You have to hand it to the Republicans. They have mastered the art of the opposite game. The game is simply to accuse the other side of what they themselves are doing, and say it over and over again, to muddle the truth.
A perfect example is declaring that the Biden administration is weaponizing the D.O.J. against The Don- that all these indictments are the epitome of a political witch-hunt. The reality is The Don tried to use the justice department to overturn the election.
In fact, these days, it is common to hear Republicans wanting to take control of the D.O.J. Imagine The Don (or DeSatantist) handpicking an Attorney General who reports directly to them. That’s their intention, and a chilling thought as D.O.J independence is an essential guard-rail to preserving our democracy. With The Don’s need for revenge, “his” Attorney General will do his bidding, “his” F.B.I. will round up the Don’s list of enemies. It will be a new McCarthyism.
In the newest iteration of the opposite game, we are watching the Republicans, led by Jim-Foaming-at-the-Mouth-Jordan accuse Democrats of violating the First Amendment rights of election deniers. The nerve. How dare those that believe in the peaceful transfer of power deny others the right to deny that Biden won.
Basically, what Jordan is saying is just because you say something is blue doesn’t mean I can’t say it is red. To that I say to Mr. Jordan: just because you say you’re smart doesn’t mean that you aren’t an idiot.
To paraphrase Jordan: The First Amendment recognizes that no person or entity has a monopoly on the truth, and that the “truth” of today can quickly become the “misinformation” of tomorrow. Labeling speech “misinformation” or “disinformation” does not strip it of its First Amendment protection. As such, under the Constitution, the federal government is strictly prohibited from censoring Americans’ political speech.
This is rich from the same Republican Party that is leading the charge to censor the teaching of what it calls “divisive concepts” about race; the same party that attempted to expel two Democratic members of the Tennessee state Legislature who loudly called for more gun control after a school shooting; the same party that threatens to impeach a liberal judge in North Carolina for speaking out about racial bias; the same party that has aided and abetted book banning and banning of drag shows in red states across the country; the same party that wants to prevent women from having control over their own bodies; the same party that is trying to impeach a newly elected State Supreme Court Judge in Wisconsin from rendering her legal opinion because Republicans don’t like her politics.
A most recent and egregious examples of Republican censorship is taking place in North Carolina, where a state judicial commission has initiated an investigation of Anita Earls, a Black State Supreme Court Justice, because she publicly called for increased diversity in the court system where 86% of the seven Supreme Court Justices, and 15 Appellate judges, are White.
Here is what Anital Earls said that set off a bonfire, and subsequent investigation, by the Judicial Standards Commission in North Carolina,: “I really feel like everyone’s voice needs to be heard, and if you don’t have a diverse judicial system, perspectives and views are not being heard, you’re not making decisions that are in the interests of the entire society. And I feel like that’s wrong.” Is just speaking about the need for diversity grounds for an investigation? The great defenders of free speech say it is.
If you recall, in September of 2020, The Don released an executive order entitled, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” which included prohibitions on the following “divisive concepts”:
That an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; that any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
What are the defenders of free speech saying here? Injustice and oppression in the past are in the past and have no relevance. To bring this up, to “say it out loud,” results in someone feeling “discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other psychological distress,” is just not allowed. So women who are harassed by men should not be allowed to say anything to make men feel bad. That blacks have no right to talk to White people about the impact of slavery as it might make a White person feel guilty. That indigenous people should shut their trap about having all their land stolen by White people. In a world where the extreme Republicans rule, perhaps there will be the establishment of the “Bureau of Guilt and Anguish.” Its motto: If you make a White person feel guilty you will be investigated.” It’s outrageous and the hypocrisy makes the blood boil.
The Grand Offal Party 