Speak up, if you are a Leftocrat or theocrat ruler

First we had Ahmadinejad come to speak at Columbia University. That went over well, if you were a Leftist academic that is. They seemed to enjoy that. They hailed it as a great day for freedom of speech.

“It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas…

It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.”– Lee C. Bollinger

Then along came Netanyahu speaking at Congress and the Left booed & hissed about that. Pelosi turned her back to Bibi. Congress writes a letter to Tehran telling them how our system works, so the Left cried foul again and Obama’s White House called it unhelpful meddling. Some called it treasonous. What right did Congress have to do that?

Ali Khamenei writes a letter to our youth back in January that the Left made no fuss over. Two months later, Obama gives an oration to the people of Iran. I’m sure the Left has no criticism for it either. (not a Cairo Speech but they’ll take whatever Obama shovels out) Since Obama’s favorite audience is young people, we know his Tehran tribute was mainly aimed at young people in Iran.

Obama would do well to talk to the leaders in the country that rule with an iron hand. But now he opts for a conversation with young people, even though he ignored them years ago in their uprising. At this point the Iranians are trying to figure out if this is live or just a very delayed response to their earlier pleas. Maybe since Ali Khamenei took the time to write such a thoughtful, inspiring letter to our youth Obama felt inclined to reciprocate?

So we do seem to have this back and forth. But it is only ‘not helpful’ when anyone on the right speaks out. Funny how the subject of his speech was “speaking out” about the “future”. Why that seems to only apply to Liberals, I don’t know? If you are a conservative, “shut up, you have no right to speak on/to that”. If you are a diehard Leftist, your voice is always welcomed even needed. It’s called a double standard, something the left loves. (call it the Hillary or Obama standard)

With all Liberal “dialogue,” as they call it, it never matters if any good comes of it. It is speech. If it is from the Right or conservatives, “hold your horses.” It is wrong-based and wrong-headed. As Heiress in waiting, no doubt Hillary has her watchful eye on this back and forth. In fact, we know because she lampooned Republicans for sending their letter in her speech. That came spontaneously, not like the Keystone Pipeline or anything — not even a Hard Choice. That her response came while she was also trying to explain her Servergate fiasco was purely coincidental. (wink)

Hillary: Republicans were either trying to help the Iranians or hurt President Barack Obama. (Maureen Dowd replied to Hillary with an open letter of her own.)

This freedom of speech is very tricky, even hazardous. I hope maybe Obama can issue one of his necessary Executive edicts to clarify it. That would be ever so helpful.

Our Enslaved Free Press

This article is really good reposted at The Merry Poppins blogspot.

You can link to the original full article from there.

Maser Media, Dianny Rants

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Free Press has become enslaved.

To believe otherwise, is self-delusion.

But it wasn’t enslaved by a tyrannical government; it willingly enslaved itself. …/

http://themerrypoppins.blogspot.com/2013/01/liberalism-enslaving-our-free-press.html

UN + Obama = UNObama

 
A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?

It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.

When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.

Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.

The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.

I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.

The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:

Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill

So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.

Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.

So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.