Whose Truth Should We Be Allowed To Hear?

[PoliticalChic]

The premise of the OP is once again ridiculous.

"Allowed to hear"

And who would be the one you would allow to censor what you are "allowed" to hear?

Since you are a big government republican I'll wager you think some idiot in the government as long as he is a republican idiot should be the one to tell us what we are allowed to hear, read, say and think.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

Having been given several opportunities to answer, and punting each time, it is clear, both, that you cannot find a reason to deprive religious folks the right to free speech...

...and that you are a lying sack of offal.

I imagine it's futile to discuss this with someone that refuses to acknowledge the simple facts of the law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Never having the value of America’s heritage in his heart nor his head, Hussein Obama worked tirelessly to prevent alternative views displayed.



“President Obama on Citizens United: "Imagine the Power This Will Give Special Interests Over Politicians"
Summary:

The President speaks out ahead of a pivotal vote in the Senate on campaign finance reforms to undo the damage of the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision.

“They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads –- and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Companies for Weaker Oversight.” These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.

Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.” President Obama on Citizens United: "Imagine the Power This Will Give Special Interests Over Politicians"




Be very clear: only one side of the debate is restricted, the side that opposes Democrats/Progressives, big government.

“The nasty little secret is that McCain‐Feingold does nothing to rein in the huge sums of money extracted without consent from union members’ paychecks. Much of that money flows into union political action committees (PACs) that are not subject to any limits in two key areas.”

McCain-Feingold Good for Unions, Bad for Everyone Else

www.cato.org

And this is the agenda of the Left, the Democrat Party: stifle free speech, muzzle opponents, destroy disagreement.

Democrats should be made to wear shoulder boards and North Korean oversize hats, so we could recognize them at a distance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

Having been given several opportunities to answer, and punting each time, it is clear, both, that you cannot find a reason to deprive religious folks the right to free speech...

...and that you are a lying sack of offal.

I imagine it's futile to discuss this with someone that refuses to acknowledge the simple facts of the law.

Why are you unable to answer the question, windbag?

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

Having been given several opportunities to answer, and punting each time, it is clear, both, that you cannot find a reason to deprive religious folks the right to free speech...

...and that you are a lying sack of offal.

I imagine it's futile to discuss this with someone that refuses to acknowledge the simple facts of the law.

Why are you unable to answer the question, windbag?

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was passed under Eisenhower and re-established under Reagan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

Having been given several opportunities to answer, and punting each time, it is clear, both, that you cannot find a reason to deprive religious folks the right to free speech...

...and that you are a lying sack of offal.

I imagine it's futile to discuss this with someone that refuses to acknowledge the simple facts of the law.

Why are you unable to answer the question, windbag?

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was passed under Eisenhower and re-established under Reagan.

Simple query, windbag:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Isn't it interesting that the same view on speech we find from the Democrats can be found here: the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Maoists.

And you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10.It appears that the loss of free speech, freedom of thought, seems not that important to most citizens. Possibly because they fail to see it happening, but also possibly the effect neo-Marxism has had: Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

Also, perhaps, the lessons of history aren’t taught. Under Bolshevism, those freedoms were lost, and only secret posting of opinions were produced by dissidents, unless the police found out who was writing such.





The real irony is not how closely the NYTimes, CNN, and all of the Democrat handmaiden media mirrors the Soviet media, it that all that is left for us, the real Americans is samizdat.


Samizdat (Russian: самизда́т, lit. "self-publishing") was a form of dissident activity across the Eastern Bloc in which individuals reproduced censored and underground makeshift publications, often by hand, and passed the documents from reader to reader. The practice of manual reproduction was widespread, due to the fact that most typewriters and printing devices were inventorized and required permission to access. This grassroots practice to evade official Soviet censorship was fraught with danger, as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials. Wikipedia



Vladimir Bukovsky summarized it as follows:
"Samizdat: I write it myself, edit it myself, censor it myself, publish it myself, distribute it myself, and spend time in prison for it myself."


LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

A terrible mistake to ignore the lessons of history.

 

[Blues Man]

The premise of the OP is once again ridiculous.

"Allowed to hear"

And who would be the one you would allow to censor what you are "allowed" to hear?

Since you are a big government republican I'll wager you think some idiot in the government as long as he is a republican idiot should be the one to tell us what we are allowed to hear, read, say and think.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Could it be




Tell you what take away all the preferential tax treatments the business of religion gets and then priests can stump for any politician they want.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The premise of the OP is once again ridiculous.

