SLAVERY AND IMMIGRATION
Wednesday there was a “Reparations” hearing in Congress to discuss a payback system for African Americans whose ancestors were slaves. According to some Congress people, they African American descended from slaves were never able to catch up with everyone else here in the United States, therefore, they should have a handout.
Although there were those, such as Danny Glover and Te-Nihisi Coates, who argued the case for slavery reparations, the one who brought the House to chaos was Coleman Hughes, columnist for Quillete. https://clarion.causeaction.com/2019/06/19/black-democratic-writer-gets-booed-called-presumptive-by-white-liberal-rep-steve-cohen-after-opposing-reparations-in-house-hearing/
Hughes is an African American writer who finds the case for reparations insulting to “put a price” on the suffering of their ancestors. He admitted the horror of the era and told of how he was advised by many of either side not to speak a today’s hearing, yet he felt compelled to give his opinion of why reparations were not necessary.
He felt that trying to make up for the suffering of the past on the people of the present was ineffective, especially in his case as he grew up in a prosperous home and attended an Ivy League school.
This, of course, caused a riotous hally-balloo in the halls of Congress as no one is supposed to have an opposing opinion of a liberal idea.
Fried chicken eating, Democratic Representative and chairman of the hearing, Steven Cohen, called repeatedly for order and allowed that “even if he was presumptive, he still had a right to speak.”
(Cohen probably meant presumptuous, too much chicken in his mouth messed his vocabulary up. Could be that maligning him as he defended him confused the crowd.)
The treatment of this young man is the exact definition of racism. How dare a man of color chastise those who were trying to marginalize all people of color?
Slavery, without rant or rhetoric, is an unforgivable sin, and an abomination.
Generally, the those that were brought to the United States were Africans that were prisoners of war or criminals who were sold by the victors of local tribes or forcibly taken from their homeland to be slaves. http://www.africaw.com/africans-did-not-sell-their-own-people-into-slavery
There were incidents of slavery or indentured servants who did trade their freedom and autonomy for passage to the New World. These individuals did indeed gamble their very lives on the hope of a better future.
“Indentured servitude was a labor system in which people paid for their passage by working for an employer for a fixed term of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North American and elsewhere. It was a way for the poor in Britain and the German states to obtain paid passage to the American colonies.” https://www.bing.com/search?q=indentured+servants&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=e31e007e7e5f4894b88cd5c33f2ebb8e&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22indentured+servants%22+sid%3A%22a623096e-fa52-5453-4ceb-e3a156dc21f1%22&qs=MB&pq=indentured&sc=8-10&cvid=e31e007e7e5f4894b88cd5c33f2ebb8e
An employer was contractually bound to release the person from his or her indenture at the completion of the agreed upon term. Sometimes, this didn’t happen and the people were considered property. As the dishonest employer was deeper of pocket than the servant, the outcome was often not favorable to those who were indentured.
Another forgotten group of slaves were the Irish. The first slaves in the British colonies were white slaves from Ireland. http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/
King James II and Charles I led a concerted effort to enslave the Irish. It began when James II sold 30,000 Irish slaves to owners the New World. His proclamation in 1625 stated that Irish political prisoners to be sold to English settlers in the West Indies. The Irish were considered human livestock for English merchants. The initial majority of slaves in the New World were Irish slaves.
If anyone mentions slavery in conversation it is almost a given that it is a reference to African slaves, which is not entirely true.
How it is that no one ever mentions how shabbily treated the Irish were treated by the English monarchs?
The Irish weren’t treated too much better at the turn of the century when the Potato Famine forced so many to immigrate to the United States, even though “donations” to buy ships and passage for the starving people were often death traps when corrupt people were involved in the transactions. Those for whom the charity was intended, never made it to the New World.
When they did arrive, finding a job was difficult when the “Help Wanted” sign ended with “No Irish Need Apply.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment
Yet the Irish have not formed an” Irish Lives Matter” group or demanded reparations for the years their ancestors spent as slaves or second class citizens.
There were slave owners, who for reasons of conscience, manumitted their slaves. This often earned the undying ire of their neighbors. Another unfortunate part of being a freed slave was that someone could claim them as their property. Being unable to read and write, the free person had to have their manumission papers on them at all times, and be aware of those who would steal or destroy their papers.
Unless Congress is willing to reimburse all of the above types of slavery and their descendants this is yet another liberal tempest in a teapot, and for some, an insult to those who prospered in spite of the odds against them.
Psychiatrists have long harped upon the pitfalls women can experience if their father is not active and present in their lives. http://mamiverse.com/father-daughter-relationships-daddy-issues-13916/ Girls and boys need their fathers in order to develop properly. The value of a present, active father is often underrated in our society.
However, if you subscribe to some of the liberal thinking taught in Marquette University, you might disagree.
Many fathers are unknowingly practicing “benevolent sexism,” without even knowing it. This means that by treating their daughters with great care and affection it gives them the idea that they cannot support themselves financially. https://www.thecollegefix.com/daddy-guilty-of-benevolent-sexism-by-making-daughter-princess-marquette/
Even though the majority of the girls in the study who had a loving relationship with their fathers had higher self-esteem, the practice of treating them well, ‘encouraged traditional gender roles.”
Gasp! What horrors!
Having been highly influenced by my Dad, a retired chemical engineer, and seeing his teachings reflected in my own daughter, I can honestly say that I think more logically than most. He taught both of us analytical thinking and a boatload of common sense.
I reluctantly attended his classes of, “if you open it, shut it and turn the light off when you leave the room.” These are lessons that I find repeated to my own daughter, much to her displeasure. From my Father, I learned to budget and find sale prices to make money go farther.
I can say without reservation that my Dad was always my biggest fan and supporter. No matter what, no matter who, he has encouraged me to follow my dreams and stretch myself to new limits.
He is the one who gave me my work ethic. He worked every day that he was scheduled to do so. He did not call in sick, except the one week when he twisted his ankle so badly that he could not walk.
He is the voice in my head when I am tempted to call out.
When I was in school and played sick, he would look me dead in the eye and ask, “are you absolutely sure you just can’t make it?” I find that question rolls around in my head repeatedly when I am not feeling one hundred percent well. Ultimately, I decide that I can make it and go in to work anyway.
I believe women have rights. I want equal pay for equal work. It is called “Equity Feminism.”
That being said, there are roles that each sex is suited to do better than the other. Not to say that each CANNOT do both equally, but some things come easier than others.
I would say too that being treated well is a universal want we all have, and that is normal as well.
The love and care a girl receives from her father, and the love and care a boy receives from his mother and vice versa are important.
If both sexes do not see and receive love and affection within the family unit, how are they to build their own adult relationships?
Fathers are not an expendable commodity in the family life. They are key in the development of young men. Sons may be all for their moms until puberty sets in, then most young men seek the guidance of their fathers. This is how they learn to be a man. Hopefully, to learn how to take care of things in a responsible way and have a strong character that has been learned by example.
Gender roles have a purpose. If everyone is carrying their weight equally, no matter how it is distributed, life is easier and better. Children learn cooperation and how to depend on a marital partner and how to be dependable for the same.
Today’s obsession with “toxic masculinity” and “radical feminism” is responsible for the breakdown of families and traditional values, much to our society’s detriment.
(NOT A BEER FEST)
May fifth commemorates the victory of the Mexicans over the French army in the Battle
of Puebla in 1862. It was a large victory for Mexico as they were able to defeat a the larger,
better equipped French army of 6500 with a small militia of 4500 men.
It was a short lived victory, as Napoleon III sent more troops from Europe and over a year’s time
was able to install Archduke Ferdinand Maximillian, his nephew, as ruler of Mexico.
It is not Mexico’s Independence Day as many may assume. Mexico’s Independence Day is
September 16. It celebrates Mexico’s independence from Spain. It is as important as our July 4 th
to the Mexican people.
