Category Archives: First Amendment

How long before BZ is de-platformed? How long before YOU?

Posted on by

The cancel culture is reaching into people and places like never before.

It began as a form of shunning or ostracizing people on Leftist campuses across America. It has now transitioned from a point of disagreement to an operational, weaponized tool of destruction, where people are actively seeking to ruin the lives of others, removing them from employment, removing their free speech, even removing their ability to conduct their normal lives.

Cancel culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – either online on social media, in the real world, or both. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be “canceled.” It’s used by Leftists, in almost every every instance I can think of, against Conservatives, Republicans, people who voted for or support President Trump, people who support free speech, the Second Amendment, and these days those who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is to say, everyone who doesn’t actively support everything advocated by Leftists.

The transition has been accomplished, as I’ve written numerous times before, in this fashion, from

  • Tolerance, to
  • Acceptance, to
  • Advocacy

Today, if you are no longer an active advocate of ________, you are subject to being labeled any form of an ___ist and, further, subject to doxxing (revealing your address, place of employment, family members names, schools attending, their addresses, your date of birth, private information in public) so that you can be targeted at home, at work, for public harassment, protests, hacking, and worse.

The point is not just to “embarrass” you, it’s to ruin you or, in some cases, ensure you are the subject of targeted violence.

Recently, Brandon Straka was removed, actually banned from an email provider — a fucking email provider — because they didn’t care for the CONTENT of his emails. Which means any number of things:

1 They’re reading and monitoring his private emails, something that would require a warrant for law enforcement to accomplish;
2. Members of the company know of him and hate his politics;
3. Complaints have been made in order to cancel his speech;

This is not just an attempt but a successful means of ensuring that, much less put thoughts into the PUBLIC, Brandon Straka can’t even communicate on a personal level with others.

How long before YOU are removed from an email provider because they don’t like YOUR politics. Or what you say. Because they read your emails. Prove they don’t. Or, from their end: prove we do.

On November 9th, Brandon Straka was told he must leave the email provider Mailchimp, self-billed as a “top email service provider.”

On that date they wrote (see above photo of email):

“Hello Brandon,

Mailchimp is not able to serve as the email provider for your account with the username brandonstraka, because the content associated with your industry conflicts with our Acceptable Use Policy (mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use) or presents a significant risk to our deliverability.”

Clearly a Leftist organization. But a few logical questions:

What is the “content” associated with his “industry”? We all know to what they’re referring. Brandon Straka is now a major “influencer” in politics having started the entire “#WalkAway” movement. He’s getting too much power. He met President Trump. He was invited to Trump rallies. He’s hosted and started any number of conferences, marches and the like. Therefore he must be throttled and crushed.

It’s too easy for him to communicate his message.

What “industry”? Now that’s a good question. I suppose addressing the issues of bravery, not having a hive mind, thinking for oneself, realizing who the Demorats really are — and having the temerity to actually talk about it — that’s an “industry.”

To what specific “content” are they referring?

How does his “content” conflict unless they are READING and MONITORING his emails?

And what does a “significant risk to our deliverability” mean?

I speak Leftist. Allow me to translate. That means they could themselves be potentially subject to doxxing or the cancel culture if they were to continue hosting his emails. Clearly someone squealed from within or complained from without.

Yet, they take the coward’s way out — like every other free-speech-hating bit of social media extant — with absolute unspecificity. They refuse to tell you exactly which bit you violated, simply throwing a litany of generic topics on the wall to see what sticks.

Well hell; they don’t care. As far as they’re concerned, everything sticks.

To continue their CVS (Corporate Virtue Signaling), they had to sever ties with a gay man. Think about that for a moment.

Yeah. That’s where we are in 2020.

Remember:

If you’re on Mailchimp, you should realize that they’re reading your emails and discriminating against gays. You do as you will about that.

Brandon Straka was becoming too powerful for the LDAMM. It’s clear that now a certain website — not a point on Twitter, not a point on Facebook, but an actual website — became too powerful to suit Leftists.

Google already has throttled Breaitbart.com damned near into the ground. But at least they can be seen. If you know where to go.

Election Interference: Google Purges Breitbart from Search Results

by Allum Bokhari, 7-28-20

A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump’s victory, comparing Trump voters to “extremists” and discussing their desire to make Trump’s election and the populist movement a “blip” in history.