"Allowed to hear"

And who would be the one you would allow to censor what you are "allowed" to hear?

Since you are a big government republican I'll wager you think some idiot in the government as long as he is a republican idiot should be the one to tell us what we are allowed to hear, read, say and think.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Could it be




Tell you what take away all the preferential tax treatments the business of religion gets and then priests can stump for any politician they want.

Simple query, windbag:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Isn't it interesting that the same view on speech we find from the Democrats can be found here: the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Maoists.

And you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Why the consternation by Democrats/Liberals over replacing Justice Bader-Ginsburg with a conservative Justice?

Ginsburg voted to limit free speech.

The single most often support for Ginsburg’s beatification is that she was for abortion. For perspective, free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. And article 1, section 8 lists the powers and authority of the central government…and abortion is nowhere in that list. In fact, amendment 10 puts that ‘right’ under the purview of states.
So, they pretend that losing a Ginsburg would make abortion illegal, when all that would happen is that each state, the ‘laboratories of democracy,’ would decide. But a Ginsburg would vote to curtail freedom of everyone.




12. Progressive radio commentator Thom Hartmann reveals the rage of the Left when the Court found the indivisible tie between free speech and the funds used to provide that speech:

“In Citizens United, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court definitively transformed our political system with the assertion that campaign spending is First Amendment–protected speech. The ruling overturned campaign finance laws from 1908 all the way up to those passed after Nixon’s scandals. As I noted in my book Unequal Protection, Justice John Paul Stevens fumed in his Citizens United dissent that “Money is property; it is not speech. . . . These property rights are not entitled to the same protection as the right to say what one pleases.” Stevens, with the concurrence of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg StephenBreyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case.
…quoting earlier Supreme Court cases and the founders, Stevens wrote: The word “soulless” constantly recurs in debates over corporations. . . . Corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men.”
“The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, p.48-49



On the other side of the argument….

“ The argument that has been made, however, is that corporations are merely collections of people, and so should have the same rights as those individuals. This has often been supported by interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution that indicates the rights in the Constitution, such as the right to freedom of speech, are granted to all US citizens.”
Do Corporations Have a Right to Freedom of Speech?





In simplest terms, free speech is the prize, and never should the totalitarians be allowed to restrict it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Truth is what you charge people for. That crazy ends up with mass violence or a dictatorship eventually.

WTF are you trying to say?

 

[pknopp]

11. Why the consternation by Democrats/Liberals over replacing Justice Bader-Ginsburg with a conservative Justice?

Ginsburg voted to limit free speech.

The single most often support for Ginsburg’s beatification is that she was for abortion. For perspective, free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. And article 1, section 8 lists the powers and authority of the central government…and abortion is nowhere in that list. In fact, amendment 10 puts that ‘right’ under the purview of states.
So, they pretend that losing a Ginsburg would make abortion illegal, when all that would happen is that each state, the ‘laboratories of democracy,’ would decide. But a Ginsburg would vote to curtail freedom of everyone.




12. Progressive radio commentator Thom Hartmann reveals the rage of the Left when the Court found the indivisible tie between free speech and the funds used to provide that speech:

“In Citizens United, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court definitively transformed our political system with the assertion that campaign spending is First Amendment–protected speech. The ruling overturned campaign finance laws from 1908 all the way up to those passed after Nixon’s scandals. As I noted in my book Unequal Protection, Justice John Paul Stevens fumed in his Citizens United dissent that “Money is property; it is not speech. . . . These property rights are not entitled to the same protection as the right to say what one pleases.” Stevens, with the concurrence of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg StephenBreyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case.
…quoting earlier Supreme Court cases and the founders, Stevens wrote: The word “soulless” constantly recurs in debates over corporations. . . . Corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men.”
“The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, p.48-49



On the other side of the argument….

“ The argument that has been made, however, is that corporations are merely collections of people, and so should have the same rights as those individuals. This has often been supported by interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution that indicates the rights in the Constitution, such as the right to freedom of speech, are granted to all US citizens.”
Do Corporations Have a Right to Freedom of Speech?





In simplest terms, free speech is the prize, and never should the totalitarians be allowed to restrict it.

