(I originally posted this on June 21, 2011 on my MySpace blog. Reposted here for continuity)
OK, I don’t really believe that. But I figured if I put it in the title that maybe someone would read the blog. After all, isn’t half of America just chomping on the bit to foment against Rush and other conservative talk radio hosts? Of course, It might have been better to claim that Obama was the dangerous communist, and that Britain should ban HIM. But why would they do that after he just finished schmoozing his way through the Isles? No, better to ban someone who really is a threat to British people–Michael Savage.
It might have been better for Limbaugh to be banned there, however. Because, as the most vocal cheer-leader of the Republicrat party, he certainly would have found a defense from the political recipients of his largess. (Not that he is never critical) But Mr. Savage hasn’t seemed to find himself with any kind of wielders of political clout to pressure the British government to rethink its brash move.
Allegedly, Mr. Savage is a threat because he preaches violence against Muslim people. And, there being an exponentially exploding representation of Muslims in Britain, it did not look fair that so many Muslims were on British watch and ban lists, while no one who opposes Muslim extremism was on the list to help balance this out. So, the fact that Muslims actually have been violent in Britain, whereas Mr. Savage has not, doesn’t appear to matter. He is still just as dangerous as the Muslim extremists.
I suppose we shouldn’t really care about what the Brits do. After all, that was why we broke from them 235 plus years ago, so that we could ignore their political machinations. But why do we hear not even a protest from the American politico over the stifling of free speech, when I’m sure that we would have heard an incredible amount of noise from the same people if the Brits had decided to cut and run on the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, which they decidedly could have had a much more compelling reason to do than to stifle poor Mr. Savage.
Perhaps some of the silence on this issue is necessary to prevent the focus from being brought to bear on the nature of the attacks in general of the Washington elite against free speech. For instance, let’s say that I had actually called Obama a communist in the title. I’m sure that this would qualify as hate speech against a sitting president, at which time I would have been shut down and all my possessions quietly confiscated while I was put into a secure facility as “a threat to national security”. Even though I would never advocate any kind of political violence (as have several of Obama’s advisers and key administration officials in the past), it would be clear that I am a threat and nut case; my living conditions or my social surrounding would have certainly been displayed as a “fringe existence”, anything to bring a halt to my 1st amendment protected right to free speech. Somehow my case would never reach trial, and I would soon be forgotten.
Of course, there is a new plan underfoot that would make it much easier than to even have to try me for my discourse. Plans are being aggressively pursued already to give the FCC jurisdiction over the internet. That way, they could just pull the plug on me before I even got my blog posted. They could also prevent anything that was deemed politically incorrect from ever seeing the light of internet day.
At the same time, the move is on to pass a Fairness Policy, which would essentially mean that no media-disseminated opinion outlet would be allow to function unless it allow the opposing viewpoint to also be given from the same venue. The problem with this is simply that there is no opposing view to the skewed emphasis of the mainstream news media, because this is called “fact” and not “opinion.” At the same time, talk shows are considered “opinion” Therefore, those who fill in the facts that are missing from the news stories must be opposed with “facts”, while the “opinions” of the news are considered fact and need no counterbalance.
I always get a kick out of my local news network that promises to give me “balanced” news coverage. This is wonderful! The top story is usually about whether or not dogs should be allowed on the sidewalks. So we talk to some people who say they should and some who say they should not. This, then, is balanced news. But I have news for the news people. This is not news; it’s filler. News would be that the justice department decided to try a failed sting operation to trace gun sales into Mexico with the result that several hundred innocent people were killed by American guns. Then the balanced part of it would be to discuss from both sides whether or not the entire DOJ should be fired and who should be tried for criminal behavior. News would be that Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims are posturing for a showdown, whether or not we should be involved, and which side, if any, we should be backing.
As long as we are talking about “fairness”, then I suppose we would have to have every lecture on evolution followed with the creationist rebuttal, and every global warming speech followed by one on the possibilities of global cooling. We would have to have every Coke commercial followed by a Pepsi commercial, or we’d have to have every ad for some designer drug followed by the benefits of natural supplements. Food commercials would have to include warning of possible side effects. Ads for travel would include the alternatives of staying home, or the benefits of driving vs. flying. Every pro-abortion center (Planned Parenthood) would also have to have a pro-life counselor. How far to we want to take this?
Meanwhile, another socialist-leaning police state has silenced another critic–just like in Nazi Germany, just like in Fascist Italy. Another step has been taken toward equating the strength of the pen with the cruelty of the sword. The pen should always be mightier than the sword, because the pen is the safeguard of civilization, whereas the sword can only be the safeguard of tyranny. Taking away the pen only leaves us with the inability to stop oppression. I don’t care if it’s Mr. Savage or Malcolm X. All have a right to their opinions in a free society. It is then up to that society to determine which idea is of greater value.
In the 60’s, what really was accomplished was that protesters used violence and oppression to try to silence their critics. Unfortunately, many of them succeeded (Cornell, Columbia, Yale). Now, once again, the champions of the ubersociety are doing their best to stamp out free speech, now that the fruition of their marxist plans of has come to pass and the invalidity of its realization begins to emerge. Seems that the only way left to avoid a counter revolution is to make sure that no one will ever be told the truth. Well, truth seekers, it’s time to put up or be shut up.
- The collapse of free speech in England (rightwingnutsandbolts.wordpress.com)
- Pro-Jihad “Intifada” Prof Denounces AFDI Pro-Israel Ads (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Stoke-on-Trent BNP Leader Michael Coleman in Court over ‘Racist’ Blogs (amren.com)