In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free speech movement that is now sweeping over the United States. While not the first, it is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens.
As discussed in the book, our own anti-free speech movement began in higher education where it continues to rage. It then metastasized throughout our politics and media. It is, therefore, not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further a decline in students’ views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses.
The study shows that 70 percent of students “believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during classroom discussions.
Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance shown on most campuses.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
The most alarming finding may be that only 54 percent of students believe that colleges should “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased.” That figure stood at 78 percent in 2016.
The poll follows similar results in a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of the population as a whole. It found that 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. So there is now a majority who believe that the First Amendment, including their own rights, should be curtailed.
The most supportive of limiting free speech are Democrats at a shocking 61%. However, a majority (52%) of Republicans also agreed.
Roughly 40% now trust the government to censor speech, agreeing that they trust the government “somewhat,” “very much,” or “completely” to make fair decisions about what speech should be disallowed.
It is no small feat to convince a free people to give up their freedoms. They have to be afraid or angry. These polls suggest that they appear both very afraid and very angry.
It is the result of years of indoctrinating students and citizens that free speech is harmful and dangerous. We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes.
Anti-free speech books have been heralded in the media. University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has written how dangerous free speech is for the nation. Her book, “Attack from Within,” describes how free speech is what she calls the “Achilles Heel” of America, portraying this right not as the value that defines this nation but the threat that lurks within it.
McQuade and many on the left are working to convince people that “disinformation” is a threat to them and that free speech is the vehicle that makes them vulnerable.
This view has been pushed by President Joe Biden who claims that companies refusing to censor citizens are “killing people.” The Biden administration has sought to use disinformation to justify an unprecedented system of censorship.
Recently, the New York Times ran a column by former Biden official and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu describing how the First Amendment was “out of control” in protecting too much speech.
Wu insists that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” He claims that the First Amendment “now mostly protects corporate interests.”
There is even a movement afoot to rewrite the First Amendment through an amendment. George Washington University Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be rewritten to “redo” the work of the Framers.
Her new amendment suggestion replaces the clear statement in favor of a convoluted, ambiguous statement of free speech that will be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” It then adds that “all conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”
Franks has also dismissed objections to the censorship on social media and insisted that “the Internet model of free speech is little more than cacophony, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . If we want to protect free speech, we should not only resist the attempt to remake college campuses in the image of the Internet but consider the benefits of remaking the Internet in the image of the university.”
Franks is certainly correct that those “unlikeable voices” are less likely to be heard in academia today. As discussed in my book, faculties have largely cleansed with the ranks of conservative, Republican, libertarian, and dissenting professors through hiring bias and attrition. In self-identifying surveys, some faculties show no or just a handful of conservative or Republican members.
The discussion on most campuses now runs from the left to far left without that pesky “cacophony” of opposing viewpoints.
One of the most dangerous and successful groups in this anti-free speech movement has been Antifa. I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”
In the meantime, Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to “deplatform” speakers on campuses and public forums. “Your speech is violence” is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators.
Antifa is now so popular in some quarters that it recently saw two members elected to the French and European parliaments.
Antifa is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. It is laid out in Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” in which he emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
However, the most chilling statement may have come from arrested Antifa member Jason Charter after an attack on historic statues in Washington, D.C. After his arrest, Charter declared “The Movement is winning.” As these polls show, he is right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
First of all, I have the highest respect for you, Jonathan. When I disagree with you, I seriously look at my own opinions because there is a good chance I’m wrong. I also thought this column was great, and I shared it with a number of people, something I don’t do all that often anymore. People read so little that I save my shares for the most important articles. This was one of them.
That said, although I am terrified by the survey, I have some concerns about it, and I wonder if all the students knew what they were actually saying in their answers. (Some, perhaps many undoubtedly did.) But what is left out is that decent people do and always have self-censored…because words can be extremely hurtful. Even before CRT, a decent person would not say to an overweight person, “You are a fat pig. You look terrible, and worst of all, you are extremely unhealthy.” They might wait for an opening to gently address the unhealthy part, but they would not just say all that. The problem is when being a jerk becomes illegal or officially punished when in the past it would just mean such people had no friends. But even worse, now we can’t talk, we can’t express a thought, much less an opinion, we can’t play with ideas, we can’t brainstorm solutions to problems. And people are claiming to be “hurt” and “offended” by someone else’s differing thoughts on any and every topic. But that doesn’t mean that words can’t be very hurtful or that we shouldn’t self-censor in certain situations. (Obviously, I know that you know this.) The problem with this survey is that you can’t tell what was really meant by some of the questions.
