Zelenskyy Bans Opposition Parties; Nationalizes Media

 

Is there a chance… a slight chance, but still a chance … that Volodymyr Zelenskyy isn’t quite the great savior of democracy we are being told he is?

In an address to the nation delivered Sunday, he announced a temporary ban on “any activity” by 11 political parties. The ban includes the Opposition Platform – For Life party, which holds 43 seats in Ukraine’s national parliament and is the largest opposition party. Opposition Platform – For Life is a pro-Russia party, but on March 8, party leader Yuriy Boyko demanded that Russia “stop the aggression against Ukraine,” according to Ukrainian outlet LB.

Also.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has signed a decree that combines all national TV channels into one platform, citing the importance of a “unified information policy” under martial law, his office said in a statement on Sunday.

His defenders will say that his country is under martial law in response to a foreign invasion and such times have justified extreme measures; like unto FDR ordering Japanese-Americans rounded up and put into camps in World War II, Woodrow Wilson jailing and prosecuting anti-war protesters during World War I, or Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

This would be an awesome time to have reliable news media that had not been co-opted by the ruling party into propagandists for the Official Narrative. Is Zelenskyy a Saint of Democracy? Is Putin really the embodiment of evil?  Is it treason, as Mitt “Pierre Delecto” Romney suggests,  to be skeptical of the Official Version of Events? I really cannot say.

What I suspect but cannot prove is that Zelenskyy is probably a patriot trying to preserve his country, but also a politician who is not letting a crisis go to waste and a man who evidently knows how to work the media. And while Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine, he is probably not the arch-villain caricature the administration and their media make him out to be. I can’t know about any of that sure, but what I do know is this:

  1. All of our information about Zelenskyy, Putin, Ukraine, and Russia gets to us via the Administration and National Media.
  2. Both of those have lied to us repeatedly and shamelessly in order to advance Democrat-friendly narratives.

Biden desperately needs a foreign policy win after his absolutely disastrous showing in Afghanistan. That’s certainly plenty of motivation to shape the Russia-Ukraine narrative as a battle of Pure Democratic Good against Pure Russian Evil.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 298 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    And I disagree that democracy is the best form of government. I do think constitutional government with a Bill of Rights is the best form of government,

    What is “constitutional government?” That really depends on the constitution, doesn’t it? What if you had a constitution that said one man has absolute power?

    Tell me, in the history of constitutional governments, when has that happened? Do you know what a constitution is?

    In the history of constitutional governments, there have been many constitutions with many different rules, some of them not in accordance with anything resembling a government accountable to a free people. Nothing in the term “constitutional government” mandates what needs to be in the constitution. Do YOU understand what a constitution is?

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The first such contract was the Magna Carta, which was a monumental change in the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

    Daniel Hannan!

    • #271
  2. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Sure, but sending weapons is escalatory, don’t you think?

    The next time you have two kids fighting on the playground with sticks try giving one a bigger stick and see where that gets you.

    What if you give the kids shields?

    What if you hired cheerleaders and charged admission?

    I think I’d pay to see that!

    And BB guns.

    “You’ll put an eye out!”

    That’s a risk, sure.  But it beats a 9mm.

    • #272
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    BDB (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    And I disagree that democracy is the best form of government. I do think constitutional government with a Bill of Rights is the best form of government,

    What is “constitutional government?” That really depends on the constitution, doesn’t it? What if you had a constitution that said one man has absolute power?

    Tell me, in the history of constitutional governments, when has that happened? Do you know what a constitution is?

    In the history of constitutional governments, there have been many constitutions with many different rules, some of them not in accordance with anything resembling a government accountable to a free people. Nothing in the term “constitutional government” mandates what needs to be in the constitution. Do YOU understand what a constitution is?

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The first such contract was the Magna Carta, which was a monumental change in the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

    Daniel Hannan!

    I have no idea who Daniel Hannan is, but I would like to point out that the Magna Carta didn’t change the relationship between the ruler and ruled so much as change the relationship between the central ruler and the decentralized rulers.   And by that I don’t mean any disrespect for the Magna Carta and its value and importance for what followed.  

    • #273
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    the USSR / Russia.

    Here’s the deal – I’m going on roughly a year of not viewing the US/West as the good guys. In fact, we are the power that is toxic.

    As someone once put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” There are no angels out there for us to emulate, we’re not perfect but we’re the best thing going right now. And we have as much right to pursue our interests as any other nation.

    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    And replace it with what, exactly!?

