Whenever a liberal senses government intrusion on his right to discuss, watch, listen to, or read about whatever he wants, you immediately hear him moan and gripe. He retorts with statements such as, ”The federal government has no business censoring my right to express myself as I want.” Indeed, the progressive, socialist liberal is quick on the draw when it comes to defending his right to do as he pleases and criticizing those who would come up with the idea of restricting him in the first place.
Believe it or not, I absolutely agree with those left-leaning commies. Individual freedom of speech should be just that: completely free with very little to no restriction (I mean, after all, you can’t go into a crowded theater and yell “fire.”).
It is unfortunate that the liberal only sees freedom of expression as a one-way street. To him, it is the ultimate sin for someone to infringe upon his right to freedom of expression; but he and his like-minded comrades are the first to not only denounce, but actually prohibit the expression of ideas that are in contrast to their own. I offer three examples.
Back in 1993 when Clinton was in office, House Democrats were mulling the idea of restricting conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. The proposed bill was referred to as Hush Rush. It was actually an attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. When the left took power again in 2006, they once again began discussing the prospect of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. It was not until Obama was elected president that they seriously began discussing its reinstatement. Sensing this would be a political disaster, they soon dismissed the idea.
Obama, however, had other plans. He intended to name communist-sympathizing Van Jones as diversity czar for the FCC. Jones intended on using the Bush administration language of diversity and applying it to the FCC. Instead of using the term diversity to mean an equal presentation of cultural and racial differences, Obama and Jones planned on applying it to the actual content on privately-owned radio stations. The plan was to force radio stations that carry conservative talk shows to be taxed 100% of their operating cost. This tax would have been used to fund opposing-view liberal talk radio which has never been successful and doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of surviving because no one listens to their crap. The plan was finally abandoned thanks to FOX News Channel host Glenn Beck extensively reporting on the matter.
The second example I offer is a more close-to-home, personal case. I have a customer who is a hardcore Republican and absolutely hates liberalism and Democrats. He has bumper stickers made at a local flea market which denounce left-leaning individuals and their communist causes. Recently, after having a meal with his wife at Cracker Barrel, he returned to his vehicle to discover that his bumper stickers had been torn off. This is not the first time this vandalism has occurred though. He has caught Democrats attempting to remove his stickers on more than one occasion.
I too have witnessed Democrats physically expressing their disagreement with a bumper sticker on my own car. The bumper sticker had photos of of both Obama and Karl Marx ; the Soviet sickle-and-hammer emblem being equated with the Democrat donkey; a title which read, Change We Can Believe In; and two sentences comparing Obama with Karl Marx. This was too much for the left too handle, so one afternoon while at work, my youngest son reported to me that two black females had been kicking the back of my car where the stickers were located.
For the third example, there is the example of an anti-reparations ad taken out by David Horowitz in the Brown University newspaper. In 2001, former-leftist-now-rightwing-commentator David Horowitz placed an advertisement in the Brown University newspaper The Daily Herald, which listed ten reasons why reparations are a bad idea. You can read USA Todays story on the Brown University controversy by clicking here.
The liberal left absolutely lost their mind. They staged protests (which in and of themselves are not bad; after all, there were TEA Party protests over the government take-over of health care), stole copies from newspaper distribution boxes and replaced said copies with their own commie literature, tried to storm the newspaper headquarters to steal the remaining one hundred copies, demanded a printed apology from the newspaper editor, demanded the editors resignation, and demanded that the seven hundred dollar fee Horowitz had paid be donated to campus minority projects.
The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkley (which has absolutely nothing to do with Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island), issued an apology for The Daily Herald running the ad, saying the newspaper was an inadvertent vehicle for bigotry. The idea of one institution apologizing for the acts of another unaffiliated institution seems odd, but thats the liberal left for you. The liberal left and common sense once met, and at once they became bitter enemies.
My last example is the contrast between Nancy Pelosi’s negative comments about the TEA Party and her praise for the Occupy Wall Street commies. In regard to the TEA Party, Pelosi said, “What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now. What we want is a new direction. This [TEA party] initiative is funded by the high end we call call it AstroTurf, its not really a grassroots movement. Its AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”
Her comments concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement was not nearly so harsh: “God bless them for their spontaneity. Its young, its spontaneous, its focused and its going to be effective.” She went on to say: “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so, Pelosi said. The message of the American people is that no longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”
Her point: conservative speech is bad; liberal speech is good.
Anyway, my point is this: liberals dont actually believe in freedom of speech for everyone, just freedom of speech for themselves so that they can tout their leftist causes. After all, they the enlightened are superior to us right-wing hicks who dont know any better. Our expressions of opinion are nothing more than manifestations of prejudice and hatred; whereas their opinions are based upon the influences of Communist-inspired writers such as Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Who could argue with such credible authorities? Gosh, if only we could be that smart.
I'm just a regular guy who likes to write about that which I find interesting. I am keeping my identity undisclosed because I am a small business owner and am well known in the community I serve.
The Professor Twist Files 
Leave a comment