On this week’s’ program, one of America’s most distinguished journalists, Fred Lucas, reveals the “voter suppression” myth. Then, Terry Johnson describes how wind mills and other so-called “green” solutions actually cause more harm than good. Tune in here.
Coverage of the recent and ongoing squabble over the federal budget omits mention of several key facts. Among them are the realities that despite being over $33 trillion in debt and vast additional spending each year, unprecedented income from taxation, and the existence of well-staffed and frequently overbearing federal agencies, the most basic crises facing Americans are not being adequately addressed. Funds supposedly committed to infrastructure are siphoned off for so-called “green” projects that do little other than paying back politician’s contributors. Issues such as the vulnerability of the electrical grid are ignored. Dollars meant to improve education wind up supporting bizarre and controversial projects that push woke agendas and ignore proficiency in learning. The list goes on and on.
One of the areas that is the prime responsibility of the federal government is defense. Despite the lare sums spent, America’s defense is inadequate. Russia has a more powerful nuclear arsenal. China has a large navy. Our troops often live in housing that resembles slums. Our atomic weaponry is becoming increasingly obsolete. Some of our pilots fly in the exact same aircraft that their grandfathers flew. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassing debacle. Our armed forces are failing to meet recruitment quotas. America’s presence in certain strategic locations, such as the Arctic, is so inadequate that it represents a virtual surrender. Our defense industrial base is bad shape, and getting worse.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s preparations to take over Taiwan, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and Iran’s looming entry into the nuclear weapons club are major threats that are not being responded to.
There is an illusion that defense spending is excessive. In truth, it is far from adequate. It represents a lesser share of the federal budget and GDP than it has in the past.
Numerically, the Army should have 50 brigade combat teams. It has only 31. The Navy should have 400 ships. It has about 290. The Air Force should have 1,200 fighter and ground attack aircraft. It has only 1,174. The Marine Corps should have 30 battalions. It has 27.
In its annual Index of U.S. Military Strength, the Heritage Foundation (you can, and should, read the entire report at https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary) illustrates the challenges facing the Pentagon. Barack Obama’s decision to end the capacity of the U.S. military to fight on two fronts simultaneously. He backed that poor decision up with limiting the funds the Defense Department actually needs.
The report notes that “As reported in all previous editions of the Index, the common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation caused by many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity in spite of repeated efforts by Congress to provide relief from low budget ceilings imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.”
The analysis concludes with these assessments:
Army is “Marginal.” The Army’s score remains “marginal” in the 2023 Index, and significant challenges that have arisen during the year call into question whether it will improve its status in the year ahead. …the Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with only 62 percent of the force it should have.
Navy is“Weak.” This worrisome score, a drop from “marginal” assessed in the 2022 Index, is driven by problems in capacity (“very weak”) and readiness (“weak”). This Index assesses that the Navy needs a battle force of 400 manned ships to do what is expected of it today. The Navy’s current battle force fleet of 298 ships and intensified operational tempo combine to reveal a service that is much too small relative to its tasks… If its current trajectory is maintained, the Navy will shrink further to 280 ships by 2037. Current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent the Navy from altering its decline unless Congress undertakes extraordinary efforts to increase assured funding for several years.
Air Force as “Very Weak.” The Air Force has been downgraded once again, the second, time in the past two years. The Air Force was assessed as “marginal” in the 2021 Index but, with public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of combat aircraft implying that it would have a difficult time responding rapidly to a crisis, fell to a score of “weak” in the 2022 Index. During FY 2022, the year assessed for this Index, problems with pilot production and retention, an extraordinarily small amount of time in the cockpit for pilots, and a fleet of aircraft that continues to age compounded challenges even more, leading to the current score of “very weak.”
Photo: A formation of Air Force MC-130J Commando II aircraft fly near Hurlburt Field, Fla., Sept. 21, 2023. (Department of Defense )
According to BNI Treatment of California, “(a) recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology looked at 167 young adults who self reported as either non-gamers, non-violent gamers, or violent gamers, using an online questionnaire and the Levinson’s Psychopathy Scale. There was a link reported between heavy violent video game exposure and decreased practice of empathy, immature moral reasoning skills, moral disengagement. In reviewing existing studies, the authors found that violent video games can lead to negative behaviors, such as pathological lying, manipulative behavior, lack of impulse control, irresponsibility, and immediate reward seeking. These traits can give rise to such antisocial behaviors as aggression and delinquency.”
These effects are compounded by the nature of current video games. “Modern video games are extremely life like – a far cry from the old games of the past. These video games use highly sophisticated graphics to produce lifelike imagery, including the characters that populate the games. This means, too, that the violent scenes of death and destruction are also quite graphic.” .
Harvard Medical School’s Blog gives this description of these violent games; “Blood and gore. Intense violence. Strong sexual content. Use of drugs. These are just a few of the phrases that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) uses to describe the content of several games in the Grand Theft Auto series, one of the most popular video game series among teenagers. The Pew Research Center reported in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content. (Other research suggests that boys are more likely to use violent video games, and play them more frequently, than girls.) A separate analysis found that more than half of all video games rated by the ESRB contained violence, including more than 90% of those rated as appropriate for children 10 years or older.”
Based upon these facts, “(t)he view endorsed by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) is that exposure to violent media (including video games) can contribute to real-life violent behavior and harm children in other ways.”
It is indisputable that games like Grand Theft Auto encourage their players to engage in acts of violence eerily similar to that perpetrated by Ayala and Keys. There are even tutorials available on line to educate players on how best to accomplish maximum mayhem.
For instance, this video shows the gamer how best to use a machete to cut down pedestrians while driving a motorbike through the streets of a city. Then there is this video which shows you various methods for “killing” a player’s Avatar, including striking them with a motor vehicle.
Meanwhile, on Facebook, you can view this scene of a bicyclist being hit by a car traveling at 100 MPH, sending the bicyclist flying through the air, and landing against a building in a pool of blood.
Further, in this Player’s Blog, a poster’s topic is, “I hit a bicyclist and he landed in the bed of my truck,” complete with a link to a screen shot taken of the “deceased.” One commentator added, “Happened something similar during a mission where you have to drive around a truck…Hit a bike and the man landed on the roof of the truck. I went off road and drove off a cliff because I was laughing.”
As we stated, we have not been informed that Ayala and Keys were aficionados of Grand Theft Auto, or that they were gamers at all. But given the high percentage of people in their age category who engage in video games, as well as the close resemblance between their actions and the havoc readily available to those who play this or similar games, the odds are extremely high that both have played blood soaked games of this nature in the past.
Further, it is not our intention to single out a particular video game as being responsible for the death of Andreas Probst. Grand Theft Auto is only one of many hundreds of violent games available across the world.
This analysis is also not an effort in any way to excuse or justify the conduct of these cold-bloodied murders. But if we want to understand how such a lack of empathy or compassion could develop in such young men, we need look no further than the entertainment center hooked up to the television set in our own living rooms for at least one possible explanation.
Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC
Photo: Pixabay
Many of us have become inured to the violence we witness on a daily basis. Videos of violent confrontations fill our screens, from “smash and grab” robberies at high-end department stores, to out and out melees at fast food restaurants. But one recent incident has proven to most of the American public that it still has the capacity to be shocked.
“(T)he recent hit-and-run death of a retired police chief in Las Vegas (is) what police are calling an intentional attack by the teenage driver,” according to the Daily Mail. “Andreas Probst, 64, was fatally struck on August 14 while cycling in northwest Las Vegas, where he had retired after stepping down as the police chief of Bell, California, in 2009…Police say a 2016 Hyundai Elantra struck him from the rear and fled the scene at high speed. Probst was rushed to University Medical Center, where he was confirmed dead.”
Further information is provided by the New York Post; “(The two) Las Vegas teenagers accused of intentionally fatally running down (Probst) were in the midst of a two-hour crime spree when they killed the retired police officer…accused driver Jesus Ayala, 18, and Jzamir Keys, 16, allegedly stole three vehicles, committed a burglary and also tried to kill another bike rider… Ayala, faces 18 charges including murder, attempted murder, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, leaving the scene of an accident, and numerous larceny and burglary charges. Keys, who was the passenger in the car when Probst was struck…is facing murder, attempted murder and battery charges.”
