Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Hate’ Category

Hunter Biden’s “Privilege” Party and the Left’s Double Standard

By: Kevin Jackson | October 22, 2025

Hunter Biden: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

If there’s a grand prize in America’s Dysfunction Olympics, Joe Biden handing a full, cosmic-scale pardon to his own son would be the soaring triple backflip onto a bed of rose petals. What Biden did was political malpractice—wrapped in gold foil. And now Hunter Biden dares to admit this divine clemency a symbol of “privilege.” He then lambasts Donald Trump’s supposed “revenge tour” like a schoolyard victim whining about a bully.

Pardon, Privilege, and the Perverse “Narrative”

Let’s parse the spectacle:

On December 1, 2024, Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for all federal offenses his son may have committed from January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2024—including tax and gun charges, and even hypothetical future ones. This pardon came after repeated promises that Hunter would not be pardoned. The turnaround smacked of desperation.

Now, Hunter says he’s “incredibly grateful” and “realizes how privileged I am,” but also claims that his father would not have pardoned him had Trump not won. He also invokes the specter of Trump’s “revenge tour,” arguing that he would’ve been the “easiest target,” somehow vulnerable enough to silence the entire Biden clan.

Hunter got off scot-free from genuine crimes (remember, tax evasion and firearm charges are not made-up). Now, he piously “admits” that he was privileged—all while casting himself as a persecuted innocent. That’s not humility; that’s hubris in the shape of a press release.

A Hypocrisy So Thick You Could Swim In It

1. Selective “Justice” for the Elite

If you tell the average American they’ll be jailed for delinquent taxes, ignoring them won’t work; they’ll still get prosecuted. But if your last name is Biden, the rulebook says exception. That’s not theory; it’s been practiced. The Washington establishment has long operated under one law for the powerful, another for the powerless.

Democrats screamed about the “rigged justice system” when Trump was investigated, but now they rig it for their own. That’s not consistency—it’s con artistry.

2. The Political Panic Pardons

Wrapping a pardon like a political grenade isn’t rare. Presidents have always pardoned cronies, allies, or inconvenient truths. But pardoning his own son—and one embroiled in crime, addiction, and scandal—is not just nepotism; it’s betrayal of the public trust. The Left used to pretend pardons are about mercy or reform. But in this case, the only mercy is for the powerful.

3. The “Revenge Tour” Fairy Tale

Hunter claims Trump is on a “revenge tour”—as though Trump sat in some shadow room with a red ledger, marking off names. But which evidence supports that? We saw him challenge unconstitutional actions, purge bureaucrats tied to past vindictive investigations, and strip security clearances from politicized deep-state actors.

That’s not obsession—it’s course correction. Trump doesn’t lash out randomly; he goes after institutional rot. If Joe Biden’s legacy was built on family shenanigans and corruption, then yes, Hunter looked over his shoulder—but that’s on the family for being vulnerable, not on a president for doing his job.

Why Hunter Should Shut His Mouth (And Maybe Hide Under a Rock)

Here’s what’s guaranteed: the more Hunter talks, the worse it gets. If he keeps playing victim, it reminds people why he was pardoned—to defang him as a target. His own words confirm that. And if he speaks with indignation, he resurrects interest in the crimes he claims were swept under the rug. Then, if he rails about Trump, he writes his own invitation: “Put my name back under the microscope.”

Truthfully, if he’s smart (he’s not), he’ll go underground, live quietly, and let Joe’s pardon do its job.

Hunter Claims He Could Have Beaten the Wrap

Hunter alluded that he would have argued that the prior prosecutions were politically motivated or inconsistent, and that every person deserves due process. Let’s call this “The Leftist Defense”, and surely one that Big Tish, Comey, and Jack Smith will all deploy, unsuccessfully. Clearly, Hunter wants the world to believe that Trump’s DOJ would have weaponized charges against him or his family relentlessly—thus the pardon was a shield, not a favor.

Finally, you know that Biden would have used his addiction as an excuse. Addiction has been his scapegoat for years. For him, addiction trump’s culpability, and that mercy has a place in justice.

Rebirth of the Two-Tiered Justice System

If you have power and connections, you go free. If you don’t, you go to jail. That’s the American dream inverted, and it’s rotting from the top down.

A president—even one from the Left—who pardons his own child weaponizes the very office meant to temper excess. It’s one thing to help others; it’s another to help your own at the expense of fairness.

Hunter Biden’s remarks do one useful thing: they confirm what most people already suspected. He got a pardon not as redemption, but as immunity. He’s not a contrite citizen; he’s a walking monument to corruption’s soft power.

He can call it “privilege.” It is. He can blame it on a “revenge tour.” It’s not. He can cry crocodile tears about being a target. He wasn’t. But none of that changes the truth: he got a pardon meant to sanitize him. He got an escape hatch welded shut from accountability. And that, dear reader, is not scandal — it’s statecraft in the wild hands of the well connected.

Category:

corruption, Democrats, Hate, Law, Media, Political, political violence

Tagged with:

Two Chicago Educators Face Questions Over “No Kings” Protest Calls

By: Jonathan Turley | October 21, 2025

The large “No Kings” protests this weekend were peaceful with the exception of some hot spots in Portland near ICE facilities. There were the usual hot heads carrying guillotines and North Carolina Democrat Rep. Julie von Haefen is under fire for posting a picture of a beheaded Trump. Another protester was arrested for calling for protesters to “firebomb” ICE facilities and personnel. In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata. There was also an assault on a MAGA supporter. These remained happily isolated incidents. However, two school employees in Chicago drew national attention with their violent speeches and offered another test of our free speech standards.

In Chicago, elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez was shown on video mockingly making a gesture akin to being shot in the neck, mimicking how Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The video went viral, and her school, Nathan Hale Elementary School, had to shut down its website and social media presence.

Martinez’s gesture is disgusting, and frankly, I would not want my children to be taught by such a person. However, she did not identify herself as a teacher when she made this vile statement outside of school during her own time. As such, it is, in my view, protected speech.

Then there is the controversy surrounding Wilbur Wright College Adult Education Manager Moises Bernal, who screamed to a crowd that “ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.” Bernal told the crowd, “You gotta grab a gun!” and “We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!”

In 2017, Bernal was sentenced to 12 months probation in a rare move by the court due to disruptive behavior at a hearing for Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke who was charged with murder.

The question is whether calling for the killing of ICE officers crosses the line for an educator. After all, there are ICE officers who come to campuses in their official capacity or as students. There are also students who want to join law enforcement, including ICE.

Violent speech is admittedly a difficult area for such line drawing. Faculty have made similarly disturbing comments in the past, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).

Even school board members referring to taking faculty “to the slaughterhouse” for questioning DEI policies is considering protected speech.

However, the specificity of Bernal’s call to violence could trigger repercussions for him. If Bernal had proclaimed that people should shoot minorities or women or Jews, there would be little debate that he represented a threatening element on campus. Certainly, a student who espoused such violent intentions would not be allowed on campus in most universities.

For the university, it is difficult to see how law enforcement personnel in adult education programs would feel comfortable with an administrator who is encouraging others to murder them. Indeed, most people would not feel comfortable in interacting with someone who wants to kill law enforcement personnel.

Bernal’s comments likely fall short of a criminal threat, though, in New York city, David Cox was arrested after allegedly telling a third person that he had firebombs in his car and would be carrying out an attack. That was a specific threat and alleged plan. Bernal was encouraging violence in general.

However, calling for violence at a protest can cross the line for violent speech under existing precedent. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In this case, there was no violence despite Bernal’s apparent inclinations. There was no evidence of “imminent lawless action.” As such, it is still likely protected. However, that does not mean that Wilbur Wright College, which is part of the city of Chicago college system, cannot fire or suspend him for calling for the murder of law enforcement.

There is currently no statement from Wilbur Wright College President Dr. Andrés A. Oroz.

Category:

Culture, Education, Free Speech, Hate, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

“Let Your Rage Fuel You”: Politicians and Pundits Embrace Rage Politics

By: Jonathan Turley | September 29, 2025

Below is my column in the Hill on the rise of rage politics. There was barely a respite from the rage rhetoric after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the sniper attack on the ICE facility. Gov. Gavin Newsom is back this week to calling his opponents “fascists” while other Democratic politicians are back to calling ICE “fascists.”

Here is the column:

“Let your rage fuel you.” Those words from Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger captured what I have called “rage politics” in America.

Across the country, politicians and pundits are fueling rage, encouraging voters to embrace it. If you turn on the television, you would think that Darth Sidious had taken over: “Give in to your anger. With each passing moment, you grow stronger.”

I do not think for a second that Spanberger supports violence. She was sharing with voters the “sage advice” of her mother, which she said she has applied in her political career. However, the anger is all around us.

Recently, I debated Harvard Law Professor Michael Klarman, who declared, “I am very angry” and “I am enraged.” In denouncing ICE as “thugs” and saying Trump supporters are “fascists,” Klarman explained that the rage had a purpose: “to shake people out of their insomnia.”

Rage, however, comes at a cost in politics. I recently wrote a book about rage and free speech, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” It discusses our history of rage politics and how it has led to violence and crackdowns. Rage gives people a license to say and do things that they would not otherwise say or do. It is addictive, it is contagious, and it is dangerous.

We are seeing the result of rage rhetoric all around us. That includes the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the sniper attack on ICE agents in Texas this week, in addition to violent protests around the country. Rage allows you to deny the humanity of those you disagree with. Recently, two sisters were caught on video destroying a memorial to Kirk. Kerri and Kaylee Rollo were later arrested. However, they immediately opened a GoFundMe site to call for donations for “fighting fascism” and Kaylee wrote “my sibling was fired from her job.” Hundreds of donors gave the sisters thousands of dollars as a reward for the latest such attack on a Kirk memorial.

For many months, some of us have warned that violent rhetoric was crossing over into political violence. Democratic politicians have spent months ratcheting up the rhetoric against ICE agents, who have suffered more than a 1,000 percent increase in attacks, including the recent sniper attack.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the day before that attack, signed a law that purports to bar ICE agents from wearing masks in California. He openly mocked them, asking, “What are you afraid of?“

Joshua Jahn answered that question the following day in Texas when he fired at ICE personnel, only to shoot three of their detainees.

Previously, Newsom had warned voters that Trump was building ICE into a personal army that might be used to suppress voting in the upcoming midterm elections. “Do you think ICE is not going to show up around voting and polling booths to chill participation?” he said.

Others added to the rage rhetoric by declaring the impending death of democracy and lashing out at ICE. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who has used violent rhetoric in the past, declared that ICE agents were acting like “slave patrols” in hunting down immigrants in the streets.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) used a commencement address to denounce “Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets. They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons… just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared.”

Others, like Boston Mayor Michele Wu, echoed the claims that ICE personnel are “Nazis” and called ICE Trump’s “secret police.”

The rage rhetoric (and claims of a fascist takeover) has been adopted by a wide range of Democratic politicians, often using the same catchphrases of an “authoritarian playbook.” In our debate, Professor Klarman warned that this was all “authoritarianism rooted in old-fashioned white supremacy.”

As discussed in my book, politicians and pundits have long sought to ride the wave of rage into power or influence. Rage is a powerful narcotic. The problem is when it becomes an addiction. There is always a certain percentage of the population that will believe such hyperbolic claims.

Those are the people who end up trying to kill jurists like Justice Brett Kavanaugh or politicians like Trump. It was also seen in the assassination of Democratic politicians earlier this year in Minnesota.

With the recent assassination and attacks on ICE, some are expressing regret. One of the most telling was Hillary Clinton on MSNBC, who said that we should “stop demonizing each other” while blaming “the right” for most of the hate. It was a curious call from a woman who called Trump supporters “deplorables” and suggested that they should collectively be forced into “deprogramming” as a cult. Just before the interview, Clinton had embraced the “fascism” mantra and, during the interview, she went right back to attacking Republicans.

A new poll shows that 71 percent view political violence as a serious problem, but the rage rhetoric continues unabated.

The perfunctory calls for lowering the temperature after the latest shooting are unlikely to last. Key figures in public life keep injecting rage directly into the veins of American politics. It is hard to go “cold turkey” in breaking that addiction, but you first have to want to do so. There is no indication that our rage-addicts are anywhere near a step-program for recovery. If history is any measure, this fever will only break when voters clearly reject the politics of rage.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Hate, intolerance, Media, Political, political violence

Tagged with:

Michigan Church Shooting: Four Dead, Ten Injured as Gunman Sets Fire During Sunday Service

By: Jimmy Parker | September 28, 2025

A Sunday Worship Service Turned Into Tragedy

A quiet Sunday morning turned into chaos when a gunman drove his vehicle through the front doors of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, opening fire on worshippers and setting the building ablaze. Authorities confirmed that at least four people are dead, and 10 others were injured, several critically.

The suspect, identified as 40-year-old Thomas Jacob Sanford of Burton, Michigan, was shot and killed in a gunfight with responding officers. Police believe Sanford acted alone.

What We Know About the Attack

The violence began around 10:25 a.m. as the congregation gathered for its sacrament service. Sanford allegedly rammed his vehicle into the sanctuary entrance, then opened fire with what police described as an assault-style rifle. Moments later, flames erupted inside the building, quickly spreading through the church and trapping some congregants.

“Ten gunshot victims have been transported to local hospitals at this time, including one who has been deceased,” said Grand Blanc Township Police Chief William Renye. Fire officials added that additional victims may be found as the burned structure is searched.

Suspect Background

Fox 2 Detroit reported Sanford was a U.S. Marine veteran who served in Iraq. He lived in Burton with his wife and child. Investigators are currently searching Sanford’s home and digital records to determine motive.

During the investigation, authorities discovered three improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in his vehicle, prompting the deployment of bomb squads and robots.

Federal Response

The FBI and ATF are leading the federal investigation. More than 100 federal agents have been deployed to assist state and local law enforcement. Search warrants have been executed at Sanford’s residence, and officials are reviewing his cell phone and other devices for evidence.

National Leaders React

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, calling the attack a “targeted assault on Christians” and vowing federal support.

“This appears to be yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America. The suspect is dead, but there is still a lot to learn. In the meantime, PRAY for the victims, and their families. THIS EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY MUST END, IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote.

Vice President JD Vance echoed the sentiment, calling it an “awful situation” and asking for prayers for victims and first responders.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi condemned the shooting as “heartbreaking and chilling,” while confirming FBI and ATF agents were on scene.

Church Statement

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement calling the shooting a “tragic act of violence.”

“During Sunday worship services a gunman opened fire, and early reports indicate that multiple individuals were injured. We ask for cooperation with local authorities as details become available,” the statement read.

The church expressed gratitude for emergency responders and said it was “deeply grateful for the outpouring of prayers and concern from so many people around the world.”

Community Response

Video from the scene showed dark smoke billowing into the sky, dozens of fire trucks, and emergency personnel rushing gurneys toward the church. Local hospitals confirmed they were treating victims, with some in critical condition.

Striking hospital staff even left picket lines to assist in treating victims, highlighting the community’s swift response.

Still Under Investigation

Authorities have not released a motive. They continue to search the fire-damaged church for possible additional victims and evidence. Officials warned that the scope of the tragedy may grow as the investigation unfolds.

For now, a Michigan community is left in shock, mourning lives lost in what should have been a peaceful place of worship.

Category:

Crime, Hate, political violence, Religion

Tagged with:

Charlie Kirk and the Age of Rage

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | September15, 2025

Below is my column in the Hill on the murder of Charlie Kirk, the latest victim of our age of rage. The evidence of Antifa scribblings and indoctrination of the shooter came as no surprise. For months, some of us have been warning Democratic leaders about their dangerous rhetoric and how it would be received by the most radical elements in the Antifa movement.

Here is the column:

“Prove me wrong.”

For years, that tagline of Charlie Kirk and his group, Turning Point USA, enraged many on the left. In “an age of rage,” nothing is more triggering for the perpetually angry than an invitation to debate issues.

Indeed, someone has now killed him for it.

What is most chilling about the assassination is that it was not in the slightest degree surprising. This follows two attempted assassinations of President Trump and the killing of a pair of Minnesota politicians.

I heard of the assassination in Prague as I prepared to speak about the age of rage and the growing attacks on free speech. I was profoundly saddened by the news. I knew Charlie and respected his effort to challenge the orthodoxy on college campuses. We all have received regular death threats (and Charlie more than most), but there is still a hope that even the most deranged will leave these threats at the ideation rather than the action stage.This killer left Charlie’s wife, Erika, and her two young children as the latest victims of senseless violence against someone who refused to be silenced.

We do not have to know much about the shooter to recognize the rage. The person who killed Charlie did not view him as a father or even as a person. That is the transformative, enabling effect of rage.

In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric: “What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts, flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”

Charlie was brave, and he was brash. He refused to yield to the threats while encouraging others to speak out on our campuses.

He was particularly hated for holding a mirror to the face of higher education, exposing the hate and hypocrisy on our campuses. For decades, faculty have purged their ranks of conservatives and libertarians. Faced with the intolerance of most schools, polls show that a large percentage of students hide their values to avoid retaliation from faculty or their fellow students.

Charlie chose to change all that. TPUSA challenges people to engage and debate them. The response from some on the left has been to trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police stood by and watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart.

Charlie is only the latest such victim, and he is unlikely to be the last.

For months, some of us have warned about the rise in rage rhetoric. Some believe that they can ride a wave of rage back into power. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture of himself brandishing a baseball bat.

Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”

Various radical groups welcome such rage rhetoric, particularly Antifa. The most violent anti-free speech group in the U.S., Antifa has long attacked journalists and others with opposing views. In his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” Professor Mark Bray noted that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, reportedly left telltale Antifa markings on evidence, including marking bullets inscribed with the lyrics: “Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciao”(from an Italian anti-fascist anthem) and “Hey, fascist! Catch!”

I previously testified in Congress about the dangers of Antifa, and I discuss the group in my book. Despite such warnings, Democratic leaders have dismissed those dangers or actually embraced Antifa.

Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison (D), now Minnesota’s attorney general, previously celebrated how Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group, including onesies for “Antifa babies.”

Some politicians have privately expressed alarm at the rising violent speech in their ranks. One Democratic member told Axios, “Some of [our supporters] have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”

Protesters are burning cars and dealerships. Even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Some on the left have rolled out guillotines and chanted, “We got the guillotine, you better run.”

Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk rallied the group with its signature chant of “prove me wrong.” Someone responded by killing him.

Of course, the murder proved nothing except that senseless hate is sweeping over our country. Someone preferred to kill Kirk rather than engage with him or others who held opposing views.

It is precisely the lack of debate and dialogue that has triggered this type of violence. For those dwelling deep in the hardened silos of our news and social media, dissenting voices become increasingly intolerable.

Charlie is still exposing that hypocrisy. As I prepared to address Charlie’s murder in Prague, anti-free speech groups were already using his murder to justify even greater limits on free speech to combat hate and disinformation. This is the ultimate dishonoring of his life and his legacy. Charlie died in the fight for free speech, challenging speech codes and censorship.

Greater censorship will not make political violence less likely; it will only make the likelihood of another Charlie Kirk less likely. Europe shows that extremists flourish under speech controls. The neo-Nazis are having a banner year in portraying themselves as victims.

It is the rest of us that are deterred by speech codes. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.

