Speech and Sedition in 2021

The progressive press decides that dissenters should be suppressed.

Most Americans learn in school about flagship political excesses in U.S. history like Joe McCarthy’s 1950s inquisitions, the post-World War I Red Scare and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Yet a recent Washington Post opinion piece purports to explain “what the 1798 Sedition Act got right.”

The law banned a wide range of political speech and publication. It was passed by the ruling Federalists to suppress the rival Democratic-Republicans, whom they saw as seditious. The Post piece argues that though their solution was “flawed,” the Federalists had reason to worry about “unregulated freedom of the press.”

We highlight this as one example among many of the emerging appetite for viewpoint suppression among journalists, intellectuals and Democrats in the wake of the Trump Presidency. They increasingly see domestic enemies wherever they look, and are devising ways to use levers of power to restrict, regulate and boycott opposition. It’s an extraordinary and ominous turn in a democracy.

Many calls to sanction opposition media come from voices that claimed to be most alarmed by Donald Trump’s attacks on the free press. Margaret Sullivan, the Post’s media columnist, wrote this week that “corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away,” declaring that the outlet’s “role in the 400,000 U.S. lives lost to the pandemic and in the disastrous attack of Jan. 6” has been “deadly.”

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times called for “pressure on advertisers to withdraw from Fox News so long as it functions as an extremist madrasa.” He added that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.” A CNN writer asserted that providers like Comcast “have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation.” By conversation he means political bullying from the left.

Wall Street Journal

Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office

At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution. The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .

Source: Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office

If they can, does that mean Obama can be impeached? Maybe get Nixon while we’re at it. The notion of moot-ness seems to be moot.



Alan Dershowitz: Democrats Cannot Impeach Trump, and You Can’t Impeach Him After Leaving Office. “Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.”

I should also note that they can’t disqualify him from running again. The penalty for impeachment only includes disqualification from offices of “trust or profit,” and as Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman demonstrated some time ago, those offices are appointed, not elected offices.


Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: “The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname ‘protester prosecutor’ from the antiwar group CodePink.”

The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .

Source: Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Impeachment has now become a “vote of confidence” maneuver, only unlike the British system, the opposition party gets a vote.

I think this might be another example of Dennis Prager’s statement that “The Left Ruins Everything It Touches”.


1) No, Trump did not incite a riot:

Under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, inflammatory speech can be punished only in narrowly defined circumstances that go beyond what happened on Wednesday. Under federal law, incitement to riot does not include “advocacy of ideas” or “expression of belief” unless it endorses violence, which Trump did not do…

…[Trump] urged his followers to “show strength” and “take back our country” by “marching over to the Capitol building” and “demand[ing] that Congress do the right thing.” The “right thing,” according to Trump, was overturning the election results by rejecting electoral votes for Biden.

I believe that Trump sincerely believes he won the election and that it happened as a result of fraud. I have supported his fight to have the evidence of that given a fair hearing in the court system, but I think he should have allowed January 6th’s events to play out without his input.

Source: Roundup

Most of the people calling what Trump did “incitement” are the sorts who are ready to commit violence merely because Trump exists.

Deadly Laws: Sleeping Peaceably

And this is also a response to people who say passing a counterfeit $20 bill shouldn’t be a death penalty offense.

Most importantly, we must never make any law we are not willing to kill to enforce, for that is the final civilizational choice in law enforcement.  If we are unwilling to back up our choice of laws with the force necessary to secure them, including deadly force when necessary, we find ourselves facing cries to defund, abolish and reimagine the police.

Stately McDaniel Manor

If we wish to have police forces—we all know about D/S/C ruled cities that don’t—they must have the authorization to use force, up to and including deadly force.  So yes, the police may end up killing someone over a traffic violation.  But if they do, and if they acted lawfully, they used deadly force because all of the elements necessary for the use of deadly force were present, not because someone ran a red light, which was merely the probable cause predicate for the police to stop them.  It was only when they drew a weapon and threatened the police with imminent seriously bodily injury or death that the police were authorized to use deadly force.  However, if there were no laws against running red lights, that person would never have been killed by the police.  Do we therefore eliminate all traffic laws because of the possibility someone stopped for violating one may provoke the police into shooting them?

The same applies when a criminal steals a $5.00 pink flamingo from someone’s yard.  The crime would generally be petty theft, a misdemeanor.  Conviction for that crime would never involve the death penalty, but only a small fine, occasionally restitution, and maybe a short jail sentence in a county jail if the criminal has a previous record of convictions.  However, if confronted by the homeowner in the commission of that crime, the criminal pulls a knife and menaces the homeowner, the elements for the use of deadly force may be present, and they may be shot and killed.  One may whine the criminal died for stealing a plastic flamingo, and no one should face the death penalty for misdemeanor theft, but that’s not really what happened, was it?  Do we make theft legal to avoid the possibility a thief may be lawfully injured or killed?


Stately McDaniel Manor

credit: babylon bee

On 12-03-20 I wrote Reimagining Reality, which was an article about what defunding and abolishing the police really means.  Because this reality is so little known and appreciated, this excerpt was of particular importance:

View original post 1,715 more words

FROM BRAD SMITH: As presidential electors vote today, a few thoughts: 1) it is not a “constitu…

FROM BRAD SMITH: As presidential electors vote today, a few thoughts:

1) it is not a “constitutional crisis” or an effort to “overturn the election” when a candidate challenges initial election results in court. Indeed, such challenges are part of the process, specifically provided for by law. The fact that some people think the challenges are weak on the merits is irrelevant. Al Gore did not concede defeat until well into December 2000, and even then he did not concede that he lost the election–only that George W. Bush had been “selected” president.

2) Polling in December 2016 showed that roughly half of Democrats believed–falsely and without evidence–that Russians had hacked American election tabulators and changed the results of the election.

3) The effort to get state legislatures to appoint slates of electors directly is similar to the effort, wildly popular among large segments of the Democratic Party in 2016, to convince electors to vote for a candidate who did not win their states and for whom they were not pledged–constitutionally permissible, politically catastrophic if successful, but with no chance of success;

4) In every Republican presidential win of the past 30 years–2000, 2004, and 2016–at least one Democratic House member has challenged the Electoral votes when they were counted in January.

Source: FROM BRAD SMITH: As presidential electors vote today, a few thoughts: 1) it is not a “constitu…

Deep State End Game

Today the Supreme Court of the United States refused to even hear a case by Texas regarding the blatantly fraudulent 2020 election on the basis that: Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.


“Justices” Alito and Thomas state my point themselves:

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona  v. California , 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

The court has no discretion to deny this case, which they are ALL fully aware of, yet they did it anyway.

Source: Deep State End Game

Trump did not lose a Nevada decision

The headlines all say Trump lost yet another case in Nevada.  He didn’t.  The case in Nevada involves parties other than President Donald Trump, and presumably without his resources.  However, the judge’s decision is a useful insight into the hurdles that Trump and his supporters face on the way to the Supreme Court.  It also reveals that Perkins Coie, the law firm that paid for the Steele Dossier, is involved in the post-election legal battles.

American Thinker