Censorship Industrial Complex
If you find Trump’s VP choice “weird”, it’s because you’re still paying attention to legacy media.
Opponents of Donald Trump are trying a new line of attack. For the last few years both the Democratic party and much of the legacy media have been claiming that electing Trump to a second term will somehow pose a deadly “risk to democracy”. That line of attack is on hold for now, and it’s being replaced by a new approach to smear Trump and especially his choice for VP, JD Vance.
What’s interesting in this compilation video below is that not 0nly are the interviewees engaging in this attack, but so are the interviewers!
Below the video ‘supercut’ is an article from The Daily Caller regarding this new line of attack.
SUPERCUT!
Proof the entire Democrat-Media Complex outsources their brains to DNC talking-point writers #JDVanceIsWeird pic.twitter.com/ceN2qvIPTM
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 29, 2024
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
‘Fox & Friends’ Host Brian Kilmeade Says Many Voters May Resonate With Trump, JD Vance Being ‘Weird’
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said on Tuesday that voters may resonate with Republican nominee Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance for allegedly being “weird.”
The Democrats’ new line of attack ahead of the 2024 election has been to attack Trump and Vance for being “weird.” Kilmeade said the Democrats’ label for the Trump-Vance ticket will fail among independent voters in the same way many of their previous lines of attacks have fallen apart.
“You know what wasn’t working? Saying Trump’s a threat to democracy, because no one thinks that,” Kilmeade said. “There are people who don’t like him that think that, but you’re not winning over independents, it wasn’t resonating. So you’re trying to scare people, you try to put him in court, you try to put him in jail, that didn’t work. Then you say he’s a threat to democracy, that wasn’t effective. So now you go, okay, now let’s just say they’re weird.”
“I’ve got news for you,” Kilmeade continued. “There’s a lot of people in America that go, ‘you know what? I’m a little weird, my friend’s a little weird, my parents are a little weird, so, you know, I kind of relate to somebody that’s not perfect, a little quirky.’ You cannot define Donald Trump to anybody on this planet, they already made their opinion. And for J.D. Vance, maybe this approached him, but you watched the movie, you read the book, you know about his upbringing, you watched him run for Senate, you’ve seen him in the last six years or year-and-a-half, but you watched him run for one, so I don’t know how much weird is there.”
‘Fox & Friends’ Host Brian Kilmeade Says Many Voters May Resonate With Trump, JD Vance Being ‘Weird’ pic.twitter.com/LM97Gg9ndI
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 30, 2024
Co-host Ainsley Earhardt said the Democrats’ talking point will likely not turn off candidates to Trump and Vance, while Kilmeade said every person they watched on television growing up was “special” due to their quirkiness.
“Almost everybody that we watched on television was quirky and weird, that’s what made them special,” Kilmeade added. “Right? We’re starting then. So I just think that weird is cool, actually. I don’t have any problem with weird.”
“Well, they’ll do it for two days, it’s not gonna stick,” Earhardt said.
Democrats have particularly branded Vance as a “weird” candidate by pointing to the “childless cat lady” remark he madein 2021 during an appearance on Fox News’ former show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Vance mocked Democratic women, including Vice President Kamala Harris, by branding the political left as a party of anti-family values.
Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz used the new term against Vance in an interview last week, sparking Democratic politicians and liberal media pundits to repeatedly accuse the vice presidential candidate and Trump of being “weird.” Harris said during a campaign event that Vance’s commentary and viewpoints “are just plain weird,” and Democratic Illinois Rep. J.B. Pritzker repeated that terminology during a Sunday appearance on ABC News.
Featured Image Credit: Screenshot/Grabien/Fox News
Brownstone Institute
Freedumb, You Say?
From the Brownstone Institute
By
“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health”
Didn’t give much thought to freedom until four years ago, at age 63. Freedom was just there, like the water surrounding a goldfish. And then the Covid-19 pandemic blew in, the world locked down, and admonitions to “stay the ‘$^#&’ home” blazed through social media. No freedom was too important to discard in the name of public safety: jobs, family businesses, artistic endeavours, public meetings, social connections that kept despair at bay, all took a backseat to the grim business of saving grandma (who ended up getting Covid anyway). No discussion of moral or practical trade-offs, no pushback from the press, nothing. It felt wrong to me on a cellular level.
Apparently I was the only one in my middle-class liberal circle to harbour misgivings about this astonishing new world. If I tried, ever so timidly, to articulate my concerns on Facebook or Twitter, the online warriors shot back with a string of epithets. “Go lick a pole and catch the virus,” said one. “Crawl back into your cave, troglodyte,” said another. And my all-time favourite: “You’re nothing but a mouth-breathing Trumptard.”
From the get-go, I perceived Covid as more of a philosophical problem than a scientific one. As I wrote on more than one occasion, science can inform our decisions, but not dictate them. What ultimately powers our choices are the values we hold. I saw Covid as a morality play, with freedom and safety cast as the duelling protagonists, and it looked like safety was skipping to an easy victory.
It was a heady time for the health bureaucrats, whose increasingly arcane rules betrayed a naked impulse to control: the Canadian high-school students required to use masks on both their faces and their wind instruments during band practice, the schoolchildren forced (for hygiene reasons) to study on their knees for hours in an Alaska classroom, the “glory-hole” sex advised by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The lack of public pushback against these absurdities heightened my awareness of the fragility of our freedoms.
One of the earliest memes to surface during the pandemic was “muh freedumb.” The locution became a shorthand for a stock character – a tattooed man wearing camo gear and a baseball cap, spewing viral particles while yelling about his rights. A selfish idiot. The memes kept coming: “Warning, cliff ahead: keep driving, freedom fighter.” “Personal freedom is the preoccupation of adult children.” Freedom, for centuries an aspiration of democratic societies, turned into a laughing stock.