    How about a Constitutional republic.  With justice for all.

    • #274
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I wouldn’t say the U.S. is bribing anybody to put military bases on their soil, though I’m sure there must be some cases. Most countries have avidly invited us in so they can be under the umbrella of protection.

     

     

    Paying someone to let you use their property isn’t a bribe. It’s rent.

    Well, as in renting politicians.

    • #275
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    And replace it with what, exactly!?

    Since we have a constitution, replacing it with a constitutional government – Ie a legislature voted by the people that passed laws, an executive that enforces the laws, and a judiciary that rules laws unconstitutional or not.

    We currently have an executive that subverts the law, a legislature that farms out law to an administrative state, a judiciary that rewrites laws, and an unelected intelligence state that sets policy.

    Ok,so what you really want is not a toppling of our governing structure, really. But a changing of the guard and/or better mechanisms to enforce the properly ordered workings of the existing structure, as defined in the constitution.

    There are two structures, de jure and de facto.  The de facto structure is corrupt.

    • #276
  7. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    And I disagree that democracy is the best form of government. I do think constitutional government with a Bill of Rights is the best form of government,

    What is “constitutional government?” That really depends on the constitution, doesn’t it? What if you had a constitution that said one man has absolute power?

    Tell me, in the history of constitutional governments, when has that happened? Do you know what a constitution is?

    In the history of constitutional governments, there have been many constitutions with many different rules, some of them not in accordance with anything resembling a government accountable to a free people. Nothing in the term “constitutional government” mandates what needs to be in the constitution. Do YOU understand what a constitution is?

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The first such contract was the Magna Carta, which was a monumental change in the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

    Daniel Hannan!

    I have no idea who Daniel Hannan is, but I would like to point out that the Magna Carta didn’t change the relationship between the ruler and ruled so much as change the relationship between the central ruler and the decentralized rulers. And by that I don’t mean any disrespect for the Magna Carta and its value and importance for what followed.

    Daniel Hannan is a big deal, who also wrote the magnificent “Inventing Liberty”.  Magna Carta did not free the farmers from overlordship — it was the nobles (such as they were at the time) staking their claim and circumscribing some of the crown’s powers.  As such, it devolved some power in a far pre-enlightment foreshadowing — and codification — of the principle that the king is not above the law.

    Wikipedia:
    “Daniel John Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere (born 1 September 1971) is a British writer, journalist and former politician serving as an adviser to the Board of Trade since 2020. He is the founding president of the Initiative for Free Trade. A member of the Conservative Party, he was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England from 1999 to 2020. “

    • #277
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    Second, that’s why I wrote my post differentiating the two things which you are equating here.

    What am I equating? The money brokers with the nato governments?

     

    NATO and the USSR / Russia.

    Here’s the deal – I’m going on roughly a year of not viewing the US/West as the good guys. In fact, we are the power that is toxic.

    Russia invading Ukraine when I already had that view solidly formed is putting me at odds with a great number of you.

    It isn’t that I want America destroyed. I’ve laid out my reasons for supporting America, even if it is limited to solely the people.

    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    I am not opposed to toppling of our governing class.

    Most of them are not elected, either.

    • #278
  9. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    I can say there are plenty of other channels where you can get information from other sources that dont fit the 3×5 card of allowable opinion.  I am spending more of my time there then Ricochet because of the war hysteria that is gripping this place.

    • #279
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    • #280
  11. WilliamDean Coolidge
    WilliamDean
    @WilliamDean

    Stina (View Comment):

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The following countries all have Constitutions: Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, Iran, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, The Central African Republic, and North Korea, to name a few.

    The point being, there are constitutions, and then there are constitutions.

    • #281
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The following countries all have Constitutions: Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, Iran, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, The Central African Republic, and North Korea, to name a few.

    The point being, there are constitutions, and then there are constitutions.

    And none of them matter unless there exist competing, overlapping, and sufficiently powerful institutions to assert the constitutional limitations and protections. 

    • #282
  13. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Flicker (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    the USSR / Russia.

    Here’s the deal – I’m going on roughly a year of not viewing the US/West as the good guys. In fact, we are the power that is toxic.

    As someone once put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” There are no angels out there for us to emulate, we’re not perfect but we’re the best thing going right now. And we have as much right to pursue our interests as any other nation.

    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    And replace it with what, exactly!?

    How about a Constitutional republic. With justice for all.

    Pfft! That never works.

