We have been discussing the rising support for censorship on the left in the last few years. Silencing opposing views has become an article of faith for many on the left, including leading Democratic leaders from President Joe Biden to former President Barack Obama. What is most distressing is how many journalists and writers have joined the call for censorship. However, even with this growing movement, the letter of hundreds of “literary figures” this week to Penguin Random House is chilling. The editors and writers call on the company to rescind a book deal with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett because they disagree with her judicial philosophy. After all, why burn books when you can effectivelyban them?
The public letter entitled “We Dissent” makes the usual absurd protestation that, just because we are seeking to ban books of those with opposing views, we still “care deeply about freedom of speech.” They simply justify their anti-free speech position by insisting that any harm “in the form of censorship” is less than “the form of assault on inalienable human rights” in opposing abortion or other constitutional rights.
Yet, the letter is not simply dangerous. It is perfectly delusional. While calling for the book to be blocked, the writers bizarrely insist “we are not calling for censorship.”
While the letter has been described as signed by “literary figures,” it actually contains many who are loosely connected to the “broader literary community” like “Philip Tuley, Imam” and “Barbara Hirsch, Avid reader.” It also includes many who are simply identified by initials or first names like “Leslie” without any stated connection.
Nevertheless, there are many editors and publishing figures who list their companies (including HarperCollins, Random House and other companies) and university presses (including Cambridge, Harvard, Michigan Northwestern, Oxford) with their titles in calling for censorship. The list speaks loudly to why dissenting or conservative authors find it more difficult to publish today. These are editors who are publicly calling for banning the publication of those who hold opposing views from their own.
It also includes academics like Ignacio Leopoldo Götz Römer, Stessin Distinguished Professor Emeritus, New College of Hofstra University and Carole DeSanti, Elizabeth Drew Professor of English Language and Literature, Smith College (and former VP and Exec Ed, PenguinRandomHouse).
The focus of the letter is the fact that Barrett voted with the majority in the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett has been the singled out in the past due to her judicial philosophy (which is shared by many federal judges and millions of citizens). Her home has been targeted and activists have published school information on her young children.
Recently, Rhodes College alumni sought to strip references to Barrett from the college because they disagree with her views. Her college sorority was even forced to apologize for simply congratulating her for being one of a handful of women to be nominated to the high court.
No attack appears to be beyond the pale for media or the left. Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks on her character and even had to face attacks referencing her children. Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claimed that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother.
The most striking aspects of these protests is the insistence that these individuals are still faithful to free speech as they seek to silence those with opposing views. The signatories express a common righteous rage to justify censoring others. We have seen this hypocrisy openly displayed by those who want to censor authors or journalists in the name of free speech or the free press.
Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.
Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
An article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
These are professors, writers, and editors who are sawing off the very branch upon which they sit. That would not be a problem but for the fact that they are doing lasting damage not only to free speech but their professions. For a writer to be against free speech is like an athlete being against exercise. It is the defining right for our country and an existential right for writers and academics.
This letter is not simply another manifestation of viewpoint intolerance. It is a statement of virtual self-loathing from people who work in the literary world; writers and editors who cannot abide the publication of opposing views.
The question is whether the companies listed with these signatories (including HarperCollins, Random House Cambridge, Harvard, Michigan Northwestern, and Oxford presses) will issue their own statements that they do not support such censorship and remain committed to publishing a wide array of views on issues like abortion.
As for Justice Barrett, such attacks are unlikely to deter her from ruling according to her long-held and well-established jurisprudential views. She does not deserve such attacks but these individuals are the face of rage in our society. It is the license of rage that can overwhelm every value. It is a general psychosis that overwhelms every countervailing value; it allows writers and editors to oppose free speech and expect us applaud them for it.
It is not that difficult. When it comes to the justices, we have learned to hate the way described by Queen Margaret in Shakespeare’s “Richard III” — “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.”
If you want to know who’s on the B-list in literature, it’s these signatories. Controlling speech is pseudointellectual.
The left, including the leadership of the Democrat Party, is trying to create a Reichstag Fire episode by claiming the right is responsible for the attack on Paul Pelosi, but their evidence is a false flag:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/exclusive-two-far-right-websites-attributed-david-depape-fabricated-created-friday-deleted-today/
Is it any wonder they want to control speech and ban books?
The right is responsible. You brainwashed him, now you own him.
Someone should archive all of these signatories for later use when the counter revolution commences in earnest. These people are Stalinist thugs who deserve a taste of their own medicine
Termination… [elective] abortion culture for social, redistributive, political, clinical, and fair weather causes.