Charlie was hated because he exposed the left’s intolerance of opposing views … all in the purported cause of achieving greater tolerance. By challenging others to debate, he triggered a generation of speech-phobics who are more interested in silencing others than speaking on their own account.

Charlie was hated for stripping away the pretense and self-delusion of those canceling, blacklisting, and attacking others for holding opposing views. He did so by standing in harm’s way.

The conservatives that Kirk coaxed out of the shadows can honor his memory by showing that they will not be silenced. They can step forward and renew his same challenge: “Prove me wrong.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Hate, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

DOJ Finally Steps in After Black Mob Beats Whites, Hate Crime

By: Daphne Moon | July 28, 2025

The vicious attack on a white man and woman by a Black mob in Cincinnati has drawn national attention, yet the liberal media remains eerily silent. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced the Department of Justice will monitor the local investigation, emphasizing that federal hate crime laws apply to all Americans. Dhillon responded to Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who slammed Cincinnati’s Democrat Mayor Aftab Pureval for his failure to condemn the racially motivated violence.

“Our federal hate crimes laws apply to ALL Americans. We @CivilRights will monitor closely how local authorities handle this attack. Nobody in our great nation should be the victim of such a crime, and where race is a motivation, federal law may apply,” Dhillon stated.

Senator Moreno blasted Pureval’s inaction: “The Mayor of Cincinnati, @AftabPureval, who has an opinion on lots of irrelevant topics, has not issued a statement, let alone a condemnation, of this heinous attack. Instead of dreaming about higher office, which will never happen, he should be ensuring his residents are safe.”

Our federal hate crimes laws apply to ALL Americans. We @CivilRights will monitor closely how local authorities handle this attack.

Nobody in our great nation should be the victim of such a crime, and where race is a motivation, federal law may apply. https://t.co/QeADELQMsZ
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) July 27, 2025

The disturbing footage, shared by Cincinnati mayoral candidate Cory Bowman, shows a white man brutally beaten on the ground while an unconscious woman lies nearby, blood streaming from her mouth. Bowman, a Republican challenging Pureval in November, exposed the city’s failure to protect its citizens, revealing that no dedicated emergency dispatcher was on duty during the city’s second-largest event of the year.

“More violence from Friday night in downtown Cincinnati… Sources within the ECC have stated that Friday night, no such dispatcher was on duty. This reinforces what we’ve known, that major problems exist in the ECC relating to crime in the city. Cincinnati deserves better,” Bowman declared.

A white couple was brutaIIy beaten at a jazz festival by a black "teen mob" in Cincinnati yesterday.

0 national coverage. pic.twitter.com/IgPnVYwbme
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 27, 2025

Under President Donald Trump, law and order were prioritized and hate crimes—regardless of the perpetrator’s race—were met with swift justice. The current administration’s weakness has emboldened violent mobs, while Democrat-run cities like Cincinnati descend into chaos. Trump’s return to the White House would restore accountability, ensuring that all Americans are protected from racially motivated violence.

Category:

Crime, Hate, political violence

Tagged with:

Christian Group Attacked by Radicals in Seattle…Mayor Criticizes the Christians

By: Jonathan Turley | May 25, 2025

On Saturday, Antifa and other radicals launched another violent attack on conservatives. Pastors were holding what they described as a permitted Christian worship event in a park when black-clad Antifa members tried to storm and tear down a barricade. To their credit, the Seattle police moved in and arrested the radicals. However, what happened next is even more concerning: Mayor Bruce Harrell seemed to blame the Christian group and demanded to know why they were given a permit at all for an event in the area.

Police in Seattle are shown in videotapes taking down several black-clad and masked individuals who tried to overcome the fencing and storm the stage. That is clearly an improvement over the “summer of love” approach previously in Seattle.

SEATTLE: Attendees of the praise and worship gathering hosted by MayDay USA tell @choeshow it's time for church-goers to share the love of Jesus Christ in the darkest places of the world.

Their message comes amid Antifa, transgender activists, and other far-left militants'… pic.twitter.com/NKJbnZSKWH
— FRONTLINES (@FrontlinesTPUSA) May 25, 2025

Seattle is proud of our reputation as a welcoming, inclusive city for LGBTQ+ communities, and we stand with our trans neighbors when they face bigotry and injustice. Today’s far-right rally was held here for this very reason – to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.

When the humanity of trans people and those who have been historically marginalized is questioned, we triumph by demonstrating our values through our words and peaceful protest – we lose our voice when this is disrupted by violence, chaos, and confusion.

While there are broad First Amendment requirements around permitting events under free speech protections, I am directing the Parks Department to review all of the circumstances of this application to understand whether there were legal location alternatives or other adjustments that could have been pursued. The Police Department will complete an after-action report of this event, including understanding preparation, crowd management tactics, and review of arrests and citations.

We have discussed other Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi demanding reviews or revocation of permits going to Christian or conservative groups. The problem is that conservative or religious views are treated as triggering — a common claim in higher education.

I do not know anything about this Christian group, but they were clearly the victims, not the cause, of this violence. The suggestion that the location was too triggering for transgender activists is yet another example of a failure of leadership on the left.

These two groups clearly disagree on transgender policies. Fine. Protest and counterprotest. However, the police showed how to maintain a principled line. They did not take sides. They protected the free speech rights on both sides and confined their role to maintaining the peace.

Democratic politicians and pundits continue to legitimate Antifa and even align themselves with the vehemently anti-free speech group. This includes selling Antifa gifts on popular sites.

As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore the history of Antifa as a movement that began in Germany. Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally.

As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”

We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.

Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to denounce Antifa. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

Democratic leaders are playing a dangerous game in pandering to these extreme elements of their party. In the end, they will fare no better than their enemies as this mob turns on enabling establishment figures.

Category:

censorship, Crime, Free Speech, Hate, political violence

Tagged with:

“I’m Thoroughly Disgusted”: Democrats Attack Musk and Everything that They Once Believed in

By: Jonathan Turley | April 2, 2025

Below is my column in the New York Post on the increasing political violence on the left, particularly targeting Elon Musk, his companies, and his clients. There have been more arrests of people engaging in property destruction. What is most striking, however, is how Democrats have torched their core beliefs to pursue a scorched Earth campaign against Musk.

Here is the column:

In this “Age of Rage, it is common for people to become the very thing that they despise in others, jettisoning their most cherished values to strike out at those they hate. Since the election, Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters. It consumes every part of a person. It is addictive, and it is contagious. What these rage addicts will not admit, however, is that they like it; they need it.

This time, they are targeting Elon Musk, whose dealerships, charging stations, and customers have been hit by political violence from the left. While other billionaires from George Soros to Mark Zuckerberg have spent big on elections for the left, Musk is somehow uniquely evil because he gives money to Republicans and supports the Trump Administration.

This scorched Earth campaign was evident this week in New York, where democratic legislators are again moving to weaponize state laws for political purposes — just like they did with Trump. New York state Sen. Pat Fahy (D-Albany) is pledging to bar Musk from direct sales in the state.

Notably, Fahy has been a longtime advocate of electric vehicles. The move will make it more difficult not just for Musk but other EV dealers to survive, but climate change policies be damned. Fahy and her colleagues want to get at Musk in any way they can.

Fahy explained, “No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk. He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”

The move is not unique:

* The left decries political violence like January 6th but is largely silent as Teslas are set on fire and Cybertrucks are covered with graffiti. It promotes boycotts and rallies with a wink at the vandals. As the violence increases around the country, the left has held protests featuring signs like “Burn a Tesla, Save Democracy.”

* Democrats have made the defense of immigration a core issue and have objected even to the use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to refer to those crossing the Southern border. Yet, they have attacked Musk due to his status as a naturalized citizen. He is denounced as a “foreigner” “meddling” in our government. Some questioned Musk’s loyalty because he is a naturalized American.

* Those who insist that they believe in free speech are supporting censorship and opposing Musk for restoring free speech protections on X.

* In California, labor advocates oppose expanded operations from SpaceX that would benefit workers in the state. California Coastal Commissioner Gretchen Newsom tried to block increased SpaceX launches despite their benefit for both the California economy and national security. Because he “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” it does not matter that this would cost money and labor opportunities. Retaliation for “hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods” was more important.

Still, the greatest hypocrisy may be found in the Democrats’ willingness to abandon environmental priorities for political revenge. It is a contest of virtue-signaling. Fighting for Mother Earth is fine on most days, but nothing compares to destroying Elon Musk.

Lawmakers and advocates are also pressuring pension funds to divest from Tesla while trying to force Tesla showrooms to close — at the cost of New York jobs.

Tesla is an American company making and selling cars in this country. It sells more electric vehicles in the US and New York than any other manufacturer. Yet it must now be destroyed because, unlike a Soros or a Zuckerberg, Musk’s political views are not acceptable to the left.

Tesla was allowed to operate five locations to directly sell to consumers under a 2014 deal because it was viewed as good for New York jobs, the New York economy, and, most importantly, the environment.

None of that matters now.

Fahy explained, “The bottom line is, Tesla has lost their right to promote these when they’re part of an administration that wants to go backwards. Elon Musk was handed a privilege here.”

It also does not matter that companies like Rivian and Lucid (and their employees) will be caught in the crossfire. Nothing matters but revenge.

Many Democrats seem to have lost a capacity for shame. They are disgusted only by the refusal of others to yield to their demands, not the use of any means to achieve political ends. The question is, what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?

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.”

Category:

Crime, Hate, Law, Political

Tagged with:

It is Not “Karma,” It is a Crime: The Curious Silence Over Political Violence in New York

By. Jonathan Turley | March 26, 2025

Yesterday, there was a curious aspect to the coverage of the video of a woman attacking a young man for wearing a MAGA hat. Ignored by many mainstream outlets, conservative news sites described the woman as a “Karen” who got “karma.” The video below was viewed as a funny payback as the woman fell while chasing the man from the New York subway car. However, the incident is not karma but a crime. This is political violence perpetrated on the New York subway, and yet no one in New York seems to be calling for the arrest of this person.

