Biden warns of democracy’s jeopardy as his party obstructs its progress.

Is Democracy‍ Really ⁢at Stake?

Now that⁤ one of the 2 million Democrat ⁤prosecutors chasing Donald Trump has ‍filed a court motion to⁢ make it illegal for him to talk⁤ about the⁤ election, is it okay to laugh anytime Joe Biden frames 2024 as a ⁤referendum on “democracy”?

Monday night would​ have been⁣ a good time to exercise that rule. Speaking at a fundraising event on Broadway, ​the president told “FOLKS!” in attendance that he’s running for reelection because “democracy is at⁢ stake” and “on the ballot once again.”

It’s​ gotten so corny, and⁤ yet if there weren’t pollsters, consultants, ⁣and all of the media telling every Democrat in the country that it’s a line⁤ that works for their voters, he wouldn’t be saying it.

Yet, it’s Democrats who come up with a new way to ​shut down the few remaining options and avenues the American public ⁢has to ⁤express their opinions and choices on virtually everything. They do it on the daily. Just last⁤ week, Special Counsel⁢ Jack Smith requested that a federal judge in​ Washington, D.C., place a gag order that ​would prevent Trump from disparaging Smith’s Jan. 6-related case against him, even in political terms.

“[T]he defendant has⁢ repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking ⁤the citizens of the⁤ District of⁣ Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses,” Smith wrote in the filing. “Through his statements, the ‍defendant threatens⁢ to undermine ⁢the integrity‍ of ‌these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool…”

He asserted​ that Trump has a “history of inflammatory and misleading statements” that “would​ cause others to harass and harm perceived critics or ⁤adversaries.” One ⁣of those supposedly dangerous statements⁣ was a social media post ​wherein Trump said, “Joe Biden directed his Attorney General to prosecute his rival. This is not an independent‌ Justice ‍Department, this is not an independent special ‍counsel. This is being directed ⁣by the Commander-in-Chief.”

Smith said ⁢that remark was​ made‍ “without any basis,” even ⁢as none other​ than ‍the New York​ Times wrote in April last year ‌for its millions of readers‌ — does⁣ Jack Smith have a subscription? — that Biden has told ⁢his associates he wants indictments‍ against his predecessor and that he wanted his attorney general “to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a ‍prosecutor who is willing to​ take decisive action over the events ​of Jan. 6.”

It wouldn’t be ​until​ seven months later that Trump would launch his own reelection campaign, but everyone knew ‍he was going to​ do it, and everyone knew that when he did, he ​would instantly become ‍the‍ frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

That’s the context dismissed by Jack Smith as “without any basis.”

The ‍motion‍ comes just a month after the judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, has‌ already ‍ sided⁢ with Smith ⁣ on a similar motion regarding “inflammatory statements.” She said there were limits to what Trump could say ​“whether it will affect a political campaign on either side.” In essence:⁢ Even ‍if Trump’s campaign ⁣is ​partly or wholly about the case against ⁣him, he can’t talk ‌about‌ it.

When ⁢Democrats aren’t limiting what Trump can talk about in a national election, they’re trying to get his name removed from state ballots. When they’re not‍ doing that, they’re suppressing ⁣what ⁣their dissenters can say on the Internet.​ When they’re not ​doing⁤ that, they’re trying ​to shrink ⁤ the Internet by icing out would-be customers from‌ renting space.

If‍ you don’t​ agree with Democrats on anything, what are you supposed‍ to do? Where‌ are you supposed to go?

Democracy really ‌is at stake. Biden⁢ and his party ⁢are ​working to eliminate it as an option altogether.

‌What is the‍ role ‌of the Special Counsel‌ appointed‍ by the Justice Department to investigate the ⁢events of January 6th?

T the Justice ⁢Department announced the appointment‍ of‌ Jack Smith as the Special Counsel ⁣to investigate the events of January 6th. But according to Smith, Trump’s statement had no basis.

This is⁤ just one example‌ of Democrats using ⁣their power to restrict⁤ the First Amendment rights⁣ of‍ their political opponents.​ They claim to be defenders of democracy,⁣ but their actions⁣ tell a different story.

In ‌their pursuit of ‌Trump, Democrats have weaponized ‍the legal system and ​used it to silence dissenting voices. They have abused their authority to target ⁢their political‍ adversaries and prevent⁢ them from speaking out. It is a ⁢blatant disregard for the principles​ of free speech‌ and​ open dialogue that are the foundation of ⁤our democracy.

But ‍it doesn’t stop there. Democrats have also used their​ control‌ of the media ​to shape‌ the narrative and control the information that the public receives. They have been quick⁢ to label ​any criticism ⁢or questioning of‍ their actions as threats to ‍democracy, while simultaneously pushing false narratives and ⁤hiding the truth.

This ​manipulation of information ‍is a dangerous‌ threat to our democracy. When the public is only exposed to one side of the ⁢story, they are denied the opportunity to ​make informed decisions. Democracy relies on an informed electorate, and⁣ when information‍ is controlled and manipulated, that ‍foundation is eroded.

It’s clear that‍ democracy is ⁤at stake, but not in the way that Democrats would have us⁤ believe. The real threat to our​ democracy comes from those who ‌seek to silence opposing viewpoints and manipulate the narrative. It comes from those who​ use their power to target and discredit ⁣their ⁢political⁢ opponents.

As citizens, we ⁤must remain vigilant⁣ and⁣ actively defend our democratic rights. We must ⁣reject ‌attempts to⁣ restrict⁣ free speech and manipulate information. We must demand transparency⁤ and accountability ⁤from our elected officials.

Democracy only thrives when all voices ⁢are ⁢heard ⁢and all ⁣opinions‍ are respected. It ‍is up to us, the citizens, to ensure that our democracy remains strong and resilient.