Saturday, March 07, 2009

Silencing Those Who Criticize Our Government

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story on Friday that question's the reversal of David Brook's criticism of Barack Obama's economic plans, suggesting that Brooks was taken to the woodshed and changed his "opinion". While the White House chose to engage Rush Limbaugh's recent dissent of many of Obama's plans, it appears that other critics are some how either reversing their opinions or becoming mysteriously silent. Of course the typical way the left wing media's, (and now Obama's personal attack dogs, Paul Begala and James Carville) reaction to Rush, is to take a comment out of context and publish it. Limbaugh has made his point crystal clear that he wants Obama's economic policies to FAIL:

"I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed." "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

What the media and rest of the liberal left loonies left out was the CONTEXT:

"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.".......(READ RUSH'S COMPLETE POST HERE)

But I digress. A commenter at Hot Air summed up the phenomenon that appears to be happening to "the critics":

"One wonders what sort of intimidation tactics are being used here. Santelli’s been quiet lately, including canceling an appearance on The Daily Show. Cramer was taken to task by the White House, although he’s not likely to shut up anytime soon. We all know what they’re trying to do to Rush. And now this with David Brooks.

Maybe there are a lot more Obama skeptics out there than we realize, but with the current economic state we’re in, they’re too afraid to risk their job security by taking on this administration"........Doughboy on March 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Morrissey's story, Revolt over: White House puts Brooks back on the leash points out David Brooks has "returned to the fold" after a scathing post about Obama's liberal and socialist policies:

"On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today." (READ THE COMPLETE HOT AIR POST HERE)

Is there a "silencing of the lambs" movement going on by the President's people? And does President Obama condone this form of speech suppression? What has been said to these critics of our government that changed their minds or opinions? Were they subtle threats or outright career busters? Will David Brooks, (and others) write in his memoirs thirty years from now, how he was intimidated or even threatened to change his tune, or else?

So far, our constitution guarantees freedom of the press and the rights of our citizens to express their opinions and grievances without the threat of harm from its government. If, (and this is a BIG IF), our "leadership" is in any way attempting to silence public dissent by intimidation or actual threats, and the President IS aware of, AND condoning this with his expressed consent, I believe this IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Could Barak Obama really be this stupid to have a "Nixon / Watergate Moment" where he's allowing his "henchmen" to desecrate the first amendment? While he's moving full steam ahead with his agenda to nationalize private enterprises with trillions of unfunded dollars, he may want to be extremely careful how he goes about silencing those who may want his policies to fail.

No comments: