Fiction-checking: The legacy media (PR for Unfree Societies) efforts to bend facts in the service of their agenda might not matter to most people if only someone else is in the line of fire.
As all good PR agencies should do, they check their fictions to make sure they fit a narrative.
But here’s an instance where many might wish to rethink, via citizens’ rights activist Paul Jacob:
Take a PolitiFact story last week out of Iowa, where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is the current Republican front-runner as the state’s Feb. 1 presidential caucus approaches. Earlier this month, Sen. Cruz told a Cedar Rapids crowd, “The Democrats in the Senate last year introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment.”
Is this statement true or false?
The constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and voted for by every Democratic Party U. S. Senator states, “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”
This new power to be bestowed on Congress, with only a vague, undefined limitation that any new restrictions be “reasonable,” implicitly repeals the part of the First Amendment that reads, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”
There is a mighty big difference between “shall make no law” and “may regulate.”
PolitiFact came to nearly the opposite conclusion, however, labeling Sen. Cruz’s statement “Mostly False.”More.
Reality check: Actually, none of it makes any difference to the growing number of people whom the government feeds, clothes, houses. and vets. It only make a difference to people who remember the days when “shall make no law” protected them, who have traditional lives, and sometimes have something to say.
See also: Mark Steyn on the legacy media fact-checking farce You know, four Pinocchios, and all that?