Just one link. Some days I find a lot, some days a little, some days none...
Politics
John Fetterman has no previous history of political moderation, but he's losing his Loony Left backers:
I think the majority of humankind need a word of caution here.
It's tempting to go full McCarthy. We in these United States do not have a Democratic Party in the sense that Presidents Carter, Kennedy, and Roosevelt had a Democratic Party. Their party included drunks, lunatics, and vote sellers, as did the Republican Party, but it was mostly run by honest and decent people who believed that government ought to try to give people "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" as well as freedom from abuse. Today's Democratic Party is run by ghouls who want to murder Republicans. The majority of Americans voted against that for good and sufficient reason; the majority have good and sufficient reason to stand against it. This administration has no legitimate opposition party. In this administration a decent person who used to be known as a Democrat, like Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, is in among the Republicans. Why not gather all the leaders of what now calls itself the D Party into one big building and then blow up that building? Why not put all the people calling for more political murders in single-occupant padded cells, lock the doors, and melt down the keys? Why not make it career suicide to admit any connection whatsoever with the D Party?
The two-party system is based on the premise that, every few years, people will want a change and favor the other party. There are legal precedents for censoring inflammatory speech when violent crimes have been committed. That could be done with regard to all D rhetoric, and what would follow? There would be a valid precedent for sending young people to prison any time they used what seems to be the favorite word of some of them, which would be replaced, when the concept has to be mentioned, by "approach the Gates of Life without due reverence," since that violent crime has been committed. There would be a valid precedent for censoring the entire history of the World War, since words that properly refer to our enemy in that war have been misused as incendiary hatespews against the majority party (or coalition). And then, if the majority ceased to be the majority, people who had self-censored while feeling that all this censoring and imprisoning was a crime might well consider that there was a valid precedent for censoring words like "USA," "America," "patriot," "freedom," or "Charlie Kirk."
Censorship does more harm than the lack of censorship, Gentle Readers. Consider how much we're learning from the way the ghouls felt free to exchange social media messages referring to the murder.
I think calls for more murders clearly are promoting violent crime, so there's a valid reason for those who enforce the law to trace the computer from which they were posted, visit the poster, and have long serious talks about what happens to accessories to murder. People who act pleased by murders that have happened should find it difficult to get work or rent apartments but, if they're not calling for more violent crime, they are simply using their right to freedom of speech to advertise what unpleasant people they are--not committing a crime. However tempting it may be to declare that the Constitution is for human beings and does not apply to ghouls, we should take the high road and adhere to the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment