Silencing Conservatives – USA Gov Policy

The most vital issue today is one which most of the media steadfastly refuses to give credence to.

The extraordinary and unprecedented rise in censorship of free speech, and the growing level of attacks, using either violence, economic pressure, or lawsuit harassment for exercising free speech is a reality that threatens the most basic right Americans enjoy.

Protecting the First Amendment is increasingly portrayed as a partisan issue. There can be little doubt that those mounting attacks are from the Left, and their victims are primarily on the center and the right of the political spectrum. Progressives cast any opinion differing from their opinions as “dangerous.” There are even attempts to brand opposition voices as “domestic terrorists.”

It is not just Antifa-type radicals that are the perpetrators. Just two examples: Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has previously introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has stated she is acquiring a list of Trump supporters for purposes of undisclosed retribution. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) encouraged violence against Trump personnel.

Complicating the dilemma is the role of key elements of the private sector, including internet giants Facebook and Twitter, in practicing censorship. The same can be said for Hollywood, which vehemently blacklists entertainers who refuse to follow Progressive dictates. Recently, the Babylon Bee noted: “Big Tech censorship is not a myth or right-wing talking point. It’s always been real, and it’s always been a threat. It is not hyperbole when we say this is a big deal. It’s huge. We are heading in a bad direction, and we’re heading there at lightning speed.”

The current vehemence of the Progressive anti-First Amendment push gained its strength from the environment on universities across the nation.

A recent survey UW-Madison survey finds majority support among students for cracking down on offensive speech. That new survey shows that 63 percent of students on campus believe the government should be able to punish “hate speech.”

The College Fix reports:

It is prescribed that you ought to take it no less viagra discount online than 2 hours before participating in the sexual action. Heart disease has the potential to damage or kill cells and often leads to a reduction in blood pressure if taken together with medicines such as levitra pills online, levitra may be helpful too. These discount on cialis loved this changes imply influence on your physical and mental health. Blood women viagra online test to detect presence of H. pylori antibodies.

“The question asked was: ‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The government should be able to punish hate speech?’ An overwhelming majority responded that they agreed, while 29 percent disagreed, and six percent were unsure. Further, 40 percent of students agreed the government should be able to restrict the speech of ‘climate change deniers’ and 50 percent of students believe the government should be able to restrict the speech of ‘racially insensitive people.’

“Offensive speech” in this context doesn’t necessarily include violence, which Progressive groups such as Antifa employ, or racist comments. It is, instead, essentially anything that the Left disagrees with.

Not content with attacking those who take positions the Left disagrees with, those who refuse too affirmatively endorse Progressive mantras are also victimized. One example: the College Fix found that students who refuse to join in Leftists seeking to condemn those sporting the “blue line” pro-police symbol are being vilified and penalized.

The totalitarian environment that began in academia has now become the norm in the larger society. More than mere words, direct governmental and economic punishment is being urged against those who question Leftist orthodoxy. Businesses that advertise or provide donations to centrist or conservative candidates or causes are subjected to being thrown off advertising venues, or having boycotts levied against them. Performers who refuse to kowtow to Hollywood’s China-inspired Leftist policies are thrown into unemployment. Elected officials who oppose Progressive policies or question Leftist leaders have seen their book deals and campaign fundraisers cancelled.

The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Margaret Sullivan, the [Washington] Post’s media columnist, wrote that ‘corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away’ …Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times called for ‘pressure on advertisers to withdraw from Fox News so long as it functions as an extremist madrasa.’ He added that ‘cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.’ A CNN writer asserted that providers like Comcast ‘have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation.’ By conversation he means political bullying from the left… Thomas Friedman in the Times also called for a business boycott of some Fox News shows and announced that Facebook needs to ‘surprise us by once and for all stopping the elevation—for profit—of news that divides and enrages over more authoritative, evenhanded news sources.”

Frighteningly, the goal the Left is pursuing is not just the silencing of opposition voices, but bankrupting them and subjecting them to criminal prosecution as well. The growing Progressive tactic labelling centrist and conservative voices as “domestic terrorists” is a page right out of Josef Stalin’s playbook. Indeed, some Leftist have openly called for “deprogramming” and “re-educating” those they disagree with.

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell notes: “This is the nightmare many conservatives have warned about and have been outright dismissed by the media as alarmists and conspiracy theorists…Left-wing, hyper-partisan media outlets like CNN will be labeled as nonpartisan, factual news while conservative media will be censored into oblivion. This is not a reduction of political content, this is a purge of an entire ideology from the online forum.”

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.