How Liberals are Defeating Liberty in America

It is a fact, but also an utter contradiction in terms, that “liberals” are completely against “liberty” in the United States. While this is a contradiction in theory, in practice it is absolutely normative in the nation’s culture.

Starting with the disintegration of a robust education in the nation’s history and Constitutional principles, the notion of what “freedom” means has been increasingly warped, and for the most part Americans are content to allow their freedoms to be subtly whittled away in the name of “progress”, “tolerance”, “equality” or any number of other buzzwords.

The effects are profound.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

The responses here are fascinating, and in fact this stunning lack of knowledge of the rights upheld in the First Amendment is the chief tool used by liberals to violate one’s personal liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Here is the Amendment’s text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The five freedoms therefore are:

1. Congress may not regulate religious practice by passage of any laws
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom of the press
4. The right of people to assemble peaceably and
5. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is worth noting these in contrast to the things the students in the video discuss as the video progresses.

Freedom of religion

It is very significant that the first liberty kept out of Congress’ grip is freedom to worship God according to one’s faith and practice without fear of sanction from the government.

Very few students mention it in the video, and it is not surprising that cases brought against businesses run by Christian owners have come under serious fire from legal levels, as happened with the Colorado baker Jack Phillips to the extent that his business was barely saved by an acknowledgement, even from liberal US Supreme Court justices that his religious liberty was deliberately attacked.

This case should have never left the town in which it happened, and it got all the way to the highest court in the nation before it was stopped.

Freedom of speech

We presently experience massive amounts of political mudslinging, but there is a clear bias as to whose opinions are “acceptable” in the public arena and whose are not. Supporters of President Trump have first hand experience with this problem as they have been almost unilaterally shouted down, harangued, even physically attacked and beaten, for supporting a man who went on the record saying that the United States Court system ought to be comprised of judges and justices who interpret the Constitution as written, and not according to the latest activist whim.

The Tea Party site noted the incredible hypocrisy surrounding the decision of one Candace Owens to retweet the racist, white-hating tweets of the New York Times’ new media darling Sarah Jeong, but simply replacing the word “white” with “black” or “Jew” – this action got Owens a 12 hour suspension on Twitter, while Ms Jeong’s public rants went unchecked:

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534826243389423617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E534826243389423617&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teaparty.org%2Fwow-candace-owens-copies-racist-tweets-sarah-jeong-replaces-white-black-immediately-suspended-317804%2F

This tweet was the only one found without foul and inappropriate language, all of which were allowed to remain on Twitter without comment or sanctions. But change the word from “white” to “black” and… instant outrage and suspension:

Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter: “Candace Owens copied Sarah Jeong’s tweets, replacing the word “white” with “Jewish” and “black”.She was immediately given a 12 hour suspension.Jeong’s account remains unaffected.The absolute state of this platform.#FreeCandace / Twitter”

Candace Owens copied Sarah Jeong’s tweets, replacing the word “white” with “Jewish” and “black”.She was immediately given a 12 hour suspension.Jeong’s account remains unaffected.The absolute state of this platform.#FreeCandace

Freedom of the press

While it would seem that the press in the USA is indeed free – just mostly liberal – this is not really the case. The government and most of the mainstream media could be justifiably termed as being in collusion – for the government and mass media narratives on many subjects are all but identical.

Topics included in that are: President Trump, Russia, border security, climate change and healthcare, as well as general foreign policy views. In these areas, there is almost monolithic agreement of opinion and worldview. When taken objectively, it becomes very clear that there is not really a free press, but one that is complicit with the worldview of the powerful. This was most notably manifested on the Tuesday, August 7th report that Big Tech concerns Apple and Facebook deleted Alex Jones’ links and media from their sites:

Facebook has taken down four pages belonging to Jones, including two featuring his “Infowars” show, for violating its hate speech and bullying policies. Over the past several days, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have also removed material published by Jones. Twitter, which hasn’t banned Jones, has also faced similar calls.

Facebook has also suspended Jones’ account for 30 days because he repeatedly violated the company’s community standards against hate speech that “attacks or dehumanizes others,” it said in a statement Monday. Facebook did not immediately respond Monday asking what would happen after the 30 days are up, and why it hadn’t taken action earlier. The 30-day suspension of Jones himself appears to have gone into effect in late July.

Twitter would not comment on Jones.

“We’ve been banned completely on Facebook, Apple, & Spotify,” Jones wrote on Twitter. “What conservative news outlet will be next?”

Jones has amassed a large following on the right while promulgating conspiracy theories that claim terror attacks such as 9/11 were actually carried out by the government. Among his claims is that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, which left 20 children and six adults dead, was a hoax.

While there may be no government-directed “control” of the media per se, there is very little room for “going off the reservation.” It is for this reason that President Trump was almost unanimously vilified by all prominent news agencies (including many at Fox) for his willingness to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on 16 July.

There is great power behind the attempt to defame Russia, and there is apparently a great deal of resistance at many levels to anyone in the US coming clean with just how false and full of lies the American “official” narrative about Russia actually is.

The right of people to assemble peaceably

This again is not something that the government itself has directly seized control of. However the level of intolerance on the part of the Left, mostly, to all things conservative mean that sometimes peaceful assemblies of conservatives attract attacks. The accusation of the Left is that Trump supporters are neo-Nazis, which is outrageously false. There might be a few such people but they are as likely to be on one side as on the other.

The right of people to petition their government for redress of grievances

This phrase refers to the right of citizens to petition their government without being blocked in any way from doing so. According to the Heritage Foundation, this right has largely been subsumed into the general idea of freedom of speech, but it still has an independent standing as a way for people to bring their concerns before the government directly.

Part of the reason this right may be presently considered just a part of the right to free speech is because of lack of education in how the Constitution works, allowing the government to be merely “those people we elect to help us from on high” but without a clear understanding of the nation as a representative Republic.

The students in the video knew almost nothing of the First Amendment, and when they were asked various questions, such as “how do you define the right to free speech?” they responded, not from the standpoint of the law as given by the Law of the Land, but from how they personally thought and felt about various issues. In that regard, their response was “whatever doesn’t offend people; whatever doesn’t hurt anyone; we have to be careful of what we say…”

All of which is fine, but it is without law. 

This notion of lawlessness is significant.