After achieving independence from Spain in 1821, and experiencing subsequent wars thereafter,
Mexico had accumulated a large debt to many countries, France being one. It was for the
supposed unpaid debt that France felt the need to advance its empire. Mexico had reneged on
their debt to England and Spain, which caused these countries to withdraw support, allowing
France to invade.
The United States and Abraham Lincoln were very sympathetic to the Mexican cause, but
because of the Civil War, were unable to offer any real assistance against France.
After France had taken over the government of Mexico, Maximillian and his Empress Carlota
took up residence in Chapultepec Castle.
Chapultepec (cha pull te peck) is the Nahuatl Indian word for “at the grasshopper’s hill,” and
was located in the highest place in the City of Mexico.
The castle was initiated by Viceroy Bernardo de Galvez during the Spanish occupation of
Mexico. It was abandoned during the rebellion between Spain and Mexico, then later being used
for various purposes.
Maximillian brought craftsman and artists, along with various objects of art and furniture from
Europe to improve the castle and make it more livable. He also commissioned a long avenue of
approach and spectacular rooftop gardens.
Today it is a beautiful tourist attraction.
Many find May fifth a good reason to hoist a few and have a fiesta, but there is a real history
behind the beer fest it has become in recent years.
FAKE NEWS OR PROPAGANDA
President Trump has run a constant fight against what he calls the Fake News since the day he came down the elevator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy.
He has good reason as many of the networks and periodicals have published information on the President, and later are forced to recant it and apologize because the information was incorrect, or just an outright lie.
There is no doubt that they handle the truth carelessly, but is that all that it really is?
It is possible that the news media along with the government in collaboration are trying to spread fake news or propaganda to the American people.
Isn’t that against the law?
It was up until 2013, the year that it all changed. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) removed a 1948 ban on the United States government allowing them to release propaganda on its citizens. This action neutralized the Smith – Munt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.
The NDAA was created with the “purpose” of protecting citizens here and abroad from undue influence of foreign governments on the Internet. What it didn’t mention (outloud) was that it also allowed the government to create and release propaganda on its own citizens.
Most people were not dismayed at the time with this as there was no funding for the government to create and distribute any propaganda.
WAIT – THERE’S MORE
Then President, Barrack Obama signed a bill into law in 2016 for the NDAA that included what was called “Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016.” Though designed to protect the US from foreign entities such as Russia and China, it also allowed the release of propaganda to US citizens. It set up a grant funding for non-governmental originations and others that were already engaged in counter propaganda related work.https://freedomoutpost.com/is-the-us-engaging-in-propaganda-against-its-own-people/
This provided the funding needed to propagate propaganda.
When a falsehood is repeated many times on a form of media trusted by the people, it can become the accepted truth by the public.
When the “fake” news networks repeat “impeachment” 222 times, like they did one day, it makes one feel that some law had been broken and the President was sure to be impeached. On what grounds no one could really say, but that was not important. The repetition convinced many that it was inevitable.
Of course, since the Mueller Report has been released, OBSTRUCTION, is the new catch word.
It is hard for any lawyer to explain how one can obstruct justice, when no crime has been committed. Probably in the LaLa land of Washington D.C., the rules are made up and the law doesn’t matter.
So, if propaganda is okay, how far behind can full censorship and the removal of the First Amendment be?
Actually, it isn’t too far away.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have recently banned Alex Jones and his conspiracy theory show and commentary from their platforms, citing hate speech, violence etc. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636030043/youtube-apple-and-facebook-ban-infowars-which-decries-mega-purge They claim that they are fine with opinions but all must be courteous to each side. Who decides what is courteous or respectful? Who died and made them king of free speech?
Many might think that Alex Jones is a kook, so who cares? Everyone should care, as this sets a precedence for anyone with an odd idea or theory to be shut down.
The parents of a young man in a Connecticut high school are suing his school because he offered an opinion about a Shakespearean character who was transgender in one of the Bard’s plays.
