Art credit: rslblog.com
From The Hill via Tea Party Patriots:
December 02, 2014, 02:00 pm
Left’s
latest assault on First Amendment nothing new
During the last week
of October, when media attention was focused on the impending midterm elections
– and President Obama’s forthcoming executive action on amnesty – an issue of
critical importance slipped almost unnoticed into the news cycle. Democrats on
the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are getting serious about stifling free speech on the Internet.
At issue is an
obscure anti-Obama ad from Ohio that wound up on YouTube. Because the spot was
placed for free, it fell within the “Internet exception” the FEC has recognized
– across party lines – since 2006. Internet ads of a political nature would
seem the very embodiment of “free speech” contemplated by the Founders in the
Bill of Rights. Democrat members of the FEC – and the American Left in general
– see criticism of their Dear Leader as a serious matter, however, and in need
of government regulation. They’re going to need to see your papers.
The
Obama Machine, whether in campaign or governing mode (is there really any
difference?) has long viewed the First Amendment as an impediment to its agenda
of “fundamentally transforming” the country. During the 2008 campaign, Democrat
prosecutors in Missouriannounced the deployment of truth squads to
“immediately respond” (in an ominous, yet unspecified way) to any derogatory
information about then-Senator Obama. They backed down after being called out
for their “police state” tactics by the then-governor.
Once elected, the
post-partisan president let it be known he’d brook no second guessing, let
alone dissent. In 2009, vocal critics of the healthcare takeover could’ve found
themselves on the flag@whitehouse enemies list, had they spread
information deemed “fishy” by the administration. After Robert Gibbs’
feeble insistence that of course the White House wasn’t keeping names
and email addresses, the site was dismantled.
Obama uses the bully
pulpit to let his subjects know what a danger the First Amendment poses to his
post-partisan agenda, and the 2010 State of the Union address was an ideal
setting. Displeased with the recent Citizens United ruling, he took the unprecedented step of rebuking Supreme Court justices as
they sat on the front row. Separation of powers and even basic rules of
courtesy and decorum take a back seat, when the Cult of Personality needs to
see its enemies’ donor lists.
Following his 2010
mid-term “shellacking,” (and while his IRS was systematically targeting his
perceived enemies), President Obama stepped up his assault on dissenters. In an absurd, "middle school hall monitor meets police state"
story, Attack Watch was born. Concerned
supporters of the president everywhere were asked to monitor and report any and
all derogatory information. Knowledge is power, especially when informing on
your neighbors. And again, they certainly kept no list of names…not the
folks who ask folks to document the content of group prayers.
While it’s comforting that Attack Watch died relatively quickly (and mostly from ridicule), the
sentiment behind the buffoonery is both serious and scary. The Left views
criticism of their president as dangerous; the Bill of Rights is
secondary.
Democrat FEC Vice
Chairman Ann Ravel is unambiguous about both the perceived threat to her
president and the way to combat it. When her attempt to overturn the 2006
“Internet exception” ruling failed on a 3-3 party line vote, Ravel took
serious offense. Because the FEC wouldn’t force free Internet advertising into
the same classification as paid ads on radio or television, she needs to shake
things up. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the Internet and
other emerging technologies is long overdue,” she said, as if regulating
political speech is the logical next step.
This is
not Ravel’s first attempt to wipe her feet on the Bill of Rights.
Two years ago in California, she attempted to bring bloggers and "online commentators" under
state regulation. Unbowed by her failure at the state level, she
now wants to take her speech-stifling act national. If Ravel and her Democrat
FEC colleagues have their way, bloggers and websites like The Drudge
Report will answer to the federal government. Attack Watch was silly;
these proposed new regulations are deadly serious.
Ultimately for the
Left generally and for Obama in particular, this is about control. Their
nationalization of the health care system was a means to get the government
more involved in people’s individual lives. Things that get in the way of that
control – like the Constitution – are mere impediments to be dealt with. The
President shredded Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution so he could control
immigration.
Does anyone think he
sees the First Amendment as an obstacle to his controlling the Internet?
People are criticizing
him, after all.
Martin is co-founder
of Tea Party Patriots.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks For Commenting