Why do we allow free speech to terrorize politicia

[EmptyTimCup]

Giving your Congresscritter you opinion is terrorism:

CA Dem leader: Why do we allow free speech to terrorize politicians?

posted at 10:11 am on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This would be great satire, except that California’s Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass, was foolish enough to say it — and believe it. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Bass responded to a question about conservative talk radio by calling show hosts terrorists, and openly wondering why we allow people to call politicians and give their opinions (via The Corner):

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else.

That’s democracy, not terrorism, although I’m hardly surprised that Bass can’t tell the difference.

[EmptyTimCup]

wow ...

bama is trying to do what Chavez did in Venezuela and what Zelaya is trying to do in Honduras: simply ignore the Constitution altogether, and usurp the electoral process into a perpetual dictator-supporting machine.

Even under the best-case scenario (for him), some form of Gestapo will be a necessity. Theoretically, that might be done with only local applications of force - involving only a few thousand men. We would have an effective dictatorship. As for how “hard” left it becomes, that will only be a matter of time. Once elections are no longer a concern, Obama can go back to boiling the frog — centralizing the rest of the economy, silencing the press, disarming the populous, etc.

Now, I’m not saying that Obama will necessarily be SUCCESSFUL at this. In fact, if you just examine Black Liberation Theology by itself; it’s more like Communism in its infant form than true Stalinism. All it concerns itself with is destruction of the “evil” existing system. It’s pretty darned fuzzy regarding exactly what happens after that.

There is no doubt that Obama is a true believer. And it’s fairly easy for a President to accomplish the first part of the Black Liberation agenda - to destroy the American economy. Exactly how well Obama has thought through what comes next is anyone’s guess.

It’s even possible that Obama hasn’t though the endgame AT ALL. After all, that’s where the Black Liberation theology just sort of breaks down and starts babbling about a “Mother Wheel Spaceship” coming down and creating Utopia on earth. So maybe he’s thinking about destruction and absolutely nothing past that.

All I’m saying is that it’s always foolish to underestimate your opponent.

logis on June 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM