“Listen Carefully it’s Actually Much Darker”: How the Left is Framing Free Speech as a Front for Fascism
By Jonathan Turley | February 18, 2025
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
In one of the most bizarre examples, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
EU Elites Are in Panic Over the US Leaving Ukraine and Europe
Professor Glenn Diesen & Pascal Lottaz
Glenn Diesen | February 17, 2025
I had a conversation with Pascal Lottaz at Neutrality Studies regarding the panic in the EU as the US made it clear it no longer considers Europe to be a priority. For years, the Europeans failed to establish the continent as an independent pole of power by neglecting to define their security and economic interests separate from the US. Europe is subsequently now a divided continent at war, in economic decline and with diminishing relevance in the world. The US must address multipolar realities by restoring a workable relationship with Russia and pivoting toward Asia. The comfortable ideological bubble has been burst, yet there is still a reluctance to deal with uncomfortable realities.
There Is No Such Thing as Democracy without Free Speech. Period.
Truthstream Media | February 17, 2025
Truthstream Media Can Be Found Here:
Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
UK and EU ‘incapable of negotiation’ – Moscow
RT | February 17, 2025
The UK and EU cannot be part of the Ukraine peace talks, as they are incapable of negotiating, Moscow’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia has said.
The diplomat made the comments as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Yury Ushakov, President Vladimir Putin’s top foreign policy aide, arrived in Saudi Arabia on Monday for bilateral talks with top US diplomats, discussions to which the EU and Ukraine are not invited.
“The Minsk guarantors, and in general EU states and the UK are incapable of negotiation and cannot be a party to any future agreements on regulating the Ukrainian crisis,” Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Monday.
Both are blinded by “a manic desire to defeat Russia on the battlefield at the hands of the surviving Ukrainians,” the diplomat said. Neither EU countries nor the UK are suitable to serve “as either guarantors or middlemen” to a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, he added.
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for ending the hostilities, Keith Kellogg, has also noted that European states have no place in upcoming peace talks. France and Germany served as the Western guarantors of the failed Minsk accord, a deal supposedly aimed at stopping hostilities between Ukraine and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has since admitted the ceasefire was intended to buy time for Kiev to build up strength.
While previously both the US and its allies in Europe have shown a united front in backing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia since its escalation in 2022, Washington has touted a pivot under Trump. The new US president has promised to bring a swift end to the hostilities, while simultaneously signaling that Europe should begin to shoulder more of the cost of its own security, as well as Ukraine’s.
The Russian diplomatic delegation in Riyadh is expected to prepare the ground for an upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin, following tomorrow’s initial bilateral involving senior diplomats form both sides.
Moscow is coming to the negotiations primarily to “hear out” Washington regarding the Ukraine conflict, as well as to restore communication after “an absolutely abnormal period” in Russia-US relations, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
The top diplomat has previously stressed that Moscow will reject any attempt to temporarily freeze the Ukraine conflict, as Kiev’s Western backers would use such a measure to rearm Kiev. Any solution to the hostilities would need to have an ironclad legal basis and address the root causes of the conflict, Lavrov has said.
America’s ‘Democratic’ Allies Are Becoming More Authoritarian
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | February 17, 2025
U.S. officials have a long history of portraying Washington’s allies and clients as democratic, even when their behavior is blatantly authoritarian. Such cynical hypocrisy was at its zenith during the Cold War, but it is surging again.
A similar trend is evident with respect to U.S. interference in the internal political affairs of other countries through such mechanisms as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Such agencies fund regimes and political movements that are deemed obedient to Washington’s wishes and supportive of American foreign policy objectives. Conversely, U.S. administrations actively undermine governments or movements that they consider hostile or even just insufficiently cooperative. The actual nature of U.S. clients often is a far cry from the carefully crafted democratic image of them that Washington circulates.
A recent example of American meddling in the internal affairs of another democratic country appears to have taken place in the Republic of Georgia. According to Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, USAID spent $41.7 million to support its preferred candidates in the country’s recent parliamentary elections. Adjusted for the size of Georgia’s population, such an expenditure in the United States would amount to $3.78 billion,
The U.S. track record in Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union lends credibility to the speaker’s accusation that Washington is meddling in his country’s internal political affairs. President George W. Bush fawned with praise for Mikheil Saakashvili, the leader of Georgia’s “rose revolution” in 2003. Under Saakashvili, Georgia had become a “beacon of liberty,” Bush crowed. Generous flows of aid from Washington ensued. However, massive corruption soon characterized Saakashvili’s rule, as did his growing repression of political opponents. Ultimately, Saakashvili’s adversaries ousted Washington’s beloved “democratic” client from power.
The contrast between the laudatory American portrayal of Saakashvili as a paragon of democratic reform and the reality of his conduct was stark. However, Washington’s role in Ukraine over the years has been even more pervasive and dishonest. Although Ukraine’s president, Victor Yanukovych, came to office in a 2010 election that even a team of European Union (EU) observers conceded was reasonably free and fair, officials in Barack Obama’s administration, especially Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, worked to undermine his presidency. Yanukovych’s preference for closer economic ties with Russia instead of the EU and the United States apparently was intolerable to Western policymakers.
In 2014, the United States and key NATO partners helped Ukrainian demonstrators (primarily in Kiev’s Maidan Square) force Yanukovych to flee. An intercepted telephone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine confirmed the massive extent of Washington’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs. Nuland herself later admitted that the United States had poured more than $5 billion to Ukrainian groups in the years before the Maidan uprising. Supposedly, the purpose was to “promote democracy,” but as usual, the funds went almost entirely to groups Washington considered supportive of U.S. policies. It would be hard to identify a more flagrant case of outside interference in the affairs of another country.
Even if U.S. leaders sincerely intended their largesse to bring a stronger, healthier democracy to Ukraine—which is extremely doubtful—Washington did not achieve that goal. Corruption and blatant repression have become increasingly bad under the post-Maidan governments. Even though U.S. leaders invariably portray Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a democratic champion, his record proves the opposite. Under his rule, Ukraine has outlawed opposition parties, muzzled the press, harassed uncooperative churches, and amassed a record of arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Much of that abuse was evident before the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia. Confirming that any attempt to portray Zelensky’s rule as democratic is a hypocritical farce, Ukraine has now postponed elections indefinitely.
The rot of hypocrisy and covert authoritarianism has infected even governments in NATO and the European Union. A grotesque example occurred earlier this month in Romania when an election commission dominated by the two governing parties, the Social Democratic Party (PSD and the National Liberal Party (PNL), annulled the first round of the presidential election held on November 24. Instead of the candidates of those two parties advancing to the second round runoff as expected, neither one did so. Instead, Caliin Georgescu, the candidate of a right-wing populist party led the field. Elena Lasconi, a reformer representing another “minor” party took the other runoff spot.
That outcome apparently was intolerable to Romania’s political establishment or its supporters in the EU and the United States. They viewed Georgescu as especially unacceptable, since he openly criticized NATO and opposed continuing to aid Ukraine. The country’s election commission nullified the voting results and rescheduled the first round balloting for May 4, 2025. Commissioners charged that, wait for it… Russia had illegally tampered with the election! Moscow’s horrid offense was its alleged support of a Tik Tok campaign that seemed to benefit Georgescu. Tangible evidence regarding Russian involvement was noticeably absent. Despite the lack of evidence, U.S. and EU officials denounced Russia and praised the Romanian government for trashing the election.
Eugene Doyle, a reporter for New Zealand’s Solidarity.com, noted the menacing significance of this episode. “To save democracy, the US and the European elites appear to have found it necessary to destroy democracy. For the first time ever an election was overturned in an EU/NATO country. Ever,” he wrote. Doyle also cites evidence that Russia was not even the likely culprit. The Tik Tok effort apparently originated with a botched PNL scheme to siphon off votes to Georgescu from other mainstream competitors.
Moreover, as Doyle points out, “Even if the Russians did it, in what crazy world would you wipe an election for a Tik Tok campaign, particularly one that was at best a few hundred thousands of dollars’ worth of advertising/messaging/ chatting—in contrast to the millions of dollars the U.S. State Department and various branches of the U.S. government spent on the same campaign?”
The answer is that it would happen in a world where political elites in the United States and its principal allies have never really been committed to democracy. Not as a domestic governing principle and definitely not as a foreign policy objective. Instead, the alleged commitment is a propaganda tool that is discarded whenever it becomes inconvenient. We live in such a world, and have done so for many years.
Macron slammed for excluding European allies from Paris summit on Ukraine
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | February 17, 2025
As French President Emmanuel Macron convenes European leaders in Paris to discuss military strategies regarding Ukraine, he faces backlash from key European allies for excluding them from the summit.
The gathering, aimed at formulating a unified European stance amid ongoing U.S.-Russia peace discussions, has sparked controversy for leaving out crucial partners in the region.
Czechia was among the first to express its discontent, criticizing Macron’s decision to exclude them from the summit. A Czech government source told French newspaper Le Monde : “In addition to Poland, there is no country that is closer to the war.”
The source further condemned Macron’s “arrogance,” emphasizing that no country hosts more Ukrainian refugees in relative terms.
“No country has more Ukrainian refugees per capita than the Czech Republic, and we manage one of the most effective weapon supply systems,” they added.
Romania also found itself omitted from the summit guest list. Ilie Bolojan, presidential advisor for defense and security, acknowledged the exclusion, stating that despite Romania’s substantial contributions — including overseeing more than 600 kilometers of Ukraine’s border — it had not been invited to Paris “despite his efforts” to get Bucharest in the room.
Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar voiced strong criticism of the summit’s selective invitations, asserting that it undermines European unity. “On a symbolic level, the organizers of the Paris summit show the world that, even within the EU, not all states are treated on an equal footing,” Musar declared. “This does not correspond to the spirit of European integration. This is not the Europe we aspire to, nor a Europe that commands global respect.”
Hungary, known for its non-interventionist stance under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, also condemned the meeting, labeling it a “pro-war” summit. The Hungarian government accused participating European leaders of fueling escalation rather than seeking diplomatic resolutions. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó criticized the summit’s motives, claiming that it gathers “anti-Trump, war-focused, frustrated leaders” who do not want peace.
“Those who have continued to throw oil on the fire for three years now meet in Paris,” Szijjártó asserted, denouncing what he called “an erroneous strategy” of continued military escalation.
He reiterated Hungary’s alignment with U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision for peace negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, arguing that direct diplomacy remains the best route to ending the conflict.
Around a dozen European leaders are expected to meet at the Elysée Palace later on Monday for talks chaired by Macron.
Medvedev applauds Vance’s ‘humiliating rebuke’ of Europe
RT | February 15, 2025
The deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has hailed US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling it a rare moment of American honesty about Europe’s weaknesses and Vance himself “a brave guy.”
In his speech on Friday, Vance touched on the migration crisis, security, freedom of speech, and apparent democratic backsliding on the continent.
Medvedev said Vance “unexpectedly lit up” the conference, calling his remarks a harsh but truthful indictment of modern Europe.
“Everyone expected to hear the usual partner-like curtseys to Europe and comments on Donald Trump’s words about the end of the Ukrainian conflict. But he went and harshly scolded the Europeans who have completely lost themselves in recent years: your democracy is weak, your elections are crap, your rules that violate normal human morality are crap,” Medvedev wrote.
He added that the Europeans would retaliate against him if he did not hold such a high post. “However, they will forgive him; they will begrudgingly accept the humiliating rebuke from their senior partner with resentment,” Medvedev concluded.
Vance was particularly severe in his indictment of European democracy. He voiced concerns over the erosion of democratic values in Europe, drawing attention to the annulment of the presidential election in Romania. The first round in November saw right-wing anti-establishment candidate Calin Georgescu come out on top with 22.94%, beating liberal leftist and social democrat candidates. Romania’s top court cited intelligence documents alleging “irregularities” in his campaign performance in making their ruling, although the validity of that evidence has been questioned.
The US vice president also cautioned against rising censorship in the region, told European member-states to take greater responsibility for their own defense, and raised the alarm over mass migration.
US President Donald Trump praised Vance’s speech as “brilliant.” However, some European officials were not so keen on the address. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas warned that it signaled growing transatlantic tension. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius meanwhile, blasted the remarks, calling them “not acceptable.”
On the other hand, Russian Senator Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov described Vance’s statements as a “cold shower” for European Russophobes.
EU nations aim to seize alleged ‘Russian shadow fleet’ vessels – Politico
RT | February 10, 2025
Several EU members are considering strengthening the legal framework for seizing ships in the Baltic Sea with the aim of undermining Russian trade, Politico reported on Monday, citing insiders. Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are allegedly seeking to target vessels on environmental and piracy grounds.
Western nations, which have been seeking to find ways to curb Russian energy exports, have accused Moscow of employing a “shadow fleet” to evade sanctions. In recent months, officials have also accused Moscow of sabotaging undersea cables in the Baltic, though no evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.
According to Politico’s sources, the four states intend to seize suspected shadow fleet ships based on the alleged threat they pose to the environment and to infrastructure, and are seeking EU backing for the initiative. They could amend national legislation to “make it easier to grab ships further out at sea,” including by mandating a list of insurers for maritime operations in the Baltic. Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told the news outlet that there are “lots of opportunities” for enforcing trade restrictions against Russia.
Last December, Finland seized the tanker ‘Eagle S’ amid an investigation into the damage to the Estlink 2 power cable. The vessel remains impounded despite the Finnish authorities reportedly finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
Conversely, a Norwegian cargo ship with an all-Russian crew was released in late January after Norwegian police concluded there were no grounds to continue its detention. The Latvian authorities had requested the seizure of the Silver Dania over an incident involving an optic cable owned by the national broadcaster LVRTC earlier the same month.
Moscow has accused Western nations of peddling a false narrative that frames routine accidents as evidence of a Russian sabotage campaign. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has criticized purveyors for “fantastic hypocrisy,” citing the lack of findings in European inquiries into the September 2022 destruction of Nord Stream gas pipelines.
The “non-investigation” of that incident suggests that EU nations deem Joe Biden’s threat against Russian-German infrastructure “proper,” Zakharova said last month, referring to remarks made by the then-US president months before the attack.
President Vladimir Putin has characterized Western sanctions as tools of non-economic pressure wielded by countries unable to compete with Russia on an equal footing. He views them as a challenge to make the national economy better.
“No blackmail or attempts to impose anything on us will ever yield results. Russia is confident in its rightness and strength,” he said in a recent speech.
France freezes accounts of ‘Russian House’ – ambassador
RT | February 7, 2025
France has frozen the bank accounts of the Russian House cultural center in Paris, effectively blocking its operations, Russian Ambassador Aleksey Meshkov has told RIA Novosti.
Russian House, which promotes Russian language, culture and traditions, operates under Rossotrudnichestvo, a government agency. Moscow has argued that closing the center violates bilateral agreements.
“Attempts are being made to completely freeze the work of the Russian House due to the fact that accounts have been frozen. We are having difficult negotiations with the French on this issue, especially since the Russian House exists here legally, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, and a French cultural center operates in Russia. This is a negative development of events in recent weeks,” Meshkov said.
On Thursday, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry formally demanded the closure of the Russian House in Baku, citing its lack of legal registration. Rossotrudnichestvo head Evgeny Primakov confirmed that despite multiple requests from the Russian Embassy and the agency for compliance assistance, Azerbaijani authorities had not responded.
In January, Azerbaijani TV aired a report alleging that the Russian House in Baku was engaging in espionage under the guise of cultural promotion. Moscow dismissed the claims as baseless, summoning Azerbaijani Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev to the foreign ministry.
Primakov announced plans to file a defamation lawsuit against Baku TV, demanding either evidence or a retraction and apology. Local pro-government media compared the Russian House closure to Azerbaijan’s recent decision to halt the operations of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the country.
In January, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov stated that Baku had suspended cooperation with USAID, citing concerns that it was advancing US political interests and operating non-transparently. He insisted that any US assistance should be provided officially and with full transparency.
Primakov rejected comparisons between Russian House and USAID, emphasizing that Rossotrudnichestvo focuses solely on humanitarian and cultural cooperation.
“The comparison of the activities of the Russian House in Baku and the US Agency for International Development does not hold up to any criticism, as Rossotrudnichestvo does not engage in political matters, unlike the American organization,” he said.
Despite diplomatic efforts, the Russian House in Baku faces immediate challenges. Moscow has received official notification about its closure and expressed willingness to complete the registration process under Azerbaijani law. However, Primakov revealed that the center must vacate its premises within six weeks, as the property owner has decided to sell the building.
Russian Houses operate in dozens of countries worldwide. Rossotrudnichestvo has been on the European Union’s sanctions list since July 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, although its centers continue to function in some European nations.
The institutions support regional artistic and cultural communities, organize events, language courses, poetry competitions, children’s activities, and theatrical performances.
‘This is NPR’: America’s Public Media Faces Reckoning on What it is
By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025
“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.
Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.
Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)
NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.
Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”
The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.
Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.
What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:
Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.
It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.
The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.
There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?
I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.
After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.
It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.
