Let me just set the overall tone for this site. Two themes: I'm pissed and I don't care what you think. If you think you can keep that straight, great. We'll have no interaction and, therefore, we will get along just fine. If you can't, well, blow me.

Ground Rules

Fresh Fury

Almanac of Hate

Rage Ranked Rants

Site search


Other Links

Backtalk from the Peanut Gallery


(Don't be an illiterate rube...click on it. Opens in a new window.)

Freedom of Speech…Maybe Not

We’ve of how the PC-crowd is engaging in an all-out assault on free speech. Fueled by short-sightedness and constipated thinking, libs—the self-proclaimed defenders of constitutional rights and rights not yet identified as constitutional, but that should be—are targeting free speech in an unprecedented fascism, um, fashion.

So the libs constantly whine about how their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech is always being curtailed, yet it’s they themselves who are relentlessly assaulting that construct. Using deleterious terms like “vitriol” or “hate speech,” these churlish rubes have no problem trying to restrict the rights of others to posit their ideas or to respond to the political shenanigans of their opponents.

How many times have we been subjected to gay pride enthusiasts who shed their clothes or prance around in feather boas and assless leather chaps so they can engage in their brand of freedom of speech and make fools of themselves during annual gay pride parades in San Francisco? And we’re supposed to celebrate this foolishness as an example of legitimate exercise of their free speech? The last time I looked up the definition of “speech,” it centered on spoken words. Spoken word has been expanded to include the written word, which is, of course, a logical extension. I don’t remember stripping down to only a thong and an Indian headdress in public as being included in that definition. As a matter of fact, Merriam-Webster defines speech as “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.”

And then there’s the Fairness Doctrine. Here’s a push that seems to keep rearing its ugly head. Having lost the battle of ideas on the level playing of market competition, the defenders of freedom wish to co-opt a win by restricting the free speech of their opponents with this heinous aberration of legislation. Since the right continually pummels their collective asses in the market arena, by ensuring that these right-wing radio stations have to give equal time to the babble of the Left, they feel they win the day. What they fail to realize is that nobody wants to hear them, especially those who tune into those stations. We are subjected to their convoluted thinking daily in the newspapers, on network television and even most cable stations. Correct thinkers have only one news station to turn to for unbiased reporting and conservative commentary. And we have a number of radio personalities to seek out for rational thinking. I say that if they do persist with this nonsense legislation, then all the liberal outlets be opened up to equal time to the right.

While we’re on the subject of suppression of ideas, I ask one question: have you ever argued with a lib? Such an enterprise is nothing but speech repression. Their go-to tactic when engaging in “debate” is to drown out the opposition with their unrelenting wailing and, dare I say it, vitriol. Never are we given equal time nor even the opportunity to voice our position. Of course, this doesn’t speak of freedom of speech from the constitutional perspective, but it does accurately characterize the Left’s approach to debate: win by attrition rather than merit.

Here’s another example of how the leftist wipes restrict free speech. Though the speech in question neither addresses current events nor even contemporary politics, it is, however, rife with the political incorrectness that is so reprehensible to the Left. There’s a movement afoot to edit the works of Mark Twain; edits that would eliminate “offensive” references. This is absolute nonsense. For if these rubes had any understanding of what Twain’s motives were when he wrote “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” they would have realized his ultimate goal was not to propagate racism, but to expose it for the cancer that it is—even in his time. Twain wished to spotlight the inane prospect of racism. Unfortunately, the alleged “intellectuals” of our time had either lost this perspective or are just so ridden with white guilt that even the prospect of racism in the written word is just too much for them to bear. Absolute horseshit. Where Twain had desired and succeeded in exposing the racist nonsense, the feckless liberal rubes cloaked in the trappings of white guilt academicians choose to dismiss Twain’s bigger picture to soften his tone. However, in doing so, the libs effectively erased that which Twain so much wished to expose. So, rather than learn from the harsh realities of our disparate history, they choose to nullify the work and offer nothing to our budding youth. Brilliant. One hundred years after Twain’s passing and yet he was still far more brilliant than those imbeciles who “study” his work. Nice play, cowards.

So, what are we left with? What are we supposed to glean from all this repression? That’s easy. By suppressing dialog and the exchange of idea, the libs choose to remain fixed in the status quo, squandering any opportunity to emerge from the primordial ooze and advance as a nation, as a people, as an assimilated culture with an honest exchange of ideas that advances the whole rather than just a select few. Perhaps that was their intent all along.