They learned from 2016.

True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher’s content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart’s search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top 100 search positions for only 55 search terms.

Google controls it all.

So when in doubt, simply remove all the speech you don’t like.

Those damned uppity Conservatives, with their bitter clinging to their God and their guns .  .  .

.  .  . and their stupid Constitution and its ridiculous Bill of Rights. Sad thing is, there are likely some Conservatives in the Leftist woodpile here and there. Horrendous! There should be NO mixing of the thoughts! Heil Zuck! Heil Brin! Heil Dorsey! Heil Bezos! Heil Soros! Click those cleated metal heels, dammit!

Then there was this — a new direction and goal from the LDAMM — as written here.

The Treehouse is Deplatformed…

by Sundance, 11-15-20

Most CTH readers are likely aware of the term “deplatforming.”  Unfortunately, the big tech control mechanism to shut down speech & assembly has now arrived on our doorstep.

One week after the 2020 presidential election, The Conservative Treehouse received the following notification:

…”given the incompatibility between your site’s content and our terms, you need to find a new hosting provider and must migrate the site by Wednesday, December 2nd.

And who made this decision? WordPress.

What does this mean?  It means CTH is being kicked-off the WordPress website hosting platform because the content of our research and discussion does not align with the ideology of those who define what is acceptable speech and what is not.

What was our violation?  After ten years of brutally honest discussion, opinion, deep research and crowdsourcing work -with undeniable citations on the events we outline- there is no cited violation of any term of service because CTH has never violated one.

Let me repeat, for those of you from the Department of Redundancy Dept:

“There is no cited violation of any term of service because CTH has never violated one.”

Conclusions, anyone? Bueller?

The WordPress company is not explaining the reason for deplatforming because there is no justifiable reason for it.  At the same time, they are bold in their position. Perhaps this is the most alarming part; and everyone should pay attention. They don’t care.

THEY.    DON’T.    CARE.

Because they don’t have to. Yet.

Truthful assembly is now the risk.  CTH is now too big; with a site reach of 500,000 to a million unique readers each day; and with well over 200,000 subscribers; our assembly is too large, too influential, and presents a risk… we guard the flickering flame.

I guard the flickering flame. You guard the flickering flame.

Accepting -at its core- this move is all about politics, this is yet another reference point in the tenuous nature of where we stand.   There’s no hate-speech on this website; there’s no graphic, violent, foul or abusive speech here.  The ‘content‘ of the Treehouse is the same discussion that happens around your kitchen table or back porch discussion with friends.  We would never cheapen or insult that conversation with vulgarity because that’s not who we are… because that’s not who our nation is. 

As they write, this is the point:

The ‘content’ is not compatible with WordPress, the world’s largest website and blog hosting service.  The content within the largest blog on that global platform is what has become troublesome.  “The content”.

I cannot see how this does not become “normalized” under a Biden (read: Harris/Leftist) administration.

So do what BZ calls “The Logical Extension.”

Here’s what Conservatives need — and it would take millions if not billions of dollars. But it’s how you’d have to begin.

First, a massively-wealthy Conservative would have to buy land and build massive server farms for a new search engine.

That would have to lead to Conservative email and other communications sites. Perhaps even a dedicated satellite.

That would then extend to a new video hosting site, web hosting site, and then a series of new social media sites. Everything self-hosted. Self-funded. Something that can’t be de-platformed because, well, the server farms would be absolutely independent of everything else. An independent search engine. Independent sites. In dependent hosting.

That, folks, is a lot of damned money. But that’s what it would take.

Finally: you, may or may not realize, thusly, that BZ‘s host is WordPress. At one point, from roughly 2006 to 2009, it wasn’t uncommon for me to get 100 hits per minute. Now, a small fraction of that.

What if, in today’s environment, I was getting 100 to 200 hits per minute or more? If I were widely read, quoted and had something close to the readership and efficacy of Conservative Treehouse?

Right. I’d be gone too. The only difference? I don’t reach nearly as many people. I’m a flea.

These are your freedoms being removed, folks, right in front of your face. And simultaneously you’re being gaslighted, told this isn’t really happening, that you’re a raving conspiracist, that you can’t believe your lying eyes.

If you haven’t clued in yet, Leftists and many Demorats don’t want you around. They want you gone, eliminated or, like the Borg, assimilated.

Many Leftists are finally speaking and writing in the clear, suggesting that you should be not just removed from society, but killed. Oh, and police too, of course.

Let me remind you, again, of this bit of insight from Pastor Martin Niemoller during the rise of Adolf Hitler.

You might want to pass it on to your oblivious friends.

There are far too man of them.

And you know who they are.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Is free speech moribund?

Posted on by

Cheap Trick sang of the Dream Police. We now have the Speech Police. Given technology it’s not unclear that we won’t, at some time in the near future, have the Thought Police.

From the Express.Co.UK:

PC GONE MAD: Criticising migration could become CRIMINAL offence under new plan

by Thomas Hunt

A leading MEP has warned EU citizens that they could be “jailed” for criticising migration policies if a new United Nations agreement is acted upon.

The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right. MEP Marcel de Graaff said: “I would like to say some words on the global compact on migration. On the 10th and 11th of December there will be an international congress in Marrakesh Morocco. The participating countries are set to sign this agreement and although this joint agreement is not binding it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.

What does this mean?

I will let MEP (Member of European Parliament, from the Netherlands) Marcel de Graaff speak for himself.

This is not a joke.

“One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.

“The agreement wants to criminalise migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.

“Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.”

I repeat, at the risk of proffering something from the Department of Redundancy Dept: this is not a joke. Quote: “You will be jailed for hate speech.”

For those of you in the UK, you can rest easy knowing that Prime Minister Theresa May plans to sell you completely down the river, prioritizing immigrants legal or otherwise over you.

International Development Minister Alistair Burt said the UK “is supportive” of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration document which is the subject of a major UK meeting next week.

Mr Burt said: “The UK Government is supportive of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, both as a step forward in international co-operation to tackle irregular migration and as a framework to help us deliver our commitments under the sustainable development goals.

Perhaps it’s time to insert this timely graphic.

Some European nations are not so keen on the UN compact.

The document, to be signed in Morocco, seeks to make immigration a universal human right and has been met with fury by Italy, a nation that took in the second highest number of asylum seekers behind Germany last year. Italy is boycotting the meeting.

The United States via President Trump has an opinion. From FoxNews.com:

US leading the charge in pushing back against UN’s migration agenda

by Adam Shaw

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. is leading the charge in pushing back against the U.N.’s migration agenda — a move that is picking up support from other countries and giving political cover to those seeking to join them.

The Trump administration announced last December that it would withdraw from the U.N.’s Global Migration Compact — due to be adopted by an intergovernmental conference in Morocco next month. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued last year that the compact could undermine America’s right to enforce its immigration laws and secure its borders.

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” Tillerson said.

The U.S. was the first country to withdraw, but it was soon followed by a stream of other countries pulling out of the non-binding compact, officially called the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.” Hungary, Poland, Austria, Australia and Israel have all since announced they will not sign the accord, citing concerns that it will limit the ability of countries to set and enforce their own immigration policies.

I have five words: God bless President Donald Trump. And thank God that Hillary Clinton or some other politically-correct Leftist Demorat ass-kisser wasn’t anointed.

The UN and the EU don’t care about borders or a nation’s given ability or inability to absorb anyone and everyone they demand be taken. Not assimilated. Taken. There is a massive, massive difference. Perhaps a Teddy Roosevelt quote is appropriate here.

Europe: be afraid. Be very very afraid. Your ruination is in progress, abetted by the guilty, the ignorant, the historically illiterate.

BZ

PS:
Why not a little rock and roll?

 

 

 Share

Time to shut down US universities?

Posted on by

Professor Jason Hill: heretic. Just ask any Leftist. Career suicide.

On last Friday’s Tucker Carlson Tonight show, he featured DePaul University Professor of Philosophy Jason Hill who submitted that perhaps it’s time to shut down some universities. Professor Hill wrote this piece published on July 16th at TheHill.com:

A professor’s call to shut down our nation’s universities

by Jason D. Hill, Opinion Contributor

Thirty-three years ago, when I entered college, left-wing ideologies dominated American universities, and especially the humanities and social sciences. But one still could get a fair, balanced education by consulting traditional canonical texts that countered the dogma. Free speech was alive on college campuses. There were hisses and boos, of course, but for the most part, hearing perspectives different from your own was considered essential to your education. Few of us lived in our own curated silos.

