Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon Extended – Payback

The left-wing radicals helped get Joe Biden elected and now they want payback as in administration positions.

Radical left-wing PaybackPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Free Speech Ass-sassin

Democrats are willing to use leftist big tech to kill the free speech of conservative news organizations.

Big Tech Anti-Free SpeechPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Biden Appoints ‘Anti-Free Speech’ Richard Stengel to Transition Team Media Post


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/11/17/biden-appoints-anti-free-speech-richard-stengel-to-transition-team-media-post/

Richard Stengel (Jemal Countess / Getty for TIME)

The New York Post reported last week:

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.

In the Post op-ed, “Why America needs a hate speech law,” Stengel argued:

[A]s a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.

All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate.

As Breitbart News noted in May, Stengel, an MSNBC analyst, also defended restrictions on speech about the coronavirus:

The First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech about a virus or false speech that endangers the health of your users. And by the way, Facebook and Twitter have been taking things down, but they need to be even more vigilant about it, and Google needs to be even more vigilant about what they prioritize in their search results.

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley warned about Stengel’s appointment in a column Tuesday: “[I]t would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.”

He noted that Biden himself had publicly advocated restrictions on speech during the campaign: “Biden called for greater speech controls on the Internet and denounced Twitter for allowing others to speak freely.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Union: Lancaster Police Chief Forced to Resign for Wife’s Pro-Trump Facebook Comments


Reported by JOSHUA CAPLAN | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/13/union-lancaster-police-chief-forced-to-resign-for-wifes-pro-trump-facebook-comments/

Lancaster Bureau of Police Chief Jarrad Berkihiser / Facebook

WHTM reports:

According to John Fiorill, previous president of the local Fraternal Order of Police, Mayor Danene Sorace told Chief Berkihiser to resign because his wife posted comments on Facebook saying she planned to vote for President Trump because of his support for law enforcement.

[…]

Chief Berkihiser went straight to the FOP where he got advice from the solicitor.

Berkihisher is due to leave his post on October 31 and has worked for the department for over 25 years, notes WHTM.

“This was an unjust situation that he was placed in, a clear violation of his rights,” Fiorill said in a statement. “He was advised by the mayor that she wanted his resignation, based on those statements made on Facebook, not by Chief Berkihiser, but by Chief Berkihiser’s wife.”

“He retired under his conditions, not the conditions of the mayor, not a termination. That’s exactly what he wanted to avoid and he wanted to avoid that turmoil,” Fiorill continued.

Fiorill believes the decision was political, pointing to Mayor Danede Sorace being a Democrat.

“Which in my opinion is totally unjust and unfair, not only to Jarrad Berkihiser, but it’s an insult to law enforcement officers because Jarred dedicated his life and his career to serving the citizens of Lancaster city,” Fiorill said.

“I know that it’s tearing him apart that he gave so much of himself, that he gave so much of his time for the city of Lancaster that separated him from his family,” he added. “For them to treat him like that, I don’t doubt that it’s a heartbreaking and very stressful time for him.”

Sorace has not commented publicly on the accusation.

Ted Cruz challenges Democratic senator to condemn Antifa. She storms out of hearing instead.


A Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing ended abruptly Tuesday, when ranking member Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) announced she could no longer listen to Chairman Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) speech on the threat of Antifa’s violence in the U.S.

Before she left, Cruz offered Hirono the opportunity to condemn the actions of Antifa, but she refused — choosing to storm out, instead.

What are the details?

The Subcommittee on the Constitution’s hearing was titled, “The Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: Protecting Speech by Stopping Anarchist Violence.” Sen. Cruz used his opening remarks to discuss the importance of peaceable assembly under the Constitution, and how rioters hijacked the George Floyd protests, leading to violence and attacks on police and innocent civilians.

According to CNN, Hirono reacted to Cruz’s speech by condemning the title of the hearing, saying, “The hearing we should be having is one called ‘the right of the people to peaceably assemble without being beaten up by unidentifiable federal agents.’ That would address an actual problem.”

During the third and final panel of guests, Hirono had heard enough.

“There are all these attacks on Black Lives Matter, and what they’re saying. I mean, how many of us even think that defunding police departments should be taken literally?” she asked. “I mean, I certainly don’t. So, you know, we have this pesky thing called freedom of speech, and I’d say that the people who support Black Lives Matter — and if they’re calling for various boycotts and all that — that’s called freedom of speech.”

She went to say that everyone can agree to condemn “violent extremism of all stripes,” adding, “so to constantly accuse Democrats of not caring about that, is really—”

Hirono turned to address Cruz, whose head was turned away in an apparent conversation with an aide.

“You aren’t listening,” Hirono said. “So I hope this is the end of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and that we don’t have to listen to any more of your rhetorical speeches. Thank you very much. I’m leaving.”

“Well, as always, I appreciate the kind and uplifting words of Sen. Hirono,” Cruz said. “And I would also note that throughout her remarks she still did not say a negative word about Antifa, nor has any Democrat here.”

As he spoke, Hirono rose, grabbing her purse and papers to go.

“You’re welcome to say something negative about Antifa right now,” Cruz challenged the senator from Hawaii.

Hirono said something to Cruz that was out of reach from a microphone, before he told the hearing audience, “OK, she declined to speak, so that is the position of the Democratic Party.”

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley — who previously testified to Congress against the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — was part of the Constitution subcommittee’s third panel, and recalled on Twitter, “The hearing ended with Sen. Hirono walking out after confrontation with Sen. Cruz over Antifa. In roughly 50 hearings, this is a first for me. I was not sure if I should turn off the lights when I left.”

He added, “This actually could be the pilot for ‘Survivor: Capitol Hill,’ where senators vote themselves off the island. The good thing is it meant I could make it home for the Cubs game.”

Ann Coulter: ‘Woke Corporate America’ Is ‘Our Number One Enemy’


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK |

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/25/ann-coulter-woke-corporate-america-is-our-number-one-enemy/

Ann Coulter / AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

“[Republicans] suck up to the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson [and] woke corporate America, which is our enemy,” Coulter said. “Our number one enemy probably is not even the universities or the social justice morons running around on college campus. It really is corporate America, but Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations.’”

LISTEN:

Coulter predicted an acceleration of political censorship on the Internet, including social media deplatforming and domain deregistration, as November’s elections near.

“I have been predicting for years that the Internet is too free,” Coulter said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s reelection.”

Coulter warned, “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”

Internet censorship is a matter of free speech and expression, Coulter held. “That’s what was so great about the internet,” she said. “Even the nutty stuff, it was the Wild West and this is the idea behind free speech, that the truth will rise.”

Coulter added, “They’re not worried about people being misinformed. Nobody gets misinformed except by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS. What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”

Democrats are courting political forces beyond their control, assessed Coulter, referring to rioters, looters, and vandals operating amid recent unrest following the death of George Floyd.

Coulter said, “You can’t call the mob off, ‘Okay, boys. It’s November 4th. We’ve defeated Trump. Now everybody settle down.’ That doesn’t happen. You’ve unleashed this beast, and there’s no one there to stop it.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Viva la Revolucion

All speech must be deemed okay through the prism of the left-wing mob or endure their wrath.

Mob Rule In UniversitiesPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!… Venmo – @AFBranco

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Democrats LOSE Another Huge Billionaire Supporter


Posted By Kevin Jackson | 

URL of the original posting site: https://theblacksphere.net/2019/09/democrats-lose-billionaire-bloomberg/

Democrats, quicksand, #KevinJackson, #TBS, #TeamKJ

Democrats find themselves in quicksand. And when you’re stuck in quicksand, you’re not supposed to struggle, but relax and wait on help.

Since no help comes for the beleaguered racists, they struggle mightily.

Billionaire Tom Steyer entered the race for president, thus taking his billions away from other potential candidates. Next, billionaire Howard Schultz removed himself from the Democratic Party, even threatening to run as an Independent. Then, crazy as it may be, George Soros issued up Trump’s praises. And now we get the wealthiest billionaire Leftist to date to rethink the Democrats.

Michael Bloomberg co-opted Leftism while mayor of New York. He brought the concept of Big Brother limiting the amount of sugary soda New Yorkers could drink. And while I’m sure Bloomberg remains a hardcore Leftist in many respects, he does see something sinister on that side of the aisle.

Bloomberg recognizes how the Left shuts down the First Amendment.

In a piece Bloomberg penned recently, he discusses “certainty of free speech”.

The essence of American democracy is that people who disagree, however profoundly, can set forth their views, let the democratic system under the Constitution settle matters for the moment, accept the outcome until the next election, and continue to engage with one another productively in the ordinary course of their lives. To put it simply, healthy democracy is about living with disagreement, not eliminating it.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the retreat from liberal political discourse can be found on the training grounds for tomorrow’s leaders: college campuses.
This sad reality was laid bare in a pair of columns published last week in Bloomberg Opinion by Steven Gerrard, a professor of philosophy at Williams College. Gerrard quotes a letter from students outlining their views on the subject: “‘Free Speech,’ as a term, has been co-opted by right-wing and liberal parties as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t just students who see free speech as pernicious.
At a Williams faculty meeting about free speech, a professor stated that, “to ask for evidence of violent practices is itself a violent practice.” This view suggests universities must suppress the very act of reasoning. Incredibly, many seem willing to try.

Leftists propose the idea that challenging their views on issues is in effect violence against their views, ergo violence against them.

This proves a point I often make that Leftists pretend to be against the very thing they represent.

Thus in this example, I contend that Leftists commit violence against Conservatives routinely, in both speech and actions.

Leftists categorize, label, and profile Conservatives, sight unseen. Yet they accuse us of “bucketizing” them. Who categorizes people, i.e. the LGBTQ, blacks, women, Latinos, etc. Who has the “coalitions” for every so-called oppressed group on the planet?

Moreover, who truly are the most violent groups in America? Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Democrats’ own neo-Nazis, and other Leftist anarchy groups. In contrast, Conservatives have the Tea Party.

I dare any Leftist to compare the activities of the Tea Party Community to those of Leftist groups.

Back to Bloomberg.

He references the University of Chicago’s commitment to free speech:

In 2015, the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago published a statement affirming the centrality of free speech. It said that “the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.”

Not that long ago, this would have been seen as uncontroversial. Universities are about free inquiry or they are about nothing. More than four years later, only some 67 institutions – out of more than 4,000 across the U.S. – have adopted or endorsed the Chicago Statement.

Only 67 of 4000 thought-cancer centers have adopted the First Amendment.

So what do these 3,933 non-First Amendment colleges teach? One thought. Leftism.

Bloomberg continues,

The lack of support for the Chicago Statement among leaders in higher education has helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture. The idea that words can be a form of violence, fully as threatening as actual violence, is now commonplace. As a result, the range of views needing to be suppressed, rather than entertained, challenged and refuted, is vast.
It makes little difference whether radical intolerance of disagreement is based on an exaggerated desire for “safety” or grounded in a more elaborate, but no less bogus, theory of speech-as-violence. It also doesn’t matter whether it springs from hatred of President Trump or devotion to him. Regardless, this kind of culture cannot sustain a liberal democracy.
Nor can it sustain a constitutional republic.

When ideas, thoughts are considered too dangerous, a person loses his or her soul.

Consider a marriage. And the idea that husband and wife are too afraid to share their inner thoughts. How does this marriage survive?

The choices that must be made, like having children. How many should they have? Where and how should they raise them? How do you discipline them? And what of ideas around sex? Or choice of friends? Past experiences, and so on.

If one cannot share these thoughts, ideas, experiences, then the marriage is doomed.

Democrats are headed for the big D. They’ve lost another billionaire. I can’t see Bloomberg supporting any Democratic candidate. Also, let’s wait see if he donates to his alma mater.

BOOM: TX Gov Signs Campus Free Speech Bill Into Law (Video)


Written by Wes Walker on June 10, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://clashdaily.com/2019/06/boom-tx-gov-signs-campus-free-speech-bill-into-law-video/

Gov Abbott had a few things to say as he signed this into law.

You know, since some of our institutes of ‘higher learning’ still haven’t figured out the point of the First Amendment, Abbott spelled it out for them, in words even they would have trouble misunderstanding.

He signed it into law:

“I shouldn’t have to do it. First Amendment guarantees it, now it’s law in Texas.

Among other major changes, the bill forces schools to only use content-neutral standards when deciding to approve a speaker requested by a student organization and makes it unlawful to deny a student organization registered status due to political, religious, and ideological viewpoints.

The bill could force many Texas public institutions to make changes to their free speech policies, as only one public college or university in Texas has a “green light” distinction by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education, which measures how each school’s policy lines up with the First Amendment.

According to the Texas Tribune, the colleges and universities now have until August 1, 2020, to institute these changes.

The new law comes a short time after the Texas State University student government attempted to remove Turning Point USA from campus, which drew criticism from Gov. Greg Abbott and Land Commissioner George P. Bush.

“The Texas Senate just passed a bill mandating free speech on college campuses (including conservative speech). I look forward to signing it into law. But it’s crazy we have to pass a law to uphold the First Amendment,” tweeted Gov. Abbott in response to the incident.
Source: Campus Reform

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Wes Walker is the author of “Blueprint For a Government that Doesn’t Suck”. He has been lighting up Clashdaily.com since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Republican Lawmaker’s Jesus-Focused Prayer Slammed by Dems as ‘Offensive’ and Islamophobic


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 27, 2019 at 12:08pm | Modified March 27, 2019 at 9:40pm

Pennsylvania Democrats, including the state’s governor, chastised a freshman Republican representative for an “offensive” and “Islamophobic” opening prayer at the state capitol in Harrisburg on Monday, during which she mentioned Jesus numerous times.

In her prayer, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz — an associate pastor’s wife representing a district in the center of the Keystone State — also thanked President Donald Trump specifically for “unequivocally” supporting Israel.

The lawmaker began the invocation, “Jesus, I thank you for this privilege Lord of letting me pray. I Jesus am your ambassador here today representing you, the King of kings, the Lord of lords. The great I am.”

Borowicz referenced the tradition of leaders praying for the country, including George Washington at Valley Forge, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, as well as the members of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia who “fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on Your principles and Your words and Your truths.”

“God forgive us — Jesus — we’ve lost sight of you, we’ve forgotten you, God, in our country, and we’re asking you to forgive us,” she said.

Borowicz then paraphrased the Bible passage 2 Chronicles 7:14, saying, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek Your face, and turn from their wicked ways, that you’ll heal our land.”

The verse has often been quoted by political and religious leaders, including Ronald Reagan who had his family Bible opened to it when he was sworn as the 40th president of the United States in 1981, CBN News reported. Mike Pence used the same Bible, opened to the same passage when he took the oath as vice president.

Borowicz further prayed, “thank you that we’re blessed because we stand by Israel,” a clear reference to the Bible’s Genesis 12:3.

The representative concluded her invocation: “I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty name of Jesus, the one who, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord, in Jesus’ name.”

Someone, apparently a representative, yelled out as Borowicz was finishing, prompting Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai, who had looked uncomfortable at various points throughout, to nudge her arm indicating it was time to wrap it up.

Borowicz’s prayer came before Pennsylvania’s first Muslim-American female representative, Movita Johnson-Harrell, was sworn in. Johnson-Harrell recently won a special election to fill a vacant seat for a Philadelphia district.

Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said on Tuesday that he apologized to Johnson-Harrell for Borowicz’s prayer, Fox News reported.

“I was horrified. I grew up in Pennsylvania,” Wolf said. “Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn on the basis of freedom of conscience. I have a strong spiritual sense. This is not a reflection of the religion I grew up in.”

Johnson-Harrell told reporters she thought pretty much the “entire invocation was offensive,” describing it as a weaponization of Jesus and the Israeli – Palestinian issue.

“It blatantly represented the Islamophobia that exists among some leaders — leaders that are supposed to represent the people,”she added in an interview with the Pennsylvania Capital Star.

Democratic Leader Frank Dermody called Borowicz’s invocation “beneath the dignity of this House,” The Associated Press reported.

Majority Leader Bryan Cutler did not find fault with his Republican colleague.

“I, for one, understand that everybody has sincerely held beliefs and I would never ask any one of us as an individual to go against that,” Cutler said.

Borowicz was unapologetic, according to state house reporter Andrew Bahl.

“That’s how I pray every day,” she said, adding, “Oh no, I don’t apologize ever for praying.”

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said that individuals offering the opening prayers “should be free to pray as their faith and conscience dictates.” He said he would hope their words would not be censored.

“A Christian praying out loud to Jesus and speaking his name should not be a surprise to anyone, nor viewed as offensive,” Geer said. “From the days of William Penn and Benjamin Franklin, prayer is at the centerpiece of Pennsylvania’s founding and flourishing, and we must never abandon it.”

Harrisburg-based conservative radio talk show host Marc Scaringi agreed.

“State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s prayer wasn’t offensive,” he contended. “It was a beautiful invocation for the blessings of Jesus Christ. What’s offensive is Governor’s Wolf’s apology — that he was ‘horrified’ by the prayer.

“Strangely, Wolf invoked Pennsylvania’s founder, William Penn, in rebuke of Borowicz and her prayer. Yet, Penn founded Pennsylvania to be a peaceful refuge for members of all religious beliefs — and yes, that includes Christians too! Pennsylvanians should be horrified by our Governor’s apparent rebuke of the blessing of Jesus Christ.”

Rep. Jason Dawkins, a Muslim lawmaker, opened Tuesday’s Pennsylvania House session by reading from the Quran, prompting applause in the chamber, Fox News reported.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Sarah Lawrence College “students of color” protesters issue 9-pages of demands, target conservative professor


Posted by    Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:06pm

URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/sarah-lawrence-college-students-of-color-protesters-issue-9-pages-of-demands-target-conservative-professor/

“We demand that Samuel Abrams’ position at the College be put up to tenure review to a panel of the Diaspora Coalition and at least three faculty members of color.”

In early November 2018, we covered the story of a conservative Sarah Lawrence College professor Samuel Abrams who came under attack after writing an Op-Ed in The New York Times advocating for diversity of opinion on campuses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXdBFDRA_WM

The campus social justice warriors, who claim to be devoted to diversity, didn’t appreciate the call for intellectual diversity, Sarah Lawrence Prof pens Op-Ed about lack of intellectual diversity, social justice warriors want him driven off campus.

As detailed in that post, student protesters demanded Abrams be removed from campus, and his office door was defaced. Abrams wrote about his in experience at The Spectator, The dangerous silence in higher education:

Within hours, my office door and surrounding corridor was vandalized. Pictures of my family were taken and bumper stickers that I had placed on the door to create a welcoming environment for students were stripped off. The vandals covered my door and surrounding hallway area with hateful paraphernalia intended to intimidate me into leaving the school. I received subsequent threats, and an alumna I have never met claims to be actively working on ways to ‘ruin my life’ while many others are demanding that my tenure be stripped all because I wrote a relatively tame article with which they disagree.

Following the defacement of my door, I was disappointed by the lack of a clear stand against violence and intimidation, and the lack of support for academic freedom and diversity of thought I expected from the College administrators. In fact, a note I received from a College official described the act as ‘alleged vandalism.’

There is a culture at Sarah Lawrence College which is regularly reinforced by various students, faculty, and administrators: tacitly regulate what topics are open to debate and identify which questions should simply be overlooked for fear that asking them could lead to significant negative consequences.

Abrams is under attack again by the campus social justice warriors.

There is a building sit-in/takeover going on at Sarah Lawrence by a coalition calling itself “the Diaspora Coalition” — an apparent reference to the African diaspora.

As part of the building takeover, the group has issued a 9-page list of demands (pdf.)(source)(full embed at bottom of post) of demands reminiscent of demand lists that were the rage a couple of years ago at places like Oberlin College.

The demand list reportedly was signed by 140 students.

The Sarah Lawrence demand list starts:

… We, the Diaspora Coalition, are a group of students who can speak to the injustices imposed on people of color by this institution on a daily basis. The Diaspora Coalition was established this fall in order to address the pain of marginalized students as well as to advise the administration on how to best address this pain. Each of us has seen this administration repeatedly diminish the hard work of student activists who merely want a quality education and the personalized curriculum that SLC promises. We extend solidarity to all people of color in the Sarah Lawrence Community, including international students, graduate students, faculty, and staff….

On March 11, 2019, the Diaspora Coalition, along with our allied peers, will occupy Westlands, make calls to the board, and present demands that describe not only our ideal vision for the school but also what we see as the only acceptable terms by which Sarah Lawrence can remain for the students and against hate. If the College does not accept these demands, it will no longer be hailed as a progressive institution but instead remembered for its inability to truly embody its self-proclaimed progressive ideology and support all students against an international rising tide of white supremacy and fascism. Sarah Lawrence was not founded on racial or economic equality and has not implemented sufficient strategies to dismantle systematic oppression to be sustainable or safe for marginalized people in an increasingly dangerous political climate. Low-income students should not have to question if they belong at this institution. We have worked tirelessly to make our voices heard and demands met because we believe in a Sarah Lawrence that can be for the people, by the people.

The demand list then goes through a laundry list of gripes and demands. Including, a laundry list:

“All campus laundry rooms are to supply laundry detergent and softener on a consistent basis for all students, faculty and staff.”

Among the other self-parody demands are:

“The College will designate housing with a minimum capacity for thirty students of color that is not contingent on the students expending any work or labor for the college. This housing option will be permanent and increase in space and size based on interest.”

“In addition to the expansion of the food pantry, we demand the College implement a 24/7 space in the Barbara Walters Center focused on providing food and necessities including pads, tampons, and detergent. Students should be able to obtain these items using with their meal plan or meal money.”

“We demand a mandatory first-year orientation session about intellectual elitism and classism.”

“We demand the College provide free storage to international students as part of the College’s commitment to student welfare.”

Then the Diaspora Coalition turned its attention to faculty, demanding hiring based on race (emphasis in original):

Diasporic Studies

  1. Students of color should not be forced to resort to racist white professors in order to have access to their own history. It is crucial that the College offer courses taught about people of color by people of color so that students may engage in and produce meaningful work that represents them authentically.
  2. We demand there be new tenured faculty of color – at least two in African diasporic studies, one in Asian-American studies, one in Latinx diasporic studies, and one in indigenous/native peoples studies.
  3. We demand there be at least three more courses offered in African diasporic studies taught by Black professors.
  4. We demand that the College offer classes that embody intersectionality, as defined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and address the racial diversity of the LGBTQ+ community instead of centering whiteness.
  5. The aforementioned classes must be taught by professors who are a part of the culture they are teaching about.

