The Obama-led DOJ was revealed to not only have obtained the phone records of a journalist who received leaked information about North Korea in 2009, but also pried into his personal life, tracking his every movement, his private phone conversations and e-mails, and accused him of committing crimes in order to do so--even though what he did was perfectly legal!
And spare me, Obama apologists, with your counter-argument of "But Bush did this, too!" No, he didn't! As bad as Bush was, he never went this far, as Glenn Greenwald explains:
It is virtually impossible at this point to overstate the threat posed by the Obama DOJ to press freedoms. Back in 2006, Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales triggered a major controversy when he said that the New York Times could be prosecuted for having revealed the Top Secret information that the NSA was eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants. That was at the same time that right-wing demagogues such Bill Bennett were calling for the prosecution of the NYT reporters who reported on the NSA program, as well as the Washington Post's Dana Priest for having exposed the CIA black site network.Whenever you hear about government censorship, chances are the politician behind it has a 'D' next to his name. The Democrats have cemented themselves as the party of censorship, whether it be self-censorship (political correctness) or media censorship.
But despite those public threats, the Bush DOJ never went so far as to formally accuse journalists in court filings of committing crimes for reporting on classified information. Now the Obama DOJ has.
This fact has been verified through the Obama administration's actions, ranging from this recent revelation of the DOJ prosecuting journalists and seizing phone records, to the administration prosecuting whistleblowers (more so than any previous administration combined) and attacking dissenting news outlets.
But it's not just Obama who's at fault. Recently, his vice president, Joe Biden, suggested taxing violent video games. This shouldn't be the least bit surprising, as Democrats like Hilary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have been leading the charge against video games.
And which party has been pushing for internet censorship? SOPA? PIPA? CISPA? All heavily-supported by Democrats, who, to no one's surprise, receive political donations from Big Media. (And do I even need to mention the liberal media?)
And this is hardly a recent development with the Democrats. For decades, their party has been pushing censorship, from Tipper Gore crusading against violent rap lyrics in the 1980s, all the way back to the turn of the century with president Woodrow Wilson imprisoning thousands of war protesters and dissidents.
So why are Democrats so adamantly pro-censorship, despite being "liberals"? Simple. Contrary to popular misconception, the Democrats are not liberal. They no longer support (or rather, never have supported) liberalism--or at least what the philosophy used to be.
Whereas free speech was the crux of "classic" liberalism, it has proven to be the anathema of "modern" liberalism, or progressivism. Progressive ideology cannot survive within the marketplace of ideas. It cannot stand against the scrutiny allowed through free expression. Therefore, progressive Democrats must preserve their ideology by curtailing criticism and scrutiny against it.
Thus it is with all die-hard ideologues, from the Catholic Church to feminists. They know their dogma has no bearing in observable reality, so they must bend reality into their favor, and if it means silencing, even "eliminating", dissenters, so be it!
But as with all enemies of free speech, the progressive Democrats stand on the wrong side of history. Time has shown that those who advocate censorship always lose to those who advocate free speech and expression. The question remains, will the Democrats realize their folly and come to the winning side, or fade away into obscurity on the losing side? If history is any indicator, the latter answer will be true.