Cliff Knizley notes…

LIBERAL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE DISORDER (LCDD) By Clifford Knizley

A few years ago, I would frequently see a vehicle in Gainesville adorned with lefty bumper stickers. On one side was a “Gore-Lieberman” sticker and on the other was the, “A Free Society Needs Free Speech” sticker. I always laughed, knowing that Tipper Gore had been at the forefront of a movement to ban from the marketplace certain albums and songs that she deemed to be offensive and objectionable. In typical leftist fashion, Mrs. Gore had decided what acceptable material for her and her family was, and therefore she needed to decide for every other family what was acceptable as well. We all know that once a leftist crusader decides that a certain behavior works for them, it must then be legislated and regulated by the government and shoehorned into everybody’s life. The Tipper Gores of the world see other people’s freedom of choice and expression as an acceptable sacrifice, if that sacrifice insures that others don’t make choices different than her own.

“A Free Society Needs Free Speech” and “Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism” are favorite mantras of most liberals. As we have seen the past week and a half, “Free Speech” and “Dissent” come with certain caveats and conditions. Liberals consistently demonstrate that “free speech” is a behavior that needs to be regulated and legislated by government because there’s always a danger that the wrong message might be expressed by the wrong messenger. The message and the messenger must agree with liberal orthodoxy and if they don’t, it’s divisive, hurtful or dangerous.

If the message happens to be one that can not be regulated or legislated into silence, such as a paid advertisement during the Super Bowl, then liberals must resort to another favorite tactic, which is to vehemently whine, complain and to threaten with organized boycotts. Usually, the hyperbolic caterwauling of the leftist is accompanied by ugly, slanderous and insulting personal attacks on the individuals who dare to express a view that differs from that of the leftist.

Last week, we witnessed an intense outcry from the left when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that lifted certain bans on corporate financing of paid, political advertisements. Liberal pundits, politicians, operatives and voters took to the airwaves and the editorial pages decrying that this decision was the death knell for our constitutional republic. To do so, they had to misrepresent the actual ruling and ignore the wording of the constitution.

The Free Speech clause of The First Amendment clearly states, “that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. There are no caveats, conditions and no weighting based on perceived status or lack thereof in the “free speech clause”. It’s perfectly clear and it’s been effectively restored. The fact that the political left wants to stifle corporate America’s ability to purchase political advertising tells us much. It tells us that they don’t want their perceived opposition to have access to the airwaves during political season. It also tells us that they think that the American electorate can not be trusted to sift through the various messages and robust debate and still vote Democrat. Liberal Democrats see a free exchange in the arena of ideas as a threat, so they seek to stifle the voice of the opposition.

This week, the fact that Tim Tebow and his mother were scheduled to appear in an ad during this year’s Super Bowl came to our attention. CBS officials approved the ad and seemed resolute in their commitment to air the ad. Few have seen the ad, but rumor has it that Mrs. Tebow will simply relate the details of her decision to take Tim to term despite physician recommendations that she abort the child. The wisdom of her decision is clearly evident.

Immediately after reports of the ad surfaced, so-called “women’s groups”, leftist organizations and even sports writers began to raise hell. They hadn’t seen the ad. The mere suggestion of it’s possible content and subsequent message sent the pro-abortion left into apoplectic fits. The pro-abortion left loves to lecture us about a women’s right to choose. A choice clearly means that there is more than one option available to the concerned party. If the rumored content of the ad is accurate, all Mrs. Tebow is doing is explaining her options, the choice she made and the glorious results of that choice. The pro-abortion left clearly sees the message threatening. The fact that they want the ad pulled, puts the truth to the lie that for them it’s about a woman’s “choice”. They’re far too adamant in their desire to stifle the ad’s message to claim that they’re advocates for choice. It seems rather clear to me, that the pro-abortion left wants women who find themselves in Mrs. Tebow’s circumstances to make one choice and one choice only, and that choice is abortion. They’re so adamant about this position that they can’t tolerate a dissenting opinion.

The behavior and attitudes of the left as they relate to free speech and dissent show that the left is fearful of a free exchange of ideas. Maybe the reason is that on issue after issue, their positions are difficult to defend with facts and logic.

Filed under: Chip by Chip