Hate speech is the new boogeyman. It is not protected by the First amendment, according to ignorant liberals. (Yes, I know that is redundant.) Actually unless it is a specific threat against a person - and believe it or not the current president IS a human - or unless the speech incites a riot or panic - the famous "shouting fire in a theater" exclusion- unpopular speech is exactly what is protected. In the case of the president the Secret Service is particularly sensitive about threats. They really don't have any sense of humor about that type of thing.
In the case of our previous president, any criticism of the Dear Leader would result in howls and screams of "racism"; as if being being half black is a free ride to commit any sort of unconstitutional, tyrannical, socialist assault upon our country. Apparently it is. Barack Obama - protector of Black Panther thugs, gun runner extraordinaire, major funder of moslem terrorism, friend of socialists world wide; a man who never met a tax bill large enough but knew when someone else had made too much money - was defended by the left regardless. He could do no wrong. After all, sometimes you have to destroy a country in order to save it.
During the later days of his reign the concept of "hate speech" was presented as a means of silencing anyone who disagreed with the leftists. It didn't matter if the words did in fact state truth or facts. If they didn't further the efforts of leftists, then it wasn't to be permitted. The curious thing is that under laws of libel, truth is the ultimate and absolute defense. One can refer to the Dear Leader as specified in the previous paragraph with absolute certainty that it would be upheld in a court of law. Okay, it might take getting past some of the west coast courts to find one where legal decisions are determined by actual legal precedent, but it will be upheld in a real court. The Dear Leader wrote multiple executive orders ruled unconstitutional, all in the effort to further restrict and regulate the American citizenry. Unfortunately he wrote many, many others in the same vein that were never challenged. Still the left hailed him as their hero.
Fast forward to the present. Donald Trump is called "Hitler", a "Nazi Sympathizer" a dictator, a Fascist. This is not regarded by the left as "hate speech". It is regarded as "speaking truth to power". Let us contrast and compare...
Trump started removing the Dear Leader's restrictive executive orders on the first day in office. Typically a fascist will increase the power of government and restrict freedoms of business and the citizenry. The classic definition of a fascist government is one that controls and manages the means of production that are owned privately. This control pervades the entirety of the nation under the direct control of a dictator. Mussolini and Franco come to mind. Trump endeavors to reduce the power of government, yet is called a fascist. Trump wants to reduce the tax burden on the people, in order to let them keep more of what they earned. According to left, a person who wishes to keep what they have earned is "greedy". Taking it away from him and giving to someone else isn't. This is Liberal Logic. Thus they call him a fascist.
Trump has made billions of dollars in real estate development. He started with a loan of a million dollars from his father which he turned into multiple billions. That is the same increase as taking a thousand dollar loan and turning it into multiple millions. According to the left he inherited everything. Above all, Trump is a capitalist. Not all of his endeavors were winners. Some lost a lot. That is the nature of capitalism. The opportunity is guaranteed, the outcome is not. Socialism guarantees the outcome because the opportunity is limited. With capitalism there will be rich, poor and middle class. With socialism there is the poor and the ruling class.
Now more contrast:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation
of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly
evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of
responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this
system under all conditions” – Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927.
Hmmm. I fail to see the similarity. Another contrast: Trump's daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren are Jewish. Ookayyyy... We all remember how the Nazi's embraced the Jews....
Examine the quote once more. Hitler specifically identified as a socialist. This is why Hitler signed a peace pact with Stalin. They were brothers in socialism. Socialists, however, are greedy. They won't tolerate competition in assimilating power, money or control. This world wasn't big enough for the both of them. So the next phase of WWII began.
History is written by the winners. Currently with leftists/socialists/democrats in charge of the school systems history is being re-written to fit their agenda. For decades they have used the courts to redefine the constitution. There are specific methods of changing the constitution - amendments. But amendments aren't easy to pass - that's by design. It's far easier to make changes - actually distortions - to the constitution by utilizing a sympathetic court.
After all, it is the Alinsky way.
Still hunting....
ciao
No comments:
Post a Comment