Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: A Blatant Assault On Free Speech

By Sarah Reichardt     Sep 4, 2009 in Politics
The argument that "change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing" and that "change can be both good or bad" is beginning to take on a whole new meaning in light of recent assaults on our freedom of speech.
Ask any of my friends or numerous acquaintances about my character and personality and I am quite certain that they will all tell you the same thing: I am peace-loving but full of conviction, diplomatic yet frank and above all concerned for my fellow human beings.
Why am I telling you this? Because on Wednesday, I was labeled a “right wing domestic terrorist” and “heir of Osama bin Laden.” In other words, in danger of assaulting my fellow citizens and next in line for a U.S. suicide bombing mission. I’m sorry to report, Mr. President, that my religion does not condone such activities.
It was not just I who bore the brunt of this accusation but rather, the entire conservative faction in America. In fact, it was not only the conservative thinkers who were the object of this remark but also the independents and liberals and basically any American opposed to the massive government takeover of healthcare.
(Ironically, this represents over 53 percent of Americans. Apparently alienating the majority is one of the administration’s “change” policy objectives.)
A fair accusation by the disgruntled Obama administration pushing for the passage of their precious healthcare bill? Far from it. The only thing more insulting would have been to label us “Obama supporters.”
Incidentally, we have Americans out there asking people to be more respectful to the President and his administration.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall President Bush labeling his opposition as “terrorists”, “Osama followers” and the like. In fact, I’m pretty sure there would have been calls for his impeachment much sooner in his presidency if he had uttered such language.
Despite this, I’m not holding my breath that the same “harsh” standards will be applied to our current President. At least not while he has the loyal following of our Congressmen.
Presidential supporters argue that the language hurled against the opposition on Wednesday was simply a repetition of public statements they have made themselves. Even given the possibility that a Republican leader made a shaky comparison, however, I don’t believe the liberal faction is ever collectively labeled based on a ludicrous utterance by the infamous Pelosi.
It’s the double standard here, folks. And ironically, it’s the lack of respect for the First Amendment, something the liberals and the administration hold as sacred.
For those wanting another excuse to justify the administration’s comparisons, look to the words of New York Rep., Charlie Rangel.
He believes that "Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?'" Clearly, Americans have no intelligence on domestic matters but rather oppose legislation on the basis of bigotry.
I sincerely hope that Americans of all beliefs and convictions awake to the assault that is being launched against free speech before it’s too late.
I’m beginning to understand the administration’s agenda of forming a “civilian army” stronger than that of our foreign army.
“Obliterate the opposition.” Now that’s a campaign strategy that would have proven successsful!
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about Obama, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Right wing
More news from
Latest News
Top News