Free Speech: Leftists Do Not Believe In It

Most racists in this country are leftists, and in the mainstream media.  That is the main blog theme today, as I prove it.

 

However, I want to take a "drive-by" note that leftists also do not believe in free speech--another repeated truth that this blog periodically proves. 

 

I LIVED this point.  Yes, I was a law student at the University of Texas in 1972.   You want to know how you can trust me when I say that I would run Muhammad cartoons on this blog, if I knew how to draw?   Well, I helped man a Republican TABLE on the tower/clock plaza next to Guadalupe St. in Austin, Texas--a table supporting Richard Nixon.  This is the same plaza overlooked by the Texas Tower, which Charles Whitman used as a gun platform to shoot people in that plaza a few years before.  That, however, is not why this was brave.  The Texas Tower had been closed to the public after the shooter.  However, Texas "student precincts" were to vote for George McGovern with something like a 90-95% vote, even though Nixon won the election with 60% of the vote.

 

Did I like Richard Nixon?  Nope.  I, correctly, did not consider him a conservative.  I favored Ronald Reagan in his belated run for the Presidency in 1968.  However, like 60% of America, I knew I did NOT like George McGovern.  That is a reason I am pretty much fed up with voting for the "lesser evil".  I am not sure that things could have gone worse under George McGovern than they went under Nixon and Ford--leading to the truly awful Jimmy Carter.

 

You get the picture.  I was probably the ONLY person on the campus of the University of Texas willing to ADMIT publicly that I was a conservative.  I not only helped man that table, but I submitted "op-eds" (called "guest columns") and letters to "The Daily Texan".  If you do not know it, "The Daily Texan was (presumably still is--been awhile since I have been in Austin) the "student" newspaper.  That did not change that it was also a TAXPAYER SPONSORED/FUNDED newspaper--a government run publication (even though the students were put in charge, under supervision). 

 

Segue to those op-eds and letters.  Were there any CONSERVATIVE ones published?  Don't be silly.  I am telling you.  Leftists do NOT believe in free speech.

 

Were there any conservative columns and letters SUBMITTED?  yes, there were.  There were MINE.   Generally, they were not published.  Nor were any others different from the radical, leftist point of view on the editorial pages.  (What is FUNNY is that the "news" pages of "The Daily Texan" were much more objective than the present mainstream media (AP, New York Times, CNN, NBC, et. al.).  I got tired of it.

 

With the help of some friends (albeit friends not willing to put their names to the letter), I wrote a letter to the TEXAS LEGISLATURE complaining about the clear SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.  I especially complained about the refusal to print a "guest column" I had submitted on "affirmative action" (where I noted what I note in the other blog entries today:  that it is RACIST to place people in racial groups, and determine their entitlements based on those indefinable categories--discriminating against real, MARGINAL individuals, in the process, based on their race).  I got no apology from "The Daily Texan".  The "guest column was published.  You can look in the archives of "The Daily Texan".

 

You may think it is somewhat arrogant to think that my stuff should have been published.  Well, I would not have worried about it if there were lots of people expressing my point of view.  I WAS THE ONLY ONE in the editorial pages of "The Daily Texan", and they were excluding ME (how many others, I obviously do not know).  I was a law student, and would graduate 3rd in my class, with high honors.  The "journalism" student, OR PROFESSOR, does not live who can write any better than I can.   This was entirely about SUBSTANCE, when my stuff should have been PREFERRED for giving a different point of view that otherwise was not being expressed.

 

I have previously mentioned John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", upon which I did my philosophy term paper at New Mexico State University.  I endorsed John Stuart Mill (now that IS arrogant, to put it that way).  Mill's assertion is that if every person but one believes something, the majority is no more justified in suppressing the views of that one than that one is justified in suppressing the views of the majority.  I tell you flatly:  Leftists do not generally believe that.  I do.

 

Finally, we get to the New York Times, and the point of this entry.  The New York Times is reported to have TURNED DOWN an "op-ed" by John McCain.  I am perfectly aware that the New York Times is not a government entity, and free to reject what it wants to reject.  Still, it published an op-ed by Barack Obama.  John McCain is a Presidential candidate.   HOW can you profess to believe in "Liberty" (of the "On Liberty" kind), and free speech, and still deny your readers an opposing point of view that you have the opportunity to give them?  You can only "justify" this if you regard yourself as a PARTISAN, trying to elect Barack "Spanish" Obama

 

That last sentence exactly describes the mainstream media today, as exhibited by coverage of this overseas trip of Obama.