Since the earliest recorded public debates in the Roman Senate, men gathered in collective groups to debate the issues of the day and the problems in their societal realms. These debates followed an accepted list of rules and were often on display to the public at large. The governing body of the Roman Senate would give each person the opportunity to speak at a given time, unhindered from interruption. A common level of respect and attention was allowed to each person presenting an idea, a word of dissension, or confirming support of a previous speaker’s position.
Throughout the centuries since the days of Marc Antony, Cicero, and Cato the Younger, civil debate has always been a hallmark of a functioning free society. The freedom granted by the First Amendment to express ones beliefs and opinions is the cornerstone of a free and open populace. The Constitution of The United States was written by the founding fathers as the bedrock on which America would be built. A new and shining nation, built to last forever; as long as the tenets of the hallowed document were accepted and followed by government and citizens alike.
Beginning in the earliest days of modern compulsory education, parliamentary debate was taught and practiced by a generations of students. Debate clubs and teams provided an opportunity for students to learn how to aptly articulate an opinion and present opposing views in the form of an argument followed by a rebuttal by the other team. Back and forth the two sides would volley their well thought out responses without interruption or ridicule being made while the person speaking was delivering his or her remarks. At the end of the debate, typically a panel of judges would vote and declare a winner of the debate. The team that had most aptly and effectively communicated their positions and arguments would be given the title of “Winner.”
Since those early days of constructive, respectful, and moderated dialog between opposing sides of an issue, the nation lost its way. From the Civil War era debates regarding slavery and states rights, through the 1960’s and Civil Rights discussions and protests, to where we are today, a nation filled with hatred and vitriol towards those who disagree with us, we have forgotten the art of civil debate. In an age of fake stories and mud-slinging from all directions, the ability to know what is true and what is false is becoming more and more difficult with each passing day. Fake news is the catchphrase of the day, and anything someone disagrees with is quickly placed in this category.
The 2016 election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States was a roller coaster of daily print articles, social media campaigns, and digital bombshells presented on platforms like YouTube. The public at large was divided into those that still tune in to the nightly news on network X and those that choose to look for facts and news through alternative media sources. The mainstream media, as during the Obama administration, lent itself to covering Trump in a negative light and Hillary Clinton in a more positive one. Most Trump supporters turned a blind eye to the corporate media and went looking for sources of familiar and friendly content. The positive pro-American message of Make America Great Again broadcast by pro-Trump websites, blogs, and countless online videos available for consumption, vastly outweighed the stale, status quo continuance of an Obama nightmare being touted by a career politician with a history of un-prosecuted scandals, Hillary Clinton.
The battle for digital supremacy was won by the Trump campaign through innovative thought and perfect execution of a plan devised by key players, Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale. On the loosing side of the battlefield sat Media Matters and David Brock, the media machine behind the failed efforts of Clinton. Bewildered and shell-shocked that their carnival barking about an unproven progressive failed agenda, coupled with Stalinist like tactics to stifle the voices of conservatives, failed to secure victory for a seemingly qualified candidate on paper over a first-time political candidate Trump.
Shortly after the obvious rejection by the American people of uber progressive nonsense presented by the Clinton campaign, Brock and his left wing radical runes hunkered down and nursed the battle wounds and developed a plan of attack to regain the power they had lost when Obama walked out and Trump walked in. Fueled by money from ultra-left wing sources such as George Soros and Tom Steier, Brock assigned specific duties to several components under the Media Matters umbrella of operations. American Bridge, CREW (Center for Responsible Ethics in Washington) and Shareblue, social media platform and news site for the expression of liberal viewpoints created in 2016, comprise the well organized machine that seeks to stamp out conservative opposition at all cost.
On Inauguration Day – January 20, 2017 at Turnberry Isle Resort in Florida, progressive donors, pundits and writers from the media, and other high profile liberals gathered to listen to Brock present his plan to destroy the newly elected Trump and the Trump MAGA agenda at all costs. In his speech, Brock said “We must keep Trump unpopular if we are to preserve our democracy against a would-be autocrat.” Additionally Brock added “Donald Trump famously threw out the political rulebook. If we are to succeed in this period, we Democrats must suspend the normal rules of politics as well.” Does the suspension of these rules include the censoring of conservative view points?
As real as the crowds of Anti-Trumpers that gathered outside Trump rallies to physically intimidate and assault Trump supporters as they attempted to gather to hear the future president speak, there is a real online assault taking place today in the digital realm. Shadow-banning of thousands on Twitter, deletion of videos and channels made by online journalists on YouTube, and removal of posts on Facebook made by ordinary citizens supporting the Trump agenda is clear evidence of the complicity of these platforms with the Brock/Media Matters plan to win the war of ideas waged in cyberspace, even if it means the outright silencing of their opposition.
The monopolistic trifecta of social media outlets, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube seem to have joined forces with Media Matters and David Brock to demonetize, degrade, and derail the efforts of online journalists, content creators, and ordinary citizens who espouse a different world view than they do. It is no secret that all of these platforms are tied in both financially and idealogically with the progressive left.
In a document presented at the Turnberry conference, plans for a widespread effort to silence progressive oppostion on these platforms was clearly stated.
The clear articulated plan of Media Matters is to hold platforms like Google (YouTube) and Facebook accountable for hosting alt-media sites which Brock and his hired crew of digital assassins label as fake news and propaganda. They also call out “toxic” alt-right media campaigns as harrasment that silence dissent and “poison” national discourse, these efforts will be “punished and halted.”
These are very definitive and dangerous words from an organization backed by men like George Soros. Millions of dollars have been amassed by Media Matters to literally remove conservative voices from the political and social conversation that pervades the fabric of our nation. This leads to the question – is free speech and the ability to voice dissent a human right? What is silencing a human being really equate to? The thoughts of all persons should never be silenced. Who are the most famous silencers of political discourse? Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Marx, Lenin. Media Matters.
The remedy is simple but not so easily accomplished. The American public must pursue and pressure lawmakers to enact an Internet Bill of Rights. A document that is organic in nature not controlled by corporate interests that accomplishes certain priorities. First and foremost, it cannot be another government overreach. The proposed document must clearly define the role of the government and its relation to the public and free speech on the Internet. Secondly, the document must define the role of social media platforms, and the penalties for censoring non-threatening political opinions. Without a clear extension of the First Amendment to cover opinions expressed on the Internet, conservative voices will be subjected to arbitrary removal by the progressive powerhouses like Twitter and Facebook. These social media platforms have aligned themselves with the progressive movement, and will not change course. They are pushing full steam ahead to create a liberal echo chamber devoid of any opposition.
The next 7 months are critical. Social media is where votes are won and lost. Without a level playing field, conservatives are at a major disadvantage going into the mid-term elections. The mid-terms will determine largely the fate of the POTUS. If the progressives gain control of the Senate, one can expect impeachment proceedings to begin in December. This is a serious and real possibility. By eliminating conservative and traditional political discourse from its servers – Facebook, Twitter, and Google are complicit in a silent coup to remove Donald Trump from office. Don’t let it happen. Get vocal. Push for an Internet Bill of Rights that will give conservatives equal footing in the debate. Media Matters and David Brock do not represent democracy. Democracy is one man one vote. Eliminating a man’s voice is eliminating the man. That is what dictators do.