I’m not sure I could put forth a better argument for limited government than a June 12, 2017, article published on the website for the Revolutionary Communist Party has unintentionally put forth. Actually, this group’s views are literally the reason we Americans must stay true to our limited government, federalist values.
For those of you who’ve never ventured over to revcom.us, it’s a glimpse into the “cult of personality” that has characterized so many ill-fated utopian movements; its members falling over in adulation, hanging upon every word blasted from the mouth of their charismatic anti-Christ. The phrase, “They drank the Kool-Aid” comes to mind. It’s pretty creepy… but I digress.
The article is entitled, “Why We Argue For Shutting Down Fascists Like Ann Coulter – And Why We Will Protect Free Speech In Socialist Society.” The free speech hypocrisy of the radical left has always perplexed me… and irritated me, to be completely honest. One minute the members of the Stalanist mob are doing everything wildly imaginable to prevent a college speaker from exercising his/her right to speak freely; the next minute the mob members are proclaiming their Constitutional right of free speech (and due process). Needless to say I was a bit surprised at the honesty which lay in the very title of this “RevCom” article.
What struck me wasn’t so much the author’s (Bob Avakian, the cult’s mysterious and charismatic leader) forthright acknowledgement of the radical movement’s double standard when it comes to free speech. What really struck me was how greatly I misunderstood the socialist concept of free speech.
As I learned, the socialist view of free speech is power, it is who holds the power, and it is who has access to a platform to thus use that power. Therefore, free speech should be applied unequally. It is to be provided differently for everyone in the new socialist society based on certain “concrete situations.”
Thus begins the justifications for limiting speech: (Head’s up! Inventively structured and long, run-on sentences follow.)
“As a basic principle, it is ideas that are in opposition to the powers that be, and the prevailing norms, and which therefore have a hard time finding means and vehicles for expression, and are often the object of direct suppression-it is precisely those ideas whose expression needs to be protected, not those which have the force of governing powers and institutions behind them.”
“It is not a level playing field!!-and there is absolutely no need to provide reactionaries, and especially outright fascists, with additional platforms to spread their poison. Indeed, providing such platforms does great harm-it legitimizes and normalizes these views.”
There is no reason to worry, we are assured… Once the United States of America ceases to exist and the socialist autocracy has taken hold, “at that point we [the Revolutionary Communist Party] would hold state power!!” That’s when everything will be okie-dokie, hunky-dory. Then, they’ll allow “even unpopular ideas.” Riiigghhhtttt………
I have to give good, ol’ Bob some credit, though. He goes farther than most of the revolutionaries of this persuasion. Rather than stopping short at hollow justifications for violating free speech rights, he provides the reader with actual excerpts from The Constitution of the New Socialist Republic of North America which specifically address the issue of free speech. Yes, there is actually a “constitution” for after America has been pummeled out of existence. (The “preamble” is quite an interesting read too.)
It is the very text of this new “constitution” for this “New Socialist Republic of North America” that so acutely illuminates and inadvertently thus proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the absolute superiority of our current Constitution of the United States of America, which enshrines the principles of limited government and individual liberty.
|America’s First Amendment||Free Speech Under the Constitution of the New Socialist Republic of North America (Article 3, Section 2, point 3A)|
|“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”||“Freedom of speech, of assembly and association, and of dissent and protest shall not be restricted, except in cases of violation of the law and through die process of the law.”|
NSRNA – Doesn’t exactly roll of the tongue, does it?
The United States of America was founded upon federalism, so that a free people would never again be enslaved by the despotic chains of government. For this reason, our 1st Amendment to the Constitution openly declares the limits of which our government may not cross, preventing it from limiting mankind’s right to speak freely. The 1st Amendment lists not one exception. Every time a government makes exceptions, like those found in the NSRNS excerpt above, those exceptions feed the beast within. It was our Founding Fathers’ pure genius that they actually understood this.
