Can't Free Speech be Exercised by Those who DEFEND It?

Published on November 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

In all the flap about San Francisco, everyone seems to be missing a rather key point.

See, San Franciscans have pulled the "Free Speech" hot button to trot flaming gays out in clothing that belongs in the bedroom, not on Main Street, and everytime they want to denigrate anyone more Conservative than they are (which turns out to be, well, 99% of the rest of the country). Suddenly, free speech is NOT OK for military recruiters who believe in the military and want to enlist soldiers for the cause.

While the left hammers on Bill O'Reilly for a comment that's taken out of context and that, while probably out of line, was said in the heat of the moment in anger over what San Francisco did in banning military recruiters from the schools, they miss the larger points of his comments. He also stated that this is not about Iraq, this is not about Afghanistan, the military simply goes where it is ordered (I am paraphrasing). This was, as he points out, a FULL FRONTAL assault on our soldiers by the same leftists who decree (from the other side of their mouth) that they "support our troops". As one blogger sits anxiously awaiting the word that her recently returned husband may be deployed again after a far too short respite, San Franciscans are doing all they can to obstruct recruiters from recruiting young soldiers that would give her and every other military family a break that is MORE THAN deserved.

Now, I am not arguing that the war in Iraq is about defending our rights to free speech. While the argument can be (and has been) made, it's not one with which I feel comfortable. But the military is about MORE than just Iraq, MORE than just Afghanistan. The military must be ready to protect and defend the nation, meaning that if some currently unseen or unsuspected enemy attempts to attack us, we must be ready. We can't be ready unless we have the troops to be ready.

One blogger said that this was about the NCLB requirements to give information of high school students to military recruiters without the permission of the parents. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the SAME NCLB requirement allows the parents to OPT OUT of allowing their children's name to be released. If the San Francisco movement was geared towards defending the right of parents to protect their children from the horrors of war, they would embark on a massive education campaign instructing parents how to ensure they have the proper paperwork on file.

San Francisco's intitiatives are about one thing: advancing their leftist agenda to destroy the morale of our troops and to systematically remove rights from American citizens, rights that have been defended at the cost of the lives of the very people they denigrate in their actions. San Francisco, frankly, should be ashamed of itself.

If an earthquake DOES level the city of San Francisco, if a terrorist DOES attack the Coit tower, the United States government should not respond. San Francisco hung out a "no trespassing" sign for the federal government on November 8, and I don't consider it to be cruel or inhuman for us to honor that sign.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Nov 18, 2005

The problem Gideon, is that the left is deathly afraid of Free Speech. It is an anathema to them. For if they allow it, they always lose the arguement. So like the communist dictators of the past and present, they must not allow it so that theirs is the only voice heard. And the Sheep will bleat "4 legs good, 2 legs better".

DJBandit

on Nov 18, 2005

I agree with your article, which BTW is a very good one. But this little piece may be a bit to harsh. I feel there is no need to lower ourselves to their standards. After all many countries around the world also have that sign up but when disaster hits they will take our money faster than they can spend it. In the end talk is cheap and people like these who are doing this are looking for minor discrepancies in the system. They are the kind who will complain if the Govt promises 22 million but only gave $21,999,999. Just imagen if they applied that ideal to everything in life, they would never eat a quarter pounder from McDonalds cause it may be just under a quarter pound, they will never buy gasoline because those few little drops they paid for didn't make it to the tank, they wouldn't drive cause the car does not go from 0 to 60 in 4.2 secs like the manual said or is as efficient with gas as the manual says. Sad if you ask me, that's why even though Bush has many Republicans questioning his actions it is still a better choice than the latter.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 18, 2005

I don't think it's too harsh, frankly. San Francisco has made criminals out of law abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights and has spit in the face of our troops. Their nullification of two Constitutional amendments is a de facto secession and should be either: a) honored or

challenged by the Federal government. Since option B usually requires the use of force, I say we go with option A and allow them to live with the consequences of their decision. Maybe the 40% of San Franciscans who are SANE will begin to speak out against these imbeciles!

singrdave

on Nov 18, 2005

Now, I am not arguing that the war in Iraq is about defending our rights to free speech.

You're absolutely right. I don't think anyone over hucking their M-60 in Iraq is thinking, "Boy, this will allow San Franciscans to voice their unhappiness with the government." Or even: "Boy, this will let people of all nations, colors, and creeds speak their minds in the freest nation on earth."

