of anyone criticizing their aims, and from a White House that appears determined to shut up anybody who challenges it.

On the outside, there’s a well-documented effort by a number of Left-wing groups like Media Matters to harass and intimidate conservatives with the goal of scaring them off the political playing field and off the airwaves.

An internal Media Matters memo from January 2010 showed the extent to which these tactics have been turned into a science. In it, we learned of the group’s plan to conduct opposition research into the lives of on-air news personalities and other key decision makers at Fox News, and to coordinate with 100 or so partner groups to pressure the network’s advertisers and shareholders, get this, “by the threat of actual boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, embarrassment and other tactics on a variety of issues important to the progressive agenda.”

Its multiple databases could also be used, the memo said, to remove what it describes as “chronically problematic media figures,” or “to preempt programming” … altogether.

Then, of course, there’s the widespread effort to stifle speech from within the government itself, something the Obama Administration has been engaged in from its earliest days.

Some have traced this back even further, to the 2008 campaign. But my central point last June, and my central point today, is this: the attacks on speech that we’ve seen over the past several years were never limited to a few Left-wing pressure groups or the DISCLOSE Act, which I’ll turn to in a minute. They extend throughout the federal government, to places like the FEC, the FCC, HHS, the SEC, and as all Americans now know — even to the IRS. These assaults have often been aided and abetted by the administration’s allies in Congress. And they’re as virulent as ever.

As for the IRS, my own concerns trace back to a phone call I got from a constituent early last year, who said he’d been subjected to excessive questioning and unreasonable deadlines from the IRS. When similar complaints followed, I sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Shulman asking for assurances that there wasn’t any political targeting going on. I said public confidence in the IRS depended on it. Six weeks later I got a lengthy response from the Deputy Commissioner, Steven Miller, in which he basically told me “move along, nothing to see here.”

Well, now we know that wasn’t the case.

Now we know that the IRS was actually engaged in the targeted slow-walking of applications by conservatives, and others who were, get this, criticizing “how the country [was] being run.” It overwhelmed them with questions and paperwork, and in some cases initiated audits on folks that had never been audited before.

In one case, an IRS agent allegedly demanded that the board members of an Iowa pro-life group sign a declaration that they wouldn’t picket Planned Parenthood. Several pro-Israel groups have said that they were singled out by the IRS for audits after clashing with the administration over its policy on settlements.

Then there’s the story of Catherine Engelbrecht.

Catherine says that after applying for tax-exempt status for a voter-integrity group called True the Vote, she and her husband were visited by the FBI, the ATF, OSHA, and an affiliate of the EPA. When all was said and done, OSHA told the Engelbrecht’s they had to cough up $25,000 in fines. The EPA affiliate demanded they spend $42,000 on new sheds. And three years after applying for tax-exempt status, True the Vote is still awaiting approval.

The list of stories like these goes on and on. And so now we have an administration that’s desperately trying to prove that nobody at the top was involved in any of this stuff, even as they hope that the media loses interest in this scandal and moves on.

But we can’t move on.

Because as serious as the IRS scandal is, what we’re dealing with here is larger than the actions of one agency or any group of employees. This administration has institutionalized the practice of pitting bureaucrats against the very people they’re supposed to be serving, and it needs to stop.

The good news is, more people are beginning to catch on.

When I warned about all this last year, I got slammed by the usual suspects on the Left. They said I was full of it. But even some of them now seem to realize that just because McConnell’s the one pulling the alarm doesn’t mean there isn’t a fire. The IRS scandal has reminded people of the temptations to abuse that big government, and its political patrons, are prone to. People are waking up to a pattern. They’re connecting the dots. And they’re rightly troubled.

Looking back, the IRS scandal helps explain a lot of the things this administration has done. You all remember the President wagging his finger at the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address. Well, I assure you this little piece of presidential theater wasn’t done for the ratings. There was a good reason the President and his allies devoted so much time and energy to denouncing the Citizens United case. But it’s not the reason they gave. I realize this may be shocking to some of the interns in the crowd. But the fact is, the Court’s decision was actually fairly unremarkable.

