by Michael F. Haverluck
During President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Georgetown University, his message to students was quite simple — that progressives like himself must mold how America thinks and make the media report things the way they want.
“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” Obama recently declared on the Georgetown campus in the nation’s capital.
Obama was specifically targeting Fox News with his contempt, generally speaking aoubt other conservative new media, as well.
This proclamation was eerily reminiscent of a certain communist leader in North Korea … a point made by a nationally syndicated conservative columnist.
“How Kim Jong-un of him,” Townhall Columnist Matt Barber commented about Obama’s declared war on the conservative media. “In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.”
Barber argues that Obama’s ideas are repackaged directly from the most notorious socialist leader of the 20thcentury.
“This is an idea older than — and as well preserved as — Vladimir Lenin himself,” Barber asserts. “How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to ‘change how the media reports on these issues’ with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,’ is abundantly clear.”
Obama’s earlier attempt to filter American media through the White House — which was blocked by the FCC — and his more recent stab at controlling the Internet are argued to be topics of major concern.
“Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects, yet another unconstitutional executive decree — a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine,” Barber insisted.
Barber then went on to describe the world of double meanings he says are forever emanating from the Left, nothing how they have gotten in the habit of redefining terms that used to have straightforward meanings that everybody understood, including “marriage,” “equality” and other terms that are politically charged today.
“Other ‘progressive’ doublespeak includes words like ‘invest’ (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), ‘tolerance’ (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), ‘diversity’ (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), ‘hate’ (meaning truth) or ‘The Affordable Care Act’ (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine),” Barber pointed out. “Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.”
Passing the torch?
Hoping to reoccupy the White House for another eight-year stint come 2017 — this time as president, rather than first lady — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also made her position clear when it comes to shaping America’s mindset on social and moral issues. She let her LGBT activist roots show when she insisted last month that the government must force the religious convictions of Christians to support abortion.
“‘Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” Clinton argued, according to LifeNews. “All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced.”
Roe v. Wade is not enough for the progressive presidential hopeful, who wants Christian tax dollars to pay for abortions and calls for biblical doctrine to be rewritten when it comes to killing preborn children. In other words, under a second Clinton administration, Christian values will not be tolerated.
“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton proclaimed. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Outlawing the Bible?
Leftist media outlets reflect Clinton’s rejection of biblical morality and her endorsement of the LGBT agenda.
“Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’”New York Times Columnist and homosexual practitioner Frank Bruni expressed in his column last month titled “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana.” “His commandment is worthy — and warranted.”
Barber attests that the new progressive mindset endorsing sexual libertinism essentially ushers in the “anything goes” attitude toward sexuality … a destructive path about which the Bible warns.
“Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both ‘vile affections’ and ‘an abomination’ throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever,” Barber explained. “To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.”
And the Leftist media are attempting to synonymize Scripture with hate speech, which they argue is unconstitutional and not protected under the freedom of speech.
“Hate speech is excluded from protection,” CNN anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted.
But even if biblical teachings were ultimately classified as “hate speech,” the radical Left doesn’t have a leg to stand on in their argument to ban Christian expression under the U.S. Constitution.
“But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” concluded UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volohk, while responding to the issue in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”