Today, after 22 years of being a college professor, and having traveled much of America to lecture, I am sad to say the situation is not the same. The core principles and foundations that keep the United States intact, that provide our citizens with their civic personalities and national identities, are being annihilated. The gravest internal threat to this country is not illegal aliens; it is leftist professors who are waging a war against America and teaching our young people to hate this country.

Our universities risk losing their status as learning sites and becoming national security threats. We need to defund them, disband and rebuild them with conservative principles — that is, values advocating individualism, capitalism, Americanism, free speech, self-reliance and the morality of wealth creation.

Astounding rhetoric from, essentially, a Leftist. Any Professor of Philosophy certainly isn’t a screaming Conservative.

Ordinarily, the best way to counter an intellectual adversary is through a contest of rational faculties. The person with reality on his or her side, with the best relevant facts and strongest arguments, usually wins. But today’s scholars in humanities and social sciences increasingly declare that modern argumentation is a white, Western form of domination and linguistic imperialism that silences racial and ethnic minorities and devalues their “lived experiences.”

One cannot argue with such people. The only alternative is to shut them down.  

From the show:

“Bolshevik-loving welfare scholars.” Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what a beautimous and applicable line from the interview.

Professor Hill concludes with this paragraph:

Withdraw your support and leave them to fund themselves. Let them pit their wares on the free market, where they will be left homeless. The world you desired no longer exists in our universities. It lies elsewhere, in a philosophic system waiting to be discovered or created.

I can’t say I disagree in the slightest. Let universities compete in a capitalist, free-market economy. To the competitive winners go the spoils.

BZ

 

 Share

ACLU considering kicking the First Amendment to the curb?

Posted on by

This used to be the stance of the ACLU. Have they abandoned the First Amendment?

If so, then who supports free speech?

Leftists? Demorats? The American Media Maggots? College campuses? The Southern Poverty Law Center? The US Communist Party?

None of the above?

From Reason.com:

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

by Robby Soave

“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women’s rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memoobtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.

Translated: the First Amendment is a flexible, fungible and liquid document which may be applied when it happens not to conflict with any host of Social Justice Warrior goals and issues.

Soave really nails it next.

It’s hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider “factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.”

Those who operate between the margins of common sense know that it is the Second Amendment which has historically supported the First Amendment. That kind of support is apparently not in the future of the ACLU.

The memo also makes clear that the ACLU has zero interest in defending First Amendment rights in conjunction with Second Amendment rights. If controversial speakers intend to carry weapons, the ACLU “will generally not represent them.”

The memo’s authors assert that this does not amount to a formal change in policy, and is merely intended as guidelines that will assist ACLU affiliates in deciding which cases to take.

Right. I’m going to use a phrase with which the ACLU is well-acquainted: “chilling effect.” And I suspect it’s their point precisely. The First or Second Amendment aren’t absolutes. There are no more absolutes. There are merely unending shades of gray.

It seems fairly clear to me what’s happening here. Leadership would probably like the ACLU to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they would also like to remain in good standing with their progressive allies. Unfortunately, young progressives are increasingly hostile to free speech, which they view as synonymous with racist hate speech. Speech that impugns marginalized persons is not speech at all, in their view, but violence. This is why a student Black Lives Matter group shut down an ACLU event at the College of William & Mary last year, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy” and “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” Campus activism is illiberal, and liberal free speech norms conflict with the broad protection of emotional comfort that the young, modern left demands.

Again, what happens when true liberals die and Progressives take hold of every aspect of the Demorat Party? What happens when everything in life — as Progressives demand now and Demorats are clearly embracing — is nothing but a palette of gray, with nothing immured in any absolute whatsoever?

Even massive Leftist Nat Hentoff had questions about the ACLU before he passed away in 2017.

When you’re willing to quantify, parse, minimize and in some instances demean and work against freedom and liberty, what happens to this country? By dint of the Logical Extension, what happens to the rest of the world?

Perhaps the ACLU needs to be reminded of its name and the incredible importance of its letter “L”: LIBERTIES.

BZ

 

 Share

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Posted on by

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.

 

 Share