Leftists want a silenced, disarmed populace. From Lenin to Hitler to Harris, they want total control.
Don't take my word for it - while you still can, that is - go check the accurate, objective historical record.
No one who values freedom has ever tried to restrict speech.
In related news - to folks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the Bay Area - the First Amendment isn’t worth much without the Second Amendment. I write this carefully, because his name has become so overused, local Karens refer to the HOA Board Chairperson as “acting like Hitler,” but this is important to remember. One of the very first things Adolf Hitler did was take away all the guns from the Jews and anyone else he deemed a threat to the 1,000-year Reich.
It used to be a commonplace in American thought for politicians, teachers and, well, everyone to express our American values thusly: “I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
That sentence has never passed the lips of a modern Leftist Democrat.
Since their “ideas” are terrible, poorly formulated, economically, fiscally and morally destructive and are clearly unpopular, the only way for Leftists to “win” a public debate is to silence the rational people pointing out the stupidity and immorality of what Modern Democrats are trying to impose on the nation.
There are myriad examples of their hostility to free speech. As a good sommelier trains to provide the right selection to accompany a given meal, I try hard to cultivate choices that give my dear readers a representative sample of the sheer awfulness of the current enemies of freedom.
Orange Man Bad is a particular fixation of the censors. Good Lefty Fellow Travelers just cannot understand how the lumpen proletariat can think Donald Trump is not Evil Incarnate. So the Trump Derangement Sufferers instead of seeking treatment for their illness, try to force everyone not infected into totalitarian subjugation. Hmmmmm - that sounds familiar, somehow. Didn’t the same people fire thousands of expensively-trained military personnel for not getting a poorly-tested, unnecessary jab? Whatever happened to “my body - my choice?”
Back in 2019 X was still called Twitter. Here’s what Kamala Harris told CNN about her campaign to pressure Twitter to turn off Mr. Trump’s account:
He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
During the debates, she hammered on this theme of Twitter censoring the President of the United States, and why the Federal Government should have the right to silence anyone. Of course, Cackles & Company don’t call government restriction of free speech “censorship.” Oh no, of course not. They are “protecting the stupid average American from what they call ‘misinformation,’” which has a funny way of meaning “facts that Democrats don’t want citizens to hear.”
Her argument for shutting down the Trump account rested on an outrageous claim tying him to an El Paso shooting for which he was not responsible, and another bogus claim that criticizing the purported “whistleblower” that House Democrats would use for their partisan first impeachment amounted to threatening a witness. That night in Ohio, even CNN’s Mr. Tapper sounded skeptical:
TAPPER: So, without disputing that, let me ask you, but then there’s a slippery slope, right? I mean, does that mean anybody who writes about the whistleblower, anybody who questions the credibility of the whistleblower, that they shouldn’t have their articles, their statements on Twitter read also? I mean, that’s where it all starts heading.
HARRIS: I think that is a fine conversation for a law school debate, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about actual words issued by the president of the United States, unfiltered, which have clearly been threatening the life of witnesses to what might be a crime.
She didn’t say which actual words she considered a threat and of course there was no actual crime established in the Democrats’ partisan first impeachment effort, which ended with acquittal in the Senate in early 2020.
Kamala Harris didn’t want Mr. Trump to be able to defend himself in the public square. And that should concern every American, whether they support Mr. Trump or not.1
It never seems to occur to this “brilliant legal mind” that more speech is the only antidote to bad speech in a free society. Never mind that if she thought a crime had been committed, the best thing in the world would be to let the supposed guilty party talk, talk, talk. It is why every single good lawyer will tell you to shut your mouth if you get arrested. Don’t say a word except, “I want a lawyer.”
When the cop asks you your name, say, “My lawyer will tell you. Call him now.”
Anything after that will be used against you in a court of law. Not “may” be used against you. Shut your yap; let your lawyer do the talking.
So why would a veteran prosecutor who loved locking up young minority men in the Bay Area for low-level drug offenses want to silence someone she considers a serious criminal?
Vote accordingly.
Yup, it's because they are statists/etatists - those who are for omnipotent government and powerless citizens.
Great article. Anyone who thinks that "misinformation" and "hate speech" should be banned is clueless about free speech and the First Amendment. And they are usually also the very ones promoting misinformation and hate speech --- as we saw in both Russia hoaxes.