The group also demanded Sarah Lawrence “Reject Funding or Involvement from the Charles Koch Foundation and Koch-Affiliated Organizations” and then turned to Prof. Abrams (emphasis in original):

Professor Samuel Abrams and Defending Progressive Education

  1. On October 16, 2018, politics professor Samuel Abrams published an op-ed entitled “Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators” in The New York Times. The article revealed the anti-Blackness, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-woman bigotry of Abrams. The article specifically targeted programs such as the Our Liberation Summit, which Abrams did not attend, facilitated by the Office of Diversity and Campus Engagement. The Sarah Lawrence community deserves an administration that strives for an inclusive education that reflects the diversity of our community. Abrams’ derision of the Black Lives Matter, queer liberation, and women’s rights movements displays not only ignorance but outright hostility towards the essential efforts to dismantle white supremacy and other systems of oppression. This threatens the safety and wellbeing of marginalized people within the Sarah Lawrence community by demonstrating that our lives and identities are viewed as “opinions” that we can have a difference in dialogue about, as if we haven’t been forced to debate our very existences for our entire lives. We demand that Samuel Abrams’ position at the College be put up to tenure review to a panel of the Diaspora Coalition and at least three faculty members of color. In addition, the College must issue a statement condemning the harm that Abrams has caused to the college community, specifically queer, Black, and female students, whilst apologizing for its refusal to protect marginalized students wounded by his op-ed and the ignorant dialogue that followed. Abrams must issue a public apology to the broader SLC community and cease to target Black people, queer people, and women.

This just another attack on Prof. Abrams academic freedom. Peter Bonilla, Vice President of Programs for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education tweeted:

1. “Tenure review” my foot. These Sarah Lawrence students want a professor to lose tenure for uncontroversial research on academic admins’ liberal leanings.

2. NB: They’re arguing that students should be the arbiters of tenure on the basis of viewpoint.

https://twitter.com/pebonilla/status/1105214218817716229

(added) In an email to me, Bonilla of the FIRE added:

“If Sarah Lawrence actually heeded the demands on his tenure “review,” or that Abrams be forced to make a public apology for his views, it would be hugely problematic from an academic freedom and due process standpoint. Tenure exists precisely to protect faculty from being targeted for their political beliefs, and its roots in American higher education are deeply intertwined with the persecution and scapegoating of progressive academics. I’d hope the Sarah Lawrence administration doesn’t need to be reminded of this, but we will be watching just in case.”

Emails to Professor Abrams and Sarah Lawrence President Cristle Collins Judd seeking comment have not been returned.

[Featured Image: SLC Phoenix video screenshot]

——————

Sarah Lawrence College #SLC50 Diaspora Coalition Demands by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/401644010/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-NReCuJg2axzJlF7G71od&show_recommendations=true

Masterpiece Cakeshop wins again – Colorado drops prosecution for refusal to bake ‘gender-transition cake’


Posted by   Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 7:00pm

Jack Phillips dropped his federal lawsuit after the State backed off: “Today is a win for freedom. I’m very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLMBT6zNgN8

The second attempt by the State of Colorado to punish Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop has come to an end, once again, with a victory for the baker.

Round 1 was the baker’s refusal to create a custom cake for a same-sex marriage, on the ground that it violated the baker’s Christian faith to create a message celebrating same-sex marriage.

The baker also refused to create Halloween cakes and other cakes whose messages he viewed as religiously unacceptable. He didn’t refuse to sell to LGBT people, he just didn’t want to have to create the message. He won the case in the Supreme Court, mostly on procedural grounds with the court not reaching the larger constitutional issues of freedom of religion and freedom of speech (to avoid compelled speech).

Round 2 was when the State went after him because he refused to create a cake celebrating a transgender transition. We covered the lawsuit in Colorado goes after Masterpiece Cakeshop again – this time over “gender transition” cake:

On June 26, 2017, the very same day the Supreme Court agreed to take the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Attorney Autumn Scardina called  the cake shop to request a “gender transition” cake. The cake shop declined, so on July 20, 2017, Scardina filed a complaint, with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission….

It appears that Colorado waited for the Supreme Court ruling in the wedding cake case, because it was not until June 28, 2018, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a finding of probable cause

The Introduction to the [Bakeshop’s federal lawsuit] Complaint (pdf.) … argues that the cake shop was targeted by the claimant/lawyer and Colorado….

The Complaint focuses on the message that was demanded of the cake shop:

184. After the lawyerdisclosed the design and message of the desired cake, Masterpiece Cakeshop politely declined the request because Phillips cannot in good conscience express the messages that the cake would have communicated (i.e., that sex can be changed, that sex can be chosen, and that sex is determined by perceptions or feelings) or celebrate the event that the cake would have commemorated (i.e., the announcement of a change from one sex to the other based on perceptions and feelings).

185. Phillips would not create a custom cake that expresses those messages for any customer, no matter the customer’s protected characteristics.

186. Masterpiece Cakeshop did not decline this request because of the customer’s transgender status or other protected characteristic. Rather, it declined the request because of the messages that the cake would have expressed.

187. When Masterpiece Cakeshop told the lawyer that it could not create the requested cake, the lawyer asked the shop’s representative to repeat that statement so that someone listening over the speaker phone could hear it.

188. Masterpiece Cakeshop offered to create a different custom cake for the lawyer or to sell the lawyer any of the pre-made items available for purchase in the shop.

* * *

199. The Division acknowledged Masterpiece Cakeshop’s position that it declined to create that custom cake because Phillips did not want to express through his cake art “the idea that a person’s sex is anything other than an immutable God-given biological reality.” Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 3 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).

200. But the Division ignored Masterpiece Cakeshop’s message-based reason for declining to create the cake; instead, the Division concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop declined to create the cake “based on [the lawyer’s] transgender status.” Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 4 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).

* * *

212. As a general matter, if a discrimination complaint is filed against a Colorado cake artist for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message he or she opposes, Colorado defers to the cake-shop owner’s message-based objection and, consistent with what state law requires, does not “presume” that the owner discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-305(3).

213. But if a discrimination complaint is filed against Phillips for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message that conflicts with his faith, Colorado rejects his message-based objection and presumes that he discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status

The case then worked its way through the federal court.

Significantly, a preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for March 14-15, 2019. That hearing date may have put pressure on the State, because the State dropped the administrative case against the Cakeshop, and the Cakeshop agreed to drop the federal lawsuit.

The Stipulation of Dismissal (pdf.) in the federal lawsuit provided:

The Parties, through their respective Counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii):

On March 5, 2019, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission unanimously entered an order dismissing with prejudice the administrative proceeding Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Case No. CR 2018-0012, Charge No. CP2018011310. In light of that action by the Commission, Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss this case. This dismissal resolves the issues between the Parties to this litigation as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint. Doc. 51. In light of this joint stipulated dismissal, which is with prejudice as to all claims arising out of or relating to Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Parties respectfully request that the Court vacate all remaining deadlines, including the preliminary injunction hearing presently set for March 14-15, 2019, and close this case. Each Party will bear its, her, or his own costs and attorney fees.

The Court today accepted the parties stipulation, and entered an Order of Dismissal (pdf.):

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) ii) (ECF No. 142), filed on March 5, 2019. After a careful review of the stipulation and the file, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it is

ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs and expenses, including any attorneys’ fees. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support (ECF No.  04), Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 94] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1) (ECF No. 107), and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Restrict Public Access to the Reply in Support of Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Exhibits (ECF No. 132) are DENIED AS MOOT. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction hearing set for March 14-15, 2019 and all other deadlines are VACATED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

So Round 2 is over. Masterpiece Cakeshop prevailed.

The Colorado Attorney General releases this statement:

The Colorado Attorney General’s office today announced that the State and Masterpiece Cakeshop have mutually agreed to end their ongoing state and federal court litigation.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will voluntarily dismiss the state administrative action against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, and Mr. Phillips will voluntarily dismiss his federal court case against the State. Each side will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. This agreement does not affect the ability of Autumn Scardina, the complainant in the state administrative case, to pursue a claim on her own.