    • #283
  14. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    A constitutional government is a contract between the ruler/rulers and some set of the ruled. The ruled do not agree to a contract where the rulers have absolute power. Their powers are circumscribed in accordance to what the ruled can tolerate.

    The following countries all have Constitutions: Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, Iran, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, The Central African Republic, and North Korea, to name a few.

    The point being, there are constitutions, and then there are constitutions.

    Constitutions require an enforcement mechanism. That is what the 2nd amendment is.

    • #284
  15. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    In a following comment, I was very specific in what I meant.

    What you seem to ultimately fail in is understanding that at some point, the 2nd is necessary to exercise.

    • #285
  16. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    In a following comment, I was very specific in what I meant.

    What you seem to ultimately fail in is understanding that at some point, the 2nd is necessary to exercise.

    No, I get that. The 2nd may be necessary.

    But I’d like to see people actually exercising the 1st to the fullest, before we man the barricades. And I think we’re not even close to that.

    • #286
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    In a following comment, I was very specific in what I meant.

    What you seem to ultimately fail in is understanding that at some point, the 2nd is necessary to exercise.

    No, I get that. The 2nd may be necessary.

    But I’d like to see people actually exercising the 1st to the fullest, before we man the barricades. And I think we’re not even close to that.

    Not sure when you will even be worried about that. We just saw Canada freeze bank accounts of donors. I think the situation is sort of dire. 

    • #287
  18. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    In a following comment, I was very specific in what I meant.

    What you seem to ultimately fail in is understanding that at some point, the 2nd is necessary to exercise.

    No, I get that. The 2nd may be necessary.

    But I’d like to see people actually exercising the 1st to the fullest, before we man the barricades. And I think we’re not even close to that.

    Not sure when you will even be worried about that. We just saw Canada freeze bank accounts of donors. I think the situation is sort of dire.

    I’m glad you asked.

    It isn’t a matter of being worried. It’s a matter of what I believe we should do next. I don’t think it’s time to start shooting people, nor even to be threatening to shoot people. I think it’s a time for us to use our first and, in my opinion, most important Bill of Rights-guaranteed freedom, which is our right to free expression.

    We can always start shooting people later. Let’s start by boldly offending the people around us.

    • #288
  19. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But I’m not opposed to the toppling of our governing structure.

    That’s sufficiently vague as to cover a lot of ground. If by that you mean “electing a different bunch of people,” I’m okay with that. If by that you mean something closer to the other extreme, then I’ll take a hard pass.

    You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

    In a following comment, I was very specific in what I meant.

    What you seem to ultimately fail in is understanding that at some point, the 2nd is necessary to exercise.

    No, I get that. The 2nd may be necessary.

    But I’d like to see people actually exercising the 1st to the fullest, before we man the barricades. And I think we’re not even close to that.

    Not sure when you will even be worried about that. We just saw Canada freeze bank accounts of donors. I think the situation is sort of dire.

    I’m glad you asked.

    It isn’t a matter of being worried. It’s a matter of what I believe we should do next. I don’t think it’s time to start shooting people, nor even to be threatening to shoot people. I think it’s a time for us to use our first and, in my opinion, most important Bill of Rights-guaranteed freedom, which is our right to free expression.

    We can always start shooting people later. Let’s start by boldly offending the people around us.

    They’ve locked up people who’ve done that. They’re also tracking as domestic terrorists those who do that. 

    Nobody is talking about shooting people. What we need are local police and sheriffs arresting people who – like Zelensky, to bring it around full circle – infringe on individual liberty; that includes arresting Executive office holders, Federal agents, and Federal judges who commit crimes against the Constitution. They can do that, you know. 

    • #289
  20. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Bryan: Not sure when you will even be worried about that. We just saw Canada freeze bank accounts of donors. I think the situation is sort of dire.

    HR: I’m glad you asked.

    It isn’t a matter of being worried. It’s a matter of what I believe we should do next. I don’t think it’s time to start shooting people, nor even to be threatening to shoot people. I think it’s a time for us to use our first and, in my opinion, most important Bill of Rights-guaranteed freedom, which is our right to free expression.

    We can always start shooting people later. Let’s start by boldly offending the people around us.

    Vince: They’ve locked up people who’ve done that. They’re also tracking as domestic terrorists those who do that.

    Nobody is talking about shooting people. What we need are local police and sheriffs arresting people who – like Zelensky, to bring it around full circle – infringe on individual liberty; that includes arresting Executive office holders, Federal agents, and Federal judges who commit crimes against the Constitution. They can do that, you know.

