Millennials, Communism and freedom

First, from the WashingtonTimes.com:

Millennials would rather live in socialist or communist nation than under capitalism: Poll

by Bradford Richardson

‘This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society’

The majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.

In the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism,” 58 percent of the up-and-coming generation opted for one of the three systems, compared to 42 percent who said they were in favor of capitalism.

The most popular socioeconomic order was socialism, with 44 percent support. Communism and fascism received 7 percent support each.

Marion Smith, executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, said the report shows millennials are “increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

Thank you very much, American “educators” (I bandy that term quite very loosely), Leftists, Demorats and, naturally, the American Media Maggots for doing such a spectacular job of disseminating your staggeringly-slanted, agendized bias. Your lies are working on the mush-minds of our youth.

“This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago,” Mr. Smith said in a statement.

This very interesting point:

Millennials were the only age group more likely to say America’s economic system “works against me” rather than “works for me.” Gen Z had the most positive impression of the economy, with 66 percent saying it “works for me,” although many of them have yet to enter the workforce.

On that note, we recently noted 100 years of Communism. From WSJ.com:

100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead

by David Satter

The Bolshevik plague that began in Russia was the greatest catastrophe in human history.

Armed Bolsheviks seized the Winter Palace in Petrograd—now St. Petersburg—100 years ago this week and arrested ministers of Russia’s provisional government. They set in motion a chain of events that would kill millions and inflict a near-fatal wound on Western civilization.

The revolutionaries’ capture of train stations, post offices and telegraphs took place as the city slept and resembled a changing of the guard. But when residents of the Russian capital awoke, they found they were living in a different universe.

And then all the buttery political fun began.

Although the Bolsheviks called for the abolition of private property, their real goal was spiritual: to translate Marxist- Lenin ist ideology into reality. For the first time, a state was created that was based explicitly on atheism and claimed infallibility. This was totally incompatible with Western civilization, which presumes the existence of a higher power over and above society and the state.

Now you begin to see the clouds parting, yes? Western civilization, i.e. more and more citizens in the United States, eschew the existence of a higher power like some tin idol named “godd” or “Bill” or “Berford.” As far as they are concerned, all good things come from The State in terms of our government with one major, vitally-important exception: those damned pesky papers called our “foundational documents” like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They are, like, so totally uncool, dude.

The Bolshevik coup had two consequences. In countries where communism came to hold sway, it hollowed out society’s moral core, degrading the individual and turning him into a cog in the machinery of the state. Communists committed murder on such a scale as to all but eliminate the value of life and to destroy the individual conscience in survivors.

Note this:

In a 1920 speech to the Komsomol, Lenin said that communists subordinate morality to the class struggle. Good was anything that destroyed “the old exploiting society” and helped to build a “new communist society.”

Starting to sound a bit familiar?

This approach separated guilt from responsibility. Martyn Latsis, an official of the Cheka, Lenin’s secret police, in a 1918 instruction to interrogators, wrote: “We are not waging war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. . . . Do not look for evidence that the accused acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first question should be to what class does he belong. . . . It is this that should determine his fate.”

Then there’s this disturbing part that today’s educators and students miss entirely — perhaps the most disturbing.

Such convictions set the stage for decades of murder on an industrial scale. In total, no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies. This does not include the millions who died in the wars, epidemics and famines that were predictable consequences of Bolshevik policies, if not directly caused by them.

The victims include 200,000 killed during the Red Terror (1918-22); 11 million dead from famine and dekulakization; 700,000 executed during the Great Terror (1937-38); 400,000 more executed between 1929 and 1953; 1.6 million dead during forced population transfers; and a minimum 2.7 million dead in the Gulag, labor colonies and special settlements.

To this list should be added nearly a million Gulag prisoners released during World War II into Red Army penal battalions, where they faced almost certain death; the partisans and civilians killed in the postwar revolts against Soviet rule in Ukraine and the Baltics; and dying Gulag inmates freed so that their deaths would not count in official statistics.

If we add to this list the deaths caused by communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported—including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia—the total number of victims is closer to 100 million.

Then this fact — not a suggestion, but a fact:

That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history.