Jesus said, because of an increased lawlessness “the love of many will wax cold.” Do not let your hearts become hardened against the “weightier matters of the law; namely justice and mercy and faithfulness.” “Stop judging that you may not be judged.” “He who judges without mercy will have his own judgement without mercy.” “Mercy exalts triumphantly over judgment.”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” “There is no man who does not sin” “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god.” You cannot earn grace, for if you earn it it is not longer grace.
Censorship is and always has been a 2 way street. It is not a left right thing. The history of censorship in the US is far more prevalent on the right than the left—-that is a historical fact. Regardless, this is bad territory to travel in.
[Citation needed]
With few exceptions modern history has been a fight AGAINST censorship – with significant censorship being the NORM.
That fight has been lead by libertarians – who for the most part would have been called the left of their time.
Today is very unusual – we have reversed a more than 2 century trend of decreasing censorship – and it is the left that is leading the charge to increase censorship.
Regardless, it is important to distinguish ideologies as left and right do not work well.
Conservatism inherent is the ideology of resistance to changing long held values.
That has Always been on the right.
Real conservatism does not seek any change beyond undoing recent changes.
Progressivism is the ideology that believes that some combination of science and bigger government can bring about near utopia.
Libertarianism is the ideology of greater individual freedom, and less government.
Those labels have consistent application accross history.
Left/Right do not,
Republican/Democrat do not.
Even the meaning of liberal is not consistent over time.
Conservatives are anti-censorship today – because modern censorship is a NEW development.
Conservatives oppose rapid change.
As many of us have stated for several years. They, the delusional far left, will censor and if that does not work, kill those that do not agree with their belief system. They simply cannot accept anything else. Of course, this is exactly how communism works, there can be zero dissent otherwise the system falls apart. Tyranny only works when 100 percent participate.
The few who benefit from the enslavement of the citizenry and “the dictatorship of the proletariat” PARTICIPATE, the rest live lives of oppression and quiet desperation.
Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production, Redistribution of Wealth, Social Engineering
People are forced to centrally plan by being forced to purchase commercial products such as electric cars, solar panels, LED light bulbs, homes in new communities with “affordable housing,” etc., to endure bureaucratic regulation of the means of their production and their big and small business, take from each hard-working person according to his ability, and gift the proceeds to each dependent, leech, parasite, illegal alien, foreigner, “asylum” seeker and hyphenate according to his need (wealthy students at Harvard need their unconstitutional loans from taxpayers paid off so they can get an increase in their checks from home).
Wait. That’s not communism, that’s the principles of communism being forced down the throats of once-free Americans, their Supreme Court having nullified their Constitution by omission and its failure to strike down that which has been unconstitutional for at least a century and a half.
Communist dictatorship is the new normal that Americans PARTICIPATE in.
That’s 100% tyranny.
The attackers of free speech represent the wealthiest strata of US society. It’s a joke to think these rich and hyper-privileged people are Marxists. Can we be serious about this battle? Being delusional on the basics makes the fight harder.
Cede power, lose liberty. Liberty does not come free.
No as has been historically true in the past they are powerful people who think they can control Marxists.
Whether it is the french revolution, or lenin’s russia, or Nazi germany there are nearly always rich people who think they can gain advantage through socialisms rise to power.
I think what you are describing is crony capitalism. It is when government colludes with capitalists. A perfect example is pharma, and we are watching it unfold in real time.
Americans enjoy freedom which includes enterprise which constitutes free enterprise.
Capitalism is a pejorative coined by Karl Marx.
Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress to power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and basic infrastructure (i.e. general, all or the whole, welfare), and the power to regulate ONLY the value of money, commerce among the States to preclude bias by one over another, and land and naval Forces.
Congress cannot tax to establish or sustain the current unconstitutional welfare state.
Congress cannot regulate anything other than money, commerce and land and naval Forces.
Americans were constituted to be free and self-reliant, and industries must self-regulate to preclude insolvency through litigation.
The American Framers severely limited and restricted government while they provided superior and maximal freedom to individuals.
Well look, capitalism was coined as a describing word before Marx, as you stated Marx used it in the negative and made the word popular. The beginning of capitalism can be found after the black plague. So may workers of the landowners died that there was an extreme shortage. The surviving workers found they could now negotiate for their labor,and that extra income led to small business formed to accommodate the newly found disposable income.
America simply expanded on this new found freedom, it always existed, but because of a feudal system that was entrenched for centuries, this new system of using ones own capital or labor, could never blossom. It took a major event like the plauge for all of this to change.