The “constitution” of the NSRNA is just another failure in a long line of failures which leads to despotism. There is no limiting of the beast to be found in their hollow prose. There is no absolute protection of liberty for mankind. This socialist “constitution,” even in this singular example regarding free speech, epitomizes intellectual impotence. This is no laughing matter. That same impotence of intellect and putrid moral rot has enslaved masses, including those presently enduring a semi-existence under the despotism in Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and the like.
It would be both foolish and imprudent of us to fail to consider the creeping despotism that is very much alive and at work against our country and our liberties. What less than 30 years ago had been relegated to the bowels of society has gained enough support and has effectively intimidated enough people into fearful silence, as to effectively vault this cultish fever into a position of power among the mainstream of American society.
We must stay true to the principles of Federalism: limited government and maximum individual liberty. We must remained unchained. We have to be our own movement and hold our virtues and freedoms dear. As such, I find it most appropriate to end with a brilliant quote from John Adams: “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?
The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.
While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.
For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.
I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.
The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.
Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.
Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017
Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.
Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?
Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.
Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Conservative Picks for the Kentucky Primary
Kentucky is the state that gave us Rand Paul. He is the biggest highlight, however he is not alone like Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Thomas Massie is also a strong Conservative. This primary has a chance to unseat a major swamp creature. Aside from this one race, there wasn’t much action to be had. Mitch McConnell shows that Kentucky does not have a rich history in holding bad politicians accountable. So if there are any Conservative victories in Kentucky, they should be celebrated vocally.
Best Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Worst Picks: Harold Rogers, Chuck Eddy, Andy Barr
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 6
James Comer is more fiscally responsible than most RINOs, but he still voted for Omnibus. He is unopposed.
Bill Gutherie is an unopposed RINO.
Three Republicans look to win Louisville. The first is Vicky Glisson. She is running a limited issues campaign focused on drugs, healthcare, and a hint of fiscal responsibility. Next is Rhonda Palazzo, the most upfront Conservative in the race. She is a real estate agent and devout Christian. Her stance is overly simplistic, to a fault. Lastly is Mike Craven. His platform is also too simplistic. This race is a three way crapshoot in terms of determining the best candidate.
Conservative Pick: Rhonda Palazzo
Since 2012, Thomas Massie has been a solid Conservative. He is unopposed.
Harold Rogers is a decades experienced swamp creature, 33 years in the making. Gerardo Serrano is his challenger. Serrano has Rand Paul potential in both foreign and domestic policy, such as FISA. His website features a unique story of him and a county sheriff, where he held a sheriff accountable when the 2nd amendment was in danger. (The sheriff wasn’t a villain in the story).
— Gerardo Serrano (@AssetForfeiture) April 23, 2018
I especially like his twitter handle. Geraldo Serrano is a strong candidate, and we desperately as a nation need to unseat swamp monsters such as Harold Rogers.
Conservative Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Andy Barr is another RINO with a horrendous spending record. He is being challenged by Chuck Eddy. This was a huge disappointment.
I am a Liberal Republican running for Congress in Kentucky 6th Against Andy Barr who has seemingly been blindly following Trump. He also didn’t condemn the Trump statements after Charlottesville or about S***hole countries. I will Not be a Renegade Republican like Trump and Barr
— Chuck Eddy (@chuckeddy) January 29, 2018
I don’t believe he realizes how much a massive walking contradiction he is.
https://t.co/pfoqQ41HKE Tomorrow night Candidate Forum. The Republican incumbent chooses not to come. It will be streamed live by Together Frankfort. Listen to a Real traditional Republican, Me. Moderate Republican, Chuck Eddy for Congress.
— Chuck Eddy (@chuckeddy) April 10, 2018
Conservative Pick: None, Barr will undoubtedly win
Conservative Picks for the Georgia Primary
Georgia is another state in the deep South that does very little to advance Conservatism in the country. Conservative Picks has thus far shown that the South is not as Conservative as stereotyped. Arkansas sends a bunch of RINOs and so too does Georgia. However, what is remarkable about Georgia is that none of the Republicans except for the awful Senator Iksakson are career politicians. He’s the only one exceeding 12 years other than Democrats, of which, he might as well be. Still, that is something to say about Georgia. The state has a lot of newer faces and most are sycophantic to Trump’s reckless spending agenda. Georgia has some strong Conservatives running to unseat incumbents. The Governor’s race was an additional focus of the Georgia addition because of previous coverage of the candidates involved.