His conservative views on transgender and same sex marriage were “offensive” to some others in his class. He refused to apologize or submit to suspension as he has First Amendment rights.
Everyone has First Amendment rights to free speech. It is guaranteed in the Constitution.
No one who is offended has the right to usurp another’s free speech rights.
They have the right to be offended, but they also have the right to ignore it or walk away.
The American People must stand up to censorship and propaganda. It is like water on stone, if allowed to continue, it will break down the hardest surface.
CAN BILLIONAIRES STILL BUY BERNIE?
In Asheville, NC, a traditionally artsy town that was once home to many citizens of extremely old money, such as George Vanderbilt, a 2016 bumper sticker is still displayed on an SUV that said, “Billionaires Can’t Buy Bernie.”
In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried the state in the primary, but Bernie Sanders has a large following as well. He appeals to the young, the alternative life stylers and those who believe Utopia could be achieved if only Conservatives, Capitalists and Republicans would get out of the way.
This bumper sticker raises the question:
Who might possibly pay for Bernie Sanders’ campaign? He is not self-funded, so he must have some backers.
Who is Bernie Sanders and what is he about as a Senator, Congressman and presidential hopeful?
Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the US senate after winning reelection in 2012 with 71% of the vote. His 16 years in the House of Representatives makes him the longest serving independent in Congressional history.
He graduated from college in 1964, but not much is mentioned about his early career before becoming a politician. His first job was at 40 years old when he became Mayor of Burlington Vermont.
However, he denies being a career politician, even though he has 25 years of service between the terms in the Senate and the House.
Being that donations to campaigns are of public knowledge, it might be that billionaires are the ones supporting Bernie, along with the affiliates of the many, many unions who are contributing money to his campaigns.
The conclusion could be drawn that Sanders has the support of the working person looking at these lists of donors as union members make these donations, not the actual union.
How is that accomplished? Are there funds withheld from paychecks earmarked for political campaigns? Are there fund-raising rallies in which members of the union are invited to and encouraged to donate?
The final question is, who are the heads of these unions, et. al?
One donor on the list for $5000.00 and $10,000 respectively is MoveOn.org.
This is a George Soros backed group. The MoveOn.org organization has been tied to training some of the rioters that shut down Donald Trump’s Chicago rally.
Hmmm, George Soros is a billionaire. Isn’t that is interesting? That’s one billionaire.
Another controversial point is that Sanders swears that his followers didn’t go to disrupt Trump’s rally. Perhaps not directly, maybe these Sanders followers could be guilty by association.
Another donor is Microsoft Corporation. Isn’t Bill Gates a billionaire?
Where is the money and power behind these respective unions, whose “affiliates” have made donations?
For example, the CWA is actively behind Bernie. The Communications Workers of America represent more than 70,000 different companies in different fields. Workers, the Print and Publishing and Media workers, the National Association of Broadcasting Employees and Technicians to name a few.
There is a real possibility that some billionaires own or have interest in some of these companies that provide airline services, and media services, etc.
Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire. He founded Fox News Channel, News Corporation and more. That would encompass media and communications.
Richard Dean Anderson is the CEO of Delta Airlines, but only receives $17.6 million a year from this carrier. He is, however, associated with 251 board members, in 10 different organizations across 11 different industries. His net worth is only $31 million, so he isn’t a billionaire, yet. Delta would have a union of flight attendants and pilots.
So far, at least 3 billionaires, just for examples.
Perhaps this bumper sticker was false advertising, as three examples of individuals whose net worth is over a billion would qualify as Billionaires.
It remains to be seen if the same billionaires will support Bernie in 2020. His recent tax returns show that he is a millionaire in his own right.
Seems rather hypocritical to use the rhetoric that he is only for the working person.
Food for thought!
BIDEN AND SON
Traditionally the United States, in an effort to stabilize countries with warring factions, has long since adopted the habit of funding terror, the idea being that we pick the “lessor of two evils” and try to push out the worst evil by supporting its’ opposition.