If you watch the video, the woman starts by harassing the young man in the subway car. She is shown yelling, “If you f—-ing voted for Trump, you’re a racist!… He’s a racist!”

One can dismiss the verbal attacks as an exercise of free speech. However, she then grabs and comes into contact with the young man (around the 45 second mark) as she chases him from the car:

I get the sense of karma as the woman does a face plant on the subway platform while trying to continue her attack on the fleeing individual. However, this should be neither funny nor acceptable. It is political violence, and the woman appears to believe that she has a license in New York City to assault anyone wearing a MAGA hat.

This is where what I call “rage rhetoric” turns into political violence. As I wrote in my book, “The indispensable Right,” that is the curious aspect of rage:

“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.‘

“Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. The difference between rage and reason is often one’s own views. If one agrees with underlying grievance, rage is viewed as passion or justified fury at injustice. If one disagrees with those views, it takes on a more threatening and unhinged quality. We seem to spend much of our time today raging at each other. Despite the amplification of views on both sides, there is also an increasing intolerance for opposing views. Those views are treated as simply harmful and offensive—and, therefore, intolerable. Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”

There should be zero tolerance for political violence like this on New York subways. Answer me this: if this was a man chasing and assaulting a woman from a subway car for wearing a Harris-Walz hat, would there be the same relative silence in terms of an investigation and criminal charges?

When this person moved from verbal assaults to actual physical assaults, it became a crime, not karma.

The problem is that New York only has an assault law, not a battery law. You can pursue battery as a civil tort in New York, but few Trump supporters would have faith in receiving a fair hearing before a New York jury on such a case.

The New York assault law allows for third degrees of assault charges. However, even the lowest charge of assault in the third degree requires that the individual intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another person.

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.

A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

This could be established by the fact that she appears to grab and possibly strike the victim. However, the law is vague, and prosecutors could claim that the touching was insufficient to bring a viable case.

There is also criminal harassment under Penal § 240.26:

§ 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person, and which serve no legitimate purpose.
…
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

I have always had qualms about some of this language in terms of vagueness and free speech, particularly subsection 3. However, subsection 1 clearly applies to physical assaults for the purpose of harassment.

The point is that police have the ability to charge this type of political violence. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from Democratic New York politicians and prosecutors. A video shows a citizen being struck and chased from the subway for wearing a MAGA hat and it is either ignored or treated as another humorous event on the New York subway system.

When did political violence become just a cost of riding the subway for conservatives or libertarians? The lack of outrage shows how this age of rage has dulled our senses to such extreme conduct. This is about conduct not speech. When this person went from raving to assault, she crossed over into the criminal code. The problem is that such protections are only meaningful if New York prosecutors and police are prepared to enforce them.

I hope that the NYPD will take this seriously and announce a search for this culprit. Otherwise, the enforcement of the criminal code becomes little more than a matter of fleeting karma.

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.”

Category:

Crime, Hate, Law, Political

Tagged with:

political violence

A Third of All DC District Judges Were Not Born in United States

By: Beth Brelje | March 25, 2025

Of all the judges in the U.S. all five foreign-born judges of the D.C. court managed to get their fingerprints on controversial Trump cases.

Author Beth Brelje profile

Beth Brelje

Visit on Twitter@BethBrelje

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the source of many of the cases interfering with President Donald Trump’s authority, has 15 judges, (Counting Chief Judge James Boasberg) and five of them were born outside the United States.

While country of origin doesn’t come up in most jobs, it is worth asking if judges with ties to foreign nations and cultures are the right ones to make decisions affecting the U.S. military or immigration.

The concept of foreign-born judges is a newer phenomenon in this district. In addition to the 15 main judges, the D.C. District has 10 older, senior judges who still occasionally hear cases in the district. This group, nominated as far back as Ronald Reagan the 1980s, were all born in the U.S.

But starting in 2014, former President Barack Obama appointed Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan, born in Kingston, Jamaica. She was in the U.S. by 1979, attending George Washington University. Before sitting on federal court, she had no experience as a judge. Chutkan is overseeing the legal challenge to DOGE’s work to slash excess government spending.

Obama also appointed Judge Amit P. Mehta to the D.C. court. Mehta also had no previous experience as a judge. Mehta was born in Patan, Gujarat, India. He and his parents came to the U.S. when he was a baby, age one. He was raised in Maryland. Mehta will oversee four January 6 civil cases that aim to blame Trump for injuries and squeeze money, court time, and political embarrassment out of him.

The other three foreign born judges were nominated by former President Joe Biden.

Judge Ana Cecilia Reyes was nominated in 2021, also with no prior experience as a judge. She was born in Montevideo, Uruguay and moved to Spain, and while still a child, moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where she grew up. She is the first openly LGBT Latina to be appointed to this court. Reyes presided over an objection to Trump’s executive order declaring “gender dysphoria” as “inconsistent” with the “high standards for troop readiness,” as The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood reported. Reyes blocked Trump’s order with a preliminary injunction.

The first Muslim and Arab American in the D.C. district court, Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali was born and raised in Canada to Egyptian parents. According to his Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, Ali was not required to register for the U.S. Selective Service. That is because he was not a citizen until 2019. He graduated from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada with a software engineering degree in 2008 and then attended Harvard Law School in the U.S., graduating with a law degree in 2011. He worked as a volunteer on Biden’s 2020 transition team and for a phone bank in support of Biden’s presidential campaign. He worked for some nonprofits but never served as a judge until Biden appointed him in 2024. Amir has written extensively and negatively about Trump’s so-called “Travel ban,” a 2017 Executive Order which restricted travel to the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days.

In his writing, he said, “prejudice and intolerance” were “the very hallmark of [Trump’s] campaign against Muslims.”

Before he was a judge, Ali spoke at the National Press Foundation and gave tips to reporters about how to cover the courts.

When confirmed, Amir was a member of the Capital Area Muslim Bar Association; Muslim American Judicial Advisory Council; National Arab American Bar Association; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Police Accountability Project; and the Native American Bar Association of D.C., among others.

Ali single handedly restored $2 billion in USAID spending to foreign nonprofit contractors that the Trump Administration had paused for 90 days, in a stunning overreach of authority last month.

The newest judge on the D.C. District Court is also foreign born.

Before slinking out of office, Biden and his handlers got Judge Sparkle Sooknanan confirmed. She was sworn in Jan. 2, 2025. Born in the dual-island nation Trinidad and Tobago in 1983, she left her home country at age 16 to pursue college and graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2010.

She was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and during the Biden Administration she was the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division for the Department of Justice before Biden tapped her for her first ever judge gig in the D.C. Court, according to her Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees.

Last week, Sooknanan dutifully did her part to slow Trump’s agenda, ordering the reinstatement of Democrat Susan Grundmann to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a move that keeps the board in a Democrat majority.

None of these cases have gone in front of conservative judges in conservative states, say in Missouri or South Dakota. They all happened to land in the laps of judges that have spoken out or ruled against Trump or his policies in the past.

Out of all the judges in the nation, all five foreign-born judges of the D.C. District court managed to get their fingerprints on a controversial Trump case.

Evidence that judges have seized control of our country.

Federal injunctions, by president:
🔵 Barack Obama: 12
🔴 Donald Trump, 1st term: 64
🔵 Joe Biden: 14
🔴 Donald Trump, 2nd term (2 months): 15
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 20, 2025

The United States is in the midst of a soft coup. Not the violent kind that takes out a nation’s leader, but one orchestrated by judicial actions that choke off executive power before our eyes.

We have seen other obvious, corrupt schemes in plain sight before. The Biden basement presidential campaign of 2019; the “insurrection” that wasn’t; the mask and vaccine mandates; the Biden is mentally competent story; the “flawless” Afghan withdrawal; the “secure” borders; and the incompetent candidate swap to Kamala Harris, made Americans realize the best chance we have to stop corruption is to vote it out.

The public did its part by voting in a clear mandate for Trump’s agenda. But corruption is still visible, though court decisions by unelected activist judges. The only remedy now is for the Supreme Court to step in and this time, get its hands dirty, deliberate, and make real decisions based on the Constitution.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

Category:

corruption, Hate, Law, Political

Tagged with:

The Left Unwittingly Proves Trump’s Point on the Need to Root Out Anti-Christian Bias

By: Tyler O’Neil | February 10, 2025

Donald Trump prays between Reps. Ben Cline and Jonathan Jackson — Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., and President Donald Trump bow their heads in prayer as Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday in Washington. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump last week announced a new task force dedicated to eradicating anti-Christian bias in the federal government. Trump noted that the federal government under President Joe Biden “engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.” The new president pledged not to “tolerate this abuse of government” and announced what he called the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

On cue, the Left condemned the new task force, ignoring the many instances of anti-Christian bias Trump cited in a fact sheet.

The Guardian’s Joseph Gedeon condemned the move as an effort to “boost Christian nationalism.” USA Today columnist Chris Brennan said the task force aimed to increase division. The secularist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State insisted that the task force “will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination.” These responses only serve to underscore the reason such a task force is necessary in the first place.

Trump cited numerous examples of anti-Christian bias, which these critics largely ignored. He noted that pro-life Christians received multiyear prison sentences for peacefully protesting at abortion centers, while the Biden Justice Department largely ignored hundreds of attacks on Catholic churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centers. He noted the notorious FBI Richmond, Virginia, memo that suggested traditional Catholics represented a domestic terrorism threat. He also cited the Health and Human Services Department’s move to force transgender orthodoxy in foster care.

Finally, the president noted that the Biden administration declared Easter Sunday “Transgender Day of Visibility.”

These actions may seem irrelevant to secularists who balk at the idea of saying “Merry Christmas,” but they represent a federal government demonizing Christians while at the same time favoring their ideological opponents.

