Trump Legal Team to Expose Dubious 'Incitement' Charge
On the eve of the Senate’s second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, here’s a look at his legal team’s defense.
The first and most important point Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue is the unprecedented and unconstitutional nature of the Democrats’ impeachment gambit. Trump’s legal team asserts, “The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under our Constitution.” Call it the “By what authority?” defense.
Responding to the Democrats’ claims that the Senate still has constitutional authority to try a non-sitting president, Trump’s defense points to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. It states, “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor.”
The Democrats’ primary charge is that Trump is guilty of “incitement of insurrection” against the United States for his remarks ahead of the Capitol riot and for the two post-election months in which he refused to concede defeat while contending the existence of massive voter fraud. They claim that means he should therefore be forbidden from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States” according the the 14th Amendment. Trump’s legal team denies that the president is guilty of any such charge.
Pointing both to Trump’s actual rhetoric and his First Amendment right to express his views regarding the outcome of the 2020 election, the defense states, “Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation. If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all.”
The Democrats’ “incitement of insurrection” charge is yet another classic example of stretching definitions beyond their clear, original, and legal meanings to suit the Left’s own politically expedient purposes. As “evidence” to support their “incitement” charge against Trump, the Democrats note his statement at the January 6 rally: “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Of course, the Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that Trump also said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.”
Regarding the dubious “incitement” charge, Mollie Hemingway cogently recalls Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just last year speaking to a mob of protesters outside the Supreme Court building and saying, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” She notes that just 17 months prior at Justice Kavanaugh’s swearing ceremony, “hordes of protesters broke through a police barricade and attempted to beat down the 13-ton bronze doors of the court.” Moreover, “Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, who attended Kavanaugh’s immediate swearing in, were hit with water bottles and tomatoes when their car left the court afterward. Some 164 people were arrested in that protest.”
In fact, scumbag/liar-Schumer is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Democrat hypocrisy on “violent” political rhetoric, and Trump’s legal team as well as Senate Republicans plan to hammer this point hard. Senator Rand Paul (KY) said on Sunday, “I think if we are going to criminalize speech and somehow impeach everybody who says, ‘Oh, go fight to hear your voices heard,’ really we ought to impeach Chuck scumbag/liar-Schumer then.” Pointing to other Democrats, Paul continued, “If people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard, and to my mind it’s a partisan farce because they’re not doing anything to Chuck scumbag/liar-Schumer, not doing anything to [ scumbag/liar-Ilhan] Omar, not doing anything to scumbag/worthless-Maxine Waters.”
This week’s trial, of course, will prove to be little other than political theater, as there is little legal or constitutional support for the Democrats’ vindictive actions. But, for them, the theater is the point. ~The Patriot Post
Friend of Donald Trump Wins 7th Super Bowl
We know what you’re thinking: Screw the NFL and every other repulsively woke professional sports league. And we can’t disagree. But for a moment, can we agree to set all that aside and celebrate Tom Brady, a singular American athlete, the likes of whom we will never see again?
Would it help if we told you he was a supporter of Donald Trump?
Okay, then. Last night, the 43-year-old Brady, who until this year had played his entire NFL career with one team, the New England Patriots, took a 7-9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers team and willed them to a 15-5 record, an eight-game winning streak including three straight road playoff wins, and a 31-9 win in the 55th Super Bowl over the favored Kansas City Chiefs — a win that, as luck would have it, was played at home in Tampa Bay. In doing so, Brady bested two certain Hall of Fame quarterbacks – New Orleans’s Drew Brees and Green Bay’s Aaron Rogers – and one, Mahomes, who also seems destined for Canton.
There, in front of 25,000 football fans and 30,000 ridiculous COVID cutouts, the old man who many thought represented the NFL’s past squared off against a 25-year-old quarterback, KC’s Patrick Mahomes, who everyone agrees is the NFL’s future. And the old man won, resoundingly, and earned his seventh Super Bowl ring and his fifth Super Bowl MVP trophy.