Yay Communism.

What is it I’ve said for years? “Everybody always thinks they can do Socialism/Communism better than the last guy.” Except: it never works.

Also this, ripped from today’s screaming headlines about the opinions regarding “freedom” (hok-putui, such a nasty word) on today’s university campuses, from of all places the WashingtonPost.com:

A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

by Catherine Rampell

Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.

Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

We already know about speech being the “same” as violence according to Leftists.

In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.

Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.

The most shocking?

For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.

Freedom of speech “important”? Nah.

Since were on the subject of polls, another poll no one else will reveal to you, from my blog post via JihadWatch.org:

51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.

by Robert Spencer

Really, what did you expect? A considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history. But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

51% of Muslims living in the U.S. just this June (2015) told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

These are all clues. These are all indicators of America in the desperate grip of those who wish to tear this country apart from within. Presently there is an active attempt to install mob rule in the United States utilizing not just overt violence, but a highly-funded, organized and systematic undermining, overtaking, eliminating and rewriting of our fundamental founding documents, our history in written form, in oral form, in photographic form and in physical form.

Universities, once admirable towers of higher learning and critical thought now tolerate none of it. The past two generations are shockingly willing to relinquish almost every freedom they possess — to have the government, when it deigns so, to sell those freedoms back. More and more the government is disinterested in such a sale. It simply wants to acquire and keep the power and control.

Is it for this that 500,000 Americans died in the Civil War — so we can become slaves of the government? Do the 1.5 million American deaths during service in war time mean nothing? Must we do it all over again? Historical Alzheimers? Must we go out of our way to prove George Santayana correct anew?

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Communism and Socialism have been tried numerous times in numerous — dozens — of countries in the past two centuries. It always fails. And every new dictator thinks that, in the past, it simply wasn’t “done right.” As I wrote, they believe they are the ones who can “do it right” this time. Then they fail and kill hundreds if not thousands if not millions of their own countrymen.

If there is one lesson the communist century should have taught, it is that the independent authority of universal moral principles cannot be an afterthought, since it is the conviction on which all of civilization depends.

Is the US condemned?

BZ

 

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

Full speech by Ben Shapiro at UC Berkeley, Thursday, September 14th

Because, as everyone knows, Ben Shapiro is such an overbearing individual and cuts such an oppressive, racist, sexist, -ist and -obe swath seldom seen before, and should never have been allowed to speak at UC Berkeley this past Thursday. Yet he was.

As opposed to prior events where Berkeley PD and the UC Berkeley polices forces chose to stand down as ordered, however, the riots failed to cook off this time because officers were out in force and were clearly a presence. This time they countenanced no one, for example, wearing masks. That predominantly eliminates Antifa. Hold that thought. I’m coming back to it.

But first, Ben Shapiro’s entire speech including a Q and A session with audience members.

Coverage of the arrests outside the speech in Berkeley, by FoxNews.com:

Ben Shapiro speech at UC Berkeley results in arrests at protests

At least nine people were arrested Thursday night related to protests at the University of California, Berkeley, over an appearance by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said the security measures could cost $600,000. Mogulof called the speech “a successful event” and said the university was committed to hosting speakers like Shapiro in the future.

Stop. Question: just who cost the university $600,000? That’s correct. Its Leftist students. Seems like freedom really isn’t free, is it UC Berkeley? Not when you have rioters for students.

The evening did have its share of hiccups. Police said three arrests were weapons-related. Among them:

— Hannah Benjamin, 20, was arrested for battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon.

— Sarah Roark, 44, was taken into custody for carrying a banned weapon.

The arrests were announced on the police Twitter account.

The demonstrators, however, were largely peaceful. Some chanted against fascism, white supremacists and President Donald Trump. Others were holed up inside a student building, waving signs protesting the university’s decision to allow Shapiro on campus.

Inside the hall, Shapiro addressed a friendly crowd. He encouraged people to hold civil discussions with people who have different opinions, saying that’s what America is all about. He condemned white supremacists as “a very small select group of absolutely terrible people who believe absolutely terrible things.”

The campus and surrounding Berkeley streets were under tight security after a series of previous events turned violent.