    Vince, my comment is in reference to invocation of our 2nd Amendment rights (of which I’m a huge fan and participant, by the way). I’m suggesting that we should exercise our 1st Amendment rights more fully, before we start talking about more kinetic approaches to securing our liberty.

    I don’t agree that we need local police and sheriffs arresting politicians. I mean, sure, occasionally. But not as some kind of general solution. That’s not how we manage office-holders in America, nor should it be.

    HR: Let’s start by boldly offending the people around us.

    VG: They’ve locked up people who’ve done that. They’re also tracking as domestic terrorists those who do that.

    Well, yeah, every now and then. But almost never, really, and that kind of nonsense stops when lots and lots of people are voicing their opinions.

    Tell me, Vince, are you really afraid to offend people lest you get put on a list? Do you think normal people should be? Sincere questions.

     

    • #290
  21. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    I can say there are plenty of other channels where you can get information from other sources that dont fit the 3×5 card of allowable opinion. I am spending more of my time there then Ricochet because of the war hysteria that is gripping this place.

    I’m not aware of a single redaction, suspension, banning or even editorial comment on anybody’s opinion on war or not war.  
    “Allowable opinion” at Ricochet is not really over the target zone.  

    • #291
  22. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Well, yeah, every now and then. But almost never, really, and that kind of nonsense stops when lots and lots of people are voicing their opinions.

    There are a few dozen J6ers who’d take exception to that. If anything they’re getting bolder. Remember when the arrested people for walking on the beach. Now they lock them up for years without basic due process. 

    Tell me, Vince, are you really afraid to offend people lest you get put on a list? Do you think normal people should be? Sincere questions.

    You must not read my writing. I offend people all the time and I’m quite certain I’m on someone’s list by now. It’s not about fear; fear only God. But if you think the government isn’t cataloging everything bear pokers like me and Stina write online for potential wrongthink persecution later on down the line you’re living in a fantasy, or a recently departed past. DHS even posted it on their own website a month ago.

    The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. 

    • #292
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Well, yeah, every now and then. But almost never, really, and that kind of nonsense stops when lots and lots of people are voicing their opinions.

    There are a few dozen J6ers who’d take exception to that. If anything they’re getting bolder. Remember when the arrested people for walking on the beach. Now they lock them up for years without basic due process.

    Well, no. In general (and maybe there are some exceptions), the January 6th people are in jail because they walked into the Capitol Building during a protest that became a bit of a riot. (Disclosure: I’m one of those who think January 6 was merely the 501st riot of the 2020-2021 riot season, and not a big deal. I think the January 6th people are being used for political theater.)

    But I’m aware of no one who was locked up because he expressed an offensive opinion. Banned from Twitter, fired, ostracized, sure. But not locked up.

    Tell me, Vince, are you really afraid to offend people lest you get put on a list? Do you think normal people should be? Sincere questions.

    You must not read my writing. I offend people all the time and I’m quite certain I’m on someone’s list by now. It’s not about fear; fear only God. But if you think the government isn’t cataloging everything bear pokers like me and Stina write online for potential wrongthink persecution later on down the line you’re living in a fantasy, or a recently departed past. DHS even posted it on their own website a month ago.

    Good. I’m glad you aren’t afraid. The second question was, do you think normal people should be afraid of speaking out?

    The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.

    Maybe. I think it’s mostly just peer pressure, cowardice, normal politeness, and a general desire not to be seen as the cranky person in the room. And I think that has to change. A bunch of people have to be more willing to be ones wearing the Let’s Go Brandon hats, calling the gender-confused “transvestites,” and denying that global warming is really a thing about which we should be concerned. That kind of thing.

    • #293
  24. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Well, no. In general (and maybe there are some exceptions), the January 6th people are in jail because they walked into the Capitol Building during a protest that became a bit of a riot.

    You should read up on them. Many of them never even entered the building. Their stories will piss you off and in just about every case I’ve examined in depth, their social media commentary or personal conversations were used in charging documents against them. 

    • #294
  25. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The second question was, do you think normal people should be afraid of speaking out?

    I don’t think anyone should be afraid of speaking out but everyone should know that in 2022 there may be a cost associated with doing so. So be ready, know your neighbors, get some allies and hopefully you can get some of your local officials to join in the fight to protect you and your community from an out-of-control and hostile federal government.

    Because they didn’t in 2020, and most people just shrugged and did what they were told. Did you? I didn’t.

    • #295
  26. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Well, no. In general (and maybe there are some exceptions), the January 6th people are in jail because they walked into the Capitol Building during a protest that became a bit of a riot.

    You should read up on them. Many of them never even entered the building. Their stories will piss you off and in just about every case I’ve examined in depth, their social media commentary or personal conversations were used in charging documents against them.

    I have. I’ve even spoken to some of them. And I don’t know how many are being detained who were not on-site that day. (That isn’t a justification for their detention, merely a comment about perspective.)

    We are a nation of 330,000,000+ people. We are not in danger of incarceration if we express our opinions. We are in danger of being treated like lepers, and some of us (though not me) are in danger of losing our jobs if we speak out. I get that.

    But speak out we must.

    • #296
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The second question was, do you think normal people should be afraid of speaking out?

    I don’t think anyone should be afraid of speaking out but everyone should know that in 2022 there may be a cost associated with doing so. So be ready, know your neighbors, get some allies and hopefully you can get some of your local officials to join in the fight to protect you and your community from an out-of-control and hostile federal government.

    Because they didn’t in 2020, and most people just shrugged and did what they were told. Did you? I didn’t.

    Sure. But the “cost” that keeps most people silent is the fear of being that guy.

    I got thrown out of a tournament basketball game a couple of weeks ago because I refused to put my mask on. (I wrote about it here.) We were four hours from ending the New York state mask mandate in schools. I was the only spectator not masked. With a couple of exceptions, all of the parents with me — friends all — thought I was crazy for walking out. Some of them still think I’m crazy, but they kind of thought that already, after years of me mouthing off on Facebook and at social events.

    Most people don’t want that reputation. They don’t want to be the one who denounces Black Lives Matter as a hate-mongering racist scam. They don’t want to be the one who says men and women are different, women are the weaker sex, and men should open doors and walk on the traffic side and precede women down stairs and pick up the tab for dinner.

    They aren’t afraid of getting thrown in jail. They’re afraid of offending their kids, their relatives, their friends, or the people at school or work or church.

    That fear would begin to go away if they knew how many people felt just like them, and wanted to say something but thought they were alone. Let me quote Jason Hill, whom I wrote about here when he was interviewed by Evita Duffy. This guy stuck his neck out. We need more like him.

    [W]e must show, through our courage and through our fortitude and through our implacability and our intransigence, there are a lot of silent minorities — when I say minorities I don’t mean racial minorities, I mean conservative voices — who will rise up. All they’re waiting for is a sign from people such as myself, and you, and others who have that courage, to rise up and offer a rejoinder. There are many people I’ve met who are closeted rebels and defenders of our great republic and of our great civilization, but they’re scared because they think they’re alone.

    Everyday heroes.

     

    • #297
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Sure. But the “cost” that keeps most people silent is the fear of being that guy.

    I got thrown out of a tournament basketball game a couple of weeks ago because I refused to put my mask on. (I wrote about it here.) We were four hours from ending the New York state mask mandate in schools. I was the only spectator not masked. With a couple of exceptions, all of the parents with me — friends all — thought I was crazy for walking out. Some of them still think I’m crazy, but they kind of thought that already, after years of me mouthing off on Facebook and at social events.

    Most people don’t want that reputation. They don’t want to be the one who denounces Black Lives Matter as a hate-mongering racist scam. They don’t want to be the one who says men and women are different, women are the weaker sex, and men should open doors and walk on the traffic side and precede women down stairs and pick up the tab for dinner.

    They aren’t afraid of getting thrown in jail. They’re afraid of offending their kids, their relatives, their friends, or the people at school or work or church.

    That fear would begin to go away if they knew how many people felt just like them, and wanted to say something but thought they were alone. Let me quote Jason Hill, whom I wrote about here when he was interviewed by Evita Duffy. This guy stuck his neck out. We need more like him.

    [W]e must show, through our courage and through our fortitude and through our implacability and our intransigence, there are a lot of silent minorities — when I say minorities I don’t mean racial minorities, I mean conservative voices — who will rise up. All they’re waiting for is a sign from people such as myself, and you, and others who have that courage, to rise up and offer a rejoinder. There are many people I’ve met who are closeted rebels and defenders of our great republic and of our great civilization, but they’re scared because they think they’re alone.

    Everyday heroes.

    I couldn’t agree with this more.  People need to stand up like men! (And Women!) [And Hermaphrodites!] {Wait, did I just give in to the woke crowd?!} Anyways, you get my point.

     

    • #298
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.