Yes, Anti-Christian Bias Is Real

Critics often dismiss the idea of anti-Christian bias. After all, about 63% of Americans self-identify as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center. How could the government be biased against the majority of Americans?

Such criticisms obscure the real phenomenon. Most Americans may identify as Christian, but far fewer actually attend church, read the Bible regularly, and follow what Scripture teaches even when it is unpopular. Until quite recently, the Left’s approach to social issues has been in the driver’s seat in the culture—and in many mainline Protestant and even some Catholic churches.

“Although Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, a small, but growing, body of work indicates that in certain social areas Christians face real discrimination,” sociology professors George Yancey and David Williamson write in their book “So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States?”

The professors found that “Christian fundamentalists experience more relative animosity than most other social groups.” Their research finds that many Americans are biased against conservative Christianity or “fundamentalism,” and those who have high levels of social power trend toward Christianophobia.

“Anti-fundamentalists are more likely to be white, well-educated, and wealthy,” but the factor that most connected to Christianity in their study is politics. “Nearly half of the anti-fundamentalists in our sample were political progressives.”

The top determining factor for anti-Christian bias in their study is support for same-sex marriage.

“Even among those who do not particularly like sexual minorities, people are more likely to support LGBT rights if they do not like conservative Christians,” Yancey, one of the sociologists, explained in a separate article. “In other words, my data seem to indicate that there are people who support sexual minorities’ rights because they dislike—or even hate—conservative Christians.”

This study does not prove or even suggest that most Americans who support LGBTQ causes harbor animus toward Christians, but it helps illustrate the real nature of anti-Christian bias: It’s a hatred of conservative Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexual activity and biological sex, not a hatred of everyone who claims to follow Jesus.

This study also helps explain the hatred some transgender activists harbor against Christian schools and churches. A female who identified as male targeted a Christian school in Nashville for a mass shooting in 2023. Another transgender activist in Illinois, this time a male who identified as female, threatened to rape the daughters of Christians in girls restrooms.

It seems likely the transgender movement has hypercharged anti-Christian bias, and that’s exactly what the Biden record suggests.

The True Biden Record

Many of those who claim the Biden administration didn’t target Christians focus on Biden’s self-identification as a Roman Catholic and the fact that Biden regularly attends Mass. Yet Biden and the bureaucrats in his administration firmly supported abortion and gender ideology. Their policies alienated and even demonized conservative Christians who disagree with their positions on those issues.

My new book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” recounts some of Trump’s examples. The book focuses on the left-wing activist groups that infiltrated and advised the Biden administration.

As the book explains, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prosecuted more than 50 pro-life protesters who attempted to dissuade women from having their unborn babies killed in the womb. Meanwhile, the division largely ignored the vandalism and violent attacks against 96 pro-life pregnancy resource centers and pro-life groups in the wake of the leak of the Supreme Court’s June 2022 opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law DOJ used to prosecute the pro-lifers, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, is supposed to apply equally to abortion facilities and pro-life pregnancy help centers. This egregious double standard echoed the mentality of pro-abortion groups that helped staff the Biden administration.

Yet the FBI’s notorious memo about “radical traditional Catholics” revealed an even worse bias against conservative Christians. The FBI’s Richmond office wrote a memo suggesting connections between racially motivated violent extremists and “radical traditional Catholics.” While the FBI’s national office rescinded the memo as soon as a whistleblower published it, the memo had cited the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left activist group that compares mainstream conservative Christians to the Ku Klux Klan.

As I recount in my first book, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC gained its reputation by suing KKK groups into bankruptcy, but when it ran out of grand dragons to slay, it started identifying conservative groups as “hateful,” placing them on a “hate map” alongside Klan chapters. The SPLC has condemned conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom as “anti-LGBTQ hate groups,” but last year it even applied the label to a group of homosexuals who reject transgender orthodoxy—Gays Against Groomers.

A former employee called this a “highly profitable scam,” and the “hate map” inspired a terrorist attack in 2012. The SPLC is currently facing a powerful defamation lawsuit regarding the map.

Yet when Biden entered office, federal agencies asked the SPLC for advice on combating the “domestic terrorism threat.” As “The Woketopus” recounts, the SPLC had close ties with the Biden administration, with leaders and staff going to the White House at least 18 times and Biden nominating an SPLC lawyer to a top federal judgeship.

When the SPLC listed the Ruth Institute as an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” it presented as evidence a quote from the institute’s founder. That quote came directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, suggesting that if the SPLC were to be consistent, it would have to brand the entire Catholic Church a “hate group.”

The fact that Biden’s administration welcomed a far-left group that compares Christians to the Klan because of their conservative views arguably speaks the most clearly to the anti-Christian bias in the past administration.

Yet Trump also mentioned a few other examples. He noted a Biden administration rule requiring that potential foster parents embrace transgender orthodoxy in order to provide a home for kids in the foster system. The rule determined that if potential foster parents refused to “affirm” a child’s stated transgender identity, that constitutes child abuse. This logic denies conservative Christians the ability to care for the less fortunate just because they disagree with gender ideology.

Finally, Trump mentioned the celebration of “Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter Sunday. Biden had commemorated the transgender day in previous years, but he made no effort to separate it from Easter in 2024 when the transgender event overlapped with Easter (the date of which varies based on a lunar calendar). The Biden administration dedicated far more fanfare to the transgender celebration, making Christians feel like second-class citizens in their own country.

The Human Rights Campaign, a prominent LGBTQ activist group that has pushed corporations to adopt its rhetoric through its “Corporate Equality Index,” released a “Blueprint for Positive Change” as a roadmap for Biden policy in 2020. The Biden administration carried out at least 75% of its recommendations, according to my analysis.

Anti-Christian Bias Is Still A Problem

Biden is no longer president, of course, but that doesn’t mean the animus against conservative Christians will suddenly disappear from the federal government. Many of the elite institutions that push transgender orthodoxy remain very active in civil society. The SPLC and Human Rights Campaign—two of the groups I describe as arms of the “Woketopus”—have pledged to sue the Trump administration to block its policies opposing gender ideology.

Despite the SPLC’s many scandals, The Washington Post and USA Today cited SPLC as an authority when countering Trump’s attacks on the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement. While Trump opposes DEI because it encourages Americans to judge one another based on their skin color, rather than on merit, the Post quoted SPLC President Margaret Huang in calling the DEI attacks “a new twist on an old, racist and misogynistic idea—that women, black and brown people, and other marginalized groups are inherently less capable.”

Similarly, The New York Times editorial board savaged what it called Trump’s “Shameful Campaign Against Transgender Americans.” The editors condemned Trump’s declaration that the U.S. will reject gender ideology and embrace the truth that there are only two biological sexes.

While Americans oppose men competing in women’s sports and experimental transgender medical procedures for minors, the editors condemned Trump’s efforts to follow the public on these issues. Even though more than half of the men who identify as women in Wisconsin’s women’s prisons have been convicted of at least one sexual assault, the editors lamented Trump’s rule that “transgender women in custody … be housed with men.”

If these outlets portray transgender activists as victims, who are the villains? That’s easy: It’s those mean conservative Christians who refuse to kowtow to gender ideology.

Category:

Hate, Political, Religion, Spiritual

Tagged with:

New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Hate Speech Enforcement

By Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

The New Hampshire Supreme Court just handed down a victory for free speech in Attorney General v. Hood. As is often the case, defending free speech means supporting viewpoints that most of us find grotesque and hateful. However, the justices rejected the position of the Portsmouth Police Department that it could force the removal of a racist banner from an overpass. Such signs and flags are commonly allowed, but the police and prosecutors insisted that racist messages “interfered with the rights” of other citizens. The controversy began on July 30, 2022, when a group of roughly ten people with NSC-131, a “pro-white, street-oriented fraternity dedicated to raising authentic resistance to the enemies of [its] people in the New England area,” hung banners from the overpass, including one reading “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE.”

The police informed the leader, Christopher Hood, that they were violating a Portsmouth municipal ordinance that prohibited hanging banners from the overpass without a permit. While the group removed the banners, it later posted statements on the incident. The state responded by filing complaints against the defendants seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for their alleged violation of RSA 354-B:1.

Notably, the state did not deny that groups routinely hang flags and signs from overpasses. However, it claimed that hanging banners reading “Keep New England White” was “motivated by race and interfered with the lawful activities of 2 others.”

N.H. Stats. 354-B:1 provides,

All persons have the right to engage in lawful activities and to exercise and enjoy the rights secured by the [constitutions and laws] without being subject to actual or threatened physical force or violence against them or any other person or by actual or threatened damage to or trespass on property when such actual or threatened conduct is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability….

It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere or attempt to interfere with the rights secured by this chapter.

The justices held that the enforcement in this case violated the New Hampshire Constitution’s free speech provision:

[T]he State alleged that the defendants “trespassed upon the property of the State of New Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth when [they and other individuals] displayed banners reading ‘Keep New England White’ from the overpass without a permit.” In objecting to Hood’s motion to dismiss, the State argued that “[t]he defendant displayed a banner upon the fencing—causing a thing to enter upon land in possession of another, without any prior authorization from city or state authorities.” Because the State alleged that the defendants intentionally invaded the property of another, and because “[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” we conclude that the State’s complaints sufficiently alleged a civil trespass.

Nonetheless, we must next determine whether the State’s proposed construction of the Act, applying the aforementioned definition of trespass, violates the defendants’ constitutional rights to free speech…

Government property generally falls into three categories — traditional public forums, designated public forums, and limited public forums. Here, the trial court correctly reasoned that because “application of the Civil Rights Act requires no consideration of the relevant forum or the nature of the underlying regulations as to that forum,” it applies “with equal force in traditional public fora as it does in limited or nonpublic fora.” We agree with the trial court’s assessment and proceed to the regulation at issue.

