Listening to leaders in the Democrat Party this last few weeks, I am not convinced that Trump is the biggest threat to democracy.
Yesterday, Hillary went on the Rachel Maddow show and said, “if they [social media companies] don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.”
That seems a tad Orwellian.
Of course to buffer the shock of that statement, she mentions that without that control, there could be “real harm” toward “social and psychological effects” as well as “threats of violence” and, obviously, “child porn.”
The latter reason is obvious—no one with a moral conscience thinks child porn should be legal. Technically, that’s not a free speech issue—that’s a full-on felony.
However, real harm “socially and psychologically” raises a big red flag: 1) no one has a right to not be offended, and if you’re worried about being socially or psychologically harmed, get off social media; 2) who gets to decide which causes this harm?; and 3) that’s not the government’s job to decide.
Finally, “threats of violence” might seem obvious on the surface; however, this is the same group that claims “language can be violence.” Merely *saying* something that might send a fragile flower to their safe space is considered as violence. Language is violence and therefore must be censored, unless of course, that language is directed to Trump, in which literally anything could be said because—well, it’s Trump (after all, he’s a threat to democracy so therefore we must keep him out of office by any means necessary including, ironically, undemocratic ones).
Back to my point, Hillary isn’t the only one pushing this. This week, former presidential candidate and secretary of state said at the World Economic Forum that the First Amendment is a “major block” to keep people from believing the wrong things.
Then current Democractic Vice President candidate Tim Walz said “There is no guarantee on free speech on misinformation or hate, and especially around our democracy.”
Um, yeah, there kind of is.
And the Constitution recognize that right as God-given, which means no human can take it away.
In 2022, the Biden Administration’s attempted to establish a Disinformation Governance Board, and after that went up in flames once exposed, Biden appointed Kamala Harris as chief of a White House task force designed to protect “women and LGBTQI+ political leaders…and journalists” from “online harassment and abuse.” (Note: misinformation is the recent euphemism for “speech I disagree with or don’t like. It’s amazing how much misinformation turns out to be true.)
This week, the satire website The Babylon Bee sued–and got a stay against–California’s Governor Gavin Newsom over a law cracking down on satire and humor speech.
Apparently we can have a utopic society were it not for that 1st Amendment.
And that’s not all.
Obviously the left is going after the 2nd Amendment (they are, contrary to their claims, with their nonsensical “common sense solutions”—anyone with an ounce of terminology in firearms knows this). Several years ago, then District Attorney Kamala, said she has the right to go into homes to make sure guns are stored properly despite that pesky 4th Amendment. (That was a long time ago when she said that, one might object; however, in one of her few interviews, she recently stated: “my values haven’t changed.”)
Further there is whining on the left regarding the electoral college, life time terms in the Supreme Court, etc. This week, Biden is trying to use my tax dollars to forgive student loans–an act both the Supreme Court and a number of federal courts says he has no authority to do.
What is it with the left and its growing disgust with that pesky Constitution? I have actually and directly *heard* these folks say the Constitution is “outdated” and needs to be changed or discarded in order to achieve their definition of utopia.
My response typically is that individual has every right to say their nonsense. The Constitution gives them the God-given (NOT human-given) right to say that. The Constitution also protects me from forcing their dystopic vision on me.
“We the people” must decide in November which candidate will work within the boundaries of the Constitution and which will attempt to constantly find ways to work around it.
When whomever wins in November stands on the podium in January taking the Oath of Office (a constitutionally-mandated oath—Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 8, vowing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” I have legitimate concerns about which side would actually do it better.
Be First to Comment