Before Brady arrived, the Buccaneers were perennial losers. But for a short-lived shining moment when they won the 2003 Super Bowl, the Bucs had amassed the worst career winning percentage among professional sports teams. Brady, for his part, is the individual athlete with the best winning percentage in team sports.
Obviously, something had to give. And it wasn’t Brady. His teammates bought in to Brady’s will, his work ethic, and his culture of excellence. This is how we win, Brady seemed to say. And he made it so.
For a sense of what Brady achieved last night, consider this: One of his teammates, Antoine Winfield Jr., is the son of a former NLFer who Brady competed against both in college and as a pro. Or consider this: Mahomes, the quarterback he beat, was just six years old when Brady won his first Super Bowl, and Mahomes’s dad is just seven years older than Brady. Or this: Brady’s offensive coordinator, Byron Leftwich, began his NFL quarterbacking career three years after Brady did, played nine years in the league, and still retired nearly a decade before Brady will one day hang ‘em up.
As for the record books, Brady has pushed all the meaningful numbers beyond reach. For example, only two other quarterbacks — Hall of Famers Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Joe Montana of the San Francisco 49ers — have even four Super Bowl rings. Indeed, Brady the individual has won more Super Bowls than any other NFL team, and has won more Super Bowls than 18 NFL teams COMBINED.
Brady’s individual stats are every bit as eye-popping, even if they’ve never been what drives him. What drives him is winning, and no one in team sports — with the possible exception of the Boston Celtics’ great center, Bill Russell, who played in an NBA league with far fewer teams and therefore a far greater chance of winning championships — has ever done it better than Brady.
The seeds of greatness were there to be seen back in the 2000 Orange Bowl when, as a senior quarterback at Michigan, he twice brought the Wolverines back from 14-point deficits to beat an excellent Alabama team. Still, nobody in the NFL wanted Tom Brady. Really. Tom Brady, the guy who is arguably the greatest athlete in the history of American team sports, wasn’t the first quarterback picked in the 2000 NFL Draft. Nor the second. Nor the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. Tom Brady was the seventh QB and the 199th player picked in that draft. (“The Brady 6” is a superb sports documentary and a fascinating glimpse into what makes Brady who he is. If you’re in a big hurry, skip ahead to the 40-minute mark and watch the next two minutes.)
Brady has taken some shots during his career, perhaps none of them cheaper than the one thrown around regularly by hate-filled leftists and mainstream media types. These tiny folks can’t seem to accept the fact that Tom Brady is a friend of former President Donald Trump, and he has been since around 2002. When Trump first campaigned in 2016, Brady was seen with a MAGA hat in his locker, and the intolerant Left has never let him forget it.
Those who admire both Brady and Trump must’ve taken special satisfaction at the way last night’s event played out. What better dish to serve up to the haters than a heaping helping of humble pie?
When asked last Monday about whether “being white” had given him a pass for the offense of being a friend of Trump, Brady said, “I’m not sure how to respond to [a] hypothetical like that. I hope everyone can — we’re in this position like I am to, again, try to be the best I can be every day as an athlete, as a player, as a person in my community, for my team and so forth, so yeah, I’m not sure what else.”
It reminds one of the thoughtfulness with which he answered a question many years ago about his relative physical limitations — his lack of strength, his lack of foot speed, his poor vertical jump, and his average arm strength. Back then, Brady said, matter-of-factly, “It’s not really what my skill set is, but fortunately for me, that’s not what quarterbacking is about either.”
“All week,” said Tampa Bay running back Leonard Fournette, “he made us believe we were going to win. He was texting us at 11 o'clock at night, ‘we will win this game.’ We believe in him. … We just ran with it.”
So they do. And so they did. ~The Patriot Post
Farewell, Professor Shultz
George P. Shultz retired, permanently, on February 6 — the day we celebrate the birth of his former boss and friend, Ronald Reagan. In no way do I mean any disrespect by referring to his death as “retirement.” It’s just that over the course of his 100 years, he was unstoppable.
