The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But nowadays, many liberals don’t seem to care too much for the Bill of Rights…or, if they do, it’s only when the Bill of Rights benefits their side. When it comes to the distribution of information that takes a sledgehammer to their narrative, they are aghast at the mere thought of free speech or an independent press.

Liberals do believe in free speech…but only as long as it’s speech they approve of. It’s getting scary now that liberals can change the meaning of words within a few hours of deciding they’re offensive, as was the case in the recent hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Democrats were able to get Merriam-Webster to change the definition of “sexual preference” to include a disclaimer about its outdated, offensive nature with hours of the term being uttered by Judge Barrett.

The Washington Post reported about Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono’s viral exchange with Judge Coney Barrett:

“‘I have no agenda,’ Barrett replied. ‘I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.’”

That choice of words prompted swift pushback from some critics, who said that the phrase ‘sexual preference,’ as used by Barrett, suggested that same-sex attraction is simply a choice — one that can be changed under enough pressure.

Among those raising concern was Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who accused the judge of using the phrase intentionally, instead of the more widely accepted ‘sexual orientation.’”

It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice,’ the senator said in an exchange that swiftly went viral. ‘It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity.’”’

The Left-wing social media giants also took action against a legitimate report published in the New York Post that confirmed that Joe Biden knew about his son’s business dealings in Ukraine, even though he claimed he had no idea what his son was up to.

Facebook and Twitter made it difficult—nearly impossible—to share the article on their feed. I wonder why?

Forbes reported, “Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone announced on Twitter shortly after 11 a.m. that Facebook would limit the story’s spread until third-party fact-checkers vetted it. This immediately prompted a Republican fusillade, one that intensified after Twitter made its own moves to prevent the story from being shared on its platform.

‘Silicon Valley leftists are now openly bragging about interfering with the election to help Joe Biden and undermine President Trump by purposefully censoring journalism in a clear effort to rig the election,’ Hogan Gidley, a Trump campaign spokesman wrote in an email to supporters. On Twitter, the Trump camp spent the afternoon tweeting about the story—’Twitter and Big Tech are actively interfering in the 2020 election’—and retweeting other conservatives’ comments lashing out at Facebook and Twitter.’”

The liberals appear to have disdain for many of the Bill of Rights. As evidenced above, they don’t care much for the First Amendment. They don’t like due process, and some states like New York have even taken stands against bail.

That is the state of today’s Democrat Party. It is a scary thought that this party might take over power in January. This thought should send a chill down the spine of every person who reveres the Constitution. If it doesn’t, the country is in trouble, and we might never come back from this perversion of the Bill of Rights. It would be national suicide.