So far, as tragic as this event is, this is just one more violent incident occurring at a time of high crime and lawlessness in our nation. What is it then, about this case that has made so many people angry?
“(V)ideo of the bicycle crash circulated widely on the internet…(t)he video, shot from the front passenger seat, shows the vehicle approaching Probst from behind as he rides near the curb on an otherwise traffic-free road. Male voices in the car can be heard laughing as the vehicle steers toward Probst and rams the bicycle. Probst hurtles backward across the hood and into the windshield. He is then seen on the ground next to the curb. Police said they weren’t aware of the video until a high school resource officer provided it to investigators two weeks later.”
A video of a cold-blooded, intentional murder is rare enough. But the reactions of the murderers caught on the video are particularly chilling; “You can hear them talking about it right before they hit the accelerator – the guy driving asks his passenger if he should go for it …and the passenger encourages him to do it. Probst went flying into the air and was left for dead on the road. The two teenagers in the car can be heard laughing it up as they drive away.”
The combination of a video of the death of an innocent man with the glee exhibited by the perpetrators as they take his life, is more than most civilized people can accept. But to add insult to injury, Ayala expressed no remorse whatsoever for his actions. As described by the New York Post, “Ayala, who just turned 18, was arrested hours after Probst was killed and told the police while in custody that he wouldn’t be locked up for long. ‘You think this juvenile [expletive] is gonna do some [expletive]? I’ll be out in 30 days, I’ll bet you,’ Ayala told the cops, according to KLAS. ‘It’s just ah, [expletive] ah, hit-and-run — slap on the wrist.’”
What could explain such an utter lack of empathy in one so young? Didn’t Ayala and Keys see Probst as a human being, with a life and a family, or was he just no better than an inaminate object to these two teenagers?
Of course, we do not know these two young men, and we do not have the ability to peer into their brains or their seemingly cold hearts. We also do not know their personal habits. But it is a safe bet that both played violent video games, such as Grand Theft Auto.
Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC
The Report concludes tomorrow
Photo: Pixabay
Economic security remains a top agenda item in Washington as policymakers struggle to balance the United States’ need for rare earth elements (REE’s) and the environmental impact of the highly-polluting process required to extract and refine them. California’s Mountain Pass mine currently is the country’s sole commercial REE mine. The US ships nearly 100% of the country’s output of rare earths, including the critical heavy REE types required for military purposes, to China for processing. In contrast, China’s long-term, economic and geopolitical gameplan calls for Beijing to mine, buy, process, and control the vast majority of the world’s supply of REE’s and oxide products. China today is the world’s top producer of these strategic metals. It accounts for about 70% of the global mine production of REE’s. That may be changing although Beijing is making a concerted global effort to buy critical REE supplies to keep Western nation-states from obtaining them.
Controlling the raw materials enables China to set prices and limit what countries have access to REE’s. Advanced economies are highly dependent on these metals for the production of everything from cell phones to advanced diagnostic equipment, EVs, and military weapons. Last year Beijing updated its tracking of REE exports as well as its imports of crude oil, iron ore, copper ore concentrates, and potash fertilizer, according to an announcement by the Ministry of Commerce. The requirements are to remain in place until at least October 31, 2024. Beijing appears to be growing increasingly concerned over potential choke points as well as Western discoveries of new deposits. China imports the vast majority of its needed crude oil, iron ore and copper to fuel its rapid economic expansion. It needs to keep global trade open.
Some Western analysts, however, suggest China could take additional retaliatory actions by further restricting REEs in an expansion of the US-China trade war. Beijing began restricting critical metal exports after the West imposed semiconductor curbs. Currently China limits the export of gallium and germanium to the US. Both are needed in semiconductors, missile systems and solar cells. China’s REE strategy, which calls for constraining the availability in the West may be faltering as new discoveries of these REEs are made in the West.