It was around the period of the great depression where politicians and big business found they could collude to each others advantage, political power for favors became the standard business and political practice. Today politicians should wear jump suits like the NASCAR drivers showing all of their sponsors, instead of their cheap off the rack suits. That would help us understand their voting record, to be sure.
I think if you pay close attention to writers like Jefferson he elaborates on how American ideals should favor owning land and ones own business. This was true freedom and the original idea of capitalism. The founders simply wanted to create an atmosphere were any individual could flourish.
Well said, and tyranny climaxes when desenters report themselves to the authorities for their just punishment.
A few days left to watch this free documentary…..
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/
Here we have another Massive Case of Censorship!!!
Dr McCullough appears in the above Doc many times & elsewhere the last 3 years.
Just because they cut a man’s Tongue Out doesn’t make what he was saying any less true.
So Puck those mass-murdering aholes.
BTW, Dr McCullough is one of the very best of the 18,000 plus doctors that are part of the group bring info to the gen pop.
*****************
BREAKING: Marxist Medical Boards Strip Top Dr. Peter McCullough’s Medical Credentials for Speaking the Truth About COVID Vaccine
By Jim Hoft
Published October 29, 2022 at 9:02am
810 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/breaking-marxist-medical-boards-strip-top-dr-peter-mcculloughs-medical-credentials-speaking-truth-covid-vaccine/
Yes sir, crucify him. That will put an end to his radical thoughts infecting other minds
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
This is another demonstration of what we already know, and that is the left in practice disassociating itself with the concept of free speech, even though they know enough to pay lip service to the idea. The silver lining I see is that they are making their extremism and rejection of American culture so clear that this can only end up biting them on their tails. Just like the transgender movement in public schools, the visible advocacy of ideas that most people don’t support may end up as their eventual undoing.
In one of his essays in the 1940s the great sociologist Robert Nisbet noted a characteristic of the American leftists: they regarded “the Truth” as both simple and easiy accessable (which I will dub “the Great Conceit”). Of course, tthey regarded themselves as the possessors of the Truth. Anyone who disputed their opinions were stupid or misinformed or corrupt. Things have not changed much. The current mania of the Left to supress “misinformation” rests on the assumption that the “misinformation experts” can accurately pass judgment on “truth vs untruth”, thus giving them the right, if not the duty, to violently supress all “wrong” ideas. Now, if it were true that the misinforation experts had such magical powers of divination, then we could all agree that they should govern the world for the benefit of all of us. But we know, that when tested against reality, the Great Conceit is nonsense. When Taylor Lorenz speaks, she shows herself to be an utter fool. Even a highly credentialed economist like Paul Krugman specializes in making wrong predictions. (This is not uncommon for leftwing economists. The predictions of Paul Samuelson in Newsweek were generally inaccurate.) Indeed, the whole history of the Left is a story of folly, e.g., their worship of the Soviet Union. Where the Left governs, people suffer. Leftists cannot be argued out of their Great Conceit because it is emotionally satisfying for them. Instead, Republicans need to attack the economic and institutional power of the Left, especially in schools and media, The battle for America and freedom can be won if Republican leaders understand that they are not engaged in a policy dispute, but rather in a battle for survival. Our clueless leaders must rise to the challenge.
VOTING FOR “FREE STUFF” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
You seem so smart. There is no point to leftists or a leftist movement because the Constitution is conservative. Leftists cannot vote for the welfare state because the welfare state is unconstitutional. The singular American failure is the Supreme Court, the Justices of which have failed to fulfill their sworn-oath duty to support the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution and not legislate, modify legislation or modify legislation through corrupt, arbitrary and unconstitutional “interpretation.”
The dictatorship of the intelligentsia and all other dictatorships were precluded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. America has elections for “free stuff” for dependents and parasites. The “truth” is that the democrats cannot vote for “free stuff” because all of it is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court had been exercising Judicial Review, all laws and programs that regulate endeavor, redistribute wealth and socially engineer, in all their various forms, would have been struck down upon their proposition since 1803. Article 1, Section 8, taxation restrictions on Congress to debt, defense and basic infrastructure, the same article’s restriction on regulation to 1) the value of money, 2) commerce among States merely to preclude bias and favor by on over another, and 3) land and naval Forces, and the absolute right to private property, cause matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., to be unconstitutional from their conception.
Another King George? Taxation without representation has never been an American ideal.