For example, one of the people I sent this article to is my 15-year-old grandson. He is a super great kid–a top student, a star athlete, a strong Christian, and an all-around nice kid. He is also pro-freedom, real freedom. (Grandmothers can brag in a way parents can’t, and I rarely resist the temptation.) He answered me after having read just the beginning of the article, saying he actually agreed with the statement that speech can be violence. He then gave some examples and even quoted the Book of James on the evils of our tongues. At the same time, he affirmed that he strongly defends free speech. He then finished the article before finishing his response and added that he agrees with Jonathan and found the whole thing scary, even though he would have answered some of the questions in the same way. He strongly believes free speech should be protected, but he also thinks we should be nice, including watching our tongues. I think most nice people would agree with this. I did respond by reminding him that the Bible tells us how we should behave as individuals, but the government should not be policing this. He already knew this, but I thought it need to be said.
The problem with this survey is that it depends on how you interpret the statements. Looking at just the first one about speech being violence, the intent behind most of the people who came up with this idea is, “Speech is literally violence and should be regulated and punished just like violence is.” Others, however, may interpret this to mean, “Speech can really hurt, sometimes as much as violence, at least more minor violence. Therefore, we should think before we say mean things and keep some things to ourselves, even though obviously, the government should stay out of this.” We don’t know how many of the students who responded to this were coming at it this the second way, as my grandson did.
I think we need research to tease out how many of these people are actually anti-free speech and how many are just nice people who believe in being nice. The bottom line is that these results may not be as bad as they sound, although there are still way too many people who are actually anti-free speech. We also need to be sure that all people, especially the nice people who may have misunderstood the intent behind the statement, understand that we can’t really police niceness, nor should we. Furthermore, they need to understand that thoughts and opinions are being “policed” and punished, many of which are mainstream, normal opinions. They also need the reasoning behind free speech and to understand that the lack of it not only hurts us as individuals but makes it impossible to solve our problems. You are doing a wonderful job of this, Jonathan. I love your fight for free speech. Keep it up!
Bray, here’s an anti-antifa member summing up his approach to freedom of movement “it’s a non argument…you have the right to move about, but if you are an antifa POS, you have the right to be bludgeoned to pulp. In fact, it is the responsibility of all sane responsible freedom-loving people to do so bludgeon antifa to pulp.”
Bray is a smug a$$hat that should be given his presumed right to be shut up. Worthless, POS.
Bray is correct in that there is often oppression in the face of morons like him and antifa that espouse collectivist/marxist views. These people are cancers and should never be treated to the same rights as others who respect individual rights. Just as cancers are treated harshly in the body with tools that you wouldn’t use on anything else, antifa and similar collectivist cancers should be harshly, quickly, and unremorsefully. The rights that are given and honored by freedom loving people can and are used against them by these collectivist morons.
Antifa and the people that support(ed) them like portland mayor ted wheeler, charlottesville mayor michael signer, the NYC and Philly city councils, and the seattle & tacoma morons should be dragged through the streets and exiled to venezuela or some other 4hithole that represents their ideals better.
Seriously, these people are cancers and must be excised.
“In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free speech movement that is now sweeping over the United States.”
Using your website to plug your STUPID book in virtually every article is a pretty STUPID defense of “free speech,” just as is the Turley tactic of hiring attack trolls to bark at those with dissenting opinions — made all the worse because Turley is a HARDCORE lifelong democrat who voted for Obama, Hillary, AND Joetard, and is using a bunch of moronic delusional-and-misinformed republican idiologues to attack anyone that dares to point out how fraudulent this website is.
Professor Turley, Excellent summary of the contradictory ‘Movement’ against Free Speech. The battle cry ‘The movement is winning’ is only true IF we choose to believe it… I choose NOT to believe this backwards BS.. ANTIFA soldiers like Bray and Charter are the epitome of Fascists both in their thinking and behaviour, bashing Free Speech and smashing up\ burning up the property of others.. all so explicitly like Hilters ‘Brownshirts.. and yet produce an ‘..ANTI FASIT HANDBOOK..; ? Right…
* LORETTA
I’ll identify my comments as such. I can’t recall my email password etc.
Freedom of speech is similar to the freedom to smell roses, freedom to see a sunrise, freedom to taste Dutch apple pie, freedom to hear the birds song, the freedom to feel a soft sweater on a collective evening.