Extremely large deposits of lithium have been discovered in Canada. Recently Sweden identified REE deposits near the Arctic Circle that are large enough to supply most of Europe’s demand for magnets for turbines and electric vehicles. This week it was announced the Brook Mine in Wyoming contained what is believed to be $37 billion of light and heavy REE’s at today’s prices, making it the largest rare earths discovery in the United States since 1952. The US is pursuing a “mine-to-magnets” strategy to delink from the country’s dependence on China. American coal mines also have shown great promise as depositories of REE’s. Companies are now redirecting their searches for rare earths to coal producing regions. Combined these deposits may help alleviate the United States’ dependence on China. Although the global market remains highly dependent on China in the short term, Beijing may have a challenging time dominating the REE markets in coming years as advanced detection technologies are aiding the West in the discovery of a number of new deposits.
At a State Council meeting in Beijing last Friday, November 3, Chinese Premier Li Qiang announced that the country needed to improve coordination and plan for expanded REE exploration, research, and development. At the same time, it was announced that China would further enhance its crackdown on illegal mining and push for more “green measures.” In July, to combat illegal mining China simply raised the REE mining quota to 240,000 tons. Formerly illegal mining will not add to the overall tonnage mined in China; it will move it into a legal category. Only a few years ago the West was concerned over China’s dominance in the REE markets. While it will take time for production to begin it may mark the beginning of the end of China’s REE reign.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Russia may be planning to resume nuclear weapons testing according to arms exports, despite Russia’s claiming they will not unless the United States conducts tests. The announcement that Russia is withdrawing from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) comes as deputies in Russia’s legislative body, the State Duma, drafted a law following guidelines provided by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his October 5 speech to the Valdai Discussion Club. The Russian Publication, Kommersant, reported on October 18 that Putin has officially withdrawn his country’s ratification of the treaty. The United States had also signed, but Congress never ratified the treaty. “This is the latest in a series of moves that suggest Moscow may choose novel signaling rather than relying on the tenets of its traditional nuclear doctrine,” according to Alexander Taranov of the Jamestown Foundation. An explanatory note accompanying the new law points out the necessity of revoking ratification to eliminate the imbalance by restoring parity in nuclear arms control commitments between Russia and the United States.
The Treaty was ratified in May 2000 and intended to serve as the main international legal instrument to stop all nuclear tests. There are 44 states who possess or have the potential to develop nuclear weapons. Of those, eight states have not ratified the Treaty. A record number of Russian legislators, 439 of 450, in the State Duma signed the bill to withdraw in a show of unity in support of Putin’s agenda. Taranov says that Russian officials argue that the United States holds the most destructive position, pointing to the lack of Congressional support for ratification of the CTBT.
While Russia has officially withdrawn from the Treaty, officials in Moscow are quick to point out that the federal law on revoking ratification does not mean that the country has fully withdrawn from the Treaty. They say Russia will continue to participate in the Preparatory Commission of the CTBT Organization. Russia has pledged to continue participating in the exchange of data through the international monitoring system which verifies compliance. After the United States, Russia has the next highest number of monitoring stations. As of this fall there are 31 in Russia with an additional one scheduled to be constructed at the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Seismic Station AS92. Two weeks ago, Radio Sputnik broadcast that Russia does not have plans to resume nuclear testing. Over the summer as rumors spread through Moscow that Russia would be withdrawing from the Treaty, Dmitry Trenin, a Russian political scientist, announced that the CTBT withdrawal and the potential resumption of nuclear testing are important rungs on the ladder of escalation with Ukraine. He adds that this is part of the Kremlin’s strategy to force the United States to withhold support from Ukraine. Trenin, a Russian analyst, went so far as to allude to the possibility that Americans “could end up playing Russian roulette” if it continued aiding Ukraine. Last June RIA Novosti reported that the war environment is leading to a direct clash between NATO and Russia.
Less than a day after the Duma formalized the withdrawal the US Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a nuclear test in Nevada of a conventional explosive that Taranov says was designed to improve predictive algorithms and, according to DOE, “detection techniques for low-yield nuclear devices.” A senior fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament, Pavel Podvig, argues that Moscow views the US action as an escalatory step. The Kremlin has condemned the test as a resumption of nuclear testing, even though it is considered a subcritical one.
Russian officials view the Nevada test as a first “demonstration” moving up the scale toward the tactical use of nuclear weapons. In a 1999 article, “On the Use of Nuclear Weapons to De-Escalate Hostilities,” the authors argue the “demonstration rung requires launching nuclear strikes on desert areas or secondary military installations with either a limited or zero military presence. The doctrine, sometimes referred to as a concept of “nuclear escalation for de-escalation,” may mean that Russia will conduct underground testing and later on above ground tests.