The funding of any and all terrorist groups should stop. At the very least, the US should be more prudent of whom it is funding. Our investment in Afghanistan vs. the Russians seemed to initially pay off, but later gave us a sucker punch in the form of 9/11/2001.
That being said, another group the US has funded are the rebels in Ukraine. There is a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that has gained and lost momentum. This group is in an ongoing conflict with the Ukrainian government.
The most ironic thing about our funding of these rebels is coincidental hiccup with Burisma Holdings Ltd, a natural gas company tied to ousted Ukrainian president, Victor Yanukovych.
Paul Manafort and Richard Gates worked in the Ukraine as unregistered agents for Victor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions, during which time they accrued millions of dollars which they moved around in various ways to avoid paying taxes. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/yanukovych-manafort-indictment-trump_n_59f72e5ae4b03cd20b82fe20
A former Ukrainian Parliamentary lawmaker, Nikolai Zolochevsky, previously a member of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and his minister of environmental resources, minister of ecology and natural resources, as well as the deputy secretary of the Ukrainian National Defense Counsel, until Yanukovych was ousted, has control of Burisma Holdings Ltd.
Interestingly, Hunter, the son of Joe Biden, former vice president, and Devon Archer, college roommate of Christopher Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry joined the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd. Both Biden and Archer are employees of Rosemount Seneca Partners, a U.S. investment company tied to Rosemont Capital, a private investment firm that Archer and Heinz founded.
This isn’t the first or the worst of this misalliance of the children of public figures.
Their firm struck a one billion dollar investment deal called Bo Hai with the Bank of China.
Ironically, the Bank of China is literally funding a business co-owned by the sons of two powerful politicians in the United States. https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/a
The Bank of China is unlike American banks as China has ownership of the bank. A deal with this bank is a direct connection to Communist China.
Of course, Hunter Biden et al, are private citizens and can accept employment wherever they find opportunity. It seems that being highly connected often brings a great deal of opportunity sometimes. It certainly appears to be a plus, even though there has been some question of an extreme conflict of interest.
The sale of natural gas is a source of conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainians purchase the bulk of their natural gas from the Russian government majority owned gas company, Gazprom. They feel that the prices were raised to Ukraine as a punishment for wanting a closer association with the European Union.
Vice President Biden visited the Ukraine in April of 2014 to offer U.S. expertise in expanding their natural gas production. Did he register as a foreign agent or did he use his position as Vice President to exert influence on the Ukrainian country?
Is he any different than Paul Manafort? That remains to be seen, but it is possible that this man, who is now steeped in controversy about his handsy ways with women and young girls, could be the leading Democratic nominee for President?
It is a disturbing thought.
ET TU, MEXICO?
Immigration has been a key issue in the news of late. Congress has flipped, then later flopped on their position concerning illegal immigrants. They will do anything to keep President Trump from a win on his border wall campaign promise. They will obstruct knowing full well that border area is in true crisis and something must be done to prevent the US from being overrun with those who would bypass the line and enter illegally. The fact that violent crime and dangerous drugs travel with some of the people in the caravan is of little concern to the Democrats. They have walls and security, unlike the average citizen.
The Democratic side led by Pelosi and her gang of misfits , will go for allowing more illegal aliens into the country in the hopes that they will be fresh Democratic voters for their machine. They do not care that the system is groaning under the weight of their upkeep.
Secure borders to both the North and South are essential for national security, but what of the 22 million or so illegals from various countries that have already been released into the United States, not to mention the thousands that continue to come?
For the sake of argument, say theoretically, the US would need a three part plan.
The first of a three part plan would be to try to build the wall in order to keep out any new illegal immigrants. Check, President Trump is getting monies and resources together for the first half.
Part two of the plan is to find a way to document the people who are already here and find the best way to deal with and process them. No check, Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol and ICE are overrun with lack of resources, and so many migrants are lost in the system as they are already here.
