The Right is under attack, and those who would silence us are not going away, anytime soon.

33 share

<<<<  Talk about an oxymoron, this is the most prolific.  Yes,  "prolific"  because "they" are everywhere.  (Just to be sure you know), Socialism is government control and the very opposite of "democracy."  

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.” ~ Lee Goodman via Washington Examiner

Editor’s notes:  All of the above being said,  the FEC is not the only thing, folks on the Right need to worry about.  The very platforms we conservatives use (Google, AOL, Yahoo,  Facebook and the like) are owned and/or controlled by those who would take our freedoms from us. 

Weazel Zippers , a conservative news site,  had to delete it’s Google sponsored ad-for-revenue campaign,  because of the lack of “original content.”  While Zippers was not shut down,  still,  it’s owner needs that revenue to continue and is now hoping enough of the Right will give to his cause,  to keep his “doors” open.  My initial blog was shut down (December 26 of 2009) by Google because they deemed it “spam.”  In spite of the fact that the charge was a complete farce, nevertheless,  I lost several thousand original essays,  my customer base at the time,  and had to regroup  . . . . .    which I did, within three days, using Google in spite of itself.     

If the folks on the Far Left are not communists,  they certainly act like they are,  and should be feared for that very reason.  Understand,  this sort of thing  is not a threat coming from the Right,  although,  I am certain “they” will try to postulate some sort of rhetorical equivalency. 

How do we fight this creeping threat to our liberties?  Find and use alternative publishing sites.  Follow the rules laid out by those who oppose us but are in control.  Educate  the people as to what is going on,  and continue to resist which,  of necessity,  requires that we be as devious as "they," in using their rules to our advantage.  

As the man in our quote,  above, says,  we can compete "with the big boys" if only we do not surrender our values and liberties.   

Lanny Davis, a pro-Obama Clintonian adviser, is singled out by the White House for retaliation. When called on the carpet, the WH said, "It won't happen again." Should never have happened in the first place.

Way back when, Elena Kagan and Barack Obama lived in the same town and taught at the same school.

Thesis: we should have been looking at Sotomayor differently. She, Kagan and Obama have much the same view when it comes to limiting speech - a post script to what we wrote, below.

Editor's notes: Both have the same point of view with regards to freedom of speech -- some speech should not be allowed and they are the ones qualified to determine the new rules. Read this statement. We think you will here it quoted more and more during the course of the next few weeks. No one, absolutely no one, who crafts such a remark should be allowed to be part of any court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Period.

In 1993, Elena Kagan wrote an article for the University of Chicago Law Review that included this sentence:

I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.

Midknight Review wants to drive home the point that Obama is our first subversive president - "subversive" because he is anti-free speech on a number of levels: as pertains to a union elections, the internet, conservative talk radio and TV, his manipulation of the press and refusal to receive antagonistic questioning, his refusal to entertain critical interviews and, now, in his Hamilton commencement speech of weekend before last, where he expressed a decision to label certain speech as harmful to a free democracy. And now, he is appointing people to the courts who agree with his Marxist position. We are wondering if Sotomayor believes much the same, when it comes to free speech. Were we not looking under the right rock? Understand that Jefferson, the author of the First Amendment, believed that if speech was limited at all, it had ceased to be free. --- jds.

Update: with regard to Sotomayor, we found this comment, surprising similar is scope to that of Kagans:

The Sotomayor panel found that calling administrators “douchebags” and encouraging students to “piss off” the principal was “the sort of language that may properly be prohibited in schools.” It also found that because that language created ”a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment,” it could properly be the subject of discipline even though it occurred off campus.

The part that is disturbing is that speech which occurred off campus. We now believe that Obama is stacking the High Court with justices who do not believe that "offensive speech" is free speech. Wake up, America, and smell the Marxist Marvels. -- jds.
.