Cognitive Dissonance

City of Anaheim “respects free speech”…


“We support free speech, but…” = “We don’t support free speech”.  

Points will be docked from the first member of the local prog peanut gallery who says “I thought you Republicans supported property rights – why not allow the vendor to decide what to do with their own property?”

This is the city getting a business – possibly sympathetic, possibly not – to do its censoring for it.   Just like the Administration is doing with Facebook and Twitter.   

But go ahead.  Suggest it.  

10 thoughts on “Cognitive Dissonance

  1. So if the City of Anaheim doesn’t value America First, who pray tell do they value as first?

  2. A government agent, acting for the government, urging a private venue to deny a platform for political speech?
    Seems like there would be a pretty good 1st amendment case against the city of Anaheim here.
    But, oh, yeah, the constitution was suspended last year. Forgot about that.

  3. Using a business as a catspaw for party policy is reminiscent of the relationship IG Farben had with their government. In fact business/government partnerships of this sort define a particularly odious form of Soci4lism.

  4. There is a long history of government using private actors against Americans, going back to King George hiring German mercenaries to fight against the revolution. It was perfectly legal when he did it which establishes a legal precedent and that makes it traditional. I thought Conservatives cherished history? Why do you hate legal precedent and want to overthrow centuries of tradition?

  5. At every Maga rally antifa goons (call them Brownshirts because that’s what they are) show up to start trouble. Being the gummint’s henchman, naturally the Maga patriots get blamed, but damage is done.

    State and local gummints don’t fear Maga, they fear the leftist jackbooted thugs.

  6. It is clear from Madison’s writing that the 1st amendment’s guarantee of free speech was intended to combat factionalism by protecting the widest possible range of political discussion.
    So the heckler’s veto is clearly an unconstitutional use of “free speech.”
    Not that it matters, Madison also foresaw that the 1st amendment & the bill of rights would only work if the feds bothered to enforce them.
    That’s not likely under Biden’s JD. They are already arguing in favor of restricting political speech.

  7. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.19.21 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.