George, you left out the nail the left has always used to hang all that spending on. The General Welfare clause. That is vague enough to cover everything you claim to be unconstitutional from conception. I know, as you do, that a proper reading of Article 1 section 8 would conclude that the specifics that follow the General Welfare clause are intended to be its exclusive definition, but it is too late to put that toothpaste back into the tube.
Thank you so much for your irrefutable brilliance.
Words mean things.
General means all, which means the whole.
The Framers used defined words in the Constitution to facilitate understanding by all or the whole population.
That you don’t understand, does not bear.
General Welfare means ALL WELL PROCEED.
Commodities and services necessary for ALL, or the WHOLE, to proceed well are water, sewer, roads, electricity, post office, trash pick-up, etc.
Social Security, Medicare, cash assistance, food stamps, public housing, Obamacare, social services, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, etc., constitute individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity, not “general” or all.
The Constitution does not provide Congress any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dictionary.com
general
[ jen-er-uhl ]
adjective
of or relating to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
general
adjective
gen·er·al | \ ˈjen-rəl
, ˈje-nə- \
Definition of general
1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
Excellent and a keeper. Thanks
I had no idea there was a “General Welfare clause.” Are you referring to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, wherein the power of Congress to tax is severely limited and restricted to debt, defense and “…general Welfare…,” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any and all power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity.?
To wit,
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…
@ wiseoldlawyer—Absolutely, our Constitution Lite was made possible by one bad precedent used upon another until will have this thing called the Constitution of the United States. At this point the only answer is to either split the country up, at least in two. Or, somehow gain enough states to band together to destroy Federalism as we now know it. Roe v Wade decision of late was a refreshing start, but it is a small beginning. Ha, that decision alone could be enough to start a state segregation push from the left. Of course, there is always the possibility of civil war, that would be the worst of all outcomes.
That is a moronic rant. It leaves out so many variables that your simplistic mind cannot even comprehend. I’m not defending modern leftists but the Maga crowd is leading the nation away from any chance at national redemption, all in the misnomer of America First. In 2022 that is so simple minded it is ridiculous of any logical consideration. Capitalism destroyed American exceptionalism once it pursued its own hegemony. The American fable is we defeated the Germans in WWll. We were impactful? Definitely. But we weren’t the only impactful nation. To quote a Proverb, “Pride comes before the fall.”
“Capitalism destroyed American exceptionalism”
How? It improved the standard of living worldwide. Admittedly capitalism isn’t perfect. You can tell us what is or at least what is better.
You seem to feel that capitalism represents only greed. It doesn’t. For most, it is a transaction that permits people to improve their well-being.
There are two sides to the equation. The one you see is the one that achieves only selfish needs. But, to do this, one has to concern themselves with others they trade with. Person one must recognize what person two wants and needs, otherwise the transaction will never take place. Often people forget Adam Smith was a philosopher and only look at one-half of what he is saying.
In other words, for one to improve their own well-being, they have to anticipate the needs of another, so that their well-being will improve as well. Said another way, one has to look at others and understand what will help them as well as oneself.
Kidr, let us be open, honest, and accurate.
” the Maga crowd is leading the nation “
It sounds like you object to the MAGA crowd. Assume I am one of them and convince me that the direction of the MAGA movement is wrong. Do that by telling me where the MAGA movement is straying off course.
“any chance at national redemption”
America is a nation like all others and has warts as every nation or individual will have. Why should America need redemption? Its effect on the world is positive. Whether you wish to believe it or not, America’s existence has brought billions out of starvation. It has raised the standard of living worldwide.
” misnomer of America First.”
Why is this a misnomer? When we enter the political world, we elect leaders not to serve the people of North Korea but to serve Americans. What is wrong with that?
“I’m not defending modern leftists”
Good, they are advocating an ideology that is self evidently evil – that has historically resulted in massive bloodshed and is obviously ineffecient and therefore negatively impacts standard of living.
“the Maga crowd is leading the nation away from any chance at national redemption”
Why is there a need for “national redemption” ?
It is absolutely inarguable that the US has been a massive net positive force int eh world historically.
The few nations in the world with higher standards of living are not diverse and are tiny and without consequential influence.
The US has raised more people from poverty and continues to do so.
We have a massive fight over immigration right now. But that fight is not over whether the US will have zero or 1M poor immigrants per year, it is over whether it will have 1M or 3+M.
This country has been absorbing atleast 1M new immigrants – most coming in total poverty each year for 50 years.
More than 10% of the country is foreign born and yet our standard of living has DOUBLED.
In america the streets are paved with gold – metaphorically, and people from all over the world want to come here – hundreds of millions want to come here.
Whether those of you on the left like it or not
American IS the land of opportunity.
This country does not need “redemption” – the world has spoken – the very people the left claims are the victims of purported american sins – want to come HERE.
America first is not a Misnomer. It is a simple FACT that applies to every country in the world.
It is ALWAYS the responsiblity of every country to take care of its citizens FIRST
“In 2022 that is so simple minded it is ridiculous of any logical consideration.”
Sometimes fundamental truths are quite simple. Any nations that does not put the interests of its citizens first will perish.
“Capitalism destroyed American exceptionalism once it pursued its own hegemony.”
What nonsense.
American exceptionalism has weakened – because of the growing strength of the left, but it is not gone.
And free markets by definition require near absolute hegemony.
You conflate corporatism – which is a child of ever more powerful government with free markets.
They are not the same.
The left correctly identifies Nazi Germany and Mousloini’s Italy as corporatist. Failing to grasp that corporatism is not incompatible with socialism,
That is the direction the CCP is headed. And unfortunately as the left gains power that is also the direction the US is headed.
ObamaCare has obliterated all but the largest entities in healthcare – much as the FDA destroyed all but the biggest entities in drugs.
Bigger government ALWAYS means more big business and less small business.
It also ALWAYS means a near unbreakeable incestuous relationship between big business and big government.
“The American fable is we defeated the Germans in WWll.”
Nope.
“We were impactful? Definitely.”
Sorry but we were instrumental.
Read Churchill – he has written extensive histories – I beleive he has 7 volumes specifically about WWII.
Churchill bet the entire British empire against Hitler’s Germany, and he did so KNOWING all the time, that he would lose if he did not get the US into the war. WW II is “Britain’s finest hour” – you talk about redemption. If Britain needed redemption ever, it bought that redemption in blood in the early years of WW II when Britain stood alone.
“But we weren’t the only impactful nation.”
Correct, But we were instrumental.
I would further note that the US CHOSE to get involved in Europe against the Axis.
We could have left Britian and the USSR to fight Germany alone.
Had we done so, either Germany would have defeated the USSR and later Britiain, or they would have fought to a stalemate.
But Nazi Germany was not going to be defeated without the US.
US war production was more than half the entire allied War production,
and almost double the entire axis war production.
We were not merely impactful.
“To quote a Proverb, “Pride comes before the fall.””
Wise advice – you should consider it personally.
Citations please. That was a remarkable diatribe. Being vacuous and incoherent only enhanced its effect. The only things you left out were the facts.
One ponders what provides you such monumental courage and fortitude – perhaps, affirmative action and a vast array of governmental support and assistance programs?
It is amazing that a Harvard professor who has studied American law would think that Chinese style censorship is a better way to go. His desire must be to get more use out of the jackboots gathering dust in his closet. This is no different then saying that the censorship of disinformation by the Third Reich is the way that we should go. According to his philosophy we would have never known about the Tiananmen Square massacre. https://www.history.com/topics/china/tiananmen-square. Perhaps the poor fellow is suffering from to many doses of LSD or Chinese fentanyl. Why have none of his students called for his dismissal. I am not calling for his dismissal because of his speech but I am calling out the hypocrisy of his fellow sojourners on their self imposed path to serfdom.
That’s not “Chinese-style” censorship, it’s COMMUNIST-style censorship.
Ex-China Chinese people enjoy free speech pervasively.
Looking for a clearer understanding of the current administration, democratic leadership, the party flock, and the Wokes pathos (as in desolation; devastate, lay waste to), I reasoned they fit either one or both of distinct schizophrenic characteristics defined below. [Definitions by Merriam Webster]
“Hebephrenia schizophrenia, a form of schizophrenia characterized especially by incoherence, delusions lacking an underlying theme, and an affect that is usually flat, inappropriate, or silly.”
“Echolalia schizophrenia is often a pathological repetition of what is said by other people as if echoing them”: which could also define the leftist press in America.
What sane person or group: Would fear free speech, support and allow criminals (insane and otherwise) to live and roam the streets, admit immigrants without regard to laws, spend America’s fortune (your taxes) at an obscene rate on quizzical items while ignoring pressing ones, or allow children to dictate the path.
Over here the grass is greener, and the blossoms soooo very pretty, oh look a Butterfly!
