Most presidents, once they leave office, fade off into oblivion and don’t feel the need to weigh in on every single facet of life. Oh, there are some exceptions, such as when Bill Clinton shows up at $100/per plate dinner for more money for his “foundation.” Such is not the case, however, for former President Barack Obama. In a perfect world, Obama would fade into irrelevance and just go away. Unfortunately, this self-aggrandizing political elitist keeps showing up, like that visiting uncle that won’t go away.
Obama, six weeks ago showed up at the White House to “support” his former vice president Joe Biden instead. Instead, Obama “showed up” in an attempt to reengage the American people in his halo of competence and knowledge.
For most clear-thinking Americans, it is obvious that it is Obama, not Biden, who is still running the show. That is obvious based on the amount of Obama retreads who occupy key positions in the administration and throughout the government apparatus.
Time was when leftists — more specifically liberals — were believers in free speech. Throughout the 60s and 70s we saw them exercise that right on college campuses throughout the country, many times in opposition to the Vietnam War or other causes which they felt passionately about, be it civil rights, women’s rights, and so on. What we have now seen, especially over the past two years, is a complete flip by leftists where it concerns free speech. That is especially true in the realm of social media, where any speech that doesn’t fit the preferred narrative is deemed to be “disinformation” and therefore a “threat to democracy.”
Obama gave a talk at Stanford University where he was speaking about the bid by Elon Musk to buy Twitter and turn it into a true free speech platform.
So important was free speech to the Founding Fathers that the first amendment to our founding document, the United States Constitution, has free speech as the most important of our fundamental rights. Someone should maybe pass that on to former law professor Obama.
In speaking to Musk’s bid to buy Twitter, Obama railed against the possibility that by removing the chains of censorship from the platform, the so-called “disinformation” that would proliferate would indeed be a threat to democracy.
“Each of us, whether we work at a tech company or consume social media, whether we are a parent, a legislator, an advertiser on one of these platforms, now’s the time to pick a side,” Obama told the Stanford audience. “We have a choice right now. Do we allow our democracy to wither or do we make it better?”
“Better?” By better, of course, Obama means to stifle conservative speech, or speech in fact that is based on reality. For more than two years, the American people were lectured to “follow the science” where it concerns COVID-19. Yet when clearly sane people insist that based on “science” there are only two genders, not 57 varieties like Heinz sauces, that is considered “misinformation” that must be censored.
When people raise claims that there were nefarious things that happened in our 2020 elections, (many of which have been factually proven) once again, that is misinformation that must be quashed. Yet even as Obama made the push for making our democracy “better,” what he really meant is making democracy “better” requires one to tilt the conversation as completely as possible to the left, eliminating any discourse from the political right.
That isn’t democracy, that’s tyranny. Still, Obama made the claim that where it concerns speech, he is a free speech “absolutist.”
“Freedom of speech is at the heart of every democratic society,” Obama claimed while saying he is “pretty close to a First Amendment “absolutist,” meaning that, in most instances, the answer to bad speech is good speech. “I believe that the free, robust, sometimes antagonistic exchange of ideas produces better outcomes and healthier society,” Obama said.
Despite all of that hyperbole, Obama then let the cat out of the bag, saying that where it concerns Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies, “regulation [censorship] has to be part of the answer.” He further claimed that current “content moderation” “doesn’t go far enough” in clamping down on what he called “clearly dangerous content.”So, we suppose it depends on what your definition of “dangerous” content is.
As we have seen, Twitter banned former President Trump from the platform, while it still allows Vladimir Putin and the Ayatollah in Iran full use of it. Antifa and Black Lives Matter are free to spread their hate and (in the case of BLM) anti-white hatred, yet sitting members of Congress are blacklisted.
You see, it’s all a matter of “perspective.”
One of the most egregious uses of Twitter to ban speech that didn’t fit the preferred narrative was the outright ban of any mention of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the lead-up to the 2020 election. Why did we not hear that story in mainstream news? Because the powers that be knew that news would certainly have a negative effect on the outcome of the election.
That was in fact proven after the truth about the laptop was finally revealed.
Any questions about the efficacy of the vaccines used to “prevent” COVID were likewise deleted. The list goes on and on. That however isn’t enough for the former narcissist in chief.