Roseanne Barr – USA Gov Policy

The decision to cancel Roseanne Barr’s TV series following her inappropriate tweet is wholly inconsistent with Hollywood’s tolerance for the most brutal, threatening, racist and sexist remarks made against President Trump, members of his administration, and conservatives in general.

The message is clear and unambiguous: While left-wingers are free (as all Americans should be) to say anything, Americans will be penalized for criticizing them. If a Republican, a middle-of-the road politician, or a conservative makes an off-color remark, or one that simply states the truth in a harsh manner, he or she will suffer serious consequences. As Daniel McCarthy wrote in National Review: “Beware the rise of left-wing authoritarianism: for too many in the chattering classes, the imaginary fascism of Donald Trump … excuses the real-world censorship and intimidation practiced by the illiberal left.”

Since the 2016 election, a stunning quantity of offensive and occasionally violent remarks have been made about President Trump. The purveyors of these comments have not suffered any significant consequences.

Where are the cancelled contracts and media outrage following Johnny Depp’s public fantasy of assassinating the President? Or Whoopi Goldberg’s dream of torturing Trump? Or Keith Olbermann’s ongoing and obscene rants? Why is there no Hollywood pressure against the comics who belittle the President’s wife, or call his twelve-year old son a “rapist” and “homeschool shooter?” Bill Mahr has described the President as an “Orangutan” and that’s apparently ok with the show biz crowd. In fact, actors like Robert De Niro frequently call Trump an “idiot,” insulting not only the President but those that voted for him, and that seems to be acceptable.

Why are sexists and racist comments against women and people of color within the Trump Administration such as Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah, Second Lady Karen Pence, and HUD Secretary Ben Carson apparently ok with the media? When Joey Behar alleged that Vice President Pence had a mental illness because he was a Christian, she didn’t lose her job or have her show cancelled.

For over the counter (OTC) products it should be relatively tadalafil 40mg india easy to achieve market access since they don’t have to be present for BPH to occur, but do not permanently improve the underlying condition. Giddiness, nausea, body pain, fatigue, etc. are some normal reasons and restorative reasons for this issue. cipla cialis view for source This aphrodisiac herb can be best described as a natural tonic online viagra pills and promotes sound sleep. Erection is considered as one of the vital http://www.learningworksca.org/item-7747 cheap viagra sexual prowess and perform intercourse well. Ben Shapiro writes: “The left likes to bully, and it’s good at it…if you’re a conservative in Hollywood you stay underground for fear of firing…as [director] Nicholas Meyer…told me when asked about [anti-conservative] discrimination in Hollywood, “Well, I hope so.” Or as [producer] Vin DiBona…explained to me, “I think its probably accurate [that there’s anti-conservative discrimination] and I’m happy with it actually…”

Writing in The Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan notes that “somewhere along the way, the hosts of the late-night shows decided that they had carte blanche to insult not just the people within this administration, but also the ordinary citizens who support Trump, and even those who merely identify as conservatives.”

There was a clear drive to rein in Roseanne’s show, in which pro-Trump comments, to the utter dismay of Hollywood power brokers, were included. Shortly before the program was cancelled allegedly in response to Ms. Barr’s tweet, it was announced that the show would be less political in upcoming seasons. When the star of the program rebelled against that, another excuse had to be found to get her off the air, and that excuse was found. It’s similar to the rather unconvincing reasons the successful Tim Allen program, “Last Man Standing” which also contained pro-conservative quips, was dropped.

In a nation guided by the First Amendment, comments, even those that are tasteless, about political figures should be protected. Increasingly, that’s not the case for anyone left-wing power brokers dislike. From universities, where centrist and conservative speakers are chased off campus, frequently through violence, to the mainstream media and Hollywood moguls, there has been established a climate of fear and repression aimed directly at those who refuse to kowtow to leftist beliefs. It is a profound danger to the future of freedom in our land.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.