City and campus officials anticipated protests against Shapiro, and prepared for possible violence with a variety of new strategies and tightened security. It was not immediately clear whether the people arrested Thursday were protesters.

Back to my reference to law enforcement. Four points.

First: Berkeley police agencies decided to utilize actual preparation this time in concert with some proactivity as well, to include the disallowance of persons wearing face covering as is customary with Antifa elements.

Second: Berkeley police agencies came out in force with barriers, gear, presence and plans in place.

Third: They did not stand back as they had in times past, instead making arrests, preventing injury to citizens and protecting property, which proves:

Fourth: When persons were injured seriously and property torched and damaged on prior occasions in Berkeley, it was quite now clearly due to law enforcement stepping back on orders from agency heads in concert with the BAMN/Antifa-supporting Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin. How do we know this? Because of admissions from Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood and because of the results on Thursday.

This means that those people injured and those businesses and persons suffering property damage should individually and collectively sue the City of Berkeley, City of Berkeley Police Department, the Mayor of Berkeley and the UC Berkeley Police Department for negligence, as well as advocate prosecution under California penal code 182 PC for conspiracy, RICO, and federal code 42 USC § 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights — as I delineated in this post.

Because up until last Thursday in Berkeley, what happened was this:

Americans were left to fight it out on the streets of the United States as law enforcement officers were either forced to or willingly allowed violence to occur directly in front of their eyes.

And that is absolutely unacceptable, unsustainable and anathema to actual keepers of oaths.

Oh please, let the suits commence.

Finally, as UC Berkeley itself pointed out: walls work.

BZ

 

FEC wants to remove your freedoms — again

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, ‘not done fighting’

by Paul Bedard

They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibly even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission.

You say the US government has tried on prior occasions to censor the Drudge Report? Yes. By the FCC as I wrote here on May 5th of 2015, and here on August 24h of 2015.

The FEC, specifically, tried back in 2014 as Paul Bedard, the author of this newest article above, documented here:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs

by Paul Bedard

Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

The real truth is this — no more complicated.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

When you cannot win the war of ideas, that is to say “the message,” then your only alternative is to shut down “the messenger” which, in these cases, translates to the internet itself and some sites specifically, like Drudge. Mine is next. So is yours.

(FEC Chairman Lee Goodman) added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

That translates to, as I have said for quite some time: “No one is equal until everyone is equal.”

The history explained here, as well.

You can already see the Leftist social media giants shutting down free speech. But whose free speech? Those on the right. Leftist speech remains predominantly uninterrupted, undisturbed and inviolate unless it is so shockingly egregious that even the American Media Maggots begin to notice a bit. Even then, not consistently. Death threats against President Trump on Twitter, for example, tend to remain unless they are somehow brought to light. Massive light.

Then don’t forget about this aspect.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut off conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

At one point the “fairness doctrine” — which is the precise opposite, of course — ruled in media. Its attempt, originally, was to actually ensure some semblance of “fairness” in broadcasting when media choices were extremely limited, the precise opposite of today.

See my previous posts about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished.

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

Antifa, journalists, city administrators, government bureaucrats and police removing your Constitutional rights

And I’ve had enough.

I am particularly disgusted by the continuing insertion of police departments as obstructionists to our civil rights, namely our First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful protest. Note: peaceful protest.

You police departments, police administrators and local bureaucrats who enable Antifa, never forget this Antifa phrase. They mean it quite seriously.

Let’s not forget that Leftists and Antifa despise you and oppose law enforcement. When you stand back you are at cross-purposes with yourselves and the oaths you took to protect life and property.

Let’s also not forget that SCOTUS recently ruled on free speech and so-called “hate speech.”  As I wrote on July 13th.

SCOTUS ruling on the First Amendment

The US Supreme just recently released a terribly important opinion on a First Amendment case,

One that will and has upset and pissed off Leftists nationally and globally.

From the WashingtonPost.com:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

by Eugene Volokh

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

This flies directly in the fact of what Leftists, Demorats, the American Media Maggots, globalists and even a few Republicans are saying: there is “hate speech” and it is a crime.

False. So sayeth the US Supreme Court.

