From the War on Terror To The War on Free Speech
George Bush took on terrorists like no other administration before. He called it the Global War on Terror. A new administration with new priorities replaced GW and now the bulk of that war is over. Afghanistan is the last surviving effort to defeat terrorism and the new administration lacks the intestinal fortitude and the will to pursue it to a successful conclusion.
Protecting Americans and American interests seems not just a disinterest to the Obama administration, but rather counter to their core values. Riddled with ties to anti-American and anti-Capitalist organizations and individuals, the Obama administration seems more obsessed with waging war against domestic ideological enemies. (Before I proceed let me establish that this is not another commentary on Glenn Beck. I only mention him for context.) Glenn Beck the unrelenting scourge of communists and socialists began nibbling around Obama’s feet when he attacked and proved a clear communist connection with “Green Jobs” Czar, Van Jones. Jones exited quietly – literally in the night, one holiday weekend.
Administration declares war on Fox
I wonder if the administration thought they were clear following Jones’ exit? After all, any additional attacks could not be proven, right? Besides, Beck could be marginalized through a continuation boycott of his TV outlet, Fox News. I’m sure the word was spread throughout the White House to “keep your socialist leanings to yourselves.” But they weren’t counting on the fact that people with strong ideology don’t generally keep it to themselves, especially when surrounded by friendlies. It is easy to forget that anything said in public – even among friends – can and will be discovered. As a result, Anita Dunn’s “favorite political philosopher” remark took a mere four months to make it’s way to Beck’s ear. Beck being Beck made headlines by playing Dunn’s own words. Unlike Jones, Dunn was not some minor Czar that could be quietly asked to exit under cover of darkness and a mainstream media blackout. No, Dunn is the Communications Director for the White House, if she were disgraced it would reflect poorly on the President.
And thus David Axelrod and mastermind Rahm Emanuel resorted to Chicago tradition and launched a smear campaign. The big problem here is that Axelrod/Emanuel chose not to attack Beck directly, because like sanctions against Iran, boycotting, insulting, belittling, and hating Beck does not work. Beck has a loyal base and conservatives know despite being a bull in a China shop, Beck can support and defend his facts. The administration cannot.
In targeting Fox News, Emanuel, Axelrod and Obama seem to miss the distinction between news and news commentary. What we bloggers do, is news commentary – editorialize, talk radio is news commentary, and shows such as Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly are news commentary. Even CNN, the fair and liberal news channel, has news commentary shows, Rick Sanchez and Lou Dobbs to name a couple.
If Dobbs were to get fed up with the socialist agenda of the Obama administration and began to expose the communists embedded within the administration would CNN lose it’s news channel status? Do newspapers that run political commentary critical of Obama lose their newspaper status?
In essence the entire war that Obama and company began against Fox is a boldface attack on the free press and free speech. The last administration to launch such an attack was the Nixon administration, before that we have to stretch all the way back to President John Adams. Adams was so angered by the relentless attacks of the press he pressed for and got a friendly Congress to pass the now infamous, The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. While never before the Supreme Court most people at the time and even today believe the laws unconstitutional.
Yet today we see liberals pressing to shutdown conservative voices. Take the so-called fairness doctrine. There are liberal voices in the halls of Congress trying to, at the worst, muzzle conservative voices, or at best, force liberal voices upon an unwilling audience. The fairness doctrine if enacted into law could force media outlets to balance opinion programming. Prima facie this sounds “fair,” right? Naturally we want people to hear both sides of a story. But here’s the catch, if the audience doesn’t want to hear someone they tune out, advertisers don’t buy airtime, the media provider (station) cannot dump the unpopular voice because of the fairness doctrine, the station is losing money every minute mr-unpopular-opinion is on the air. Eventually the station is forced to change formats, shutdown, or request government bailout money. In that case the station forgets all about the fairness doctrine and moves to an all-liberal Air America format.
The fact of the matter is that liberals generally don’t want to hear anyone else’s opinion. Conservatives are generally interested in hearing other conservative opinions since the mainstream media already provides the left-wing point-of-view. If anyone wanted to listen to liberals rant Air America would be making money, they aren’t. No, liberals would rather listen to music or crass morning comedy that fills huge gaps between music. Conservatives want to listen to other conservatives. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But the rating on talk radio prove no one is interested in what liberals have to say. So please shut up. 😉
We have a paranoid administration that has set out to “fundamentally change America.” A mission that seeks to move America away from it’s historically successful capitalist traditions toward a command economy that has historically failed. And done so spectacularly in places like Eastern Europe and India. A brief analogy: Have you ever had computer problems at work? You call IT and the tech tries a solution you already tried that did not work. As he (or she) begins you inform him you already tried it and it didn’t work. Does the technician stop and say, “Oh, in that case I’ll try something else,” or does he ignore your time-saving information and proceed to repeat the worthless solution? Most of the time the tech is thinking, you didn’t do it right. Doing it correctly the tech fails, just as you did. It always amuses me when the technician sighs heavily or says, “Huh, that should have worked.”
It didn’t work because it was the wrong solution. Socialism never works. In theory it sounds so fair and it if only it were done right, it should work. It doesn’t work because when financial rewards are removed people seek to find rewards elsewhere. In the case of socialism that reward is political power over others. Thus we see the resulting totalitarian governments of the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and more.
If there are powerful voices shouting that the nation is heading toward socialism, it is a message the Obama administration does not want heard. Naturally, they would not want it heard if it were untrue, but neither would they want that message heard if it were true. If people wake up and understand that the country has indeed made a hard leftist turn they would object. If enough people object, the objective is lost. Thus the opposition must be silenced. Stalin understood this, Mao understood this, and certainly Hitler understood this.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.*
If you enjoy the freedom to hold your own opinion, liberal or conservative, then you need to be concerned when anyone in the government tells people to close their minds and refuse to listen to opposing opinions. If you love the freedom to think for yourself it should greatly concern you when someone in the government attacks a news organization. This attack on Fox is about far more than Obama’s thin skin. It is about pressing an agenda, it is about “fundamentally transforming America,” it is about suppressing all opposition until it is too late. Soon it may be too late. Paranoid leaders are the most dangerous enemies of freedom. Who fondly recalls Richard Nixon’s hatred toward the press, or for that matter, his paranoid spying on the DNC.
More Mao Pals
In closing, listen to the words of yet another communist embedded within the Obama administration. Before Ron Bloom was Obama’s Manufacturing Czar he spoke to the Union League Club in New York. Speaking before a friendly crowd of distressed investors, Ron reveals his communist ideology and makes a eerie threat by way of quoting Mao. This quote is far more blatant than either Van Jones or Anita Dunn. Unlike Dunn there is no wiggle room to argue the words did not mean what they are saying. The message is clear and plainly spoken. Understanding what is going on requires thinking “big-picture.” Is there a theme being played out in the Obama White House and it’s orbiting Czars? In their rhetoric? Their policies?
* Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984).