“If we don’t speak now”


by Tabitha Korol

“Speak now or forever hold your peace” is based upon the marriage liturgy of the Christians’ Book of Common Prayer.  Today it may refer to our self-monitoring for the irrational fear of not being politically correct.

After reading my essay, “An Assumption of Dignity,” on the Internet, a reader commented, “I circulated it to our editorial board who found it very moving.  However, based entirely on the reality of it not being “politically correct,” I am recommending that it will not be posted on our educational site.  That said, given its compelling nature, I will circulate it privately and selectively.”

This poignant communication appears to be from an academic, corporate or military milieu, who wants to share it but is constrained by a fear of being classified “intolerant.”  In years past, he’d have thought nothing about forwarding and posting the article with his observations on said educational site.  Today, in this post-Obama era, he is threatened by the vitriol that would explode were he to dispatch ideas antithetical to those who set the political agenda, intimidated by the possibilities that harm would come to his family, and concerned that he could be summarily dismissed from his position if the first two and harassed if the third.

Although our First Amendment remains unchanged, with its protections extended to all individuals in the United States, the writer nevertheless reasoned that sharing information contradictory to the views of the ruling class could offend and must be done surreptitiously and with extreme caution.  He is judicious and self-monitoring, but feeling defenseless in his isolated position, he is slowly conforming to “the plan.”  Guarded, he is gradually growing fearful and more submissive to those in power.

The purveyors of hate-speech accusations work to divide us into groups based on their immutable features – race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, family breakdown, and views on innumerable subjects.  They have always existed in history but are far more forcefully promoted by those who now hold sway over our schools, government, and the workplace.  When these were still insufficient to more completely affect our massive population, the ruling class devised issues for additional divisiveness – climate, abortion and post-partum infanticide, American monuments and symbols, slavery and LGBTQ reparations, a unique foreign invasion, and so many more.  And when our young adults leave the schools to join the mainstream of American life, they will take with them not only their learned prejudices, but also their ways of stifling the free speech of others who would dare to disagree.

The left has worked doggedly to insert their values into our lives, and because they use compassion as their tactic, traditional Americans failed to see that the compassion was highly selective. Compassion for the mother is denied the unborn child; compassion for the gender-confused is denied the healthy heterosexual; compassion for the Muslim newcomer is denied the indigenous Christian and Jew.  We have even witnessed the compassion shown more for the criminal than for his victim in a court of law.

This selective compassion is denied our President, a man who serves his country selflessly, even donating his paychecks to worthy causes.  Why does the left rant about President Trump, insult his every sentence, mannerism, activity?  For one thing, it serves to comfort the left, to keep them engaged with trivia to dodge the discomfort of acknowledging his triumphs.  For another, and perhaps the crux of the issue, is that when they cannot suppress his speech, they can still suppress what they hear.  They impose their will on others by censoring what’s available to the public, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, and discredit the rest.  The Shangri La for the left is when society is so controlled that it becomes self-censoring.  We are almost there.

Our founding fathers ensured that freedom of speech became the unambiguous law of our land, yet many who claim to support that freedom work to silence the views of others, to eliminate dissent and satisfy their desire for power – even dictatorially seeking to inflict harm on those who disagree.  By making full use of the conflicts inherent in multiculturalism, and further dividing the population into their own cultural attributes and values, now identified as intersectionality, social havoc has been created with political liberty.

Our United States has been fragmented into warring tribes, as we see those who insist on protection from ideas they find intolerable have, themselves, become intolerant of the speaking rights others.  Mainstream media publishes and reports only their leftist view on any subject and event.  Muslims who insist on shari’a law for themselves are dedicated to overtaking their host by denying Americans their Constitutionally guaranteed culture and religious worship.  Demeaning insults abound against any opposition, and democrats now debase men in general and white males in particular for the ills of racial segregation, although they were enacted by the democrat-mandated Jim Crow laws of racial segregation, from the 1870s, after the Reconstruction era, to 1965.