Leftists, however, predicate their bleats about so-called “hate speech” but upon feelings and emotions, not upon facts or reality. I wrote this back on July 31st.

Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. 

You might even say that, in the eyes of Leftists, Demorats, Antifa, anarchists, the next sentence encapsulates it all, fervently embossed and endorsed by Howard Dean.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.

This is nothing more than one of the most brain-dead statements ever made. The writer and its jejune sympathizers fail to properly load the difference between the words “speech” and “action” into their fetid and fissured brain housing groups.

This is free speech and I support Olbermann’s right to write it. He utilized expletives. But he did not advocate outright violence as in today’s vernacular. Olbermann is insane, yes, but he has the same rights as Nazis to disagree with issues.

Leftists now believe that they can no longer even be “questioned” and, if they are, that in and of itself constitutes “hate speech.”

Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

With that as background, the City of San Francisco decided to outright cancel this past Saturday’s (August 26th) rally organized by Patriot Prayer, a group typified by most all the American Media Maggots as Nazi-like in nature and purely evil in intent. The AMM quantified it is a “controversial free speech rally.”

Stop. You see? Free speech is now labeled “controversial.”

Stop. What is the group “Patriot Prayer” anyway? Leftist-oriented Wikipedia writes:

Patriot Prayer is an American conservative advocacy group whose stated aim is to support free speech and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[1] The group is known for organizing rallies and protests in predominately liberal areas. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, though the group’s founder Joey Gibson has disavowed them and denounced racism.[2]

Stop. Wait. Let’s list the numerous ways this group is inherently evil, yes?

  • Anything conservative is evil;
  • Anything or anyone advocating conservatism is evil;
  • Supporting free speech is evil;
  • Supporting the First Amendment is evil;
  • Supporting the US Constitution is evil;
  • Organizing rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas is evil;
  • Joey Gibson is evil for disavowing white nationalists and denouncing racism.

You see? Rampant and unmitigated evil which must be immediately shut down.

Immediately immediately immediately!

And shut down it was.

Aided and abetted by the Berkeley Police Department. From Breitbart.com:

Berkeley Police Allowed Antifa to Jump Barricades, Assault Demonstrators

by Joel B. Pollak

Berkeley police deliberately allowed masked “Antifa” anarchists to jump a barricade and attack a demonstration by a peaceful right-wing group on Sunday, leading to five assaults, including on Patriot Prayer group leader Joey Gibson.

The counter-demonstration had reportedly been “largely peaceful” until that point.

The police later defended their decision by arguing that keeping the anarchists out would have led to greater violence. There was “no need for a confrontation over a grass patch,” Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood said, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Note how Leftist Chief Greenwood inartfully and clumsily crafted his biased response in terms of “keeping the anarchists (he admits that’s what they are and their nature) out would have led to greater violence,” thusly “over a grass patch.”

This is called a cowardly excuse for not doing his job. By the way, what is the City of Berkeley paying this chief to execute their city council’s non-interventionist policy and that of its Antifa-embracing Mayor Arreguin? Right. $210,000. Not including benefits.

Check this:

Berkeley Mayor Is Member of Antifa Facebook Group that Organized Riots

by Tom Ciccotta

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is a member of the anti-fascist Facebook group, By Any Means Necessary, which orchestrated the riots that occurred ahead of a scheduled lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos.

Facts in evidence. Please read my quite in-depth post about the corruption of the Berkeley Police Department here.

I continue.

The original “No to Marxism” protest had been denied a permit by the city, but a small group of protesters showed up anyway, as did 2,000 “largely peaceful” counter-demonstrators, the Mercury News reported. SFGate.com reported that there were 400 police on hand to prevent violence.

But wait. There’s more.

But (Berkeley Police) stepped aside, the Mercury News reported, when over 100 masked anarchists “busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons.”

The result was several severe beatings of those who had gathered to protest against Marxism. Thirteen of the anarchists were arrested, the Chronicle reported.

Again, how many times do I have to point this out? In my opinion, I would submit that the City of Berkeley, Mayor Arreguin, the city council and Chief Andrew Greenwood are all complicit in a conspiracy, 182 PC, to allow lawful citizens of the State of California and the United States to become injured by indifference, and to allow private and public property to be damaged and destroyed, having received their marching orders not to interfere if the forces of Antifa were having their way.