I have all the moving parts to produce a song .
*LORETTA
Thank you MT
Polling among universities? Give me a break. They are fully captured and hardly represent the rest of us. Stop sending your kids. Alumni, stop giving them money. They are already marginal, let’s remind them of the extent of that. Pretty weary of overly intellectual jacka**es that think they are anything but very overpaid baby sitters. 🙄🙄 the rest of us simply do not care. Stop. Sending. Your. Kids.
Kamala Harris did this. She will make the US collapse certain
###
“Dow PLUNGES nearly 500 points and unemployment rises amid fears of ‘US economic collapse’: ‘We didn’t expect it to get this bad'”
A US recession warning has been issued after global stocks plummeted amid widespread anxiety that the American economy is at risk of a financial “collapse”. These concerns have risen after the Federal Reserve’s refusal to cut interest rates earlier this week with many analysts wondering if the central bank has left it too late.
This Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 500 points, as investors’ fears over a recession moved closer to becoming reality. The Dow dipped 494.82 points, or 1.21 per cent, to end at 40,347.97. This comes as unemployment jumped to 4.3 per cent the highest since October 2021.
https://www.gbnews.com/money/recession-warning-interest-rate-us
“Dow PLUNGES nearly 500 points . . .”
And another 610 on Friday.
But according to Harris, it’s Trump’s fault. How? Who knows.
Jonathan: The Q is whether DJT is on the take? No one I think would be surprised. The issue has been raised by Salon in a headline article today “Federal investigators suspected that Egypt may have bribed Trump with $10 million in cash”. What’s that about?
Salon is reporting that in early January 2107 the Egyptian intelligence service withdrew $10 million from its bank account–in cash. This withdrawal took place just before DJT was inaugurated. Federal investigators believed the money was intended as a bribe by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fatah El-Sisi who wanted the new DJT administration to release millions in aid to Egypt–despite its dismal human rights record. And that is exactly what DJT did after he gained office.
No one has been able to prove there was a quid pro quo between DJT and El-Sisi. No one has been able to subpoena DJT’s bank records for the period in question. But FEC records show that in October of 2016 DJT injected $10 million into his campaign, describing it as a “loan”. And this came after DJT met with the Egyptian dictator in NY. What is curious is that DJT’s AG Bill Barr shut down the federal investigation in 2019 claiming there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the probe. No surprise again should be surprised because Barr spent much of his time in office protecting DJT.
Would DJT take a bribe? Consider this. DJT told the fossil fuel industry at a meeting at Mar-a-Lago recently that if they gave him $1 billion he would throw out all fossil fuel regs if he got back into office. DJT has always been for sale to the highest bidder.
So even if AG Garland were to reauthorize the investigation of the DJT/Egyptian connection how could he even prosecute DJT? Not after John Roberts “immunity” decision. Even if it could be proved that DJT took a bribe who could argue that was not an “official act” and immune from prosecution? In the view of Chief Justice Roberts a president accepting bribes from a foreign leader is just part of the job of the President!
Kamala Harris Now Leads Donald Trump in Eight National Polls
She is swallowing 8? Money says she can swallow 9
Pole dancing
Pole vaulting
Pole climbing
Pole smoking
Pole riding
Pole wrestling
Pole erecting
Pole swallowing
“You know what, I respect either one,” Trump said. “I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t. Because she was Indian all the way and then all of a sudden, she made a turn and she went, she became a Black person.”
Yea for free speech. trump gets to show us all how much of a racist he really is.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry). Throw another baby on the barbie, flambe a fetus, sequester her carbon, pin the tail on the Ass, it’s over. #HateLovesAbortion
The Paris Olympics is showing the world what misinformation looks like, all under the guise of “facts”, “science” and “fairness”. The photos of the Italian female boxer, Angela Carini, sobbing, after being pummeled for 46 seconds, by Algeria’s male boxer, Imane Khelif, grinning at her, capture perfectly the state of the world. The Far Left MSM is working overtime to generate lies, emotional obfuscation and talking points to support their irreligious dogmas. This is what Democrats represent: men beating on women.
