We narrowly escaped a President Hillary Clinton and what would have amounted to a third term for Obama. Do you wonder what these so-called progressives would have done had they won? And are you aware of what they have in store for dissenters and First Amendment rights should they get control of the Congress or executive branch of government in the foreseeable future?
Consider the following: A coalition of institutional left, anti-Trump groups will attempt to choke Americans’ free-speech rights, using the excuse they’re opposing “hate speech.”
The assortment of far-left and establishment groups in the “Coalition Against Hate” includes two groups associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief operative John Podesta, plus pro-illegal immigration groups, such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) plus the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was an unindicted co-conspirator in an anti-Semitic, jihad-funding operation.
Here’s the mission statement of the “Coalition Against Hate”:
Our mission is to #breakhate by elevating the voices of the impacted and hold purveyors of hate speech accountable. As the Coalition Against Hate, we will encourage media platforms to abandon hate speech as a profit model and bring civil discourse back to the public square. We will expose purveyors of hate speech and those that use multiple media platforms to amplify their hateful rhetoric. We have a responsibility to speak out against hate speech and demonstrate to our communities and our children that words have meaning. We will also promote positive portrayals to illustrate that our diversity is what makes communities flourish.
Who could be against hate speech, right? The problem: “Hate” is never defined. It’s considered hate whenever you disagree with anything stated by anybody on the progressive left. Hate includes opposition to Obamacare, opposition to a $20 trillion national debt, and support of a strong military whose central mission will be to crush and defeat everything related to Islamofascist terrorism.
In theory, reasonable people can disagree rationally on the best way to achieve the same ends. The problem is that the progressive left and the rest of the country no longer appear to have the same ends. The progressive left, as embodied by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and certainly whoever comes along next to lead them, stands for unlimited government spending and virtually unlimited control over the economy (what’s left of the private economy, that is). As for the federal government’s primary purpose, to protect citizens from violent enemies — like the Islamic terrorists setting up cells of brutality in our own towns and cities — the left doesn’t even want to talk about it. And if you do: You’re labeled a racist and hate-monger.
It’s called the argument from intimidation.
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. [Ayn Rand]
By having your dissenting or opposing opinion labeled “hatred,” you’re intimidated into silence. That’s what progressives have tried. Obama has it down to an art. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out so well for them in the last election. Donald Trump symbolized the great, angry pushback from those of us so fed up with smug, intimidating tactics that we’re simply not taking it anymore. So what progressive socialists cannot achieve through psychological and intellectual intimidation, they will now hope to attain through government force. For the moment, that’s difficult for them, because they’re not in power like they were. But you better believe they have a plan for when they return to power, and the “Coalition Against Hate” is it.
What does it mean to “hold purveyors of hate speech accountable” when hate is never defined and, in practice, “hate” refers to any opinion parting ways with the ends and means of the Democratic Party’s uncompromising socialistic, command-and-control from Washington DC approach?
“We have a responsibility to speak out against hate speech and demonstrate to our communities and our children that words have meaning.” What’s the implication here? That words do damage, and since damage is against the law, you can be held accountable by law enforcement for expressing dissenting speech labeled as hatred?
When a party or group out of power sets up policies designed for implementation when they return to power, it’s sometimes called a “shadow government.” Watch what these communistic-socialistic Democrats do while out of power. It gives you an idea of what’s in store for the rest of us should they ever come back.
Reason and reality are not on the side of socialism, government debt, government dependence and appeasement toward violent enemies. Democratic Party policies cannot and will never work, not if survival and prosperity are your goals. When reason and reality are not on your side, intellectually and psychologically there’s nothing left for you but intimidation. When intimidation fails, as Donald Trump and Republican victories in November illustrated, then you’re only left with one last option: brute force. It’s all they’ve got.
#BreakHate is code for: Stop dissension. See it for what it is, and you will defeat it.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1