As quoted from this and the following links:
"Does Barack Obama support the First Amendment? (answer: well, it depends)
Is Barack Obama a strong proponent of the First Amendment? Does he support free speech, even by those who strongly disagree with him? The answer is: not really.
I'll keep track in reverse chronological order:
* Public officials in St. Louis/Missouri threaten Obama opponents with criminal libel? (apparently under the direction of or with the input of the BHO campaign)
* Barack Obama threatens licenses of stations running NRA ad (National Rifle Association)
* Obama quote: '[immigrants and illegal aliens are] counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation.' That's a reference to commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, two people that Obama has not only smeared but lied about. Clearly, he doesn't just disagree with them, he doesn't want them to have the right to speak."
Politics being the ethics of aggression, there is only one consideration, which party tries to expand the scope of aggression more than the other? If one is to assign rank to different kinds of aggression in our polity, rating one sort more dangerous than another, threats to political speech being more aggressive on one side than another, may be dispositive. Not only does Obama show up as the lowly one on this consideration, but he effectively acknowledges his weakness relative to the truth coming out, for the mass audience, on his actual inclination and associations. As applicants for the highest security clearance, to be given by the electorate, all questionable associations must be brought up for public questioning.
Added from Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Major Move To The Left Needs Enforcement Of News Blackouts...
... in major media through state intimidation. If not so, why would this be attempted:
“Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment”
"Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents... [...]
Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter 'intimidation' or 'oppression' in an election involving a black candidate"
An indication is to be seen here as well, that the anti-volitionist, materialistic left, greatly outdoes the spiritual, volitionistic right, in bold aggression against freedom of political speech and publication. If the left cannot behave even in this one area, where they should have some credibility on a par with the larger right-wing, they deserve no chance at power, as may be given by the electorate.Those who rose by one unearned special dispensation after another, have the least respect for other's rights. It's the effrontery of the protected classes, moving on toward change we don't need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One of the things that Democrats are looking forward to doing next year is reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh to counter everything they say with a rebuttal from an opposing point of view. The last time the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, the Internet wasn't widely known about, so it didn't apply to the Internet, nor to TV for that matter. A strict interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine would mean the end of the era of political blogs and a watering down of all political TV shows. However, in its most common interpretation, the Fairness Doctrine applies only to talk radio shows, which tend to be dominated by conservatives.
Imagine the high-volume outrage if christians tried to get a fairness doctrine to represent views against secular approaches.
Post a Comment