The Olympic Boxing Match That Ignited a Gender Controversy
Wall Street Journal
IOC spokesman Mark Adams attempted to shut down any uncertainty by insisting: “They are women in their passports and it’s stated that this is the case, that they are female.” The IOC wants rules based on scientific evidence, although an athlete female at birth but considered a biological male could expose rivals to harm in competitions through physical advantages. “Testosterone is not a perfect test,” Mr Adams said. “Many women can have testosterone which is in what would be called ‘male levels’ and still be women and still compete as women….”So this panacea, this idea that suddenly you do one test for testosterone and that sorts everything out – not the case, I’m afraid.”
https://news.sky.com/story/imane-khelif-how-gender-boxing-row-created-one-of-the-most-contentious-olympics-contests-ever-13189076
Everything stated by IOC Mark Adams are lies. All of it. Here is what the science states, as recent as 2018:
Circulating testosterone as the hormonal basis of sex differences in athletic performance
Essential Points
It is widely accepted that elite athletic competitions should have separate male and female events
The main justification is that men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance mean that a protected female category, with objective entry criteria, is required
Prior to puberty, there is no sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and athletic performance
From male puberty onward, the sex difference in athletic performance emerges as circulating testosterone concentrations rise as the testes produce 30 times more testosterone than before puberty, resulting in men having 15- to 20-fold greater circulating testosterone than children or women at any age
This wide, bimodal sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and the clear dose-response relationships between circulating testosterone and muscle mass and strength, as well as the hemoglobin level, largely account for the sex differences in athletic performance
Based on the nonoverlapping, bimodal distribution of circulating testosterone concentration (measured by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry) with 95% references ranges of 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L in healthy men and 0 to 1.7 nmol/L in healthy premenopausal women—making an allowance for women with the mild hyperandrogenism of polycystic ovary syndrome, who are overrepresented in elite athletics—the eligibility criterion for female athletic events should be a circulating testosterone concentration of <5.0 nmol/L
source:
Handelsman DJ, Hirschberg AL, Bermon S. Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance. Endocr Rev. 2018 Oct 1;39(5):803-829. doi: 10.1210/er.2018-00020.
For the above mentioned scientific reasons, the IOC will not discuss the Algerian male’s testosterone level. The science has not changed. Politics has triumphed over reason, and the world knows it.
If Kamala Harris and Democrats win the upcoming election, one can safely expect that biological women will be beaten out of existence, leaving the nation with “women” like the Algerian boxer.
“If Kamala Harris and Democrats win the upcoming election, one can safely expect that biological women will be beaten out of existence, leaving the nation with “women” like the Algerian boxer.”
Give me a break. There is no war agains women, or christians, or muslims, or atheists. Well, perhaps there is a war against atheists being waged by trump supporters but hey, not by the left.
Calm down. When Kamala is President women will remain women and men will love it, including your orange god that said…”I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Two Indians walked into a bar: Senator Elizabeth Warren (Lying Dog) and Kamala Harris (Spread Eagle)
Are you really that dumb?
🙁
🙂
Estovir, this very good point needs to be brought to the attention of all congress with the goal of providing suitable enforceable laws.
Go for it!
There is nothing that nurtures the spirit of, and celebrates the dedication to, international athletic competition at the highest levels of a respective sport like a digression into trans community theatre and watching a 46-second exercise in gender violence.
#MeTooFkU
Estovir, this very good point needs to be brought to the attention of all congress with the goal of providing suitable enforceable laws.
Go for it!
Science was never your strong suit, David, as I have shown readers time after time.
Estovir, you wrote above “for the aforementioned scientific reasons, …”
Now are you going to go forward with what you said or are you too chicken?
As for me, I have had to correct on elementary matters of physics, dynamics. There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of science although most matters biological is not my strong suit.
Quit just scratching and get to work!
Estovir,
Harris wins, I think we are going to see this DEI nonsense, assault on women’s rights explode.
Jonathan….free expression of constructive ideation, with honesty, integrity and a commitment to unity and cohesion….absolutely.
There are “speech things” that obviously don’t quality, and I’ll just point out one. A Russian GRU officer trained in PsyOps, under orders to divide and conquer America in behalf of the Russian Empire — sits at his internet computer all day posting lies and propaganda impostering as Americans venting their hate and disgust at one another. He is professionally trained to nudge the unsuspecting toward making self-wounding decisions.
.
Traditionally, this “speech” would be considered hostile statecraft and perfectly sane to crack down on (censor), with U.S. govt. national security people leading the effort.
What do you call it? Do you draw the line anywhere? If so, say so, because the way you make your daily, 1-sided crusade in favor of “free speech” (never citing practical limits), one could easily assume you defend Boris conniving from St. Petersburg to undermine American’s faith in each other. If you do, you have much more thinking to do on this your favorite topic.
Information psyops, also referred to as information warfare.