Forty Years Bashing the National Endowment for Democracy
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025
In a November 29, 1985 piece in the Oakland Tribune, I hailed NED as “one of the newest, most prestigious boondoggles on the Potomac.” But there were plenty of scoffers early on: “NED has been called many things—an International Political Action Committee, the Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Elections Program, and a slush fund for political hacks who like to travel to warm climates in cold weather. In less than two years, NED has lived up to all these epithets.” My op-ed concluded, “The sooner NED is abolished, the cleaner our foreign policy will be.”
The following year, after fresh NED scandals, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) howled, “This thing is not the National Endowment for Democracy but the National Endowment for Embarrassment.” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) complained, “From its very inception, the National Endowment for Democracy has been riddled with scandal and impropriety.”
But it was a “jobs for the boys” program that enabled politicians to launder money to plenty of their aides and donors, so it survived one pratfall after another.
In 2006, in “Defining Democracy Down” in The American Conservative, I wrote:
“In 2001, NED quadrupled its aid to Venezuelan opponents of elected president Hugo Chavez, and NED heavily funded some organizations involved in a bloody military coup that temporarily removed Chavez from power in April 2002. After Chavez retook control, NED and the State Department responded by pouring even more money into groups seeking his ouster.
The International Republican Institute, one of the largest NED grant recipients, played a key role both in the Chavez coup and also in the overthrow of Haiti’s elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In February 2004, an array of NED-aided groups and individuals helped spur an uprising that left 100 people dead and toppled Aristide. Brian Dean Curran, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti, warned Washington that the International Republican Institute’s actions ‘risked us being accused of attempting to destabilize the government.’
The U.S. pulled out all the stops to help our favored candidate win a ‘free and fair’ election in 2004 in the Ukraine. In the two years prior to the election, the United States spent over $65 million ‘to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won a disputed runoff election,’ according to the Associated Press. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) complained that “much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and… millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.’ Yet with boundless hypocrisy, Bush had proclaimed that “any [Ukrainian] election… ought to be free from any foreign influence.”
In a 2009 piece for the Future of Freedom Foundation, I wrote, “NED is based on the notion that its meddling in foreign elections is automatically pro-democracy because the U.S. government is the incarnation of democracy. NED has always operated on the principle that ‘what’s good for the U.S. government is good for democracy.’”
In 2017, Donald Trump’s first administration dropped “democracy promotion” from the list of official goals of U.S. foreign policy. In a USA Today op-ed with the headline, “End Democracy Promotion Balderdash,” I wrote that the reform “could sharply reduce America’s piety exports… It is time to recognize the carnage the U.S. has sown abroad in the name of democracy.” I warned:
“Democracy promotion gives U.S. policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy, created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama, Costa Rica, Ukraine, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Haiti and many other nations… Rather than delivering political salvation, U.S. interventions abroad more often produce ‘no-fault carnage’ (no one in Washington is ever held liable).”
In a 2018 op-ed headlined “Time for the US to end democracy promotion flim-flams” in The Hill, I wrote:
“Democracy promotion has long been one of the U.S. government’s favorite foreign charades. The Trump administration’s proposal to slash funding for democratic evangelism is being denounced as if it were the dawn of a new Dark Age. But this is a welcome step to draining a noxious swath of the Washington swamp…
Unfortunately, many Washingtonians are blinded by self-serving sanctimony. National Democratic Institute president Kenneth Wollack claims that equating U.S. and Russian interventions in foreign elections is like ‘comparing someone who delivers lifesaving medicine to someone who brings deadly poison.’ But the opiate crisis illustrates how easily therapeutic concoctions can produce vast carnage…
Democracy often provides a vast improvement in governance in foreign lands but bribery, finagling, and bombing are poor ways to export freedom. Can Washington politicians and policy wonks explain why the U.S. government deserves veto power over elections everywhere else on Earth?”
Since that 2018 op-ed, NED became a top funder of the worldwide Censorship Industrial Complex. It has also continued trying to rig foreign elections. NED tacitly justifies itself because “God wants democracy to win.” The U.S. government is simply doing God’s work—or doing what God would do if he knew as much as U.S. government agencies.
In 1984, Congressman Hank Brown (R-CO) provided a single sentence that should have nullified NED’s right to exist: “It is a contradiction to try to promote free elections by interfering in them.” But contradictions never stopped the growth of Leviathan. NED’s continued existence is a testament to the perpetual perfidy of U.S. foreign policy. With pressure from Musk and from the Trump administration, Americans may soon learn of far more NED scandals.
Featured Video
Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- If Americans Knew
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 