The ideological tactic is also defined as cultural Marxism, when one party can issue invectives to force the other party into “politically correct” silence. This unhealthy situation has replaced honest debate that arrives at understanding and/or gracious compromise.  The resultant increasing levels of antagonism are causing a decline in our social stability – allowing invasion, crime by overpopulation, escalating disease, homelessness, drug abuse, rising sexual crimes, heightened loneliness and suicide, violence – all adding a serious strain to our national debt, as well.  Allowing these failures results from one side’s preying on the compassion of others.  We must recognize that “Limited speech must come from debate, not before debate.” – Izzy Kalman.

We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have the right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future. – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago.

 

If you enjoyed this article, consider Korol’s book, “Confronting the Deception,” available on Amazon.

Tabitha Korol,

https://tinyurl.com/y7e6z63d

 

Why Trump Told ‘The Squad’ of 4 U.S. Lawmakers to Go Back Where They Came From


Published on Jul 16, 2019

President Trump told U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib — known collectively as ‘The Squad’ — to go back where they originally came from and to fix the broken, corrupt governments in those places before they try to fix America. What did he mean by this, and why does he continue to go after a handful of rookie lawmakers as part of his effort to get re-elected? Bill Whittle explains. Bill Whittle brings you his principled reactions to breaking news of the day five times each week thanks to the Members at BillWhittle.com, who fund the production and distribution. If you enjoyed this conversation, we think you’ll like the other 47 shows we make each month, including episodes of Firewall, Right Angle and The Stratosphere Lounge. Join them now at https://BillWhittle.com/register/

 

President Trump Highlights Democrat Activist Hypocrisy – Flee to America, and Demand We Change it…


Earlier today President Trump drew attention to another uncomfortable truth.  Some of the most virulent anti-American progressive lawmakers entered the United States for the opportunity and freedom within our system.  However, those same politicians then decry the U.S. and demand changes to the system providing the benefit.

In essence, do not flee to the land of liberty, indulge in the benefits and then have the audacity to criticize the foundation of the nation providing the opportunity.

The media immediately went into apoplectic fits of outrage accusing President Trump of being a racist because he calls-out the anti-American messengers directly.

After a media cycle of outrage du jour, President Trump responds:

Jordan Peterson on the worst thing about Donald Trump


Published on Jul 14, 2018

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor. He is the author of Maps of Meaning and more recently, 12 Rules to Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The latter is a bestseller and has seen his popularity soar, as too in many quarters has the criticism of the 56 year old Canadian. Here he discusses the phenomenon of Donald Trump’s presidency. In the full interview, he and Mike discuss Trump, Identity Politics, Depression and much more, here: https://youtu.be/_pRvutf1n10

 

Jonathan Haidt: The Three Terrible Ideas Weakening Gen Z and Damaging Universities and Democracies


Jonathan Haidt visited Penn State for a lecture on work from his latest book, “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.” Haidt is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Listen to the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s podcast interview with Jonathan on the moral foundations of politics and democracy: https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com… Thank you Penn State’s World in Conversation for recording and producing the lecture.

Epstein Case Claims Trump Team Scalp: Labor Chief Still Defends Secret Plea Deal


Bill Whittle
Published on Jul 12, 2019
The Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case claims a Trump team scalp as Labor chief Alex Acosta resigns. He still defends his actions a decade ago in a secret deal that many view as a slap on the wrist for Epstein. Should Trump have fought for him or fired him? This episode of Bill Whittle Now is one of 48 shows each month produced by the Members at BillWhittle.com. To learn more about what Membership means, visit https://billwhittle.com/ufaqs/what-is…

Clinton Witness Removal Program?


There have been countless stories of how Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons would fly around and go off to his secret places. When federal prosecutors announced sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein this week, they described him as “a man of nearly infinite means.” They argued that his vast wealth — and his two private jets — made him a flight risk. Bill Clinton took four trips with Epstein on his private jets, one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa.

Former President Clinton has not been linked by prosecutors to the current or previous accusations against Mr. Epstein in sex trafficking. Epstein began in finance at Bear Stearns and when he struck out on his own, Mr. Epstein came in contact with Clinton in 2002, when the former president took a trip on Mr. Epstein’s private jet. Clinton had been out of the White House for two years and the contact seemed to be related to the Clinton Foundation. Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers said in a letter back in 2007 that he forged a close relationship with former President Bill Clinton and helped conceive an arm of the Clinton Foundation.

