Tag: Bill Ayers

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Chicago Incident and the Looming End of Free Speech

The disgraceful scene of anti-free speech thugs shutting down a political event in Chicago should worry every American, no matter what their political inclinations, party affiliation, or which candidate they support.

The incident, unfortunately, is not isolated.  Attempts to dismantle the operation of the First Amendment occur every day on college campuses across the nation, where progressive academics repress any dissenting opinion, and where centrist and conservative professors are intentionally excluded from the hiring process.

The situation is not much better in politics.  New York’s Senator Charles Schumer’s introduction of legislation to amend the First Amendment to allow the restriction of paid political speech actually gained 40 votes in the U.S. Congress before being defeated.

The left wing campaign to attack free speech will take a major step forward in the near future when President Obama’s move to transfer internet control from the U.S. to an international body influenced by nations that practice censorship is finalized.

It is baffling why the White House continues its pursuit of internationalizing internet control, particularly in light of moves by nations such as China to continuously clamp down on internet freedom.  Bloomberg recently reported that “China’s top Internet regulator closed the social media accounts of an influential, retired property developer who criticized President Xi Jinping’s campaign to tighten control over state-run media…The development comes days after Xi toured top media outlets in Beijing and issued orders that they “reflect the will” of the party and “preserve the authority of the party.” The edict represented the latest in a series of Xi moves to centralize power and rein in dissent, including jailing reporters, detaining influential Internet commentators and passing rules to keep party members from criticizing the leadership.”

Adding to the concern, the U.K.’s Independent  newspaper reports that China is preparing to ban all foreign media from publishing online.

Other causes are cardiovascular disease, increased age, and a diminished signal to the brain to cheapest viagra pills signal arousal. tadalafil generic cheapest But as men search for various answers for what to do if they have Erectile Dysfunction, they miss finding resources for what not to do while having ED. The radio station fought the fine buy cialis Visit Website and the case went all the way to the U.S. A majority of men don’t get full erection in penis due to various reasons levitra sale including aging. “Only wholly Chinese owned companies will be able to publish online – subject to strict self-censorship. China is set to ban foreign media companies from publishing any content online without the government’s approval from next month, it has been announced. A new directive issued by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has said that companies which have, at least in part, foreign ownership will be stopped from publishing words, pictures, maps, games, animation and sound of an ‘informational and thoughtful nature’ – unless they have approval from the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television.”

The Washington Examiner  has reported that FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai recently stated “”I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.”

The paradigm shift away from universal support for free speech in the U.S. can be seen even beyond the words and actions of politicians, elected officials, and academics.  Social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook have discussed proposals for censoring the entries of their users if they can be deemed “offensive.”

The problem is, “offensive” is not clearly defined.  While some examples, such as the use of racial slurs is self-evident, in practice, such as on college campuses, “offensive” has come to mean anything, on any topic, that the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy disagrees with.

The tenor of the Chicago protestors can be seen in some of the participants.  Gateway Pundit reports that Bill Ayers was active in the event. Terrorist Bill Ayers, who led the Weather Underground group in the 1960’s and 1970’s, is infamous for his encouragement to his followers to “Kill all the rich people.” He participated in the bombing attacks against the Pentagon in 1972, the Capitol in 1971, and New York City’s Police headquarters in 1970.

Despite the allegation of the current Chicago protestors that they were acting out of anger at Donald Trump’s comments regarding immigration issues, the reality is that they were continuing the radicalization of American politics and culture, already seen on college campuses.  The central tool of that radicalization is the suppression of any event, speech, or candidacy that does not fall in line with left-wing views.  It is, in essence, the elimination of open discourse, debate or campaigning. It is the replacement of Constitutional order with mob rule.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The World Spins Out of Control

There is a direct, precise link between the foreign policy choices made by the Obama/Clinton/Kerry team, and the two crises which the world finds itself facing this morning.

In 2009, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton agreed to the New START treaty with Russia, which allowed Moscow a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. The President further weakened U.S. influence in Europe by attempting to renege on anti-missile commitments to Eastern Europe. Both were specifically part of the Administration’s “Reset” policy, which, combined with the reduction of funds for the Pentagon, was supposed to significantly improve Washington’s relations with the Kremlin. Earlier this year, that diminishment of American military presence in Europe was finalized by the withdrawal of all U.S. tanks from the continent.

Clearly, the policy was an utter failure. Moscow was emboldened to dramatically ramp up its military spending, and continued to develop a far more aggressive stance towards its neighbors. It was not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Obama would have learned from his mistake and taken a different course.  But in response to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, the White House reacted only minimally.  Indeed, the one action that would have definitely grabbed Mr. Putin’s attention—the opening up of federally held land for oil and gas exploitation, a move which would have directly impacted Moscow’s ability to finance its huge military (the Russian economy is heavily dependent on the high prices it obtains from its energy sales) –was never even seriously considered.

Russia’s involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the shooting down of the civilian Malaysian airliner is a consequence of that failure.

Then there is the Middle East, and the Israeli need to defend itself by launching an incursion into Gaza.

For a brief period of time towards the end of the G.W. Bush Administration, it appeared that there was a chance for improvement in that troubled part of the planet. Whatever one’s views of the Iraq War, the people of that nation (who had suffered for so long under Saddam Hussein) actually had a chance for a better life.  They voted in free elections for the first time.  The presence of American troops provided a measure of stability. But Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of those forces placed Iraq into a tailspin, opening the door for extremists. The President’s support for the so-called Arab Spring, which assisted Islamic extremists in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere created an environment where the most dangerous elements of the region gained vastly more influence. Support for violence against Israel was greatly enhanced. Any chance for a more stable Israeli-Palestinian relationship was lost. The danger to Israel was pointedly and substantially expanded due to the White House’s very obvious estrangement from the Jewish state.

As a consequence, 1,200 rockets were launched by terrorists into Israel, leaving it no choice but to respond with armed force.
This article will compare two of the leading tablets on the market, informative page cialis generika 40mg and sildenafil. In some treatment buy levitra wholesale systems propagandist tablets are dispensed or injections are administered into penile structure. It is very common among men who have crossed the age of 40 and are still longing to have order generic cialis http://respitecaresa.org/job/directcarestaff/application-11-17/ a fruitful sexual life, can cause a lot of havoc in the lives of many couples have become fun and enjoyable as males can experience longer and harder erections with more intense orgasms after consuming Kamagra pills. As a result, this will end up affecting cheap cialis canada your sexual health in a relationship.
It would be charitable to state that policy mistakes can be forgiven if, once the consequences become apparent, different, corrective measures are taken.  But despite clear evidence from one end of the planet to the other, the Obama Administration continues on its disastrous path. Since there is little indication that the President will change course, the question of why he fails to do so must be examined.  The possibilities are deeply unsavory.

The first is that he simply rejects the entire international, American-led framework which has prevented another world war since 1945, and he is willing to endure any international chaos rather than admit that the U.S. must play an indispensable role in the globe’s stability.

The second option is that he is so blinded by egotism that he cannot bring himself to admit a mistake. There is some evidence of this in the astounding comments from the White House press office that the world is “more tranquil” than ever.

The third possibility is the most worrisome. Surrounded by a coterie of shadowy advisors with deeply questionable pasts, including individuals such as Bill Ayers, an individual linked to an aggressively unorthodox belief that America is the source of the planet’s problems rather than its cure, the President may be pursuing foreign policy goals directly the opposite of everything the U.S. has adhered to until his election. If this is the case, he has been dishonest with the nation, refusing to openly admit that he is doing so. Or, perhaps, this is the “fundamental transformation” he has spoken of, without providing any real details.

The world is spinning out of control, plunging ever closer to the depths of conflict not seen since the end of the Second World War, and Mr. Obama’s policies bear substantial responsibility for that.