If this does occur, it is likely to encompass a three-step process. First, Russia would detonate an underground explosion, following by one above ground. Finally, Putin would use a live nuclear weapon. Russia has slowly advanced up the ladder of nuclear escalation. It suspended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, potentially stationed tactical nuclear weapons in Cold War era silos inside Belarus and mined the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Taranov suggests that this may mean the world is facing the potential of Russia skipping rungs on the escalation ladder that have traditionally characterized Russian nuclear doctrine. Should the United States and NATO engage more heavily in the war in Ukraine, Putin may decide that regime survival is dependent on the threat of a nuclear strike and, with that decision, the world may witness a reinstitution of Russian nuclear tests.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Xi Van Fleet, a survivor of Mao Tse Tung’s cultural revolution, warns that Progressives are pushing the U.S. to the same path. Then, Former CIA officer Clare Lopez provides her extraordinary insights into the crises facing America. Both on this week’s American Political Zone! watch at https://rumble.com/v3uj0y4-the-american-political-zone-november-8-2023.html
The U.S. military is facing unique challenges in fulfilling its mission to deter the growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The problems are not the fault of the servicemembers, but from the politicians, some in elective office and, also, some in uniform who have forgotten that their oath is to the Constitution and not to progressive ideology.
During the Obama presidency, the armed services were deprived of crucial funds, the aftereffects of which can still be seen today. Some officers were promoted more for their demographics and political loyalty than for their capabilities and leadership qualities. But perhaps the worst promotion of all was appointing General Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, selected by President Trump, a move the former President has admitted was a terrible error.
When President Biden appointed Lloyd Austin as Defense Secretary, the two combined to incompetently impose unprecedented debacles on the services, including the incompetent execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the institution of woke dictates that have demoralized current servicemembers, and created a recruitment crisis.
Many Members of Congress have been so outraged that they passed a bill to reduce Austin’s salary to a mere one dollar.
Milley, now retired, and Austin are not alone in their politicized agenda. Earlier in 2023, Rep. Mike Rogers, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Jim Banks, Chair of the House Committee on military personnel, demanded to know what Austin would do about Kelisa Wing, the “chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer” in the Department of Defense Education Activity office, who has made who has made repeated comments exhibiting overt racial bias against whites.
The upshot is that Washington has spent vast sums on other priorities at the expense of its most important duty, protecting the nation.
Earlier this year, Adam Kredo, writing for the Washington Free Beacon, reported that “The Biden administration wants to enact sharp budget cuts to the U.S. Navy that would force it to prematurely retire almost a dozen ships and take offline critical missile systems that serve as a primary deterrent to Chinese aggression. President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget proposal would deal a massive blow to the already strained American Navy—the White House wants to prematurely retire eight ships and two combat vessels. By taking these ships out of action, the Navy would lose more than 600 vertical launch missile systems—a missile capability that serves as the primary deterrent to Chinese military attacks in the Pacific, according to congressional research provided to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘The Biden Administration’s defense budget would hollow out our fleet and scrap Navy radars and missile systems we desperately need to deter China,’ Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking member, told the Free Beacon. ‘Prematurely retiring our ships sends exactly the wrong signal to China as they continue to build their own Navy at a historic pace. Biden’s budget would decrease the total number of active Navy ships, retiring at least 11 ships while only requesting the construction of nine new vessels. The Navy currently has 294 battle force ships, far short of the 355 it is required to have by law. Biden’s budget would further reduce this number, according to information about the White House’s 2023 budget proposal codified by Wicker’s office.” The policy wholly ignores the reality that China has the world’s largest navy, and it is growing still larger.
Already underfunded by the eight years of the Obama presidency, Biden’s defense budgets have repeatedly failed to keep up with inflation. Adjusted for inflation, Biden’s proposed defense budget would produce a 5% cut. It is difficult to see the rationale for that, as foreign threats have grown exponentially. Military spending amounts to a mere 12% of the federal budget, and only 3.1% of GDP, projected to decline to 2.8% in the next ten years. In 1960, it was almost 9% of GDP. In 1969, it amounted to 52% of the federal budget.
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
Photo: Dept. of Defense
There is a clear partisan divide in attitudes towards the First Amendment.
A Realclear Politics analysis gives specific details of the partisan divide in support for free speech. “Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey. Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%… Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats… Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.”
Targets of the anti-First Amendment crowd range from parents to billionaires.
The New York Post recently reported that US Education Secretary Miguel Cardona criticized parents who had the temerity of criticizing schools for their bizarre woke policies that have resulted in crises such as girls being rapid in restrooms by males who enter those places under the excuse that they “felt like a female” on a give day. Cardona chided moms and dads “misbehaving in public” and “acting like they know what’s right for kids.”
Those parents are in good company. After the 2020 election, when Democrat-leaning federal agencies moved to censor media outlets that would have printed or posted accurate information that would be embarrassing to Joe Biden, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, promising that he wouldn’t be intimidated in a similar manner. The White House made a predictable move. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Administration has responded by using a variety of excuses to harass Musk through various investigations.
Jason Boyd wrote in The Federalist that “Democrats are at war with free speech, and they are using every tool in their political box to silence their political opponents…Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to claim Musk owning Twitter is ‘dangerous for our democracy.’ The Washington Post also admitted that ’Democrats, Biden have limited power as Elon Musk buys Twitter…Throwing a fit about the ability to censor and suppress speech is a growing trend in Democrat politics. Leftist politicians past and present have been heavily involved in efforts to smear their political enemies as “threats to democracy” and label anything counter to their narrative as disinformation.”
David Keene, in a Washington Times article states that “Transparency is fast emerging as the major obstacle in the way of the woke left’s campaign to banish those who question its narrative from the public square. Today’s elites reject the classical liberal view that free speech is essential to the functioning of a free society as it allows thinking people to decide for themselves which opinions they might choose to support…When Elon Musk released evidence that Twitter not only engaged in a conscious campaign to shut down speech with which its owners took issue but also coordinated its censorship campaign with the government and with politicians its leadership wanted to promote, the elite media dismissed the whole thing as a lot about very little, but the American public wasn’t so sure.”
The censorship moves extended beyond electoral politics. WSJ found that “Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily.” The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.”
American society, once open, has reacted. A CATO analysis found that “nearly three‐fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. A little more than a quarter (28%) instead believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
Illustration: Pixabay
The evidence is now as overwhelming as it is shocking: many Americans are turning sharply away from what was once the nations’ most basic principle, the sanctity of free speech.
Both the Obama and the Biden Administrations have attempted to federalize attempts to limit the First Amendment through the establishing of “Disinformation” agencies. It has become clear that both presidents defined “disinformation” as views and facts they disagree with.
The problem has been growing. In 2019, a report by the Campaign for Free Speech found that “Americans are increasingly hostile toward free speech, a free press, and the First Amendment. According to the survey, 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today. Millennials feel a greater sense of negativity from free speech, with 57 percent agreeing that the First Amendment should be rewritten, and 54 percent believing that possible jail time would be an appropriate consequence for “hate speech.” Americans also support government being able to punish the media: 57% believe the government should be able to take action against newspapers or TV stations. Of those who support this, 46% support possible jail time. Additionally, 36% of Americans support a government agency reviewing alternative media such as podcasts; less than half of Americans oppose this.”
A recent report from Pew Research notes that “Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.
A Daily Signal study notes that “Democrats value free speech far less than Republicans do…Free speech is seriously threatened for the first time in American history… The threat to free speech comes entirely from the Left… There is no example in history of the Left attaining power and allowing free speech. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to the Maoist takeover of China to almost any university in America today, wherever the Left comes to power, it suppresses speech…The Left must suppress speech in order to retain power. If it were to allow dissent, it would lose its hold on power…That is why conservative speakers are rarely allowed to speak on college campuses. Left-wing professors, deans, and administrators know—consciously or subconsciously—that an effective conservative speaker can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in just 90 minutes… All tyrannies label dissent ‘misinformation.’ That is what Vladimir Putin’s government labels all dissent in Russia today.”
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor in chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
The report concludes tomorrow