While proper protocol would be to refer to George Shultz as “Secretary” given his remarkable service as President Reagan’s secretary of state, on the few occasions I crossed paths with Secretary Shultz in the Reagan years (the last being in 1987 after our Moscow embassy was compromised), I found myself more like a student in awe of his quiet and unassuming yet extraordinarily powerful intellect. I always thought of him as “Professor.”
Shultz was born in New York and grew up in New Jersey, and he was all American. He was a graduate of Princeton and earned a PhD from MIT. His education was interrupted by his service as a Marine in World War II as an artillery officer in the Pacific theater. He taught economics at MIT, served in Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, and was the dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, where he sharpened his free market economy views as shaped by Milton Friedman. He went on to serve as Richard Nixon’s secretary of labor, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and then as treasury secretary in 1972.
In the wake of disastrous foreign policy decisions by Jimmy Carter’s administration, Shultz accepted President Reagan’s call as secretary of state, serving from 1982 to the end of Reagan’s second term in 1989. He masterfully crafted Reagan’s relationship with Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev and our overall policy with the USSR — leading to the implosion of the Soviet Union in George H.W. Bush’s first year in office.
In an interview 20 years later, Shultz noted: “Détente said, ‘We’re here, you’re here, that’s life, the name of the game is peaceful coexistence.’ Reagan said, ‘No, they have a very unstable system, and it’s not going to last. It’s going to change.’” Indeed it did for the better of all mankind. Shultz memoir, Turmoil and Triumph, is a primary resource on the end of the old Cold War and how Reagan won the Cold War.
Shultz went on to serve as an adviser to George W. Bush, crafting his doctrine of using preemptive and overwhelming force after the 9/11 Islamist attack on our nation, the result of scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton having largely ignored the emerging Jihadistan threat over the previous eight years.
Shultz mentored Bush’s second-term secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, but the only secretary of state who has approached his impressive foreign policy record was our most recent, Mike Pompeo, who also relied on his wisdom.
Shultz was one of only two men to have held four presidential cabinet positions. He spent his last years as an active intellectual force with several think tanks — primarily as a distinguished fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution — but he was also an influencer with the Institute for International Economics and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He will be missed, especially by those who knew him more casually at Bohemian Grove’s Mandalay Camp.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote of Shultz in his own memoirs, noting: “I met no one in public life for whom I developed greater respect and affection. Highly analytical, calm, and unselfish, Shultz made up in integrity and judgment for his lack of the flamboyance by which some of his more insecure colleagues attempted to make their mark.” Kissinger concluded, “If I could choose one American to whom I would entrust the nation’s fate in a crisis, it would be George Shultz.”
Farewell, Professor. ~The Patriot Post
'Going Postal' to Undermine Election Integrity
What does one get when one combines a U.S. Postal Service in self-admitted chaos with a record number of mail-in votes? A nation where millions of American no longer have confidence in the integrity of the election process.
A red banner at the top of the USPS website says it all: “USPS is experiencing unprecedented volume increases and limited employee availability due to the impacts of COVID-19. We appreciate your patience.”
Remarkably — or is that predictably? — the media make irreconcilable claims about the agency teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for nearly a decade. On one hand, we’re told that people are receiving utility bills and bills for mortgage payments that are already past due, while sent packages are piling up and being delivered weeks late — if they’re delivered at all. Moreover, chaos ostensibly reigns because of 664,000 postal service workers nationwide, 39,383 have tested positive for COVID, and as of January 22, as many as 14,500 postal employees were in quarantine.
Nonetheless, the same NPR that states the postal system has been battered by the impacts of COVID-19 “for much of the past year” assures us the very same reality didn’t affect mail-in voting. “By all accounts, the Postal Service made good on delivering ballots in a timely fashion,” it states.
By all accounts, the USPS is an agency that is being eviscerated by far more competent competition such as UPS, FedEx, and Amazon. Furthermore, millions of Americans have turned to email and other electronic transfers of information that negate the need for traditional mail. Yet despite the fact that revenue is down 9.4% from the previous fiscal year to the current one, and that it lost another $9.2 billion, the agency is, as MSM Microsoft puts it, “immensely overstaffed” with 496,934 career employees and 136,174 non-career employees who manage 31,322 retail post offices in the United States, many of which are in “small towns and rural areas and handle very little mail at all.”
And despite being one of the worst-run agencies in the nation, former Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan made $291,650 in 2019, and current Postmaster General Louis DeJoy reportedly pulled in $303,460 the following year.
Last August, the USPS warned 46 states and the District of Columbia that their absentee voting rules were “incongruous” with the agency’s delivery standards and could result in uncounted ballots. Ironically, Postal Service General Counsel Thomas Marshall was especially concerned about Pennsylvania and Michigan, due to their short deadlines (one week and four days, respectively) between requesting absentee ballots and having them show up in time to be counted. “As a result,” he wrote, “to the extent that the mail is used to transmit ballots to and from voters, there is a significant risk that, at least in certain circumstances, ballots may be requested in a manner that is consistent with your election rules and returned promptly, and yet not be returned in time to be counted.”
DeJoy was called to testify before Congress, where he was accused of deliberately sabotaging USPS operations ahead of the election. This was likely because DeJoy was reportedly a “Trump ally” and thus could not be trusted to do his job.
Despite that concern, the election proceeded and voters cast a record-setting 65 million ballots by mail, or approximately 41% of the total vote.
Democrats, under the guise of eliminating voter “suppression,” would like to make mass mail-in voting a permanent part of the electoral landscape. “The For the People Act of 2021” is a well-strategized effort to make a complete mockery of anything resembling election integrity. It requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal election, or during early voting, and limits their authority to remove registrants from official lists of eligible voters based on interstate crosschecks of voter registration. It also prohibits the use of returned, non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing registered voters from the rolls, eliminates rules requiring witness signatures, and prohibits states from imposing restrictions on an individual’s ability to vote by mail. It also requires states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote — in lieu of presenting photo ID.
That the bill would supersede states’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to set their own election laws? For far too many Democrats, the Constitution is not a guideline for American government and society. It is instead an “impediment” used to enshrine “systemic racism.”
And when Republicans fight back? “Although most legislative sessions are just getting underway, the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute, has already tallied more than 100 bills in 28 states meant to restrict voting access,” the AP reports. “More than a third of those proposals are aimed at limiting mail voting, while other bills seek to strengthen voter ID requirements and registration processes, as well as allow for more aggressive means to remove people from voter rolls.”
Decent Americans might ask themselves a simple question: What’s wrong with any of those proposals? As our Mark Alexander reminds us, “Democrats are not interested in election integrity. The only way to ensure the integrity of our election process is to require in-person voting, requiring the voter to present proper identification, and perhaps resorting to paper balloting.”
Ironically, even dedicated leftists know it. Despite the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post championing mail-in voting, Jeff Bezos-owned Amazon is less enchanted with using mail-in voting to determine whether or not the retail giant will be unionized. “We believe that the best approach to a valid, fair and successful election is one that is conducted manually, in-person, making it easy for associates to verify and cast their vote in close proximity to their workplace,” the company said in statement.
The most daunting part of this transparent disconnect? Our ruling class elites no longer feel even mildly compelled to hide their rank hypocrisy. We have reached a perilous point where wholesale corruption is justified by a media that automatically labels any calls for voter integrity as “racist” — even though there’s nothing more racist than automatically assuming that minority Americans are somehow fundamentally incapable of procuring the very same voter ID everyone else is capable of procuring. (Those very same minorities, by the way, have procured ID necessary to board planes, visit a doctor’s office, apply for a mortgage, etc.)
Last week, in a Time Magazine article, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” columnist Molly Ball crowed about how Big Tech, BLM, organized labor, and big business colluded to “save” America from a Donald Trump reelection. “Mail in voting was a critical component of their strategy,” she writes. “In the end, nearly half the electorate cast ballots by mail in 2020, practically a revolution in how people vote.”
It is a revolution Democrats wish to make permanent — just like their grip on power. Republicans can either wise up and fight back or face a simple reality: People who have no faith in the system will not participle in it.
For the GOP, that means de facto extinction. Even worse? That extinction will be self-administered. ~The Patriot Post
The Elites Try to Control Reality
If you’re an American who prefers independent thought, and if your thoughts, speech, and behavior stray from the edicts of the governing elite, prepare to be publicly shamed, marginalized, canceled, and, in some cases, unemployed, silenced, and essentially ground to powder. Let’s look at a few examples of these elite asserting their power.
In a Tennessee middle school, a black female principal sent a school newsletter to parents announcing the theme of Black History Month. Christy Caldwell Drake is the daughter of Dr. Virgil Caldwell, the late pastor and prolific author serving at a prominent African American Church in the Brainerd Community of Chattanooga. She hoped to increase the participation in the month-long commemoration but instead lit the fire of controversy — even in a county public school system where 35% of the students are black, 27% are white, and 36% are Hispanic. Ms. Caldwell Drake, inspired by a mural in the school’s entrance that read, “Where Every Child Matters,” thought to lead her incredibly diverse middle school to greater unity by announcing February’s theme to be “All Lives Matter.” For that she has been written up in the regional printed paper, featured on area TV news outlets, discussed on talk radio, and forced to apologize and return to the “Black Lives Matter” declaration.
For another example, look at Wall Street’s anger from the well-heeled investment funds after the Reddit group, WallStreetBets, reversed the fortune of the GameStop stock, causing a halt in trading to stem the losses of the Big Firms. NBC News distills it down to be a financial power struggle between a major hedge fund and a group of amateur stock traders who air grievances on the Internet. This group seriously messed with several companies — GameStop, Bed Bath & Beyond, and AMC Theaters — but the establishment media doesn’t seem as interested in the underlying question: Who gets to influence the financial markets in America? Is it so surprising to see the average amateur grow tired of the mistreatment?
Finally, making a statement of fact has ended as expected for a Christian news website on Twitter. Daily Citizen, operating under the umbrella of Focus on the Family — whose mission statement is to have “redeemed families, communities, and societies worldwide through Christ” — had its social media account suspended for acknowledging that the nominee of President socialist/ scumbag/liar- Joe Biden to serve as the assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health & Human Services is a biological male. The Daily Citizen (@FocusCitizen) tweeted on January 19: “On Tuesday, President-elect socialist/scumbag/liar-Joe Biden announced that he had chosen Dr. Rachel Levine to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of HHS. Dr. Levine is a transgender woman, that is, a man who believes he is a woman.” Deemed “hateful” rhetoric, this comment caused the offending Christian site to be canceled and silenced for posting a photo of a biological male (born Richard Levine) dressed in women’s attire, using what appears to be facial cosmetics. According to FactFiles.com, Levine attended a boys’ prep school, graduated medical school as a male, and identified as such until his “transition” in 2011, followed by the divorce of his wife and mother of their two children in 2013.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, brilliant conservative author and the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, in his book The Vision of the Anointed spoke of “the mindset of many of the people in academia, among the media elite, and in politics.” This elitist mindset is prevalent “particularly among those who think that various solutions should be imposed from the top down on the way people live their lives.” Why? Well, he explains, “They think they’re just so much smarter than other people.” Dr. Sowell notes that the anointed elite view those who disagree with them as civilly, even morally, wrong, assuming the moral high ground each time.
In 2021, scientific fact, social standards, and moral decisions are all in the hands of the “anointed,” holding power for the purpose of eliminating competition, silencing the little guy and gal, and reconstructing the world of facts as we know and need it. Beware! ~The Patriot Post
DAVID LIMBAUGH
The Tyrannical Left's Sinister Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives
Why does the left want to silence conservatives? Why do rank-and-file Democrats go along with this abomination? Leftists have bad intentions, but how about the Democrats who enable them? I prefer to think they’ve being manipulated.
As worried as we should be about the hyper-exploding national debt and our inevitable fiscal catastrophe, I am even more worried about the left’s success in turning America into a police state (ironic, given its simultaneous war on the police).
People still able to summon their rational faculties during this pandemic have to be concerned about this insane, concerted effort to control people’s thoughts and speech. How can those who purport to rage against the fascism of former President Donald Trump, which was an abject Democratic and media myth, promote actual fascism in our culture?
