I'll admit, I don't keep up with all the new developments in liberal fascism - I missed the code banning Adidas, the entire section about acceptable used of powdered sugar passed me by, and I only found out about the rebirth of the Black Power salute because I happened to check my e-mail before the last rally.
But I'm damned familiar with the shutting down of dissent part, and even I'm having trouble fitting in calling into a radio show with "silencing critics". Here's Jim Treacher's case, which is predictably full of shit:
Having listened to the previous Milt Rosenberg show with Stanley Kurtz that got "Action-Wired" (which is available here), I can tell you what this translates to:
"We'll provide a page of talking points for you to spout at the host and his guest. Just read it from your screen. Unfortunately, we're unable to provide you with the necessary brainpower to keep up when the host asks you to explain the reasoning behind 'your' opinion, or poses any other question that isn't found in our script.
"But that isn't the point anyway. We just want to tie up their phone lines with thousands of angry calls, both to intimidate them and to prevent people with legitimate questions from getting through. Yes We Can... Shout Down All Blasphemers."
So, apparently, any time someone calls and registers their displeasure with something, it's actually a violation of other people's first amendment rights. Of course, you could then argue that during the normal course of the show, the people calling in to register approval are, in fact, violating the first amendment rights of the people who don't approve of what's on the show. So, to wrap up, the phone is inherently unconstitutional because any time a group of people larger than the amount of phone lines the target place has call in, they're shutting out any opposing view. If you ever wanted to get rid of the telecoms, this is your chance!
This is not free speech. This is not "people expressing their opinion." This is people expressing Obama's opinion. This is a powerful politician arrogantly abusing that power to try to silence his critics, without even bothering to hide behind Media Matters or Kos, because he knows he can get away with it. This is wrong.
People choosing to say things they agree with of their own volition in a way that provides them an equal chance of saying those things as anyone else who wants to say something else in a given forum is wrong.
As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don't think even he ever put out a "LaRouche Action Wire." Probably because he didn't think of it first. Not to mention that he's never had a chance in hell of winning.
It is, of course, an incredibly common tactic for any number of activist and advocacy groups on both the left and the right, but when Obama dips his messianically maniacal toe in the pool, it's forever tainted with the juicy melange of totalitarianism.
What if you have some vague notion that Obama is in any way a good candidate, but you don't like talking on the phone? Well, you can just hack his opponents' e-mail accounts. We are the vermin we've been waiting for.
I'll bet you didn't know Barack Obama ran 4chan.org. And invented hacking. Or created the very concept of assholes on the internet. Mesus is all-powerful!
...So long as he has a WiFi connection.