All it really said was that, under the First Amendment, every corporation in America should be free to participate in the political process, not just the ones that own newspapers and TV stations. In other words, there shouldn’t be a carve-out when it comes to political speech for folks who own media companies. It was a good and fair decision aimed at leveling the playing field.

The real reason the Left was so concerned about Citizens United was that they thought it meant more conservatives would start to form what are known as social welfare organizations — something they’d been doing, with groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club, for years. And what’s notable about social welfare groups is they don’t have to disclose their donors.

That was the main concern of the President and his allies. They weren’t interested in the integrity of the process. If they were, they’d have been just as upset at Left-wing groups for maintaining the privacy of their donors. What they really wanted was a hook that enabled them to stir up outrage about conservative groups, so they could get their hands on the names of the folks who supported them — and then go after them. Citizens United provided that hook.

As a longtime political observer and First Amendment hawk, I knew exactly what the Democrats were up to with their complaints about this decision. I’ve seen what the loudest proponents of disclosure have intended in the past, and it’s not good government. That’s why the FEC has protected the donor lists of the Socialist Worker’s Party since 1979. That’s also why the Supreme Court told the State of Alabama it couldn’t force the NAACP to disclose the names and addresses of its members back in the 1950s.

The President could claim, as he did six months after wagging his finger at the Supreme Court, that “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” But the fact is, there’s a very good and legitimate reason that courts have protected folks from forced disclosure — because they know that failing to do so would subject them to harassment.

So the political response to Citizens United, the so-called DISCLOSE Act, wasn’t really about cleaning up politics: It was about finding a blunt political weapon to use against one group and one group only: conservatives. Those who doubt this haven’t been paying attention to the tactics of the Left. They must not have noticed the stories about top administration officials holding weekly phone calls with groups like Media Matters. They clearly don’t know their history. And they must not have noticed the enemies list of conservative donors on the Obama campaign’s Web site. Or the strategic name-dropping of conservative targets by the President’s campaign team.

These folks were talking about the Koch Brothers so much last year you’d think they were running for President. About six months after the President berated the Supreme Court, he even went so far as to call out Americans for Prosperity by name. It was like sending a memo to the IRS that said “audit these guys”.

All these things together point to a coordinated effort to stifle speech. And that’s why one of the most enduring lessons from the IRS scandal comes from the timeline.

Based on the IG report, we now know that a team of IRS specialists was tasked with isolating conservatives for scrutiny as early as March 2010. What matters isn’t whether they were doing it in Washington or Cincinnati — or Duluth, for that matter. What really matters is that it coincided with a very public campaign by the President, and a small army of Left-wing allies in and out of government, to vilify anyone who had recently formed a group around conservative causes.

What happened before this targeting began is just as important as what happened after.

What matters here was the atmosphere; what matters is the culture of intimidation this President and his allies created around any person or group that spoke up for conservatism — or against the direction the President and his administration wanted to take us.

The so-called “special interests,” he said, would “flood” the political process, with money that might be coming from “foreign entities.” “The problem”, he said, “is nobody knows” who’s behind these groups. They were “shadowy.” They might even be “foreign controlled”. These were the kinds of unsubstantiated claims the President and his allies trafficked in from early 2010 right up through the election, and they were just as reckless and preposterous as Harry Reid saying Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in 10 years. They may have been wrapped in the appealing rhetoric of disclosure, but make no mistake: the goal was to win at any cost, and that meant shutting up their opponents in any way they could. So, no, I don’t believe that the President ever actually picked up a phone and told someone over at the IRS to slow-walk those applications or audit anybody. But the truth is, he didn’t have to. The message was clear enough.

But if the message was clear, the medium was also perfectly suited to the cause.
The federal bureaucracy, and in particular the growth of public sector unions, has created an inherent and undeniable tension between those who believe in limited self-government and those who stand to benefit from its growth. Let’s face it, when elected leaders and union bosses tell the folks who work at these agencies that they should view half the people they’re supposed to be serving as a threat to democracy, it shouldn’t surprise any of us that they would. Why would we even expect a public employee — whose union more or less exists to grow the government — to treat someone who opposes that goal to a fair hearing? When the head of the union that represents unionized IRS workers publicly vilifies the Tea Party, is it any wonder that members of her union would get caught targeting them?

