Saturday essay: Vladimir Obama
“Six words,” I told Mike Pintek on KDKA radio Thursday afternoon: “You say you want a revolution.” Strong words. And just as strong are the words “intimidation,” “totalitarianism” and “tyranny.”
All were apropos as we discussed the Obama administration's latest assault on the American fabric: Whether of its own volition (doubtful) or acting as the latest presidential sycophants (likely), the Federal Communications Commission planned to descend on radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms (though it has no authority over the latter) to, essentially, make sure the Fourth Estate is covering news to the government's satisfaction.
Participation supposedly was to be voluntary — but no doubt with license renewal hanging over broadcast outlets and the IRS ready to pounce on print properties in a shocking assault on the First Amendment. The FCC backtracked late Friday.
This was no objective fact-finding mission, as the FCC claims. The totalitarian-minded Obama administration, no longer content to merely use your tax dollars to spin its decidedly un-American message of redistributionism and dependency, now seeks to control the messengers as well.
Who does Barack Obama think he is,Vladimir Putin?
It once was written that the history of liberty not only is the history of limitations of governmental power but the history of resistance. Now is no time to keep liberty's sword sheathed.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.