Eventually, pro-freedom voices began trickling into the public arena. I wasn’t alone, after all. There were others who understood, in the words of Telegraph writer Janet Daley, that the institutional response to Covid-19 had steamrolled over “the dimension of human experience which gives meaning and value to private life.” Lionel Shriver decried how “across the Western world, freedoms that citizens took for granted seven months ago have been revoked at a stroke.” And Laura Dodsworth brought tears to my eyes when she wrote, in her 2021 book A State of Fear, that she feared authoritarianism more than death.
Once the vaccines rolled out, the war on freedom of conscience went nuclear. If you breathed a word against the products, or even the mandates, you were “literally killing people.” The hostility towards the “unvaxxed” culminated in a Toronto Star front page showcasing public vitriol, splashed with such sentiments as: “I honestly don’t care if they die from Covid. Not even a little bit.”
This, too, felt viscerally wrong. I knew several people who had refused the vaccine, and they all had well-articulated reasons for their stance. If they didn’t fully trust the “safe and effective” bromide recycled by all government and pharmaceutical industry spokespeople, I could hardly blame them. (And I say this as someone who writes for Big Pharma and got five Covid shots.)
One of the most deplorable casualties of Covid culture was freedom of expression, a core principle in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Experts speaking publicly about the harms of lockdown faced systematic ostracism from mainstream media, especially left-wing news outlets. By early 2021, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 83 governments worldwide had used the Covid-19 pandemic to violate the lawful exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly.
“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health,” the group wrote in a media release. “The victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the coronavirus.”
But what about misinformation? Doesn’t it kill people? Newsflash: misinformation has always existed, even before TikTok. It’s up to each of us to sift the credible folks from the cranks. The best defence against misinformation is better information, and it’s the policy wonks’ job to provide it. Modern science itself depends on this tug-of-war of ideas, which filters out weaker hypotheses and moves stronger ones ahead for further testing.
Besides, misinformation comes not just from cranks, but from “official sources” – especially those tasked with persuading the public, rather than informing it. Remember when Rochelle Walensky, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, asserted that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus?” Or when Anthony Fauci maintained that getting vaccinated makes you a “dead end” in the chain of transmission? I rest my case.
The marketplace of ideas is like a souk, with a lot of hollering and arguing and the odd snatched purse – and that’s exactly how it should be. It’s an ingenious and irreplaceable process for getting to the truth. There are few ideas too sacrosanct to question or too ridiculous to consider. That’s why, unlike just about everyone in my left-leaning circle, I take no issue with Elon Musk’s shakedown of the old Twitter, now the Wild West of X.
Under Musk’s algorithms, my feed has become a true philosophical souk, with wildly disparate views smashing into each other, leaving me to sift through the rubble in search of a gold nugget or two. Love him or hate him, Musk offers a much-needed counterweight to the ideological lockstep in much of the mainstream media. And when it comes to free speech, Musk has put his money where his mouth is: when media personality Keith Olbermann recently hopped on X, where he boasts a million followers, to call for Musk’s arrest and detainment, Musk made no move to censor him. Works for me.
While the “old normal” has thankfully returned to our daily lives, save the odd mask in a shopping mall or subway car, the stench of censorship that blew in with the pandemic has yet to dissipate. An obsession with disinformation permeates the zeitgeist, spurring lawmakers in several Western countries to censor the flow of thoughts and ideas that gives a free society its pulse.
We cannot excise personal freedom from a democratic society, even in the interests of the “public good,” without poisoning the roots of democracy itself. Article 3 of UNESCO’s 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states this plainly: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” In our post-pandemic reality, the statement seems almost quaint. Nonetheless, it expresses an enduring truth: that a democracy must never discard the idea of freedom – even in a pandemic.
Freedom desperately needs a comeback from its current incarnation as an expendable frill. In my own small way I’m trying to make this happen: never much of an activist before Covid, I’m now part of a small group preparing to launch a Free Speech Union in Canada, modelled after the highly successful one in the UK. The organisation will offer legal advice to individuals facing censorship, cancellation, or job loss because of their words. I look forward to supporting people caught in this anti-freedom web, including those whose words I heartily disagree with.
My newfound respect for free speech is also what propels me to keep talking about Covid. The response to the pandemic exceeded the bounds of public health, and we need to expose the forces that drove it. Here’s Daley again: “The world went crazy. There is no other way to account for what was an almost nihilistic dismantling not just of particular liberties and rights, but of the very idea of liberty.” We can’t let it happen again.
Republished from Perspective Media
Censorship Industrial Complex
Will Trump’s Second Chance Bring Justice for Edward Snowden?
Snowden has been indicted as a “spy” and is considered to be one by many, even though the revelations from the leaked documents were not handed to another country, but publicly released to benefit the rights of the citizens of his own.
|
|
-
Health2 days ago
Trump doubles down on using RFK Jr. to study possible link between vaccines and autism
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Hero Or Villain: How Chrystia Freeland Wears Both Masks
-
Business2 days ago
Canadians face massive uncertainly and turbulence in 2025
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province says Alberta family doctors will be the best-paid and most patient-focused in the country
-
COVID-191 day ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters
-
Business2 days ago
Canada needs to get serious about securing its border
-
International2 days ago
GOP-led House bill allows for future vaccine and mask mandates, international emergency powers
-
Crime2 days ago
Biden’s ‘preemptive pardons’ would set ‘dangerous’ precedent, constitutional scholar warns