“After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws,” said Weiser, whose office represents the Commission and the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The Commission’s vote to dismiss the state administrative case was unanimous.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the Cakeshop, posted:

BIG WIN for Jack! Colorado Ends Crusade against Cake Artist

Six years, one U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and a second lawsuit later, the state of Colorado has finally stopped its hostility toward cake artist Jack Phillips and his faith.
Today, the state officially agreed to dismiss its case against Jack.
This is a big win for Jack – and for religious freedom! Praise God! It has been a long, difficult journey for Jack. He has endured not only multiple drawn-out legal processes, but also hate mail, nasty phone calls, and even death threats. Yet through it all, God has proven faithful. And now, we hope that Jack can finally move on….
The state’s decision to dismiss its most recent prosecution of Jack is HUGE! And it’s certainly been a long time coming.
But we shouldn’t let this victory lead us to complacency.
Jack has been targeted multiple times by customers seeking to harass him, including people requesting cakes celebrating Satan. And it wouldn’t surprise us if Jack is harassed again because of his faith.

The targeting of the Cakeshop has cost it business, but not yet put it out of business:

“Today is a win for freedom. I’m very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect,” Phillips told Fox News, adding that he never imagined this chapter of his life — which has cost him over 40 percent of his business — when he opened up his cake shop years ago.

Let’s see if Colorado starts Round 3. You know it wants to.

After Trump Invites Him Onstage, Activist Reveals Truth Behind What’s Happening to Conservatives on College Campuses


Reported By Alec Schemmel | Published March 2, 2019 at 2:16pm | Modified March 3, 2019 at 2:12pm

During President Donald Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, he took a moment to recognize the discrimination conservative students face on college campuses.

“I turn on my television the other day and I saw somebody that was violently punched in the face,” Trump said to his audience at CPAC.

“The man’s name is Hayden Williams,” Trump added. “Hayden come up here please.”

Williams jumped onstage to say a few words, but he refused to use his several seconds of fame to talk about himself.

“It’s great that I’m being recognized,” he said, “but there’s so many conservative students across the country who are facing discrimination, harassment and worse if they dare to speak up on campus.”

Williams is a field representative at the Leadership Institute, a non-profit organization based of Arlington, Virginia, which aims to help fight the liberal bias that has infested America’s campuses. Williams was on UC Berkley’s campus on Feb. 19 helping local student activists when Zachary Greenberg, 28, allegedly assaulted him. Greenberg was arrested by UCPD on Friday afternoon and was being held on a $30,000 bond at Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland.

“It’s as important now than ever the work at Leadership Institute and Campus Reform exposing these liberal abuses to the public,” said Williams, “and these students do it because they have a love of our nation and freedom.”

Williams said that if progressive socialists had their way, the Constitution would be put through a paper shredder.

“If you keep defending us, we’ll keep defending you,” Williams said of Trump.

The audience roared in approval as Trump announced a new executive order which requires colleges and universities to support free speech.

“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden, and many other great young people … to speak,” Trump said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 25-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.

At CPAC, Trump Announced A New EO To Protect Free Speech On Campus


Written by Wes Walker on March 5, 2019

Trump went WAY off-script at CPAC, covering a bunch of topics and the crowd loved it! But among the things that were planned was the President’s response to the rise of the authoritarian Left on campus.

You can suppress speech, or you can have government money — but not both.

Here’s your President working his magic:

Trending: Greenpeace Bro Calls Occasional-Cortex A ‘POMPOUS LITTLE TWIT’ And It Gets Better

“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” Trump said. “Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.”

“Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.”
Source: The Hill

He punctuated his point by bringing up Hayden Williams, the guy who was sucker-punched in the face at Berkeley while tabling. The Violent Snowflake Who Beat Up MAGA Student Better Brace Himself For Jail — the attacker has since been formally charged.

With all the examples of schools shutting down right-of-center guest speakers, limiting their attendance, or turning a blind eye when left-wing agitators break up meetings, this will speak in a language they can understand.

So many times, STUDENTS are told what they are or are not allowed to do in a government-funded school (BAD TEACHER: Middle School Teacher Forbids Reading Bible During “Free Time”, and Dear Apolitical Christians: This CA Bill Could Ban The Bible And The Christian Worldview for example), even though Original Intent of the Establishment Clause was to protect the religious and free speech rights of the citizen, not curtail it.

It will be nice to see that flipped around to say that if you want government money, you will treat free citizens AS free citizens, and leave their speech alone.

There he goes standing up for the rights of American citizens. Clearly that’s proof positive that he’s the second coming of Stalin… or that other guy they keep comparing him with.

With chants of ‘Drain the Swamp’, we sent Trump to Washington for a reason: to protect our Freedoms from the all-consuming appetite of a Leviathan Government. That’s why he started slashing red tape and taxes. He’s getting Government out of the way, so free people — individuals and businesses — can give the double middle-finger to the scolds who recently told us ‘you didn’t build that’.

Biden claimed that Republicans wanted to “put y’all back in chains”. But in two years as President, he’s done the opposite.

Trump came to take the shackles off so that the world could once again hear the Roar of true American Freedom.

More Political Cartoon INCORRECTNESS


Thought Police: Public University’s Rules Now Prohibit Offensive Facial Expressions


Reported By Benjamin Arie | December 12, 2018 at 5:53pm

When George Orwell famously wrote about a dystopian future where your every thought is monitored, he shouldn’t have set it in Great Britain. It would have been much more accurate had he instead written about American college campuses. We’ve known about the alarming trend of coddling and control at colleges for a while, but it may be getting worse. At the publicly-funded University of Montana Western, college administrators seem to be doing their best Big Brother impressions.

That university recently published a policy which threatens punitive action against students for making — wait for it — “mean facial expressions.”

Image result for What did you say gif

“While discussions may become heated and passionate, they should never become mean, nasty or vindictive in spoken or printed or emailed words, facial expressions, or gestures,” the official Civility Standards at Montana Western declare.

Who decides what a mean facial expression looks like? Nobody seems to know.

“The policy says students must promote an atmosphere of civility and that their discussions should never become ‘mean, nasty, or vindictive,’ but those are all entirely subjective terms that could be applied to punish constitutionally protected speech,” Laura Beltz of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explained to Campus Reform.

She’s right: People use a variety of facial expressions when upset, flustered or merely just excited. If you roll your eyes or raise your eyebrows, is your academic career over?

“If it is the responsibility for students to uphold these standards, it follows that they may be punished for perceived violations of these standards, in this case, for failing to promote civility or for having a discussion that is deemed mean, nasty, or vindictive,” Beltz pointed out.

Image result for you cannot be serious gif

Being punished for making a face seems like something that belongs in kindergarten, not a major university attended by serious young adults. But that certainly seems to be how the policy is written.

“According to the policy, violations of the Student Code of Conduct can result in suspension of a student’s technology account, suspension, or in extreme cases, expulsion,” explained Campus Reform.

“Even if the policy isn’t actually applied that way, students who read the policy and see how vague it is are likely to self-censor instead of taking the risk that something they say will be seen as mean, nasty, vindictive, or not civil,” Beltz added. “This sort of chilling effect on protected speech is unacceptable at a public university like Montana Western.”

If someone doesn’t think these kinds of policies could be used to infringe on free speech and inspire proverbial witch hunts, they probably haven’t been paying attention.

We’ve already seen hysterical reactions to imagined “hate crimes,” which more often than not turn out to be wildly exaggerated or blatant hoaxes. And as everyone from the Duke lacrosse team to Rolling Stone magazine found out, due process can be quickly tossed aside when there’s a social justice crusade.

There have also been countless cases of free speech infringement throughout American campuses, and students with conservative views are often the ones being silenced.

Everyone agrees that civility is important. But by trying to monitor and enforce every element of human interaction and speech, down to which facial expressions somebody uses during a debate, campus busy-bodies have lost the plot.

The real world is not a safe space free of triggering facial expressions and terrifying eye rolls, and it’s ridiculous to pretend that this is what increasingly irrelevant universities need. Let’s try more freedom of speech, not less.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Campus senator labeled ‘homophobic’ for speaking her faith


Reported by Steve Jordahl (OneNewsNow.com) | Thursday, November 15, 2018

Isabella Chow (UC-Berkeley student)

A Christian student at the University of California, Berkeley, is being pressured to resign her post in student government over her biblical beliefs.