Government regulation of speech is content-based if a law applies to a particular type of speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. The State argues that the Act “does not become a content or viewpoint-based action because the State relies upon a defendant’s speech.” Rather, it maintains that “[c]onsidering an actor’s motivation to assess whether that remedy may be warranted has no impact on the person’s right to freedom of speech, even when proof of motivation relies upon evidence of the person’s speech, because a person’s motivation has always been a proper consideration.” We disagree.

The Act prohibits threatened and actual conduct only when “motivated by race, color, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.” Thus, we agree with the trial court’s assessment that “[b]ecause the Civil Rights Act’s additional sanctions apply only where a speaker is ‘motivated by race’ or another protected characteristic, it is ‘content-based’ in that it ‘applies to … particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’”

Content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The State asserts that the requirement that a trespass be unprivileged or otherwise unlawful functions as a limitation sufficient to prevent its construction of the Act from being unconstitutionally overbroad. We are not persuaded. The trial court determined, and we agree, that although “prohibiting or discouraging interference with the lawful rights of others by way of bias-motivated conduct (including actual trespass) is a compelling government interest,” the State’s construction of the Act “is overly broad and not narrowly tailored to that end because, so construed, the Civil Rights Act applies in numerous circumstances which have no relation to this interest.”

The ruling is notable in part because of the position of various Democratic leaders that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment. I have spent years contesting that false claim, including in my recent book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz repeatedly claimed that “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.

In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected Gov. Walz’s claim. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

H/T Gene Volokh

Category:

Hate, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Rep. Crockett: Hispanic Voters Have “Slave Mentality” and “Can Barely Vote”

By: Jonathan Turley | December 23, 2024

One of the most consistent elements of the identity politics practiced by the left is its selectivity. Whether in politics or higher education, the outrage that comes from allegedly racist or insensitive comments is confined to targets on the right. A case in point is the deafening silence after a diatribe by Rep. Jasmine Crockett D-Texas, during which she accused Hispanic voters of having a “slave mentality” and said that they “can barely vote.” There was no vaporous segment on The View or condemnations on the floor from members.

Crockett has been celebrated in left-wing publications such as Vanity Fair for schooling her colleagues, which she describes as “old as sh*t.” She offered Vanity Fair her “distilled summary of what happens within the Latino community.” Not surprisingly, it is identity politics with a race edge:

“I’ve not run into that with the Asian community. I’ve not run into that with the African community. I’ve not run into that with the Caribbean community. I’ve only run into it with Hispanics. When they think of ‘illegals,’ they think of, you know, maybe people that came out of the cartels and that kind of, like, the criminal-type book or whatever. It’s insane.”

“It almost reminds me of what people would talk about when they would talk about kind of like ‘slave mentality’ and the hate that some slaves would have for themselves. It’s almost like a slave mentality that they have. It is wild to me when I hear how anti-immigrant they are as immigrants, many of them. I’m talking about people that literally just got here and can barely vote that are having this kind of attitude.”

The attack on Hispanic voters as including people who “literally just got here and can barely vote” did not even generate objections from many Democratic Hispanic groups. Imagine if Trump or a conservative commentator made this comment.

Ironically, just before the election, I wrote how recent immigrants seemed to have a particularly strong connection to our defining and collective values. That does not appear a view shared by the congresswoman.

Crockett was, if anything, inclusive in her attacks based on gender and race. She also attacked black men and women for voting for Trump. She just dismissed black men as hating women: “I’m going to chalk up to misogyny.” What is unimaginable is that any woman or person of color could vote on the merits against the Democrats.

Notably, after her loss, Hillary Clinton offered the same attacks on women as voting against her only because they are weak and self-loathing. She claimed that Kamala, who notoriously avoided interviews and could not think of “a thing she would do differently” from Biden, “ran a flawless campaign.” The problem is again self-hating women and minorities, adding, “I don’t trust White women. I said, I’m just telling you, and I think you need to have conversations with your sisters, because they are the group that failed Hillary Clinton.”

The claim that Hispanics “can barely vote” would not be tolerated from someone on the right. It is reminiscent of the controversy involving Democratic lawyer and former Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias over what some called inherently racist comments about Georgia voters. Elias argued that Georgia voters could not be expected to be able to read their driver’s licenses correctly — a statement that seemed to refer to minority voters who would be disproportionately impacted by such a requirement.

What is striking about the Vanity Fair article is that Democrats continued to rely on identity politics despite every indication that it was not working. Now, after losing both houses and the White House, they are doubling down on identity politics.

Outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Jaime Harrison used his farewell address to warn Democrats not to abandon identity politics as the touchstone of future campaigns.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Hate, Political

Tagged with:

“Enjoy Getting this Stain Out”: Turning Point Display Trashed at UC Berkeley

By: Jonathan Turley | October 25, 2024

In my book, “The Indispensable Right, I explore how vandalism and aggressive campus protests should not be treated as free speech but as proscribed conduct. College Fix has another example of this distinction today when a person trashed a Turning Point table on the campus of UC Berkeley.

The posting shows a possible student pouring tomato juice over the group’s fliers and posters. The display promoted an event with Chloe Cole and Harrison Tinsley, who are critics of gender transitioning. The activist responds to objections from the volunteers by saying “Are you worried I’m going to stain your f**king signs as you lie to people, aw so sorry. I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes. Enjoy getting this stain out.”

View this post on Instagram

Likewise, anti-Israeli protesters at the University of Minnesota occupied and reportedly trashed a university building. None of these acts are protected as free speech. They are conduct that violate either university rules or criminal law or both. Much like shouting down speakers, these are actions that silence others or damage property. Trashing displays or silencing others is the antithesis of free speech. Yet, universities often fail to take meaningful action against such actors.

At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.

At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students. Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez. It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.

What is most striking about this video is the license that the activist claims in trashing the display in stating “I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes.” The notion is that, if you tell people with opposing views that they are wrong, you are then justified to take violent action. It is the license of rage and this video shows how many today do not like to admit that they like the rage. It is addictive. It gives you this sense of license to say and do things that you would not ordinarily say or do.

This activist has every right to protest this event at Berkeley. However, trashing a display is a criminal act that should be punished by the university if this is a student. It should also be pursued by police to deter such conduct in the future. Free speech is enhanced, not curtailed, when such conduct is barred on our campuses.

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.”

Category:

Crime, Education, Free Speech, Hate

Tagged with:

‘An effort to suffocate’: Experts warn of emerging threats in America’s religious freedom battle

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter | Saturday, August 31, 2024

Former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (middle) speaks while on a religious liberty panel as part of The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” event at Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2024. He was joined by First Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys (second from left), former high school football coach Joe Kennedy (second from right) and FRC Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon (left). Christian Post reporter Ian M. Giatti (right) moderated the panel. | The Christian Post

Editors’ note: This is part 14 of The Christian Post’s year-long articles series “Politics in the Pews: Evangelical Christian engagement in elections from the Moral Majority to today.” In this series, we will look at issues pertaining to election integrity and new ways of getting out the vote, including churches participating in ballot collection. We’ll also look at issues Evangelicals say matter most to them ahead of the presidential election and the political engagement of diverse groups, politically and ethnically. Read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12 and part 13 at the links provided.

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and other experts warned earlier this week that Christians must continue to fight for religious freedom in American culture even if they are achieving major political or legal victories. The panelists gathered Tuesday as an extension of The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” podcast and article series to discuss diminishing religious liberty in the United States and the growing threats to religious freedom, including the Equality Act and the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The panel, which was one of three moderated at Fellowship Church by Christian Post reporter and podcaster Ian M. Giatti, included insights from former GOP Kansas Gov. Brownback, First Liberty Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon and Joseph Kennedy, the former football coach fired for praying on the field who won his case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.

‘You’re going to have to fight’

Brownback, who resigned as Kansas governor in 2018 to serve as U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom under former President Donald Trump until 2021, emphasized the importance of standing up for religious freedom and the need for individuals to be proactive in defending their rights. Even if Christians like Kennedy are victorious in court under the current 6-3 conservative makeup, Brownback suggested that American Christians are going to have to fight for their religious freedom if they hope to maintain it.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t set the culture of the country; we do, it’s the people,” Brownback said. “But if you’re not willing to go out and exercise and find it and push for it — really, the bigger issue is you’re just not willing to stand up and fight a little bit, because you’re going to have to fight a little bit to do this — it won’t matter.”

He spoke of a time when he asked Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito if religious freedom will persist in the U.S., to which the Roman Catholic reportedly said, “You’ll have it in the law, but I’m not sure you’ll have it in the culture.”

Brownback said some Christians are beginning to face financial persecution as major U.S. banks have allegedly started “de-banking” religious organizations such as his National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF). NCRF, a multi-faith 501(c)4 political action nonprofit, made headlines in 2022 when it alleged that JPMorgan Chase shuttered its bank account without explanation after demanding a list of its donors, the candidates they support and potential political donations.

NCRF’s situation is not unique, and Bank of America prompted a letter from 15 Republican state attorneys general earlier this year alleging the company “is responsible for some of the worst-known instances of debanking” while at the same time cooperating with the federal government to provide “innocuous” private information to paint some conservative customers as “potential domestic terrorists.”

Brownback said he is personally aware of a woman who heads a crisis pregnancy center and was recently denied Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance because the insurance company told her they did not approve of what she was doing.

“It’s de-insurance and de-platforming, de-banking, and it’s this effort to suffocate,” he said. “And we’ve got every right on our side. We’ve got the Free Exercise Clause, and now we’ve got a Supreme Court, that’s defined it and said, ‘You have this right to do this.'”

“I don’t care what other people think about it, you have a free constitutional right to exercise your faith, but we’ve got to fight for it,” he added.

