Tag Archives: ethics

More Free Speech Leftist-Style

Posted on by
Reply

As if we don’t need another example of Leftist censorship version of free speech, Ezra Klein, of the text [of our Constitution] is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago infamy, provides us with another.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein slammed Democrats over their stubborn denials that US cities are plagued with rising crime, out-of-control migration, and skyrocketing prices….

To this point, Klein is right to decry the Progressive-Democratic Party’s foolishness.

As reported by the New York Post (the article is behind a paywall, but the tabloid’s subscription cost isn’t worth the candle), though, Klein couldn’t stop there, and he expressed a core tenet of Party:

And this idea that “The economy is actually good,” or “Crime is actually down, this is all just Fox News,” shut the f–k up with that[.]

Because speech of which Klein personally disapproves—even if he’s correct in its thrust—cannot be allowed. Free speech is only what he, or his Leftist cronies, say it is. It’s certainly not what that old-young Constitution of ours says it is. Of course, I have it on similarly good authority that [our Constitution] has no binding power on anything, anyway, so there’s that.

Duplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) on ending the filibuster:

Over the coming weeks, the Senate will once again consider how to perfect this union and confront the historic challenges facing our democracy. We hope our Republican colleagues change course and work with us. But if they do not, the Senate will debate and consider changes to Senate rules [eliminating the filibuster]….

And

In a session with reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer (D-NY) suggested that—should Democrats win the White House, Senate, and House in November—he would seek to end the filibuster for purposes of passing voting rights and abortion legislation.

These are deliberate moves to pass legislation unilaterally, in complete absence even of any pretense of bipartisanship.

Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) today:

The only way to get things done in the Senate is through bipartisan legislation while maintaining our principles—and the next two years will be no different.

Only because, despite Schumer’s efforts, the filibuster remains intact. Nevertheless, his meaning is plain. He’ll have his caucus being just as knee-jerk obstructionist of any Republican initiative as he always has had, now with the added fillip of knee-jerk obstructionism regarding anything Trumpian, just as he had done during the prior Trump administration.

Assuming the Republicans are able to retain their majority in the House, he’ll also have able functional allies—if unintended—in the Republicans’ Chaos Caucus.

“Gatekeepers of Political Discourse”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s how even The Wall Street Journal terms the press. This, as it notices the decreasing control influence the press has on what us average Americans are allowed to know about the political doings of our politicians.

A new media landscape has emerged. The traditional gatekeepers of political discourse—TV networks and newspapers—are shrinking in influence as Americans turn to many more outlets for information.

This comes especially in the wake of the last eight-ish years of naked bias by the press, a period wherein The New York Times has openly announced that there can no longer be objectivity in news reporting, newspapers must take sides, and a major broadcast news anchor announced that there are not two sides to every story; there can be only one side to many. In furtherance of those decisions, the press actively proselytizes on its news pages for its chosen candidates and party while actively suppressing stories that provide different information or that show their denigrated party and candidates in a good light. The press also suppresses stories that cast its chosen party/candidate in a negative light.

Beyond politics, the press actively spikes writing that contradicts its settlement of climate “science,” with the Los Angeles Times saying that it would no longer publish letters to the editor that disputed the LAT‘s determination of the proper discussion.

It’s no wonder that us average Americans no longer take the press seriously and are moving away from it toward other sources—including straight from the horse’s mouth in the podcasts that are becoming ubiquitous, and on some social media outlets like X, Truth Social, even the dangerous TikTok. If we can’t entirely trust these alternative outlets, we can at least hear what the candidates—and other guests—are saying, without the gatekeepers’ censorship filter.

Republicans Should “Embrace Bipartisanship”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what current and outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) insists Republicans should do once they take office next January.

My question to Schumer is this: will you have your Party Senators work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation, or will you and your Senate—and House—colleagues continue to insist that Republicans work with your Party?

Three guesses on Schumer’s answer (assuming he deigns answer at all), and the first two don’t count. Keep in mind, too, as you work out that third answer, that Schumer is the one who stood on the Supreme Court Building steps and threatened—by name—two Supreme Court Justices with severe consequences because those two didn’t “work with” his activist Justices on our Supreme Court.

A Victory

Posted on by
Reply

Last Tuesday is shaping up to become a solid Republican electoral victory.

Former Republican President Donald Trump has won a solid Electoral College and popular vote win, and the Electoral College win may grow, with Arizona and Nevada still uncalled as I write Wednesday afternoon. If Trump gets them all, he’d have 312 Electoral College votes. His popular vote lead, 51% to 47.6%, or 4.8M votes, is unlikely to change much.

The Republicans have taken the majority in the Senate, with Senate races having been called for 52 Republicans. That margin could grow with 4 Senate races yet to be called. It’s unlikely to expand to 56 Republican Senators, though, as only 2 of the uncalled races currently have Republicans leading. Even so, the shift to the current solid majority is a major victory; a shift to 54 would be even more so.

The Republicans can still retain their House majority, given the number of uncalled races; however, it’ll remain a slim majority, which will allow the Republican Chaos Caucus to retain their outsized power. On the other hand, the Republicans are on the threshold of losing their majority to the Progressive-Democrats, which would render the Chaos Caucus irrelevant.

More importantly than a Republican victory, though, this is a victory for our nation. That’s not because the Republicans won or the Progressive-Democrats lost; rather it’s the solidity of the victory that creates the national victory. With that broad mandate—especially if the voters choose to keep the Republicans in the House majority—there now comes the possibility of putting the divisiveness of the last 16 years behind us. There now exists the possibility of our nation coming back together as a nation, and a culture, of Americans.

That possibility depends on how effectively the Republicans govern. It also depends on the Progressive-Democratic Party’s willingness to accept its defeat and work with Republicans on getting some things done and other things undone rather than being the knee-jerk obstructionist, anti anything Republican Party they have been (that the Republicans need to stop being similarly obstructionist is a part of their ability to govern objectively).

It also depends on the intrinsically mendacious press recognizing its own failures of the last several decades, made overtly manifest in the last couple of decades, and taking publicly and concretely measurable steps to rid itself of its dishonesty and return to its Fourth Estate role of objectively reporting all the news in its stories and all of the stories, while keeping its opinions out of that news reporting and in its opinion pages.