Honestly, ANYONE still adhering to prog/left ideologies at this point must be held with a great deal of suspicion concerning their mental abilities. There is no other way to reconcile commitment to all the nincompoopery,corruption, obfuscation and radical idiocy eminating from the left at this time. Clearly these “believers” are either so conditioned to not rationally question actions or they are delusional as to the impact of such actions. In total, I think a good portion of our population has gone past the point of no-return to be considered sane adults and have become usleless flotsam to be endured/monitored until they age out.
Martin Luther was harangued by the Roman Catholic church because he translated the Bible from Latin to German so that all the people could read it and not just rely on the word of the papistry. They were willing to censor the distribution of the word of God. History has taught us that censorship has always been used for the purpose of maintaining power. Things are not much different today. The censors of today are not much different than the the censors of the past. They wanted to keep the populace under their thumb then and they want to keep the populace under their thumb now. If they have their way they will demand that every Gutenberg press be thrown on the glowing embers of the fire. There will be exemptions for the presses in the press rooms of the mainstream media. Freedom of the press is not their favorite freedom.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are the direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis: Freedom and Self-Reliance, America’s Founders and Framers, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Americans and America.
_______________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Wait. “ Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are the direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis:”
Firstly, I never heard of an AINO. As for the others I am forced to ask, are they unAmerican, or are you who disagree with their perspectives unAmerican? I suspect it’s the latter. In which case, you become the autocrat. Which should I choose? Feed the hungry or the poor be damned? I know which I’d choose, but do you? Or can you even admit your real choice?
The modern US left is distinctly UNamerican – not because those on the right say so.
But because most on the left say so themselves.
You hint at that with your nonsense that this country needs redemption.
NO it does not. It is imperfect and its history has many bad acts.
But the net is overwhelmingly positive – the rising standard of living – particularly that of those that YOU constantly fawn over, is proof of that.
We all admire Mother Theresa. But it is inaguable that Musk or Bezos or even Trump have done more actual good in their lives than Mother Theresa.
They are responsible for the rise in standard of living – not left win government, not charity.
We have solid data from all over the world, from the US, from the OECD, form the past 50 years., 100years, 200years,
That for each 10% of GDP that government consumes the rate of increase in standard of living declines 1%.
If your goal is to improve the lot of the poor, the least well off – nothing will accomplish that more or faster than cutting government in half.
At 1% growth it takes 71 years to double standard of living.
At 2% it takes 37 years.
The growth rate during Obama was 1.5% that is also Europe’s average growth rate for the past 50 years.
Under Bush it was 2%
That is the average growth rate of the 21st century
At 3% it takes 25 years.
Growth under Trump – including 2020 was just under 3%
20th century growth averaged 3.5%
At 4% standard of living doubles every 19 years.
That is the growth rate under Clinton and Reagan – Reagan is notable because he had a severe recession at the start of his term.
at 5% standard of living doubles every 15yrs
at 6% it doubles every 13 years
at 7% it doubles ever 12 years
That is the growth rate in much of the 19th century
I imagine their efforts have done a great deal to promote her upcoming book, not their intention, I am sure, but this will be the outcome much to their surprise. What hypocrisy and smug arrogance.
Sign me up! Speaking as one who would not likely have paid to read a book written by a Supreme Court Justice, I will gladly add this to my growing collection of works written by controversial authors.
Brown shirt rule.
In America, let that sink in
C’mon Joe, Scranton is calling.
Although Justice Barrett just concurred with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the authors of this letter claim to understand that Justice Barrett’s prime rational for concurrence was her Catholic faith even though the majority opinion did not state or allude to anything extraconstitutional rationale. The irony is that we have a large group of “authors” who apparently have mind reading abilities but on the other hand are poor document readers. The letter is also mistaken in its claim that the UN declaration of universal rights supports abortion. It says nothing of the kind. Another reading failure. Finally, I find it shameful that James Dover Grant (aka Lee Child) a British citizen (CBE no less) is signing on a letter attempting to prevent an American justice from publishing a book by an American publisher – no doubt about it.
You should represent the Justice, pro bono, in a civil suit against these signers for tortious interference with her contract with Penguin.
Here are the elements in Michigan: “The elements of tortious interference with a contract are (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) an unjustified instigation of the breach by the defendant.” [If you need the cite, let me know.] Good thought Likins, but, the irony or ironies is that the interference will be claimed justified on the grounds of exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
And in October of 2020, just before the Presidential election, 51 ‘intelligence professionals’ signed a statement that the Hunter Biden laptop was had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.
We live in very different times in American than we did before the world-wide web, the information superhighway, got serious traction, and its abusers have led us here.