Last week my faith in journalism was bolstered a bit by the speech Matt Taibbi made to the Rescue the Republic Forum.  His subject was the assault on free speech both here and abroad, and he proved that at least one journalist understands what’s at stake.  Here are part of his remarks.

Because “freedom of speech” is now frequently described as a stalking horse for hate and discrimination — the UN High Commissioner Volker Türk scolded Elon Musk that “free speech is not a free pass” — it’s becoming one of those soon-to-be-extinct terms.  Speech is mentioned in “reputable” media only as a possible vector for the informational disease known as misinformation.

The end game is not controlling speech. They’re already doing that. The endgame is getting us to forget we ever had anything to say …

After that I realized every American has a little bit of asshole in him. William Blake said, “Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you.”  Some struggle with this concept.  Americans are born knowing it …

Incidentally propaganda is the same trick I saw in that restaurant.  It’s always someone trying to make you feel bad for their weakness, their mistakes.  Don’t be ground down by it.  Stand up straight and give it back.

Which is why I say: Kerry, Hayden, Cheney, Adam Schiff, Craig Newmark, Reid Hoffman, Pierre Omidyar, Leon Panetta, and especially that Time editor turned self-appointed censor Rick Stengel should be packed in a rocket and launched into the fucking sun.

Let’s be clear about our language.  Madison famously eschewed the word toleration or tolerance when it came to religion and insisted on the words freedom or liberty instead.  This became the basis for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which in turn became the basis for the Bill of Rights.  That’s why we don’t have “toleration of religion” or “toleration of speech.”  We have freedom of speech.  The right word for the right time.

To the people who are suggesting that there are voices who should be ignored because they’re encouraging mistrust or skepticism of authority, or obstructing consensus: I’m not encouraging you to be skeptical of authority.  I’m encouraging you to DEFY authority.  That is the right word for this time.

To all those Snoops and Nosey Parkers sitting in their Homeland Security-funded “Centers of Excellence,” telling us day after day we must think as they say and vote as they say or else we’re traitorous Putin-loving fascists and enablers of “dangerous” disinformation:

Motherfucker, I’m an American.  That shit does not work on me.  And how can you impugn my patriotism, when you’re sitting in Klaus Schwab’s (World Economics Forum) lap, apologizing for the First Amendment to a crowd of Europeans?  Look in the mirror.

I’m not the problem.  We’re not the problem.

You’re the problem.  YOU SUCK!

Thank you.

Wow!  Thank you Matt Taibbi.  At least one journalist has figured out that, once you let the censors into the tent, there will be no stopping them.  The wonder is why every other journalist hasn’t figured out that, after they silence Trump and Elon Musk, their own freedom of the press is next on the chopping block.

To quote Joe Biden, “No joke.”  The assault on free speech is well underway.  Hillary Clinton said that social media companies must moderate content on their platforms or else “we lose total control.”  She wants to see more done by the federal government to moderate content, including lawsuits and criminal charges.  Hillary went to Yale, and is supposed to be a lawyer.  Maybe, since 1791, word hasn’t reached Yale that the content of speech is the very thing the First Amendment was enacted to protect.

John Kerry has described the First Amendment as a “major block” to the federal government stopping what it deems to be “disinformation.” Kerry wants “Progressives” to “implement change.”  Kerry went so far as to say “Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are.”

Two questions.  How can the unconstitutional stripping of individual freedoms be considered “progressive?”  And, would you be comfortable with somebody from the government, let’s say Karine Jean Pierre, as the Arbiter of Truth, and approver of all speech?  Since they’re still allowing us to vote on November 5th, I would vote against that Party.

And those two 80 year old gargoyles (Clinton and Kerry) are far from the only opponents of free speech in public life.  Adam Schiff (for brains) and a group of other Democrats have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, one of the greatest free-speech victories in history, which protects political speech.

The Schiff amendment would overturn Citizens United, and thus the First Amendment, and empower state and federal governments to enact “reasonable,” “viewpoint-neutral” limitations on speech that “influences” elections.  Of course, somebody like Karine Jean Pierre or Hillary Clinton would decide what speech was “reasonable” and “viewpoint neutral.”  So put me down as a “No.”

“Free speech is killing us,” headlined a New York Times op-ed.  Its author was staff writer Andrew Marantz.  He argued that “hate speech” leads to violence, can cause totalitarianism, and even genocide.  Marantz wants to “rethink” (cancel) the First Amendment.  Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz agrees, saying that the First Amendment doesn’t protect disinformation or “hate speech.”

The First Amendment jurisprudence of our Supreme Court does not recognize anything called “hate speech.”  And even if it did, once again, who gets to decide what it is?  The term “hate speech” is nothing more than a leftist plot to scare you into giving up your God given rights.

The simple minded chorus of free speech deniers gets louder each day,  as the election grows closer.  In the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, Trump, and other Republicans complained that DHS spent $1 billion on illegal aliens, and now is short of funds for natural disasters.  Democrats yelled “foul” and said it was untrue.  Biden called it “Unamerican.” It’s one example of the kind of speech Democrats want to censor as “misinformation.”

However, there are two problems.  First, there is no constitutional way to censor misinformation in a political campaign or anywhere else, and as I’ve observed previously, you couldn’t run a decent political campaign without misinformation.  Secondly, everything the Republicans said was true. The information came from Mayorkas himself, who said the Department was out of money, and from the DHS website.  If Democrats get their way the only “information” you will be permitted to hear is whatever shit the government decides to peddle as the truth.

Then again, using the Left’s test, maybe what DHS itself said was misinformation.  Somebody better call Hillary to get a ruling on that.  Matt Taibbi was right.  I’m not the problem.  We’re not the problem.  They are the problem.  THEY SUCK!  Thank you.