Why Don't They Want You to Know?

Could it be that the Left wants such control over our lives that they even believe they should decide what we get to read, to see and to hear? What we get to know? As noted previously in this blog, early in Obama's first term the top people in his Administration told us Fox News was not legitimate, that we should not pay attention to them. And now?

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry, said this: "...perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't quite cover it (terrorism) quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on." What? Why is it preferable that Americans do not know what is going on? One theory is that the Obama team wants Americans to believe terrorism has been defeated, and thereby bolster support for the current Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Then it would look like Hillary was part of the team that defeated terrorism. But how is that going to happen when the media keeps reporting on one terrorist attack around the world after the next? Maybe people will think about giving Trump a try. But the Democrats do not want people thinking for themselves.

California's Democratic legislature has managed to get an anti-speech measure on this November's ballot - Proposition 59. The measure urges all elected California officials to "use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)...to allow for the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings."

The Democrats want to amend the First Amendment, the Amendment that gives us our most cherished rights - free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly and to peaceably protest government actions. After the Citizens United case, there was a proliferation of Super PACs allowed to spend money in support of, or against, a candidate, as long as there was no coordination with the candidate. Perhaps you believe the Democrats are concerned about money in politics. Although, anyone who believes that Clinton's true concern is money in politics, after she and Bill collected tens of millions of dollars just for giving some speeches, is pretty much willing to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese.

Here is another theory. The mainstream media, Hollywood and the universities are overwhelmingly left wing. But it's not enough for the Democrats. That is why they attack Fox News and talk radio - two conservative outlets. That is why they do not want conservative Super PACs disseminating a conservative message. You see, the Democrats only want their message to be heard.

As for the suggestion that any Constitutional Amendment would "ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another," exactly how does that happen? Let us assume that a Constitutional Amendment passes and eliminates all Super PACs. Exactly how does that result in "all citizens" expressing their views? Any citizen who wants to express his or her views may do so now - with a blog, on social media and all the other ways people who want to express their ideas do so already. Eliminating Super PACs will not result in a single citizen being able to express themselves in any way that they are not already able to do.

It is a ruse, all with the express purpose of keeping you from hearing conservative speech, or any speech that the Democrats do not want you to hear. After all, John Kerry told the media they should report less about terrorism, so that "people wouldn't know what's going on."

(For a further discussion of the Citizens United case, see the the 1/23/10 post, "U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits.")