Best Picks: Jody Hice, Shane Hazel, Philip Singelton, Hunter Hill
Worst Picks: Drew Ferguson, Rob Woodall, Rick Allen
Best Race: District 10
Worst Race: District 12
In the past NOQ Report has interviewed Hunter Hill. He is a strong candidate, with a goal to eliminate the income tax of the state, after fixing the budget. While Casey Cagle, the Lt. Governor is a favorite, forcing a runoff election is best for Conservatism in the state.
Conservative Pick: Hunter Hill
Earl “Buddy” Carter has been in the seat for three years and has proven to be a RINO with a Liberty Score of 48. He is unopposed.
This is a blue district. Herman West Jr. is unopposed in this primary.
After one year in office, Drew Ferguson has proven to be sycophantic to Trump’s reckless spending. The incumbent RINO has shown itself. However, he is being challenged by Philip Singleton. Singleton is campaigning on the exact shortcomings of Ferguson previously described. Fiscal responsibility is a pillar of his campaign as is not funding Planned Parenthood, something the incumbent has failed miserably at. The decorated veteran is also strong on immigration and for free trade.
Conservative Pick: Philip Singleton
This is another blue district and Joe Profit is unopposed.
There is no GOP contender.
Karen Handel is cut from the same cloth as Ferguson. She is unopposed.
Rob Woodall is yet another RINO. Challenging him is Shane Hazel. NOQ Report has actually been covering this primary for a while now. You can read his interview with editor Benjamin Wilhelm. Hazel is a strong Conservative and picked up a key endorsement from the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Conservative Pick: Shane Hazel
Adam Scott is another sycophantic RINO. He is unopposed.
Doug Collins has been in the game for seven years and is mediocre at best. He’s a spender. He is unopposed.
Jody Hice is a Freedom Caucus member and has only held the seat since 2014. His Liberty Score of 91 is the highest in Georgia. He has two opponents looking to force him into the runoff election. Bradley Griffin is the first opponent. He has one of the worst websites I’ve seen, functionally speaking. His platform is strong. In fact, it doesn’t seem as though he opposes Hice on any issue. The second opponent is Joe Hunt. The probably RINO warning is sounded at his campaign motto “Traditional Values and Sensible Politics.” It’s far too easy to find a social conservative but a real Conservative is more difficult. All signs point to Hunt running from the left such as his support for Net Neutrality.
Hice and Griffin are strong Conservatives, but Griffin lacks a record of action, of which Jody Hice is exceptionally strong. Because of that, voting for him is too great a risk. It would have been ideal for Griffin to have been in another District.
Conservative Pick: Jody Hice
Barry Loudermilk is like milk. He will only get worse over time. (This pun was unplanned.) He is unopposed.
Omnibus was one of a few times where Rick Allen remained fiscally Conservative. Eugene Yu looks to unseat him for the third time. Unsurprisingly, as a legal immigrant, his stance is strong. He also running as a fiscal hawk. We’ve seen this plenty of times before, but he doesn’t have any contradicting campaign talk on these matters. Rick Allen may have voted against Omnibus, but his record isn’t strong enough.
Conservative Pick: Eugene Yu
There is a race to turn the district red between Femi Akinkugbe and David Callahan. This was relatively easy to decide. Akinkugbe is for raising gun rights from 18 to 21. Callahan is a much stronger pick, having been involved with CPAC and a stronger stance on other issues. Interestingly enough, neither voted for Trump in the primaries. Akinkugbe voted for Rubio and Callahan for Fiorina. Either way, Akinkugbe isn’t a Conservative.
Conservative Pick: David Callahan
Tom Graves is an incumbent RINO. He is unopposed.