It strains the mind to imagine that fair people can deceive themselves into believing that silencing and canceling people for “offensive” views is consistent with our liberty tradition. Some rationalize that because the government is not the moving agency in this censorship, and because the Constitution only restricts state action, not that of private entities, there is no violation of our constitutional principles.
They can lie or fool themselves, but don’t let them fool you. Let’s not pretend that this consortium of overblown, unaccountable digital oligarchs does not represent an equal threat to our speech. If you can live with censorship by these immensely powerful companies, then you don’t believe in the spirit of constitutional liberties. They are just nice-sounding platitudes — a means to justify their end of gaining control over the people.
The left has been quite strategic in its sinister plans to silence and control conservatives. If it could sufficiently demonize us, it could emasculate us as effective opponents of its agenda.
Leftists have laid the groundwork for decades, along with their other extremist ideas they are now peddling as mainstream. They’ve persistently hammered the narrative that conservative speech is inherently hateful and inciteful, leading people to violent behavior. They’ve framed mainstream conservative ideas and speech as racist, bigoted, homophobic, devoid of compassion and hateful.
Some conservatives naively claim the left has so overdone the race slander that it has lost its effectiveness and no longer warrants a response. How can people be so oblivious? The smear is more powerful and malleable than ever. Leftists have exploited it to drive their open-borders policy — essentially arguing that America is the first nation in the history of the world that doesn’t have a right to control its own borders and pretending it could survive if it were to give up that control.
They’re using it to advance socialism, arguing that our “racist” past requires us to scrap the founding principle of equality of opportunity and replace it with “equity,” a euphemism that means guaranteed equality of outcomes. Equality under the law and equality of opportunity mean nothing anymore, nor does justice, whose meaning has likewise been perverted in service to the leftist cause. Justice is now social justice, which also means cashiering principles of equality in favor of forcing equal outcomes. “White privilege,” critical race theory and “systemic racism” are part of the same mix. The racism smear has even found its way into climate change and pandemic politics. It’s embarrassing how mind-numbed we’ve become.
In order to credibly argue that we need a fundamental reordering of our constitutional and judicial systems, leftists must show that America is irredeemably drenched in the sin of racism and can only expatiate itself through the atonement of socialism, reparations, guaranteed universal income, outright wealth redistribution and the rest.
This is why I keep saying the endless vendetta against Donald Trump is not primarily about Donald Trump. He is a convenient scapegoat to taint the entire conservative movement. If they can succeed with their preposterous claim that the 74 million Trump supporters were accessories before the fact to the few hundred or so people who stormed the Capitol, then they’ve made a prima facie case that conservative ideas — and conservative speech — are intrinsically hateful and dangerous. What’s the big deal, after all, of silencing “domestic terrorists”?
It’s hard to say I’m exaggerating, when we a movement to destroy NFL icon Tom Brady because he won’t denounce Trump is commonplace. Disgracefully, this censorship crusade is being pushed by the very people who have a particular duty to safeguard free speech, i.e., the mainstream media. Did you see that CNN’s Brian Stelter — the network’s ostensible media watchdog, no less — is freely claiming that cable providers should drop Fox News? Stelter has the audacity to assert that this isn’t about freedom of speech but “freedom of reach.” So, the adaptable left is employing yet another euphemistic sleight of hand to marshal the private sector to shut down its political opposition.
What are these leftists afraid of? The fact that Stelter — and he’s just one of many — even wants to chill our speech, whether through public sector or private sector means, is, well, chilling.
I am willing to give many grassroots Democrats the benefit of the doubt in assuming they don’t believe that their movers and shakers and digital and media consorts are trying to force uniformity of thought by silencing conservatives. But if present trends continue, they’ll have no reasonable grounds to deny the obvious. I would prefer to think that most socialist/scumbag/liar-Biden supporters would oppose using the awesome powers of digital media, mainstream media, government, academia, cultural shame and other methods to shut down conservatives, but only time will tell — a very short time. ~The Patriot Post
Replies