Of course, the rumors running around are that Epstein will spill the beans on Bill. The problem with that scenario is the presumption that the prosecutors would even be interested in exposing Clinton, which to date nobody has dared to even assume there is fire behind the smoke.

Left’s Death Threats against Mini-AOC


The peaceful left has made death threats against Ava and her family for her imitation of AOC. Her family posted this on Twitter and announced that they have deleted all posts because the right to freedom of speech does not exist if you disagree with the left.

AOC & Banking


Joint Presser – Labor Secretary Alex Acosta Resigns from Cabinet….


In his former role as U.S. Attorney for the District of Miami Alexander Acosta was one of the senior DOJ officials involved in the Jeffrey Epstein case.  Mr. Acosta has explained his role and justified all the actions of his office over a decade ago.  However, the media and political opponents to the administration are using Acosta to attack the Trump cabinet.

Today President Trump and Labor Secretary Acosta announce the decision to depart from the administration.  President Trump doesn’t want Acosta to resign, but understands he is doing so in order to stop any further distractions to the administration and labor dept.

.

[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT: I think he was a great Labor Secretary, not a good Labor Secretary. He’s done a fantastic job. He’s a friend of everybody in the administration. And I got a call this morning, early, from Alex. And I think he did a very good job yesterday. Under a lot of pressure, he did a fantastic job and he explained it. He made a deal that people were happy with, and then, 12 years later, they’re not happy with it. You’ll have to figure all of that out.

But the fact is, he has been a fantastic Secretary of Labor. And Alex called me this morning and he wanted to see me. And I actually said, “Well, we have the press right out here, so perhaps you just want to say it to the press.”

But I just want to let you know, this was him, not me, because I’m with him. He was a — he’s a tremendous talent. He’s a Hispanic man. He went to Harvard. A great student. And, in so many ways, I just hate what he’s saying now because we’re going to miss him.

But, please, Alex.

SECRETARY ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. President. Over the last week, I’ve seen a lot of coverage of the Department of Labor, and what I have not seen is the incredible job creation that we’ve seen in this economy — more than 5 million jobs. I haven’t seen that workplace injuries are down, bucking a three-year trend; workplace fatalities are down, bucking a three-year trend; that we had the safest year ever in mining, the lowest number of fatalities ever in mining.

I have seen coverage of this case that is over 12 years old, that had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice. And as I look forward, I do not think it is right and fair for this administration’s Labor Department to have Epstein as the focus, rather than the incredible economy that we have today.

And so I called the President this morning. I told him that I thought the right thing was to step aside. You know, Cabinet positions are temporary trusts. It would selfish for me to stay in this position and continue talking about a case that’s 12 years old, rather than about the amazing economy we have right now.

And so I submitted my resignation to the President –effective seven days from today, effective one week from today — earlier this morning.

Q If the Secretary explained himself, as you say he did two days ago, why the need for him to resign?

THE PRESIDENT: There’s no need at all, as far as I’m concerned. I would have — I watched Alex yesterday. I thought Alex did a great job. And, you know, you could always second guess people, and you could say it should have been tougher. They do it with me all the time. I make a great deal with anybody, and then they say — like, the Democrats — “Oh, it could have been better.”

I got $1.2 billion settlement fined from a company, from ZTE. And the next day — and everybody couldn’t believe it. The next day, the Democrats said, “Oh, he should have gotten more.” So you can always be second guessed. That’s what people do.

I just want to tell you: This is a person that I’ve gotten to know. There hasn’t been an ounce of controversy at the Department of Labor until this came up. And he’s doing this not for himself; he’s doing this for the administration.

And, Alex, I think you’ll agree. I said, “You don’t have to do this.” He doesn’t have to do this.

Q Why would you — why would you accept his resignation?

Q But you accepted the resignation. You accepted the — why did you accept the resignation if he hasn’t done anything wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: I do, and we have — we have — as everybody knows, we have Pat Pizzella, who right now is a deputy, and he’ll be Acting for a period of time. I think you know Pat. He’s a good man, highly recommended by Alex. But Pat is going to be Acting, and we’ve already informed him.

[Transcript of Acosta Portion End]