I would submit that these forces possess a history sufficient to instigate both a federal RICO investigation of the entire Bay Area bureaucracy, and a 42 USC § 1983 “deprivation of civil rights” action.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 197993 Stat. 1284Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996110 Stat. 3853.)

It’s long past time for Leftists to be subject to the same lawful scrutiny others are.

In the meantime, this past weekend was simply another excuse for Antifa anarchist elements to riot, strike, injure and act violently because, after all, at their base they simply enjoy it.

I continue.

But the Mercury News report, citing Berkeley law enforcement authorities directly, made it clear that police knew that “Antifa” intended to cause violence, and allowed it to happen:

Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence.

Greenwood said “the potential use of force became very problematic” given the thousands of peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and allowed the anarchists to march in.

He ordered his officers out of the park.

Let that sink in. By the way, for those not yet aware, it’s 2017. Not 1923. There is no Beer Hall Putsch. Or is there?

The Associated Press corroborated that report: “Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said officers were told not to actively confront the anarchists. He applauded officers’ restraint, saying it forestalled greater violence.”

I say to the apparently scattered few police officers on the Berkeley Police Department who actually wish to uphold their law enforcement oaths — and there are obviously a shockingly-deficient number of you now — it is long past due time to make a stand. But at some point you must. Do you stay or do you go? Do you fellate the Leftist cock of your local government or do you leave it to do some actual good for a department that will appreciate your talents, your training, your education and your experience?

Because, frankly, Berkeley PD never will.

It is not unlike this:

  • DISPATCHER: Attention all units, 211 in progress, Bank of America, Main and 51st, two masked males with handguns, units to respond?
  • UNIT: Paul 17 enroute from Franklin and 17th Ave.
  • UNIT: Paul 19 enroute from Josiah and Henry.
  • UNIT: Sam 5 from Henry and Stockton.
  • CHIEF: Units stand down, reduce code, clear the call. Citizens and suspects could be injured by your response and interference.

No. I am not kidding. This is apparently where we are today in some departments, in some areas, in some municipalities, in some Leftist states.

And the above. Berkeley PD obviously standing and watching. One wants to go, one does not.

Okay, and?”

Okay and, how about you honor the law enforcement oath you took when your badge was pinned on by your wife, husband, parents, a loved one upon graduation:

“I, ______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

It’s called an oath. And it is what you swore to uphold.

Not anarchy. Not Antifa. Not chaos. Not insurrection. But calm and order and the rule of law.

Some people got slapped out of Antifa as they deserved.

Some people bitched about having violated the law but not yet afforded their rights to incredible luxuries afforded nowhere else on the planet. Note to bitcher: perhaps you should have left your “service dog” at home. But no. You’re a “Four-Fer.” A black. A female. A Leftist. A recipient of a service dog. All at Taxpayer Expense, yes? Because I’m sure you had the thousands and thousands of dollars required to have your claimed dog trained, did you not? Oh wait. That was on the taxpayer’s hook, was it?

But wait. Stop. Bestill my clotted heart. Am I hearing what I think I may be hearing”

But only for a microsecond or three.

Then there were the people who had the temerity and naked audacity to suggest they had a a right to protest non-violently. Note: non-violently.

Let’s go to Tucker Carlson.

“Using the police forces for their own political gain.”

This literally makes me heartsick. Physically nauseous. But the ultimate realization makes me even more concerned.

You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

You are not a Stegosaurus. It required a semi-brain, and a ganglion of nerves in its hips to make the legs move.

And that’s my ultimate point.

Who has control? The receptor of the message? Who is forced to, say: Click on. Click off?

Even Noam Chomsky believes in free speech, and on campuses.

The United States of America is one of the very, very few Western Civilization countries left that does not have a “hate speech” law guaranteeing prosecution of that vastly nebulous phrase.

Be thankful.

Be very, very thankful.

But be very, very mindful.

Moreover: be vigilant. And be prepared to defend your Constitutional rights.

That aspect is looming.

BZ