Relentless Assault on Free Speech

The repeated assaults on free speech can no longer be ignored.

Investigative reports have clearly demonstrated that despite widespread public outcry, anti-First Amendment moves by the Biden Administration and leading Democrats are ongoing.

Tactics include attempts by federal agencies to coerce social media to censor stories unfavorable to the current White House, the development of agencies designed to intimidate political opponents, “outing” of those donating to organizations with differing views, and weakening the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Early in the Biden Administration, the White House revived a much-reviled attempt by President Obama to influence how the news is reported. A so-called “Disinformation Governing Board” was proposed. The idea was widely opposed, and, supposedly, the concept was shelved.

Undaunted, the Biden Administration employed another tactic. According to investigative journalism by the Intercept , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous. “Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms…Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt…discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

One tactic involve the creation of a special “portal” for DHS and government partners to report disinformation directly.

An analysis by the Daily Mail based on the Intercept’s investigation revealed that the FBI official tied to suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story remains involved in influencing social media to avoid publishing stories the Biden White House dislikes. According to the article, FBI Foreign Influence Task Force Chief Laura Dehmlow is still briefing social media sites on foreign disinformation threats. Dehmlow is tied to the decision that led Facebook and Twitter to suppress the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020. Revelations were part of a lengthy report from The Intercept report notes that DHS continues its efforts to ban particularly embarrassing contrary political news

Unfortunately, the attempts aren’t limited.

Playing on the fear of intimidation created by pressure by progressives, there have been attempts to make public the names of those who contribute to organizations that oppose leftist causes. As reported by USATODAY in 2021,

“The issue of donor disclosure by nonprofit groups has once again surfaced in legislative form, as HR1, a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives…applies new disclosure regulations to groups engaging in political speech.”

The developments are not new. In 2014, Democrats introduced S. J. Res. 19, which would amend the Constitution of the United States to allow the Congress to regulate free speech and activity in federal elections. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the current Senate Majority Leader, along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., backed Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-NM) proposal to amend the First Amendment.

It’s not just heavy-handed intimidation of social media outlets or attempts to weaken Constitutional protections. Outright violence is frequently employed. On college campuses throughout the nation, Republican or conservative guest speakers are frequently subjected to mob assaults. At a recent event at the University of California, ANTIFA maced attendees. The incident wasn’t an outlier. Violent threats and actions in response to speakers who do not kowtow to the Left are a common occurrence.

Particularly on college campuses, the concept of “political correctness” has been used as excuse to condone the suppression of nonleftist ideas. A CATO Institute study found that Nearly three‐fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html