|Peace out - War in|
There is much to be said about this dispatch from the field:.@janicemin attended closed-door @BarackObama event, tells @ErinBurnett the fmr president mentioned #Trump only once https://t.co/v64E5FzZJf— OutFrontCNN (@OutFrontCNN) April 29, 2017
- Media elite - Manhattan
- Standing ovation - Thunderous applause - "Not the end of the world"
- History is a long, continuous thread - NOT a Steve Bannon 4th Turning
- "I made a mistake a day" - That's 2,920 mistakes which sounds about right.
- "It might feel good to take military action in Syria" - But, of course, he wouldn't know.
- Friends with W - Trump won't listen - So relaxed and happy
- Misses Air Force One - Traffic is bad ("I had no idea")
- Fake News is a real thing
It seems incredible now but one of the chief arguments against writing down and adopting the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution was that these rights were so obviously true and accepted as true by the broad populace that adopting them and making them a part of the constitution was unnecessary. Of course people had the right to speak their mind, protect themselves, be secure in their home and papers, have a right to trial, protected from extortion and free to govern their own affairs and the affairs of their community - it's a no brainer, right? The Anti-Federalists knew the true, dark heart of mankind would never honor these natural law rights once a document granting "leaders" absolute power was ratified so the Bill of Rights were created to thwart the hubris of the Federal government. Here's #1 on the list:
Amendment INow when these men restricted Congress from making laws to abridge free speech they were not concerned with protecting the un-expurgated shit that A+E Networks pumps into the eyes and ears of US citizens on a daily round-the-clock basis. They were focused on protecting the freedom of political, religious and philosophical/scientific speech above all else and the idea that Congress might write a law to curtail Ann Coulter's speech is terrible but even terrible ideas put on paper can be worked out in court. The Amendment does not say that UC Berkeley must allow freedom of speech on its campus, or that any other place where "people peaceably assemble" must allow freedom of speech in their organization or community. There is no free speech "right" that compels the cloistered denizens of People's Park to expose themselves to the hot sand, quicklime, tar, and boiling oil spewing from Coulter's murder-hole. It should be obvious to everyone in America by this point - after the Milo riot and last months red pill beat down of the Antifa - that these NoCal people can't take an alternative view point or message from anyone and forcing them to do so violates their civil right to congregate and be free.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
While it's true that in a sane world a talk by Ann Coulter should be, and would be, an opportunity to hear a brilliant, successful and dedicated journalist/author who's influence on public policy and political ideology carries serious weight - after all, Trump won the presidency based on the ideas formulated in Coulter's book "Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole" and that's some Big League impact. But we don't live in a sane world so instead the people of Berkeley get to hear Michael Potts discuss population control at a lecture titled The Next 82 Years: Faculty and Students Confronting Existential Challenges. "Abort the male babies and the world will be more peaceful" is a stark admonition but population growth and war are "existential challenges" so extreme measures must be adopted. This Potts lecture is A-okay for the Antifa and their professors living the beautiful life on the UC campus - no protest, no controversy, just swallow the blue pill and everything will be fine.
Which circles us back to the WHCD and freedom of speech or, in their case, freedom from speech which is exactly what they're wrestling with in the MSM. The right of Trump supporters to peaceably assemble in Pennsylvania and listen to their man lambast the DC establishment and its lapdog stenographers otherwise known as the press corp is constitutionally protected. The correspondents have an equal right to dress up and hold a fancy dinner in DC to talk about how great they are and run down the POTUS (which is exactly what they did). But please hold off on the "free press" pabulum because there's a 25 year record of the newsmen hosting this dinner for the sitting president and giving him the full Monica all night (especially the last 8 years) and when someone employs "free speech" to call them out, as Larry Wilmore did at last years event, the news hounds don't like it. They hate it. Just like the students and faculty at UC Berkeley, our national journalist live in an insulated bubble of leafy suburban streets, fine restaurants, high brow culture and low licentious morality that is built upon a social model that centralizes power in Washington DC and gives or withholds reward based on whimsical priorities and fashionable taste. If the organizers of the WHCD truly believed in free speech and a free press then they would have invited Ann Coulter to give the keynote address instead of two old fogies who epitomize DC groupthink. Now THAT would have made a statement about freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the American press.
|Free Speech vs. Free Press|