Part three would be to quell the “caravans’ at the border before they enter the US. See part two, it is a no go right now.
Except for part one that President Trump is forcing through by declaring (legally) a national emergency, there is no cooperation to find or create any plausible ideas or ways to accomplish parts two and three.
The Democratic Party controls the House. They have made it abundantly clear that their obsession is to take President Trump down and if it is necessary to pull everyone in the United States down with him, so be it.
They refuse to visit the border and meet the troops on the ground. Border patrol have issued a standing invitation, which they have refused to acknowledge. They prefer to wear blinders and throw shade and derision at the President. They do not want to know the truth.
Congressional and Senate leaders would not listen in a meeting with the DHS director, Kirstjen Neilson. Pelosi stating, “I reject your facts.”
However, the facts weren’t particular to Secretary Nielson, they were the exact data about the problem. It is a stalemate between the President and the Democratic held Congress, and the renegade RINOS.
One of the traditional sources of illegal aliens is Mexico. For many decades, the country was so economically depressed, that the United States was the proverbial Promised Land.
People could cross the border, get a job, even a low wage job, and earn much more than they had in Mexico. They could send their money home to their families, build their homes there and put money into their economy, usually around a 10 to 1 exchange rate. That is, 10 pesos to one dollar.
In 1993, NAFTA, (North America Free Trade Agreement) was signed into law. Then president Clinton said that “NAFTA meant jobs.” (He did not necessarily mean for people in the United States, but it did mean jobs for the neighboring countries where former US manufacturing jobs were transferred.)
Vicente Fox, president of Mexico at the time, said, “The real end winner of NAFTA will be Mexico because we have that human capital. We have that resource that is vital to the US economy.”
Felipe Calderon, Mexican president from 2006 to 2012, has issued a statement to Trump’s claim of a border wall at Mexico’s expense, “Mexico won’t pay a cent for Trump’s stupid wall.”
All of this is most likely true even with NAFTA, however the mass migration continued from Mexico to the US, illegal immigrant dollars have been sent south of the border, improving and building many of the Mexican citizen’s standard of living. A job that the government has not been held responsible to do for its own people.
Hospitals in the United States deliver migrant babies, heal their sick and injured. Some pay their way and some cannot. Many take advantage of social welfare programs such as WIC and Food Stamps.
In 1985, when Mexico City had a horrendous earthquake and subsequent mudslide, causing great loss of life and physical damage, the United States sent a large sum of financial aid to combat the devastation.
The above references are just a couple of the many examples of the helpful relationship of the United States and Mexico.
It might be nice for Mexico to remember how it has come to have opportunities for its people. The Mexican government has never done one third as much for her people as the United States has done indirectly and directly by sending financial aid every year. Central and South American countries also receive this aid from the United States.
This aid is to ensure that these governments will provide opportunity and an economy for their citizens, so they wouldn’t need to leave their homes to come to the United States for a better life.
While it is not the responsibility of Mexico to secure our border, they might want to consider with some gratitude all the United States has done for them by way of employing their citizens, and ensuring the good health of many as well.
There is certainly a lot more the Mexican government could do to deter the caravans from arriving at the US border, but the new president isn’t cooperating very much.
If President Trump is forced to close the border indefinitely to solve the Humanitarian and Drug crisis, everyone is going to lose money and commerce. There will be shortages of products and foods. The cost of this action would certainly be staggering for both sides of the coin.
It is ironic that a United States President has to fight his own government along with foreign governments just to keep his constituents safe.
Write your representatives and demand an answer to this dilemma.
SIX DECADES OF CENSORSHIP
More and more, it is coming to the light that the “free” press is pressured and controlled by the corporations that own the media. These corporations have most likely “bought and paid for” the candidate of their choosing and demand that the spin to always be in said politico’s favor.
The only way to get real news about the United States and what is really happening in the world is to go to a foreign or alternative news source. These sources are less likely to candy coat or spin the issues. It can be a real eye opener.
Should a journalist here in the US try to step out in an unpopular truth, they will be quickly squashed and suppressed. The bosses get the tongue lashing from the political power. That defecation rolls down hill and so on. However, this is not new, but it is only worsening.
If anyone remembers Richard Nixon and the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, the point is easily proven.
The Smothers Brothers found themselves in direct conflict with the CBS’ network censors. The show catered to the counter culture that was sweeping the country in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Regardless of the controversy, the show was hilarious and wildly popular with viewers. The guests and writers of the show were mostly against the mainstream.
The president, Richard Nixon, was often the butt of many jokes. The Vietnam War was another unpopular issue that was bandied about in satire. In fact, a documentary on the show and its’ suppression has been aired on Public Television with Tommy Smothers narrating.
Not only was their show pulled from the air by the powers that be, the Smothers Brothers were blocked from having other shows. They were more or less black balled from the entertainment field.
Another example that comes to mind is the movie starring Robin Williams called Good Morning Vietnam. Loosely based the experiences of an AFRS DJ during the Vietnam War,
Adrian Cronauer is a very popular military DJ, played by Williams. He is frustrated at his inability to report the actual news. The military censors received the telex reports of the happenings in the area. They crossed out anything that would be considered controversial. The denouement of the movie occurred when Robin Williams’ character refused to be censored and reported all of the news which was forbidden.
An article written on LiberalOutcast.com entitled Liberal Blogger & Journalist Shows How Most News Is Controlled For Political Purposes by is an example of the frustration and awakening of a liberal writer. Being a liberal is usually a pass to say what is on your mind without any road blocks. However, even the liberals in the press corps are herded toward the vision statement and political leanings of the powers that be.
Recently. Judge Jeanine Pirro was pulled from the Saturday Night Line Up on Fox News Channel on the 9 o’clock slot between Jesse Watters at 8pm and Greg Gutfield at 10pm..
Her First Amendment rights were taken away as Fox News was concerned about her comments about the actions and comments of Ilhan Omar, freshman Congresswoman. Ilhan Omar is out talking freely about her Anti- Semantic views yet Nancy Pelosi cannot bring herself to call her out by name, but Judge Jeanine is pulled from her very popular show because no one wants to offend a Muslim or their beliefs.
It is hard to explain how the news companies have traveled from the horrifying and tragic events on 9/11/2001 to where they tiptoe about in fear of being called a racist, an Islamophobe, any other kind of “phobe” etc.
Perhaps the people who died on this date are no longer important. Or perhaps, the last administration was so caught up in Islamic adoration that everyone was indoctrinated?
How can we have a free press if it is controlled?
Have we already lost the First Amendment?
In Idaho it definitely was for a moment. The governor signed a cancellation of the 1st Amendment into law. The Ag-Gag law will jail anyone who does undercover filming inside production areas where animals are husbanded. In no way is it advocated to abuse animals but it is understandable that a business would not want their operations filmed if there are industry secrets that could be copied. However, the law was in direct opposition of First Amendment rights.
However, the law was later overturned by a Federal Judge, citing it violated free speech. https://www.democracynow.org/2015/8/4/headlines/idaho_judge_overturns_ag_gag_law_citing_free_speech_rights
All that being said, it is completely irresponsible to pass a law that restricts free speech. How can the truth reach the masses if it is controlled?
The social media platforms are in a state of conflict with the First Amendment of late as they have set up algorithms to control Conservative views. Twitter will ban anyone for life if they please, YouTube takes away one’s ability to make money from their videos, Facebook will “review your post” if it is controversial.
Seems everyone who is of a conservative mind must be controlled by the Left, who are allowed free rein of their tongues, a privilege that is now denied to anyone on the Right or a Republican.
The country is in a sorry state that has been on the downhill slide for six decades where freedom of speech is concerned. One trembles to think what will happen if it is not checked in a hurry. Everything the United States has ever stood for is at stake here. Please stand up and be counted. Fight for our First Amendment rights.