Resetting the standards

Kennedy, an 18-year Marine veteran and former assistant coach for the varsity football team at Bremerton High School in Washington state, faced suspension and eventual firing in 2015 for kneeling in prayer at the 50-yard line after games. His case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2022 that his prayers were protected by the First Amendment.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Kennedy and upheld the constitutional right of public-school employees to engage in brief, personal private prayer, which effectively overturned the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had established the three-prong “Lemon test.” The Lemon test permitted the government to be involved in religion only if it served a secular purpose, did not inhibit or advance religion and did not result in excessive entanglement of church and state.

Jeremy Dys, who serves as senior counsel at First Liberty Institute and represented Kennedy, explained the landmark nature of the Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy’s case.

First Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys (second from left) speaks during The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” event at Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, on Aug. 27. 2024. He was joined by former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (middle), Coach Joe Kennedy (second from right) and FRC senior fellow Meg Kilgannon (left). Christian Post reporter Ian M. Giatti (right) moderated the panel. | The Christian Post

“It says that our religious speech is doubly protected, because what Lemon had done was to set up this, this fake battle between the two clauses in the Constitution governing religious expression — the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from telling you what you should believe and how you should believe it — and the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees your right to be able to express your religious beliefs.”

Dys said Kennedy’s case allowed the Supreme Court to decide that the Lemon test was a misreading of the U.S. Constitution and that the two clauses were intended to complement each other “to maximize your religious freedoms, to restrain the government from telling you what to believe and how to believe it, and to also give you the space to engage your freedom size of religion.”

Dys said that Kennedy’s case reset the standards back to the Constitution and “reminded everybody of the freedoms we once had in this country, that for four generations we have allowed to wither and die in the vine because the Supreme Court and other courts have said so.”

“We won the case; we won you the freedom back,” said Dys. “Go do something with it. I need you to go be a free people again.”

Dys also warned that if the Left succeeds in its purported goal of politicizing the Supreme Court by expanding the number of judges or imposing term limits, victories like the one Kennedy achieved will become less likely.

“If we don’t have fair umpires behind the plate, there’s nothing I can do to get the game fair,” he said.

Equality Act

Kilgannon, who serves as a senior fellow for education studies at the Christian conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, warned about the potential dangers posed to people of faith by the Equality Act championed by Democrats in Congress, which she noted is at odds with biblical values and has received the full-throated support of Vice President Kamala Harris. The act would codify discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity into federal law.

“We see so often it’s these questions surrounding human life and human sexuality, where our values as Christians come in direct contrast to what those kinds of proposals would entail and require us to say things that aren’t true, to agree with things we don’t believe in, and to promote those things and to endorse those things,” she said.

“And we simply cannot do that as Christians. We can’t do it for ourselves, but we also can’t do it because it’s not good for anybody, even the people who believe those things are true. And so, we really must stand fast against those kinds of pressures.”

During a recent “Politics in the Pews” podcast, Kilgannon said supporters of the Equality Act, such as Harris, are trying to use civil rights as a “skin suit” to enshrine sexuality and gender identity protections into law, which she warned would pose a threat to religious liberty.

‘Strap on the brass knuckles’

The panelists emphasized the importance of using truth and legal action to combat the threats to religious liberty. Dys noted that “there is a time and a place” for Christians “to be kind and gentle and good,” but added that for some Christians, there is “a time to strap on the brass knuckles and punch back and take back what is rightfully yours.”

“That is not in any way designed to foment violence,” he added. “Do not read into that at all, but that is metaphorically the position we find ourselves in today.”

Dys urged the audience to maintain the confidence of those who possess the truth, the Word of God and the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

“Take that confidence forward and move into the territory that you possess today,” he said.

When Giatti asked the panel their advice for the average Christian to make their voices heard, Kennedy jumped in and noted that while he might not be able to provide an in-depth answer like his fellow panelists, he believes the answer is simple and starts with men spiritually leading their own families.

“It starts on your knees in prayer,” he said, adding that “men need to feed their families and stand up and be men.” He also urged them to get involved in their local school districts and make small decisions about which companies they will subsidize.

“Not everybody is called to fight up in everybody’s face but support the people who are on the front lines,” he added. “Everybody can do that.”

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Category:

Crime, Hate, Law, Media, Political, Religion, Spiritual

Tagged with:

America's religious freedom battle

“Normal to be Distressed”: UCLA Psychiatry Professors Rationalize Self-Immolation to Protest Israel

JonathTurley.org | April 19, 2024

Drs. Ragda Izar and Afaf Moustafa caused a controversy recently at UCLA medical school after publicly rationalizing the self-immolation in front of Israel’s embassy of airman Aaron Bushnell in February to protest Israeli policies. Dr. Izar is listed as part of the UCLA staff. It was, according to one of the doctors, a “revolutionary suicide.” We recently discussed a mandatory lecture at the UCLA medical school of one of the university’s “activists-in-residence” replete with anti-Semitic postings and racist rhetoric.

The professors made their comments as part of a panel on “Depathologizing Resistance” as reported previously by The Washington Free Beacon. Dr. Izar stated that Bushnell “carried a lot of distress…but does that mean that the actions he engaged in are any less valid?” She suggested that it is “normal to be distressed when you’re seeing this level of carnage [in Gaza].”

Dr. Moustafa is quoted as saying “Psychiatry pathologizes non-pathological … reactions to a pathological environment or pathological society. It’s considered illness to choose to die in protest of the violence of war but perfectly sane to choose to die in service of the violence of war.”

HUH?????

Neither doctor ever evaluated or examined Bushnell. At the end of the discussion, Dr. Izar acknowledged that psychiatrists should not comment on people they have not evaluated.

There have been a few self-immolations in history as a form of protest, particularly the famous case of Thich Quang Duc who burned himself alive to protest the Vietnam War in 1963.

However, as a lay person, I would venture to say that it is not “normal” or “valid” to set yourself on fire in a protest. If self-immolation is the new normal, this could make the “publish or perish” culture of the faculty a bit more precarious at UCLA.

Between racist lectures from “activists-in-residence” and self-immolation rationalizations, it is not clear when UCLA medical students hunker down on such tangential matters like the central nervous system.

Category:

Education, Hate, International Politics

Tagged with:

Survey: A Majority of Stanford Students Support Cancelling Conservative Speakers a Year After Duncan Controversy

JonathanTurley.org | April 19, 2024

A year ago, Stanford University was embroiled in controversy after federal appellate Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down by law students. Now a survey by FIRE has found that a majority of students believe that Duncan should have been cancelled. Seventy-five percent believe that it is appropriate to shout down speakers. A year ago, I wrote a critical column on the ridiculous response of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez who declined to punish any students. Instead all students were required to watch a widely mocked video on free speech.

The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. However, liberal students, including members from the National Lawyers Guild, decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down. In this event, Duncan was planning to speak on the topic: “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.”

A video showed that the students prevented Duncan from speaking from the very beginning. Many called him a racist while others hurled insults like one yelling “We hope your daughters get raped.” Duncan was unable to continue and asked for an administrator to assist him. Dean Steinbach then took the stage and criticized the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections. Steinbach, who was put on leave, later doubled down in defending her widely criticized actions.

Given the tepid response of the university, it is hardly surprising that students believe that stopping others from speaking is a form of free speech.

Academics later supported the students in shutting down the judge.

FIRE released “The Judge Duncan Shoutdown: What Stanford Students Think,” including 54% of Stanford students said that Judge Duncan’s visit should have been canceled by the administration.

Another 36% stated that using physical violence to shut down a campus speaker is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable.

75% said the same about shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking.

Not surprising, only six percent of conservative students now feel comfortable disagreeing with professors.

The survey is consistent with other surveys and polling in higher education.

These students have been taught for years that “speech is violence” and harmful. They have also been told by figures such as Pines that silencing others is an act of free speech. Academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. In one instance, former CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech is itself free speech.

Even schools that purportedly forbid such interruptions rarely punish students who engage in them. For example, students disrupted a Northwestern class due to a guest speaker from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (after the class had heard from an undocumented

immigrant). The university let the protesters into the room after they promised not to disrupt the class. They proceeded to stop the class and then gave interviews to the media proudly disclosing their names and celebrating the cancellation. Northwestern did nothing beyond express “disappointment.”

At Stanford, law students received a mixed message in the law school denouncing the silencing of opposing views but refusing to hold any students or groups accountable. These schools are enablers of the anti-free speech movement and the rising of a generation of speech phobics. As I discuss in my forthcoming book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, academics and administrators continue to foster an environment of orthodoxy and viewpoint intolerance in higher education. This survey vividly demonstrates how schools like Stanford mouth commitments to free speech while sending a completely different message in the actual actions that it takes in the face of anti-free speech campaigns.

Category:

Education, Hate, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Member of Maryland’s Hate Crimes Commission Compared Israel to Nazi Germany and Won’t Apologize Despite Suspension

By: Tyler O’Neil / @Tyler2ONeil / November 28, 2023

Zainab Chaudry in a headscarf holds a sign in front of the Supreme Court — Maryland’s attorney general suspends Zainab Chaudry from the state’s hate crimes commission after she compareds Israel to Nazi Germany in Facebook posts. Pictured: Chaudry, center, joins others from the Council on American-Islamic Relations for a press conference outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 25, 2015. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil

Tyler O’Neil is managing editor of The Daily Signal and the author of “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Maryland’s new commission to “prevent and respond to hate crime activity” has met only once, but one member already has been suspended—for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. This incident seems to echo a trend: Many of those on the Left who rush to police “hate” often spread their own kind of hate.

Zainab Chaudry, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Maryland chapter and one of the commission’s first 10 members, described the Hamas terror attacks of Oct. 7 as an “uprising” and condemned the state of Israel as oppressive and worse.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat, last week suspended Chaudry from the newly launched Commission on Hate Crimes Response and Prevention.