This is something liberals used to worry about.

FDR himself was horrified at the idea of public workers conspiring with lawmakers over how to divide up the taxpayer pie. To him, it was completely incompatible with public service for the public to be cut out of a negotiation in which the two sides are bartering over their money. Even the first president of the AFL-CIO once said it was impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Yet that’s exactly what we have today. Over the past several decades, the same public employees who’ve arrogated vast powers to themselves have conspired with their patrons in Congress to expand those powers even more, and to endlessly increase the budgets that finance them. This isn’t done in the interest of serving taxpayers; it’s done in the interest of fleecing them. Because that’s what happens when politicians start competing for the support of public-sector unions – they stop serving the interests of the people who elected them and start serving the interests of a government they’re supposed to be keeping in check.

There’s no better illustration of this than the news this week that in the midst of congressional hearings into their activities, unionized employees at the IRS are about to get $70 million in bonuses. The IRS union is thumbing its nose at the American people. It’s telling them in the clearest terms possible that it doesn’t care about this scandal, or how well government works, or how well it’s serving the public. All it cares about is helping union workers get theirs. It’s pure arrogance, and it reflects a sense of entitlement better suited to an aristocracy than to a nation of constitutional self-government. So it’s increasingly appropriate to ask whose interests these public sector unions have in mind — the taxpayers’, or their own. And on this question, I’m with Jonah Goldberg: public sector unions are a 50-year mistake.

Years ago, I saw the dangerous potential for collusion between lawmakers and public employee unions when I served as County Executive of Jefferson County, Kentucky. And I fought hard against the formation of public sector unions. At the time, there was bipartisan agreement on this issue. Most people realized it wasn’t in the public interest. But unfortunately the appeal of union support proved too great for some, and shortly after I was elected to the Senate, the dam of resistance broke, ushering in the same destructive arrangement that’s been gutting the finances of other cities across the country.

The existence of public-employee unions is without question a big part of the reason people have so little trust in government these days. They are the reason so many state and local municipalities are flat broke. They’re behind the unsustainable expansion of public pensions. They’re a major problem, and today I’m calling for a serious national debate about them.

On the federal level, the first thing we should do is stop the automatic transfer of union dues from employee salaries at the taxpayer’s expense. If the unions want their dues, it should be incumbent on them, not us, to pay for it.

So the assault on free speech continues, and it’s clearly an uphill battle, but if we’re alert to the tactics of the Left, and take these assaults one by one, I’m confident we’ll beat them back.

Let me give you a couple final examples of what I’m talking about. Right now, there’s an effort over at the FCC to get groups that buy campaign ads to disclose their supporters. This is utterly irrelevant to the mission of the FCC. We need to say so. The SEC is under pressure right now to force publicly-traded companies into disclosing all their political spending, even though it has no core interest in knowing what political causes companies support. This proposal doesn’t protect shareholders, and it doesn’t lead to better corporate governance. We need to call this stuff out.

For the Left, this isn’t about good government or corporate governance, it’s about winning at all costs – even if that means shredding the First Amendment.

And that’s why we need to be vigilant about every one of these assaults. They may seem small and isolated in the particular, but together they reflect a culture of intimidation that extends throughout the government — a culture abetted by a bureaucracy that stands to benefit from it.

The moment a gang of U.S. Senators started writing letters last year demanding the IRS step in and force more disclosure upon conservative groups, we all should have cried foul.

The moment the White House proposed a draft order requiring applicants for government contracts to disclose their political affiliations, we all should have called them out.

When the HHS Secretary told insurance companies they couldn’t tell their customers how Obamacare would impact them, we all should have pulled the alarm.

And as soon as we realized that Left-wing groups were manufacturing a public outcry for corporate disclosure at the SEC, we should have exposed it for what it was.

There might be some folks out there waiting for a hand-signed memo from President Obama to Lois Lerner to turn up. What I’m saying is that a coordinated campaign to use the levers of government to target conservatives and stifle speech has been in full swing and open view for years. It’s been carried out by the same people who say there’s nothing more to the DISCLOSE Act than transparency, and no more to other disclosure regulations than good government.

But the IRS scandal puts the lie to all this posturing.

Because now we know what happens when government gets its hands on this kind of information, when it’s able to isolate its opponents. And whether you’re a pro-Israel group, or a Tea Party organization in Louisville, they can make your life miserable. Even worse for democracy, they can force you off the political playing field …which is really what they want, and precisely what we cannot allow. There are a lot of important questions that remain to be answered about the IRS scandal. But let’s not lose sight of the larger scandal that’s been right in front of us for five years: a sitting president who simply refuses to accept the fact that the public isn’t going to applaud everything he does.

So my plea to you today is that you call out these attacks on the First Amendment whenever you see them, regardless of the target. Because the right to free speech doesn’t exist to protect what’s popular. It exists to protect what’s unpopular. And the moment we forget that is the moment we’re all at risk. If liberals can’t compete on a level playing field, they should think up better arguments. But until they do, we need to be vigilant, and fight every assault on the First Amendment with everything we’ve got.

The only way to beat a bully is to fight back. So be wise to the ways of the Left, and never give an inch when it comes to free speech.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    After abandoning the patriots at the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnamese patriots at Saigon, the North Koreans who couldn’t flee to the south, the Afghans, the Iraqi allies of the US… Whom Exactly Does the US Expect to be there to save Americans?
     
    Nobody. There is nobody. Your countrymen are gone, no more than slaves now. Our allies are gone, no more than dust.
     
    This isn’t the end. There will be much more suffering before any “End” exists. People will wish for an End, but they won’t get it. Empires, good or evil, do not die that easily.
     
     
     
     

  2. says

    One single simple question remains. Why does anyone think the United States deserves to be saved from the Leftist alliance, when Americans didn’t do much of anything to save humans in the world from the Left?

  3. Mike Devx says

    I think Ymar is right, there is simply going to be a lot more suffering until enough people reach the point where they simple say (in one way or another) “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
     
    Book, you said:
    McConnell is trying to arouse Republicans and conservatives to intelligent efficiency.  
     
    The problem is, you don’t “arouse” anyone by appealing to “intelligent efficiency”.  You have to give them fire and brimstone.  You have to give them raw red meat that they want to chew on.  McConnell is pretty good, usually, at insider political gamesmanship.  But he’s an apparatchik.  He’s a zero on the populist meter.  Oh well.
     
    Republicans won’t mount any serious opposition to the immigration bill.  *Conservatives* might, but be assured the liberals will play the racist card, screaming at max volume and aided and abetted by an eager mainstream media.  The bill is another Christmas bag full of Santa Claus goodies.  A set of people (illegal immigrants) are being given waivers and favors that all the rest of us never get.  It would be interesting to see a spirited challenge to the bill arise.  I think support for this kind of gift-bag amnesty is soft among wide swaths of Americans.
     

  4. papadoc19 says

    McConnell is not trying to arouse Republicans or conservatives on anything.  The Republican members of the Gang of 8 have had his tacit support throughout the entire process and if he wanted to exert pressure to derail this bill he could have.  He is just trying to provide himself cover for a bill he has no problem passing.  You are right…McConnell is the consummate political insider…so you don’t think he secretly supports a bill that is being pushed by big business.  It is a game, it is all kabuki theater designed to defraud the American people.

  5. says

    I remember when Democrats and Leftists told me in 2003 and 2005 that Bush’s scheme for democracy and freedom was a fool’s journey (some village in Texas is missing their idiot).
     
    I wonder where they are now. You guys here yet?
     
    Because I have something to say now that I didn’t know how to say before. Although this one is usually better heard face to face.

  6. says

    Americans have gotten rich, Leftists or Republicans or conservatives, from foreign and domestic policies that have enslaved, killed, and obliterated entire ethnic groups.
     
    Yet, some still think the wages of their sins can be repaid in coin or some cheap “atonement”.
     
    The only thing that will cleanse the evil in America is blood, the sole reliable coin of the realm.
     
    “Which means that sooner or later, the Far Left is going to have to discard all pretense and, through illegal means, attempt to fully abrogate the Constitution. That is when low-information, useful idiot liberals will face an unavoidable choice; awaken to what their political support has really wrought or become through willful denial, fully complicit in tyranny.
     