The law that was correctly overturned was wrote, pushed and promoted by John McCain. Bush signed it. Oddly or sadly enough Bush noted that parts of it were unconstitutional but would sign it anyway.

Bush should have been impeached for that. His oath was to uphold the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Leftists are the ones who coined the phrase "my truth," not conservatives.

 

[Blues Man]

The premise of the OP is once again ridiculous.

"Allowed to hear"

And who would be the one you would allow to censor what you are "allowed" to hear?

Since you are a big government republican I'll wager you think some idiot in the government as long as he is a republican idiot should be the one to tell us what we are allowed to hear, read, say and think.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Could it be




Tell you what take away all the preferential tax treatments the business of religion gets and then priests can stump for any politician they want.

Simple query, windbag:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Isn't it interesting that the same view on speech we find from the Democrats can be found here: the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Maoists.

And you.

IDGAF what some priest says.

But I do know the Canons of the Catholic church actually prohibit their priests from mixing politics with their religious duties or from holding political office. And the Catholic religion is older than the US.

And here's the thing any priest can say whatever he wants it's not illegal the only thing that might happen is the church might lose it's favorable tax breaks.

So it all comes down to what the priest thinks is more important, keeping his government special treatment or endorsing a candidate. And we all know which one they will choose.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Leftists are the ones who coined the phrase "my truth," not conservatives.

I have no way of knowing if what you say is true, but you right wing crazies have certainly taken it.

 

[bripat9643]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Leftists are the ones who coined the phrase "my truth," not conservatives.

I have no way of knowing if what you say is true, but you right wing crazies have certainly taken it.

Of course, you know it's true. Leftists have attacked objective truth countless times. They are even calling math "racist."

The "crazies" are all on the left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Leftists are the ones who coined the phrase "my truth," not conservatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Leftists are the ones who coined the phrase "my truth," not conservatives.

I have no way of knowing if what you say is true, but you right wing crazies have certainly taken it.

Of course, you know it's true. Leftists have attacked objective truth countless times. They are even calling math "racist."

The "crazies" are all on the left.

“Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist
The Seattle Public Schools Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee (ESAC) released a rough draft of notes for its Math Ethnic Studies framework in late September, which attempts to connects math to a history of oppression.” Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. On the subject of free speech…..

On this date, October 1, People's Republic of China established

In Beijing, with most of the Chinese mainland held by the communist People's Liberation Army, its dynamic leader, Mao Zedong, proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China on this day in 1949.

Britannica.com

Free speech was a ploy and a weapon.

Under Mao, free speech was forbidden, and then suddenly….encouraged….but just to have those critical of communism to reveal themselves:

“…Mao had always distrusted intellectuals. They had played a big role in Hungary, and were more likely than others to think for themselves. Unaware of Mao’s secret maneuvers, officials and intellectuals alike engaged in soliciting and offering criticisms. According to Mao, they were to “say whatever

they want to say, and to the full.” My mother enthusiastically repeated this in the schools, hospitals, and entertainment groups she looked after. All kinds of opinions were aired at organized seminars and on wall posters. Well-known people set an example by making criticisms in the newspapers.

The outburst of criticisms, which were often personal grouses or practical, nonpolitical suggestions for improvements, blossomed for about a month in the early summer of 1957. At the beginning of June, Mao’s speech about “enticing snakes out of their lairs” was relayed down orally to my mother’s level. In this talk, Mao said that “rightists” had gone on a rampage attacking the

Communist Party and China’s socialist system. He said these rightists made up between 1 percent and 10 percent of all intellectuals—and that they must be smashed. To simplify things, a figure of 5 percent, halfway between Mao’s two extremes, had been established as the quota for the number of rightists who had to be caught. To meet it, my mother was expected to find over a hundred rightists in the organizations under her. She had not been very happy about some of the criticisms made to her. But few of them could even remotely be considered “anti-Communist” or “anti-socialist.” Judging from what she had read in the newspapers, it seemed there had been some attacks on the Communists’ monopoly of power and on the socialist system.”
From Jun Chang’s memoire, “Wild Swans”



Mao was a favorite of the Obamunists.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.



1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.


Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.



4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia



5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.

In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.

And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.

There was a time when Republicans were the part of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the working man. That time was a hundred years ago. Over the decades, the Democrats have become the party of the people who take from the government and the Republicans have become the party of those who give to the government. Both parties court the rich because that's where the money is.