Because, as you said, this is a bigger issue. Not just about freedom of speech. It's a campaign to rid the world of tyrants and dictators. It's bringing freedom and democracy to anyone who wants it. Starting with those who need it the most.

singrdave

on Nov 18, 2005

Maybe the 40% of San Franciscans who are SANE

Been there. 40% is a high estimate.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 18, 2005

singr,

40% is the number of voters who voted AGAINST these whacko laws. That's what I was referring to in that comment.

Dr Guy

on Nov 18, 2005

Been there. 40% is a high estimate.

Lived there. But that was 35 years ago. Probably high then too.

dharmagrl

on Nov 18, 2005

This is the thing that I have noticed about the 'left' - they're all about freedom of speech as long as they agree with what you say. Here I was thinking that freedom of speech guaranteed everyone the right to say what they wanted - right, left queer, straight, up, down....it's not just something that liberals can use as a shield when they spout off craziness, it's for EVERYONE. You know, I may not like what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it...does that ring any bells with San Fran?

He also stated that this is not about Iraq, this is not about Afghanistan, the military simply goes where it is ordered (I am paraphrasing). This was, as he points out, a FULL FRONTAL assault on our soldiers by the same leftists who decree (from the other side of their mouth) that they "support our troops". As one blogger sits anxiously awaiting the word that her recently returned husband may be deployed again after a far too short respite, San Franciscans are doing all they can to obstruct recruiters from recruiting young soldiers that would give her and every other military family a break that is MORE THAN deserved.

The military DOES simply go where it's told. My husband doesn't decide where he's going to get orders to, he simply obeys them and goes wherever he's needed, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bosnia, Croatia....they tell him, and he goes.

Thanks for the nod, and you're right....we DO deserve a break. All of us do. Any military member that spends as much time deployed as they do at home needs to have a respite. We need some guaranteed time at home....there ought to be a regulation that states deployed members are untouchable for a certain period of time after and extended deployment. As it is...well, the same people are getting deployed over and over again.

bakerstreet

on Nov 18, 2005

This might bother some people, but honestly, if California wants to do things like this, California should be able to. That said, if another state wants to outlaw abortion, then, frankly they should be able to. If another state wants to make pot legal, and yet another state wants to give people who smoke it the death penalty, that should be up to the voters there.

We lost something over the last few generations. We used to rule ourselves throught the states and remained connected throught the federal government. Now the Federal government stands over us and approves or disapproves everything we do. If assholes in California want to be, well, assholes, more power to them, but they should not be able to wield their courts and tell me what I can be.

So, if we are all one communist collective, then sure, crush california until they do the federal will. I disagree with what they are doing there, but I don't want to be a hypocrite and boss them around when I don't want to be bossed. Let them reject federal funding and do what they like. If they are going to be allowed to make decisions for themselves, though, they damn well better allow the rest of us to do so without the permission of the 9th circuit court of appeals.

kingbee

on Nov 18, 2005

banning military recruiters from the schools

they did no such thing. rather than explaining it a 2nd time, please see my article about banning 'banning'.

SSG Geezer

on Nov 19, 2005

The Gov needs to pull out the old rule; no recruiters, no federal funds.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 19, 2005

I agree with Sgt Geezer. Montana gave up federal funds so they could have a freeway speed limit that made sense... Louisiana gave up federal funds so that could have the freedom to set the drinking age where they wanted. They made choices and were willing to accept the consequences. San Francisco wants to go both ways, they want to refuse to allow Military Recruiters to do what other recruiters can do, and they want to make criminals out of gun owners. Fine, but then the fed should cut off funds to San Francisco, just like they did Louisiana and Montana... and San Francisco should be fine with that.

SSG Geezer

on Nov 19, 2005

Too bad it is already a fiscal sinkhole and the state would be on the hook, so they would ask for more money to replace what they had to overspend supporting San Fran.
The town is getting crustier and more decrepit when it used to have a great deal of charm.

drmiler

on Nov 19, 2005

They are NOT allowed to do that. Federal law says military recruiters are allowed access to school grounds irregardless of what the state says. There is no fed law about the speed limit or drinking age. So the states can do that if they choose. Just like the feds can withhold funds to try and get them into line. It is however their "only" course of action available to the feds on that. The recruiters are a different story.

Dr Guy

on Nov 19, 2005

if another state wants to outlaw abortion, then, frankly they should be able to.

WOW! Seriously? Agree completely!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!