    Upon that determination hangs the fate of the Republic.”-Geoffrey Britain
    Awaken? You have got to be kidding me. People who have created families while the families in South Vietnam were ripped apart, enslaved, starved, and raped to death, somehow have the right and entitlement to tell me that suddenly American tools and slaves are going to make a decision now? As opposed to the times they didn’t, through willful denial, the last…. oh 10 or 100 times? Now suddenly it is going to be different, huh, suddenly now people are going to “redeem” themselves and atone for their sins and they’ll be fighting the Left.
     
    People will do no such thing. Not even in flying pink pig fantasy land would that be feasible.
     
    The Left has been destroying American life and the lives of our allies in the world for the last two hundred years. It is far too late to think yourselves, no matter who you are, “entitled” to salvation at somebody else’s expense. Such a people no longer deserves saving.

  7. says

    It takes a long time to get used to the emotions that come from accepting the Left’s evil. People are only starting to feel such emotions, tho they haven’t even figured out what they are yet.
     
    I’ve had half a decade to deal with and process these emotions. My conclusions are born directly from figuring out the meaning behind the things I’ve felt, seen, and logically processed. Those who never saw nor accepted the Left’s transgressions against humanity in 2006 and 2008, can no more understand me then than they can now. They are too far behind the curve in terms of emotional development.
     
    Confrontive Coping: describes aggressive efforts to alter the situation and suggests some degree of hostility and risk-taking. (Anger)
    Distancing: describes cognitive efforts to detach oneself and to minimize the significance of the situation. (Denial)
    Self-Controlling: describes efforts to regulate one’s feelings and actions.
    Seeking Social Support: describes efforts to seek informational support, tangible support, and emotional support.
    Accepting Responsibility: acknowledges one’s own role in the problem with a concomitant theme of trying to put things right. (Acceptance)
    Escape-Avoidance: describes wishful thinking and behavioral efforts to escape or avoid the problem. Items on this scale contrast with those on the Distancing scale, which suggest detachment. (Bargaining)
    Planful Problem Solving: describes deliberate problem-focused efforts to alter the situation, coupled with an analytic approach to solving the problem. (Acceptance)
    Positive Reappraisal: describes efforts to create positive meaning by focusing on personal growth. It often also has a religious dimension.
    Various stages in coping with grief are described in the The KEler-Ross model. The model was introduced by Elisabeth KEler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death & Dying. These well-known “Five Stages of GriefEare:
     
    Denial—“It can’t be happening.”—Ignore or discount the evidence. The Left is just some rare extremists, not a real threat.
    Anger—“Why me? It’s not fair!”—Highlight the injustice. Blame someone or something else for the evil, like Republicans or the President or corrupt parties.
    Bargaining—“Just let me live to see my children graduate.”—Negotiate a better deal with Democrats, compromising. “If we give you immigration, at least leave my state alone for Obamacare”
    Depression—“I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”—Act helpless and start talking about not participating in civic duties. Going Galt.
    Acceptance—“It’s going to be OK.”—Acknowledge the problem, understand and accept what you can and cannot change, and move on to the war of human good and evil.
     
     
    A passage from some link I found on the net, with my modifications to the 5 steps starting with denial. Notice how many people now a days are at that “depression” or “bargaining” stage? 
     
     
     

Trackbacks

  1. Watcher’s Council nominations…

    The Noisy Room – The Bracken Effect: An American Communist Putsch The Political Commentator – China and Russia bogarting the ‘joint’ in the Snowden espionage scandal! Simply Jews – PRISM and you: how endangered you are, my friend? Liberty…

  2. Watcher’s Council winners…

    *First place with 4 votes! Joshuapundit –Fear And Loathing In DC – The Gang Of Eight’s Amnesty Bill Is A Disaster Second place *t* with 2 votes – Simply Jews – PRISM and you: how endangered you are, my friend?……

  3. Watcher’s Council Results…

    Here are this week’s full results: Council Winners*First place with 4 votes! Joshuapundit –Fear And Loathing In DC – The Gang Of Eight’s Amnesty Bill Is A Disaster Second place *t* with 2 votes – Simply Jews – PRISM and you: how endangered you are, my …

Leave a Reply