The Maryland Legislature passed HB 1066 in April and Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, signed it into law in May. The law established the Commission on Hate Crime Response and Prevention to prevent and respond to hate crimes and “evaluate state laws and policies relating to hate crimes.”

“The commission has only met once, with its inaugural meeting on Sept. 6, 2023,” Brown noted in a Nov. 21 press release. “Ms. Chaudry’s posts on her personal social media since Oct. 7, in these very early days of the commission, have challenged the commission’s ability to do its work.”

Brown said he determined that Chaudry’s “social media posts risk disrupting the work and mission of the Commission,” so he temporarily suspended her, assigned staff to write a values statement to protect the commission from similar scandals, and urged members of the panel to “exercise great care in their communications and conduct.”

What led Brown to this conclusion?

On Oct. 7, Hamas terrorists slaughtered about 1,200 Israelis, including women and children, and took more than 240 hostages. Horrific videos of terrorists bragging about killing Jews hit social media. Hamas terrorists slaughtered parents in front of their children and children in front of their parents. They raped women before killing them and mutilating their bodies. Terrorists bragged about this in horrifying detail when questioned after the fact by Israel Defense Forces.

On social media, Chaudry described these horrific events as “the uprising in Palestine,” urging readers to “keep in mind that they are a people who are illegally occupied.” She added that “the thirst for freedom is an innate instinct we’re born with.”

“Resistance is a reminder that it can’t be quenched through might and force,” she wrote.

Chaudry did not condemn the Hamas terrorists or lament the Israeli dead. Rather, she apparently praised the attacks in Israel as an “uprising” of freedom.

Chaudry’s later posts echoed the same ideas.

On Oct. 9, she compared “Palestinian freedom fighters” to “Ukrainian freedom fighters.”

She also suggested that a focus on the Israeli victims of the terrorists amounted to centering “white pain” in “global consciences.”

After appearing to celebrate the terrorist attacks that killed the most Jews in one day since the Holocaust in the 1940s, Chaudry compared the Jewish state to Germany’s Nazi regime during World War II that sought to eradicate Jews from the face of the Earth.

She shared two photos of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany: a 1936 photo of a Nazi parade and a 2023 photo of the gate lit up in the blue and white of the Israeli flag.

Chaudry posted the photos with the message: “That moment when you become what you hated most.”

Chaudry has not shown remorse for these posts, which remain public on her Facebook page. The Council on American Islamic Relations has not condemned them either. Instead, it mobilized nearly 4,000 petitioners to demand Chaudry’s reinstatement to Maryland’s hate crimes commission.

“There is no conflict between condemning the Israeli government’s war crimes overseas and standing up against all forms of hate here at home, including antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism,” Chaudry said in a formal statement after her suspension by Brown, the Free State’s attorney general. “False smears from anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim extremists will not stop me from standing up for justice here and abroad.”

Supporters wrote in a Nov. 22 letter to Brown that they “completely agree” with Chaudry’s quote.

“As the only American Muslim on the Attorney General’s Hate Crimes Commission, Zainab Chaudry’s voice was critical in representing our community’s concerns to your office,” the petitioners wrote. “Even a temporary suspension of her role is harmful and completely unjustified. Like Zainab, many members of the Maryland community have been critical of the Israel government’s horrific crimes against the Palestinian people.”

Since last night, dozens of Maryland Muslim organizations and over 3,800 petitioners have called on @OAGMaryland Anthony Brown to reverse his decision to temporarily suspend our MD director Dr. Zainab Chaudry from the Hate Crimes Commission under pressure from anti-Muslim &… pic.twitter.com/eob0t9FFSL
— CAIR National (@CAIRNational) November 22, 2023

Chaudry may disagree with Israel and condemn its actions, but in what world is it acceptable to compare the world’s only Jewish state with the genocidal regime that sought to eliminate all Jews?

Rather than condemning Hamas for slaughtering women and children, she blamed Israel. She did not even acknowledge that Israel’s military takes key steps to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas deliberately stages terrorist activities in civilian buildings such as hospitals to use civilians as human shields.

Israel’s military objective, stated from the beginning, has been the eradication of Hamas’ military capabilities, to prevent another Oct. 7 pogrom. A Hamas terrorist infamously called his parents to brag, “Mom, Dad, I killed 10 Jews!” Israelis do not call their parents to brag, “Mom, Dad, I killed Palestinians.”

Although Chaudry is correct that criticizing Israel is not ipso facto a form of antisemitism, this blatant double standard, and the extreme hyperbole of comparing Israel to the Nazis, is absolutely antisemitic. Yet the Left’s intersectional ideology gives Chaudry a smokescreen for her hatred.

As Chaudry’s statement about “white pain” reveals, she considers Israelis part of the “white” oppressor class, putting the Jews—the No. 1 example of an oppressed people group throughout history—in the same category as the Nazis. The Marxist lens of analyzing every conflict along oppressor-versus-oppressed lines leads her to moral insanity, a moral insanity that inspires hatred.

This moral insanity reminds me of the perverse accusations of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As I wrote in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC began as a noble civil rights nonprofit, helping poor people in the South. It later expanded its operations to suing truly hateful groups such as the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy, and then expanded that effort to “monitor” conservative groups as if they were themselves hateful.

Now, religious freedom groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Freedom Law Center, and the Family Research Council find themselves on the SPLC’s “hate group” list alongside Klan chapters and plotted on a map with neo-Nazis. Groups that call for the enforcement of immigration law, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Dustin Inman Society, find themselves on the same map. So do parental rights groups such as Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education.

In the name of fighting hate, the SPLC has inspired hate—and even terrorism. In 2012, a man used the SPLC “hate map” to target the Family Research Council for a mass shooting. After a brave security guard foiled his plan, the gunman confessed to the FBI that he planned to slaughter everyone in the building.

Amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal in 2019, a former SPLC employee revealed that the organization’s “hate” accusations are a “highly profitable scam,” but that hasn’t stopped government agencies from relying upon those accusations.

The FBI infamously used the SPLC to target “radical-traditional Catholics” in a since-rescinded January memo. In 2019, Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel, announced a hate crimes unit “to fight against hate crimes and the many hate groups … in our state.” Her announcement cited the SPLC hate map and highlighted an area of the state that includes the headquarters of the Judeo-Christian group American Freedom Law Center.

The American Freedom Law Center sued Nessel, arguing that the announcement violated the group’s rights to free speech under the First Amendment. The center, a nonprofit public interest law firm, principally defends the First Amendment rights of conservative Christians and Jews.

Robert Muise, the center’s co-founder, recounted how the SPLC attacked him.

“I was on active duty in the Marine Corps for 13 years as an officer. I’m a father of 12 and a devout Catholic,” Muise told me in 2019. “They had me listed as an antisemite when my co-founder is a yarmulke-wearing Orthodox Jew!”

Much of the Left’s “hate” monitoring boils down to an excuse to demonize conservatives and exclude them from the conversation. This ideological policing often seems to miss antisemitism when it doesn’t outright enable it.

Many civil rights commissions and hate crimes commissions are slanted heavily to the Left, leading to perverse outcomes. Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who refused to create a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, found himself prosecuted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Phillips won his case because members of that commission had demonstrated hostility toward Phillips’ faith.

The Maryland hate crimes commission shows a clear leftward tilt. It includes left-leaning organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Pride Coalition of Maryland, but not any right-leaning organization.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Chaudry’s organization, has worked with the SPLC to urge charitable institutions to blacklist “Anti-Muslim hate groups,” including the American Freedom Law Center.

Until hate crime commissions start including conservative members, conservatives rightly will view these efforts with skepticism. Brown not only should refuse to reinstate Chaudry, but also take the opportunity of the vacancy to find a conservative voice for the commission.

AG-Brown-Suspends-Chaudry Download

Category:

Hate, Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Hate’ Category

Hunter Biden’s “Privilege” Party and the Left’s Double Standard

Hunter Biden: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Pardon, Privilege, and the Perverse “Narrative”

A Hypocrisy So Thick You Could Swim In It

1. Selective “Justice” for the Elite

2. The Political Panic Pardons

3. The “Revenge Tour” Fairy Tale

Why Hunter Should Shut His Mouth (And Maybe Hide Under a Rock)

Hunter Claims He Could Have Beaten the Wrap

Rebirth of the Two-Tiered Justice System

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 21, 2025

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | September 29, 2025

Share this:

By: Jimmy Parker | September 28, 2025

A Sunday Worship Service Turned Into Tragedy

What We Know About the Attack

Suspect Background

Federal Response

National Leaders React

Church Statement

Community Response

Still Under Investigation

Share this:

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | September15, 2025

Share this:

By: Daphne Moon | July 28, 2025

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | May 25, 2025

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | April 2, 2025

Share this:

By. Jonathan Turley | March 26, 2025

Share this:

By: Beth Brelje | March 25, 2025

Ali single handedly restored $2 billion in USAID spending to foreign nonprofit contractors that the Trump Administration had paused for 90 days, in a stunning overreach of authority last month.

Share this:

By: Tyler O’Neil | February 10, 2025

Yes, Anti-Christian Bias Is Real

The True Biden Record

Anti-Christian Bias Is Still A Problem

Share this:

By Jonathan Turley | January 13, 2025

Share this:

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 25, 2024

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.”

Share this:

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter | Saturday, August 31, 2024

Resetting the standards

Equality Act

‘Strap on the brass knuckles’

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Share this:

JonathTurley.org | April 19, 2024

Share this:

JonathanTurley.org | April 19, 2024

Share this:

By: Tyler O’Neil / @Tyler2ONeil / November 28, 2023

COMMENTARY BY

Share this:

In His Service

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Family

NEWS

Opinion

Personal

Political

Spiritual

Archives

Spam Blocked

Tag Cloud