This was an interesting article related to hostile statecraft.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/05/losing-hearts-and-minds-desperate-state-us-influence-operations/396889/
Abraham Lincoln believed wholeheartedly in the freedom of speech.
To wit,
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”5
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”
Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,
but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857
Kamala Harris is NOT a “natural born citizen” under the 14th Amendment nor as is she a natural born citizen under the SCOTUS ruling as explained in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
She IS a naturalized citizen, born in the US to TWO parents who were BOTH present in the US on student visa which BARRED them from establishing a domicile or being a resident alien.
Both were protected from the full jurisdiction of the US, lwing ANY “allegiance” and only partial obedience to the US.
If a child is born of two US parents present in Germany on non-immigrant visas, the child is NOT a german citizen. It is a natural born US citizen.
If a child born of two foreign citizens present in the US on non-immigrant visas AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’S BIRTH, that child is NOT a “natural born” US citizen.
A child MUST have at least one parent that is either a US citizen or present in the US on an immigrant visa, or be adjudicated as “resident” under special circumstance (which does not apply here) at the time of the child’s birth, AND be born on US soil if both parents are not US citizens or LEGALLY present on immigrant visa or have a green card.
Either the US Constitution means something or it doesn’t.
The facts are that :
Kamala Harris’s parents were both present in the US on non-immigrant student visas.
Neither owed any allegiance and only partial obedience nor were either subject to the full jurisdiction of the US when she was born.
The 14th Amendment has a 2 prong test. Both must be met to qualify as a natural born US citizen.
The Supreme Court, in it’s Wong Kim Ark decision, expressly defined the required status of the parents for their child to be deemed a natural born US citizen.
Kamala Harris, and Nikki Haley for the same reasons, fail the second test.
Neither is Constitutionally qualified to be elected to, wield the powers of, or occupy the Office of the President of the United States.
But the again, since when do the demokkkrats or their toadies at bar or in black robes ever give a rat’s arse about the US Constitution when it stands in their way to power.
You just have to love a good “barrack room lawyer” and their sanctimonious bloviating. The same way you have to grudgingly admire any ignoramus who courageously sticks to his opinion even when he is stupendously wrong on the facts. Ill considered and stupid but chutzpah nonetheless. If your barrack has an encyclopedia try looking up the concept known as “jus soli” citizenship in the United States. The Wong Kim Ark decision was based on this and found 6-2 in favor of him. It stipulated only two exceptions. Namely: 1) children born in the US of parents who were foreign diplomats, or 2) children who were born in the United Sates who were otherwise agents of a foreign government like foreign enemy combatants are not natural born citizens. Harris’s birth fits neither and her parents were indeed subject to US law while residing in country. Despise Harris’s candidacy for POTUS all you want, and there is much to despise, but the crap you wrote is not one of them.
Apologies: “who were otherwise agents” should read “who’s parents were otherwise agents”
She was born on US soil which makes her automatically a U.S. citizen.
We are talking about nefarious people here. One of the latest things that the Democrats are talking about is the Senate not renewing the child tax credit because the Republicans didn’t want to give Joe a win in an election year. The vote was 48 nays and 44 yeas. Well shut my mouth wide open. Who do you think either didn’t vote on the bill or voted nay. John Fetterman (D), Elizabeth Warren (D), Bob Menendez (D), Bernie Sanders (I votes with Ds) and Chuck Schumer (D). The bill would have passed with these five votes. They voted nay just so they could say that Republicans didn’t pass a bill that would help working parents. The Democrats were actually the ones who killed the bill. They simply wanted to create a false talking point. This is their common practice. If you think that they are not nefarious enough to take away your tight to free speech you are very naive. What’s truth got to do with it. The pea isn’t under any of the shells but you keep coming back for more.
The First Amendment is of course “aggressively individualistic”, just as it was meant to be by the earliest constitutionalists who were themselves aggressively individualistic. To ever inhibit for any reason persons from freely and fearlessly expressing their morals, values, and beliefs and worse rendering them fearful to speak at all would have been so wide of the mark of what they intended for freedom and individualism as to have been unimaginable. Yet, they had foresight enough to recognize that freedom will always be a tenuous ideal and that authoritarians forever lurking loosely among us might one day formidably coalesce into enemies of the Constitution intent upon creating an authoritarian state that seeks unity through group think and the denial of dissent. It is becoming increasingly apparent that one day is nearer at hand.
