Whistleblowers Detail Why Drones Weren't Used at Trump's Butler Rally
Kamala Harris Finally Issues Statement About Pro-Hamas Takeover in D.C.
We Might Have Found a Clue That Points to a Motive for Trump's...
The FBI Director Rehashed a Trump Assassination Conspiracy Theory Yesterday
These Congressional Democrats Are Scrambling to Distance Themselves From Border Czar Harri...
Have You Seen the Aftermath of Pro-Hamas Chaos?
CrowdStrike Actually Gave This to Its Partners as Part of Its Apology Over...
Trump Campaign Demands 'Equal Airtime' in Response to Biden Oval Office Address
Finally, Something Democrats and Republicans Agree On
Harris Campaign Makes Quite the Admission About Project 2025
Creepy: A 'Nonpartisan' Website Just Deleted Some Damning Data About Kamala
There's More to That Kamala Harris Campaign Memo
Here Is New Information FBI Director Disclosed on The Attempted Assassination of Trump
Here We Go: Media Spins That Kamala Isn't Technically the Border Czar
Is Politico Serious With This Headline About the Pro-Hamas Agitators in D.C.?

Warren: Hey, We Should Make it a Crime to Post Disinformation Online

On so many issues, she's "got a plan for that" -- and like so many of her plans, it features impracticality with a distinct whiff of authoritarianism.  And a dash of hypocrisy.  It's sort of her brand.  So now, the woman who deleted her DNA stunt video after it failed to prove her false heritage claims, appears to have repeatedly lied about getting fired for being pregnant,  deeply mischaracterized her kids' educational history during a discussion with a school choice advocate, and fabricated an insanely dishonest healthcare "plan" would like the government to crack down on false information on the internet with criminal sanctions:


Re-read that my paragraph, then decide: Lock her up?  What about for this egregious, race-baiting lie?  

It is quite remarkable to see one of the least honest figures on the political scene today taking up the torch of 'truth-or-else' enforcement.  Of course, setting aside the free speech issues at play, there are the fundamental questions of what would constitute "disinformation," and who would adjudicate such distinctions for censorship and/or punishment.  I wonder how Warren might feel about her little totalitarian proposal if the final arbiter of legally-actionable online "lying" were, say, Attorney General Bill Barr.  This somewhat reminds me of incensed lefties screaming at Mark Zuckerberg because Facebook won't censor political content they don't like.  Astoundingly, they're demanding that a big corporation led by a billionaire make unilateral decisions about what political content the masses are permitted to see.  What could go wrong?  The not-so-subtle secret is that they're willing to stifle speech because they feel confident that their ideological allies would be the ones doing the stifling.  Per usual, the table-pounders haven't stopped to contemplate how their preferred regime would work if people with "bad" ideas were making the decisions.  


Also, let's be frank: Like much of her nonsense, this isn't a serious plan from Warren.  It's her latest desperate, kitchen sink-style gambit to generate attention and revitalize a flagging campaign.  She's steadily dropped in the polls in recent months, with the target of her most transparent CNN-laundered attack (arguably disinformation!) gaining steam.  The media -- often eager to boost Warren -- declared her the winner of the misogyny row with Bernie Sanders.  It would appear that voters reached a rather different conclusion:

Parting thought via Allahpundit: Could Warren finish fourth or fifth in Iowa, where she was long viewed as a frontrunner with an exceptional ground game?  That would be a devastating outcome for her.  On the other hand, maybe her on-the-ground work will pay off, and Joe Biden's seemingly-strong standing will be exposed as a mirage in the Hawkeye State:


Tune in Monday to find out.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos