Daily Archives: September 7, 2009

Liberals despise “freedom of speech”

A WaPo article by E. J. Dionne exemplifies the extent that liberals will twist facts and logic to still pretend to be in favor of free speech while fighting it with every fiber of their being. They favor freedom of speech for those with whom they agree, or those with whom they can safely ignore and marginalize, while fighting tooth and nail against those with whom they disagree.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the abominable McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Of course it is.  Except to liberals.  In the liberal view, heaven forbid that a conservative group should be entitled to the freedom to air a documentary that is critical of a liberal politician (in this case, Hillary Clinton) close to an election when the electorate is actually paying attention. 

Mr. Dionne declares that a decision in favor of the conservative group would be beyond “radical.”  You can almost hear his hands wringing as he writes at how the political system “will be turned upside down” by such a ruling, as it would overturn over 100 years of Supreme Court precident.  Whenever you hear liberals talking about how sacrosanct Supreme Court precedent is, realize that they are just trying to pursuade moderates and conservatives to uphold precedent that the liberals support. 

Rest assured that whenever there is a precedent that they do not support, liberals ignore precedent. For example, see how they treated precedent in the case of whether the Constitution protects consenting adults from performing acts of homosexuality in private.  For two hundred years the answer was no.  The Supreme Court officially declared that as the answer just twenty years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick.  Then the liberals got the law reversed in Lawrence v. Texas, and you heard no talk of how sacred “precedent” was.  But Roe v. Wade, that is etched in stone in the liberal view, never to be even considered again. Ever.

In the last elections, liberals enjoyed a great advantage playing under the current system.  They out-raised and out-spent McCain, which contributed in part to Obama’s victory.  From their viewpoint, the system works: It elected their candidates and defeated their opponents’ candidates.  Of course they are going to fight allowing conservatives to actually havr a say in the debate.  Liberals get their message out with their willing accomplices in the mainstream print media, Hollywood, the nightly news and night time talk shows, etc.   They’ve figured out how to get their message out, with the help of Sugar Daddy Soros and their suitcases of bills “donated” by the homeless.  Stifling free speech of their opponents is seen not just as a right, but as a duty by them.  So of course dupes such as Mr. Dionne will cry that this would be a “radical” decision to actually enforce the First Amendment: 

“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” 

Agree with the documentary put out by Citizens’ United or not, but defend their right to say it.  If that is a “radical” position, then Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were “radicals” too.  And we need more “radicals” like them.