What are we doing?
In my time whenever there was a question about free speech the things I remember most from discussions were statements and questions like this:
Well, who judges the judges if you are going to limit free speech?
I may disagree with you, but will fight and die for your right to say it.
Let’s agree to disagree.
You know one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
You get the idea, and no doubt can add dozens to that list.
So now apply what the media and tech companies have done in the immediate past and ask, do those questions/statements pass the test of openness?
When Facebook, Twitter and media companies refused to cover the NY Post story on Hunter’s laptop, was that free and open?
If you justify their actions, you support free speech suppression.
Now they have turned the President of the U.S., some of his supporters and Parler off. Look at this list and where is the alternative?
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, Apple, Amazon, Shopify, Twitch, Youtube, Snapchat, Tiktok, Discord, Pinterest, Stripe, Okta and Twilio.
If you support the turnoff and applaud Parler being silenced, then you support the suppression of free speech.
We have people being fired for attending a Washington DC rally last week, even if they weren’t arrested.
If you think that’s right, then you are for suppressing free speech.
If you support the free expression from the summer and fall protests and the organization of bail raising for those arrested in the looting and riots (VP Elect Kamala Harris raised funds for bailing people out), but think people in DC last week should be fired, you are inconsistent and against free speech.
If you condemn every person who was in DC last week, but say most protesters all summer and fall were peaceful, you are inconsistent and simply suppressing free speech. You are biased and claiming you are open.
If you think it’s okay for social media to allow continued Russian Collusion stories after it is a proven lie, and also okay with their current suppression, you are inconsistent and not allowing free speech.
There’s no reason to add more examples here. If you are for free speech, you have to be for free speech on both sides.
I condemn the riots and destroying of people’s property all summer and fall, and I condemn the attacking of the People’s House last week. Protesting is an American right. We formed a nation with protests against the tyrannical rule. I may disagree but they have the right; it was what we sent people to die in war.
I draw the line at destroying property of the nation and others. It doesn’t matter if it’s the congressional home or someones business in a small town. Wrong is wrong. You can’t be half way on free speech. You either support the very tentament of our Bill of Rights, or you don’t. If you’re halfway there, you don’t.
A free press and free speech are the very basis of our nation. The current state of suppression, the support it has from that free press and all of social media is a threat to our future.
We all better realize that.
I doubt anyone reading this is surprised at the fact the President was impeached today. They mentioned impeaching him before he took office – on false collusion charges. They did it once before and so, why not again?
Now what may have been a surprise was Rep. Cheney, the third ranking Republican to be for it. Why was she?
Well, never a Trump fan, she was actually mentioned in his speech to the crowd last week. Her father (the former VP) called her to warn her as he heard it and saw the crowd gathering. Payback is tough sometimes.
Why are others singling they are for impeachment? Well think of Mitch McConnell, who negotiated the stimulus the President’s team wanted ($600), only to be undercut immediately by the President who announced he wanted $2,000. McConnell had taken heat, negotiated hard and got what the President’s team wanted, only to be thrown under the bus. It happened over and over to Senator McConnell and he has had enough. He wants Trump out of the way for 2024.
Is Senator Thune, the #2 Republican in the Senate, going to support him? The President called him a lot of names the past month and promised a primary against him. Now Thune should be loyal? Life is a two way street.
There are others and he has put his party members in a really bad place. His character is what got him here. That character might be questionable at best, but it is not impeachable.
Not in the manner they are doing this. He’s “too dangerous” to stay in office they say. Well in less than seven days he is out of office. The impeachment will take longer than seven days. So why?
Political show all the way is the answer. Political show supported by the media.
Finally, adding Congressman Swalwell to the committee is as despicable an act as some of the President’s actions. His failure to disclose his relationship with a Chinese spy (Fang Fang), all the while he falsely claimed the President was a Russian spy is unacceptable — if you are fair.