UNFREE SPEECH

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804

From this...

...to this.

The self-described opened-minded are showing their true colors again through their actions, and they are most certainly shades of red. Since the much deserved trouncing of the Republican Party by protest votes to the Democrats, there seems to be a frenzy of shepherding the great unwashed proletariat to the commune where they can be over watched by (cared for) their "betters," as they ooze with the most obnoxiously false sense of noblesse oblige. This winter alone:

• Briton Richard Dawkins advocates that people of faith are delusional and should be denied the right to hold office and to participate in civilized society.
  
  


• Senate Bill 1 to be voted on, allegedly to curb lobbyist abuses, doesn't address "big money" 527's, celebrity and millionaire donors, but targets talk radio and grassroots lobbying organizations such as the Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.
  
  After citizens flooded the Senate with emails, faxes, and letters, in a great middle finger flip-off to the American people, Senate Bill 1, section 200 is amended to include a stiffer penalty for "violations" that these grassroots organizations commit with $10,000 fines.
  


• At the National Conference for Media Reform, perpetual Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) promised to resurrect the draconian "Fairness Doctrine" to broadcast media, and to control the Internet.
  


• Weather Channel personality Dr. Heidi Cullen states that meteorologists who do not believe that global warming is man made should have their American Meteorological Society certification stripped. (http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html)

Dr. Cullen: Agree with me, or else! Indeed, it must be true, when the hood goes on, the humility goes away? Just add celebrity status to the equation, and it only gets worse. I'll just go to Accuweather.com. Weather without the snootiness. Then again, I feel better getting my info from another Southerner, even if Katrina Voss just has a BS in Meteorology...besides, she is easier on the eyes.

American public discourse was once held out to the world as being an example of how a civilized society should behave. Differences of opinion were to be tolerated, not forced upon people, or that the people with whom we disagree be marginalized or silenced. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"I see too many proofs of the imperfection of human reason to entertain wonder or intolerance at any difference of opinion on any subject, and acquiesce in that difference as easily as on a difference of feature or form, experience having long taught me the reasonableness of mutual sacrifices of opinion among those who are to act together for any common object, and the expediency of doing what good we can when we cannot do all we would wish."

Surprisingly, most of the people who think that this suppression of speech...and even thought...is a good idea are the same people who scream bloody murder about the trampling of the First Amendment. The social Darwinism shines through like a 1 million candlepower search lamp, where anyone who disagrees is not "intellectually mature" enough to participate in the debate. This from the same crowd of people who have screamed "power to the people" for the past 35 years.

I guess by that, they meant "their people."

In the true intellectual disingenuousness that pervades the noble rantings of Richard Dawkins, in the interest of diversity and acceptance, other people must not be tolerated. Not the intolerance of acts or behavior that cause society harm, but the intolerance of the very existence of a person or thought. This circular reasoning gave birth to the death of 100-150 million under atheistic Communism in the twentieth century alone under the "noble" guise of "freeing" people from religion, not people who were attempting to actually harm another human being. Hitler, a Nietzsche-esque atheist that used ministers who were "compliant" to his ideology and sent the rest to the concentration camps, adhered to this very idea. Of the 12 million dead in the concentration camps, 6 million were Jews, and the rest were Christians, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, and other "undesirables." Competing thoughts and words had to be eradicated.

The idea of suppression of dissenting opinion and thought is expected in a totalitarian society. Why in a free one? Well, when you adhere to a "revolutionary" mindset that requires you to forcibly change the very culture...against the will of the people...you have to control the very exchange of ideas. All the more important when you don't represent the majority of the population.

With the 1960's and into the mid 1980's, a near complete monopoly existed in political and social thought in the broadcast media. Even the persons in the John Kennedy Presidential administration admitted to using the FCC to browbeat political opposition into silence. Both houses of Congress consisted of like minded people that used the threat of FCC non-compliance to silence opposing viewpoints in the broadcast media.

Then, when the thought of opposing voices in the broadcast media was considered laughable, the enforcement of the "Fairness Doctrine" ceased. This allowed an alternative niche of news broadcasting to grow. Rush Limbaugh, a pioneer in this medium, developed it into a very popular alternative information outlet, and source of public expression. Of course, this medium was given the standard Leninist argument to silence any opposition that could not be openly "eliminated:" accuse them of "hate." Oddly enough, the technique that worked so well for so long just didn't seem to work against individual broadcasting stations as well as it used to. This did not set well with the "voice of the people."

Then, along came the Internet. The ability of "alternative" media to disseminate information grew exponentially. This did not set well with the "establishment," either.

The advent of conservative media and Internet sources, coupled with public disenchantment with 50 years of Democrat control of Congress, led to the Democrats losing both houses in the 1994 elections. In fact, Rush Limbaugh was named an "honorary" member of Congress in the wake of Republican success. This was not forgotten by the Democrats, angry that the American public had dethroned them from what they considered to be their inalienable right to power.

The vitriol from the left only increased. Their true disdain and socially Darwinist snobbery towards the American public only became more evident. Accusations of "hate," and the labelling of conservative medium as "hate speech" became the rule for the "mainstream" media. Even President Bill Clinton publicly blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on "hate radio."

The left in the United States could no longer hide behind the skirts of a willing and sympathetic media. The scandals of the left saw the light of day. The plan of socialized medicine was exposed to popular scrutiny, the House banking scandal was revealed, the Clinton's use of FBI files on rival politicians was exposed, the fact that a person was used by the sitting administration to quell "bimbo eruptions" was revealed. The critique of Clinton's "legacy wars" was voiced, but done so without attempting to undermine a military operation. The Kathleen Willy accusations of rape, the Whitewater scandal, and countless blatant violations of morality and the Constitution were exposed.

Do you think that a challenge to CBS' use of forged documents to unseat a President in wartime would be allowed without the alternative media? The scorn and snobbery towards the "great unwashed" was illustrated by Dan Rather...who continued to state that the documents were authentic...as he referred to the bloggers who exposed his deceit as "pajamadeen." Would there be any truthful news about what is really is going on with the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would there be any exposure to the raising of the minimum wage under the Democratic House majority in 2007...except for American Samoa...because the largest employer on the islands was Star Kist, a corporation based in Nancy Pelosi's home district? How about the fact that Democrats are threatening to not fund reinforcements to Iraq, after castigating the President for not sending enough men in the first place?

If you think otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

Now that an angry electorate has thrown Republicans out of power who ran as conservatives but ruled as liberals, the Democratic Party has every idea to never lose political power again. They see the alternative media as enemy number one. Therefore, they have to go.

This time, it is the Internet that is also under their hateful glare.

In times gone by, Americans once cherished their freedom enough to stand up to such foolishness. Not anymore. It seems that the public whose fathers threw off the chains of tyranny of a set of people who believed it was their Divine right to rule, have now taken upon the chains of a new nobility that not only scorns Divinity and those who believe, but believe that their right to rule is based upon their inherent superiority gained through being more "progressive," or more evolved than the peasantry around them.

No one knows how many enemy were killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, or what bill of importance stands to be voted on in Congress that may steal their freedom, but people could tell you who shook their tail on American Idol.

So much for the freedom of the First Amendment, bought and paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of people far better than those who use it as a cloak for perversion and subversion.

May God preserve our nation and our liberty.

Better enjoy this blog whle you can, I'm going to make sure that people can read what is "fair."