When President Donald Trump recently redefined “gender” for federal purposes as the gender an individual is born with, it didn’t set well with students at Berkeley. A member of the student government quickly introduced a resolution condemning the president but student senator Isabella Chow (pictured) couldn’t support it. She didn’t vote no – instead, she abstained. For that, she was roundly condemned by her fellow students at a subsequent gathering.

In an interview with OneNewsNow, Chow expressed her support for freedom from discrimination and freedom from harassment for all people.

“But where it crosses the line for me is that I’m asked to promote LGBTQ identities and lifestyles – and it conflicts with my values and the values of the Christian community that I represent,” she shared.

And when she refused to support the resolution, it didn’t take long for the hammer to fall.

“My political party released a statement right after the vote disaffiliating with me – [and it] was shared widely,” said Chow. “This issue has just gone viral. People are calling me ‘homophobic,’ ‘transphobic,’ the ‘f-word’ and many other slurs that I just don’t want to repeat here.”

Most of the campus is demanding she resign her post in student government – but Chow is determined to stay the course.

“The issue that students here at Berkeley have with my statement is that they fundamentally cannot reconcile how I can say I love you and validate you as an individual, and yet disagree with how you choose to identify yourself and how you choose to live your life,” she explained.

Chow, who has a long year and a half in front of her before graduation, told Fox News that “backing down is not an option” – even though no one except her Christian supporters on campus will even talk to her anymore.

Facebook Just Silenced Political Speech In America. And No One Seems To Care.


Reported By Shaun Hair and Randy DeSoto | October 19, 2018 at 2:07pm

Matt has operated his small digital publishing business since 2015. He spends his mornings like most business proprietors: After waking up, he reviews his numbers and checks messages to ensure his livelihood is running smoothly and as expected. It’s undoubtedly a more peaceful existence than Matt’s years in Army intelligence. His time in the military left him disabled, so his ability to work at least part of the time from his computer is a blessing.

It’s a good day for Matt when numbers are up and messages are down. As is usually the case for young entrepreneurs, no news is good news, because that means there are no fires to put out. But on October 11, Matt woke to the fire of his nightmares.

Matt is an online publisher. His business depends on his ability to drive page views to his website. Like many in the mid 2010s, Matt found Facebook to be good place to share articles and keep people coming back day after day. In those early days, growing Facebook pages was much easier. And getting more people to follow his Facebook page meant more people would see his articles.

Matt uses his website to tell stories about the thing that is most important to him — American politics. And his rise in online popularity proved he was not alone in his views. His activism mixed with his tough guy persona — “Do I look like a snowflake?” is his slogan on Twitter where he goes by “Matt Mountain” — resonated with many on Facebook. By last week, Matt had amassed an impressive 1.8 million Facebook followers on his pages.

But in a moment and without warning, Facebook took them all away.

On this fall morning, as Matt began his early-morning check of his site, he was greeted with a notification from his Facebook app that read simply, “account disabled.” He was obviously worried, so he immediately called his wife, who helps run the site, and asked her if she could access her Facebook account. She could not.

Facebook had unpublished all of Matt’s pages. Every page was inaccessible — effectively wiped from existence. The 1.8 million followers Matt had worked to connect with were no longer a click away. The 1.8 million followers who over the last three years had chosen to follow Matt’s site could no longer read the stories they loved or comment on the page with their friends about what mattered to them.

Matt checked his records. He had received nothing from Facebook. No warning. No deadline. No ultimatum. With two simple words, many years and countless hours of Matt’s work were forever wiped from Facebook.

While Matt was scrambling to figure out what had happened, Facebook was announcing through a blog post that it had removed over 559 political pages and 251 accounts in a clampdown on what the company calls “inauthentic behavior” in the lead-up to the U.S midterm elections.

“Many were using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names and posted massive amounts of content across a network of Groups and Pages to drive traffic to their websites. Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was,” wrote Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, and product manager Oscar Rodriguez.

Facebook’s pre-midterm purge included pages and accounts that Facebook described as “ad farms” that used the platform to earn money and “to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” rather than engage in “legitimate political debate.”

It appears that Facebook had strategically briefed The New York Times and The Washington Post ahead of the removals, given that within minutes of Facebook’s announcement, both papers published lengthy pieces describing the purge that included screenshots of the pages, something that could only have been obtained before the pages were removed.

After the purge, Facebook provided media outlets with only the same few examples: The Resistance, Reasonable People Unite, Reverb Press, Nation in Distress and Snowflakes. Four of these pages were liberal, while one was conservative. When asked for a complete list of pages, Facebook has repeatedly refused to release it. Even knowing the names of these five pages, journalists visiting the page are greeted with a message “Sorry, content isn’t available right now,” with no ability to see the page, previously posted content or examples of alleged “spam” actions.

Facebook claims the purged pages fell on both sides of the political spectrum, and originally declined to say if there were more pages on the right or the left, but a Facebook spokesperson later told Axios that “the takedowns may have impacted more right-leaning hyper-partisan Pages.”

Because Facebook has refused to release a full list of the affected pages or any proof of alleged “spam” activity, The Western Journal has attempted to track down as many of the purged pages as possible.

Starting with the sparse list of pages that Facebook chose to release to media outlets and pages mentioned by individuals on social media, The Western Journal searched on Google which domains were most often shared by those pages. The Western Journal then found other sites with common Adsense and Google Analytics accounts. These domains were then searched on on Google’s cache of Facebook to locate pages that shared links from that site. Pages which showed the message “Sorry, content isn’t available right now,” a sign that the pages had been unpublished, rather than completely deleted, were added to The Western Journal’s list.

That list of pages confirmed as having been taken down by Facebook is now totaling 220. Of the 220 pages uncovered by The Western Journal, 67 percent are conservative or pro-Trump pages, 22 percent are libertarian or non-aligned, and 11 percent are liberal or anti-Trump pages.

Additionally, among the 147 conservative pages taken down, 26 specifically mention President Donald Trump or related topics like “MAGA,” “deplorables” or first lady Melania Trump.

Brian Kolfage, who ran Right Wing News’ Facebook page, sees the company’s purge of political sites as part of a “war on conservatives and a war on Trump.”

“It’s not by mistake, this happened weeks before the midterms,” contends the Air Force veteran, who was severely wounded while serving in Iraq.

“People are being punished for their simple beliefs — beliefs of freedom, beliefs of religion, beliefs on anything that differs from that status quo. If you have an alternate view, you’re attacked — physically, financially and socially,” he says.

“Now, it’s me, my family, and my young children in the line of fire,” Kolfage adds. “This isn’t the right to free speech I gave my legs and arm to defend. Three limbs wasn’t enough for some … now my livelihood is gone with it.”

Kolfage tells The Western Journal that he was in regular contact with Facebook, but was not told his page was out of compliance with the company’s rules before the purge.

Kurt Von Arnold, whose page IPhoneConservative (70,000 likes) was also a casualty of the purge, explained to The Western Journal that when he consulted with fellow page owners, a common thread emerged about Facebook’s actions.

“In the lead up to this coordinated removal of conservative pages, going back months before, all of us were required to verify our accounts and locations,” says Von Arnold. “This involved, under their direction, logging out of our accounts and then re-logging in using a code they provided, for each device used to access their platform.”

Von Arnold argues this drill was really a “Trojan Horse” to allow Facebook both to efficiently take down their sites and to prevent them from starting new ones from any of their known devices. He recounted that after his page was taken down Thursday, he published a new one.

“Within a few hours I had a couple of hundred page likes and though the loss of my 70k audience that I had built up over 10 years organically, never paying for boosts or spamming or ad-farming or any of the other tactics FB claimed it was acting against hurt very much,” says Von Arnold. “I consoled myself that I was back in the fight and with hard work I could build that audience again.”