Yes, American conservativism was established based on the sincerely held belief in diversity of individuals, minority of one. The progressive adoption of Diversity defined by color and class is a characteristically left-wing ideological conception born in Pro-Choice ethical religious rites.
Note to NABJ:
“The jig is up!”
– 16th Century Idiom
_________________________
“IT’S OK TO BE WHITE.”
– Rasmussen Poll
____________________
47% of blacks disagree – – – only 53% of blacks agree.
___________________________________________________________
“Blacks are a hate group.”
“As you know, I’ve been identifying as Black for a while – years now – because I like – you know, I like to be on the winning team.”
“The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people.”
“Just get the f*** away.”
“Wherever you have to go, just get away because there’s no fixing this.”
“You just have to escape, so that’s what I did.”
– Scott Adams, “Dilbert”
___________________________
Even for the deranged, hysterical, incoherent, bleeding-heart, liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO communists, “…THERE’S NO FIXING THIS!”
Does anyone find it coincidental that “Dennis” and “George” seem to keep the same schedule?
Vaguely familiar to Dennis and Gigi in days past.
I have often wondered that also, Dr. Benson or perhaps the irritable tree cutter, maybe an old dog or how about waters?! Always a perfect timing in their appearances.
“Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.”
How can this be so low? You would think almost 100% of idiot democrat students are self-censuring since they are just a bunch of lemmings.
Perhaps because they are not as thin skinned as republican students worried about being mocked and ridiculed. Maybe because they are smart enough to understand that they are not immune from criticism.
Svelaz George, the pathetic projectionist
You mean the thin skinned R students who need safe spaces and the correct pronouns??
Where did the term “snowflake” originate?
Irony and self awareness are completely lost below IQ=100
Bwahahahahaha
Let me help you….from ChatGTP
In more recent years, “snowflake” has been used as a pejorative term to describe individuals, particularly younger people or liberals, who are perceived as overly sensitive, easily offended, or as having an inflated sense of their own uniqueness. The term suggests fragility, implying that these individuals “melt” or crumble under pressure, much like an actual snowflake.
Project much???
Yeah, “Perhaps.” “Perhaps.” Don’t recall using that word before (although the word is a common word. But just yesterday, in a comment to george’s/anonymous’s comment, “Perhaps he just wanted to get on with his life….”
THought I had seen “perhaps”somewhere yesterday. found it.
George and Gigi like to incorporate others’ effective styles into their own.
Hey George, prove me wrong first.
Or perhaps they know when to remain quiet and not lower themselves to debate a nonsensical topic, like pronouns.
Kamala still suking her way along, it’s a testament to her understanding the significance of understanding how significant understanding can be, understand?!😂😂
OT
The totally corrupt and wholly unconstitutional communist Biden “Labor Department” reported:
“SHARP SLOWDOWN IN US JOB GROWTH BOOSTS UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO 4.3%.”
Surprise, surprise!
The wholly unconstitutional communist Labor Department is compelling the wholly unconstitutional communist Federal Reserve Board to:
LOWER INTEREST RATES BEFORE THE ELECTION.
The executive branch is doing its best to assist the all-primaries-losing border czar, Kamalala, as she engages in the RECONSTRUCTION of every last one of her positions of the past four years.
The American Founders are rolling over in their graves.
P.S. Please cite a constitutional basis for the Labor Dept. (i.e. a criminal enterprise), the Federal Reserve Act (i.e. seizure of the private free enterprise banking industry), or any other department or agency, or taxation for such, in Article 1, Section 8. They’re neither prescribed nor provided for in the Constitution.
For all you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) out there, the United States Constitution is not the Communist Manifesto.
“the United States Constitution is not the Communist Manifesto” – Stealing that!
Dennis, Gigi, Svelaz-George, and Lawn Boy the booger eating troll:
10 points for each correct attribution. Who said the following (Trump or Biden)?
1. If you don’t vote for me, you aint black
2. He’s the first bright, clean, articulate, “14” in mainstream politics
3. To own a hotel or 7-11, ya gotta have an Indian accent
4. I dont want my kids going to school in a racial jungle
5. Latino’s resist vaccinations because they’re afraid they will be deported
6. Black’s resist the vaccine because of the “Tuskeegee Airmen” (this is one of my favorites)
7. Unlike the African American community, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things
8. The Senate is lesser without (KKK) Robert Byrd.
9. John “Southern Manifesto” Stennis was a “hell of a guy”.
10. Segregationists like Eastland and Thurmond and all those guys. But at least we’d end up eating lunch together.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/15/bidens-racist-history/