“That was a fundamental mistake,” Von Arnold added with a sarcastic tone. “The new page which was starting to move suddenly went dead. All interaction on posts ceased, post reach went to 1 or 2 people in each post.”

Facebook has been unresponsive to the Von Arnold’s request for assistance.

“This is malicious harassment and a form of gaslighting which I wouldn’t wish on my worst political enemy,” Von Arnold argues. “Moreover it is proof positive, at least in my mind, of the persistent animus FB has shown to conservative pages on their platform.”

“I cherish the freedoms that have been bought so dearly,” he concludes. “I wanted to voice my concerns that those freedoms were becoming increasingly endangered. I started a page to give voice to those concerns and allow other to find their voice and Facebook punished me for it.”


Facebook’s purge of pages was not limited to last Thursday.

BJ Zeagler tells The Western Journal that her page, Donald J. Trump — President of the People, was taken down three weeks ago. (Because it had been affected before October 11, her page was not included in the previously mentioned list.)

Zeagler emphatically denies committing any violations that Facebook listed in its blog post last Thursday. The 74-year-old Nashville resident only ran one page, on which she posted articles from different sites, not owned by her. In other words, she made no money from her postings. The Tennessean had built up 2,000 likes over the last 10 years, originally starting her page in 2008 as a pro-retired Lt. Col. Allen West page, in hopes he would one day run for president.

“It was a really good page. I worked hours on it (each day),” Zeagler explains. “I did what I did because I loved this country.”

She posted articles from sources that she trusted like conservative talk radio personalities Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity.

“It was really sad to me. They removed by page,” she laments. “They removed the names of everybody that was coming there. They don’t know how to reach me. I don’t know how to reach them. It was dirty, and they didn’t tell me they were going to do it.”

The Times reported that concern over Facebook’s political bias against conservatives inspired Brian Amerige, a senior engineer with the company, to write a post to his co-workers in August.

“We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views,” he wrote. “We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

“We are entrusted by a great part of the world to be impartial and transparent carriers of people’s stories, ideas and commentary,” Amerige added. “Congress doesn’t think we can do this. The president doesn’t think we can do this. And like them or not, we deserve that criticism.”

The Times related that since the engineer’s post went up more than 100 Facebook employees had joined him to form an online group called ‘FB’ers for Political Diversity,’ based on two people within the company who had seen the page, but were not authorized to talk to the media.

The day before Facebook announced its purge, The Business Insider reported that Ameriage had left the company.

“I care too deeply about our role in supporting free expression and intellectual diversity to even whole-heartedly attempt the product stuff anymore, and that’s how I know it’s time to go,” he wrote in a memo to his fellow employees, announcing his departure.

Patrick Brown, editor-in-chief of The Western Journal, has called on Facebook to release the full list of the pages it has unpublished.

“If Facebook is deleting American-run political pages in run up to election, Facebook should release full list of pages affected, regardless if these pages were violating terms of service or not. Without that list we have no way to verify their claims,” he tweeted.

Although it is clear many of these page owners did violate Facebook’s prohibition against using multiple accounts, many of the owners say that once they were told it was a problem, they immediately stopped using those accounts and verified their single remaining accounts with Facebook. The owners also shared a similar complaint — that Facebook never told them that they had done anything so egregious as to have years of their work literally erased with no warning and little more than a vague, one-sentence explanation that raised more questions than it answered.

Even Facebook’s recent “war room” announcement referenced the company’s efforts to increase “accountability and transparency.” But the company has still yet to release more than 5 of the 559 pages that were purged.

The majority of the known pages suspended by Facebook were right-leaning. While there may be valid justification for all of Facebook’s actions, Facebook has not responded to The Western Journal’s request for comment or provided to any known media outlet a full list of suspended pages or any evidence that any of the pages had in fact violated any of the rules Facebook claims were the basis for their purge. And to date, neither The Times nor The Post, the two papers who received the early scoop of the purge along with the five examples of purged pages, have called for the entire list to be made public.

Facebook’s refusal to release the whole list or any proof of any violation of terms of service has many questioning if Facebook is being honest about its intentions.

Rhett Jones with Gizmodo noted, “the fact that Facebook is keeping almost all of the details about this action under wraps may save it some short-term pain, but it just gives everyone’s imagination the chance to run wild.”

Back at his computer, Matt Mountain is trying to make sense of Facebook’s recent actions. He is convinced that Facebook’s actions have little to do with violation of terms and conditions. “They have an agenda and they are twisting their terms and conditions to pursue that agenda.”

Matt argued that Facebook is desperate to avoid possible antitrust attention: “They are in the hot seat over politics. They are worried about regulation. I think they are conducting security theater — in other words, they are pretending to do something.”

“Facebook can decide who gets elected,” Matt warned. “Their staff has joked that they can control the outcome of a presidential election just by where they deploy the ‘I voted’ badge, because that badge influences friends to vote.”

The fact that Facebook’s purge happened only weeks before the important 2018 midterm elections did not go unnoticed by Matt, either. “(T)hey wipe out hundreds of the top activists, real Americans who have been working in politics for years, just a month before midterms.” According to Matt, Facebook “wiped out” more than 60 million followers. The main Facebook pages of CNN and Fox News combined have only 46 million followers. “I don’t think staff at Facebook, who we don’t know and have zero transparency, should have that much power without regulation.”

One last note: Matt is a self-described liberal. His site is LiberalMountain.com. Matt’s content is vehemently anti-Trump and he depicted Republicans as Nazis. But Brown underlines a key point in a tweet directed personally to Matt about why The Western Journal, a conservative site, cares that Matt’s pages were deleted: “This isn’t a left-right issue, this is a free speech issue.”

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Shaun Hair is the Executive Editor of The Western Journal and the Vice President of Digital Content for Liftable Media. He manages the content and social media presence of one of the most viewed online news sites in the world.
Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Control The Words – Control The Culture


disclaimerAuthored by Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team

URL of the original posting site: https://freedomoutpost.com/control-the-words-control-the-culture/

What’s in a word?

Why does it matter whether we call someone who breaks the law to enter the country an “illegal alien” or an “undocumented immigrant”? What’s the difference between a Christmas tree and a “holiday tree”?

It’s just semantics, right?

Yes…and no.

It is just semantics, but “semantics” means the meaning of words. Words exist so that we might discriminate one thing from another. Without words we have chaos. And it starts with the first words; a baby says mama to distinguish mommy from daddy. Words shape how we think; they color how we view the world. 

No one understands this better than the Left. They are the masters of words. Because they know that words matter.

The Left has a special gift for euphemisms –soft words selected to sugarcoat harsh realities so as to make those harsh realities easier for us to swallow. But these soft words are insidious. Their sole purpose is to deceive.

Race discrimination in hiring and college admissions is refashioned as the much nicer sounding “affirmative action.” Who would ever oppose an affirmative action?

Global warming, which can be measured and challenged, has morphed into “climate change,” which means essentially nothing because the climate is always changing.

When Barack Obama became president, George Bush’s war in Afghanistan suddenly transformed into the far less ominous and threatening “overseas contingency operation.” That’s one way to try to end a war. Just rename it. 

The examples are endless. There’s a new euphemism every week.defend your free speech even when i do not like it

In the make-believe world of leftist language, young criminals have become “justice-involved youth.” Mandates and taxes are “individual shared responsibility payments.” Government spending becomes an “investment.” Wanting to keep more of your hard-earned money becomes “greed”; taking more of someone else’s money is them “paying their fair share.” Opposing a Democrat in the White House is “obstruction.” Opposing a Republican in the White House, “resistance“.

In the name of “diversity,” the left enforces intellectual conformity. It censors opposing views in the name of “tolerance.” And it labels all non-left views “hate speech.”

Consider the ongoing battle over pronouns, whether to call a man who thinks he’s a woman “he” or “she.” Very few people in the country suffer from gender confusion, and we should have compassion for those who do, but the Left has invested countless funds, time, and energy to make everyone refer to some men as she and some women as he.

Why? Is it because the Left is so compassionate? Or is it more likely because so much of the Left’s cultural agenda is about blurring, even denying, the natural distinctions between men and women? 

Sometimes it’s just an adjective that can change or even negate the entire meaning of the word it describes.

Take “social justice.”

Justice means getting what you deserve without favor. “Social justice” means getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.

Here’s one we hear a lot these days. “My truth.” Truth is reality regardless of any individual’s feelings or perceptions. “My truth” is how I perceive things regardless of how they really are.

And how about “Same-sex marriage.” Let’s not get into the politics; let’s just look at the language.

Throughout history, in every culture, marriage has been the union of husbands, men, and wives, women. “Same-sex marriage” is the union of men with men or women with women, but it is most certainly not the union of husbands and wives. 

Once the phrase “same-sex” was placed before the word marriage – that is, once the definition of marriage changed, the debate changed. It became about “marriage equality.” It was suddenly an act of bigotry to limit marriage to husbands and wives.

All this manipulation of language has paid off for the left: because whoever controls the words controls the culture.

Don’t believe me? Just try using plain language instead of the Left’s politically correct jargon. But be careful. Use “the wrong words” and you might lose your job, your home and your reputation.

The culture war is largely a war of words. Right now, the Left is winning. You can see the consequences everywhere: in politics, in education, in media.

It’s time to fight back. We should not cede another syllable.

What’s in a word? Everything.

By Michael Knowles, Guest Columnist

Prager University, helps millions of Americans understand the fundamental values that shaped America and provides the resources to articulate them. Published with permission.

The Language of Liberty series is a collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team. CSG is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, dedicated to training citizens in applied civics. The authors include administrative staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG. Contact them at CenterForSelfGovernance.com

please likeand share and leave a comment

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Lookin’ For Love

The Democrats are in full meltdown over trump using the word Sh*thole in the oval office referring to some foreign countries.

Trump’s Shit-hole CommentPolitical Cartoons by A.F. Branco ©2017.

“Snowflakeism” Strikes Cornell University


Reported by Photo of Dan Backer Dan Backer | Attorney | 6:56 PM 09/22/2017

Censorship is occurring across the world as countries step up their battles against “hate speech.” [Shutterstock – Marcos Mesa Sam Wordley]

 

Trigger warning: “Build a wall.”

Those three words have ignited a firestorm at Cornell University. An apology has been demanded, several issued, and demanded yet again. Sanctions have been sought. The administration even issued a condemnation, claiming the words were part of “a continued pattern of the marginalization of many members of the Cornell community.” Vice President for Student and Campus Life Ryan Lombardi put it this way: “I strongly condemn behavior that is antithetical to our proud history of inclusion.”

Ironically, Lombardi either didn’t know or bother to find out—or is deliberately misleading the public—that the student in question is a liberal Latino whose only goal in muttering those forbidden words was to mock President Trump. That’s right: A liberal, Latino undergraduate member of Cornell’s Zeta Psi chapter used the words “build a wall” within earshot of his neighbors, the campus’ Latino Living Center (LLC), residents of which filed complaints about the remarks.

Now, there’s nothing extraordinary about a liberal college student at an overpriced Northeastern university mocking a Republican president. What is extraordinary is the campus’ response.

 

Cornell’s La Asociacon Latina (LAL) published a statement condemning the words, claiming many Hispanic students are already under “a lot of duress” because of President Trump’s plan to cancel the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and enforce our immigration laws. LAL also demanded all current and new fraternity members to undergo mandatory diversity training—that is, a liberal brainwashing re-education camp. Even the Greek Tri-Council vowed to “reject hateful actions,” while the fraternity’s headquarters appears to have tucked tail and apologized instead of correcting blatant lies and misinformation.

Meanwhile, the administration is considering disciplinary action for the allegedly egregious “hate speech.”

Has Cornell ever taken a forceful stand against liberal groupthink on campus? Or the divisive rhetoric in the university’s new anti-Trump course? Of course not. If anything, the administration has encouraged the proliferation of blind obedience to the same liberal dogma it espouses.

Lost in the shuffle are the student’s own liberal inclinations, and that he was a Latino mocking President Trump’s immigration policies. This is a fact LLC and others on campus appear to be concealing to target not just this fraternity, but any Orwellian “crimethink” contrary to the administration’s “goodthink.” Fraternities are an easy target, of course, and have come under leftist attack across the country for “micro-aggressions” as ridiculous as hosting construction-themed house parties and “Cinco de Drinko” events.

 

If LLC and the administration are indeed complicit in a hoax to target conservative speech—by intentionally obscuring the identity and purpose of the speech they’re squashing—it may be the most egregious example of anti-speech activism to date. Advancing this identity politics grievance agenda would not only be a blatant fraud, but it would threaten any Cornell student who didn’t toe the line on permissible speech. Here, the fraud is all the more blatant because LLC—and, presumably, the administration—knows the student in question is Latino, liberal, and anti-Trump.

The labeling of pure speech as “hateful actions” is yet another example of the Left moving the goalposts and targeting even speech they in fact support—the mocking of the president’s policies—to stifle any intellectual discourse. Agree or disagree with any particular message, academic institutions have a responsibility to foster meaningful debate. That’s the whole point of higher learning. Failing to protect speech is morally outrageous.

Unfortunately, we will continue to see university officials tolerate and even reward petty political agendas to appease snowflakes. And it’s disappointing to see the fraternity, which exists as an expression of our right to free association, cave when it comes to free speech—bowing down to a liberal agenda and obscuring the truth from the public for the sake of appeasement.

This isn’t liberal vs. conservative anymore. If we as Americans don’t stand up against this angry mob attacking our freedom of speech, the First Amendment will wither away on campus, and eventually nationwide. Is there a greater disservice to America’s future than that?

Dan Backer, an alumnus of Zeta Psi, is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations.

Additional Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday September 18, 2017


Berkeley’s Overreaction to Conservative Speaker Is Incredibly Pathetic


Reported By Andrew West | September 14, 2017

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday, September 1, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Indefensible

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/mccain-kills-repeal-bill/#EY4v7Z8yFAFcubxC.99

Breaking his campaign promise, RINO McCain, a self titled Maverick, voted with the democrats against repealing Obamacare.

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

A.F. Branco Cartoon Featured in the Book “The Big Lie”

I’m very honored that Dinesh D’Souza ask me to draw a cartoon to be featured in his new book titled “The Big Lie”. A book that exposes the Nazi roots of the American left.

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017

Order here!

Order here!

Order here!

Order here!

Read more at http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/31/a-f-branco-cartoon-featured-in-the-book-the-big-lie/#8ChWxG8fQpOqg3pW.99

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Keep Her In!

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/27/keep-her-in/#EbX6dkqx0u1BHBM8.99

The GOP plan to use Pelosi against the Democrats in the 2018 midterm election.

Political Cartoon by Antonio F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM

Trump Team Sends Gifts To Students Who Had Yearbook Photos Censored


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-team-makes-epic-move/

A couple weeks back a report broke that three students from Wall High School in New Jersey had their pro-Trump T-shirts censored in the school’s yearbook.

“It was photoshopped,” one of the three students, Grant Berardo, told a local newspaper. “I sent it to my mom and dad, just like, ‘You won’t believe this.’ I was just overall disappointed. I like Trump, but it’s history, too. Wearing that shirt memorializes the time.”

After the story went viral, President Donald Trump sent a letter to at least two of the students — brother and sister Wyatt and Montana Debrovich-Fago — thanking them for standing up for their convictions.

“It is more important than ever that we, as Americans, stand up for our beliefs and hopes for a better country,” he wrote. “And, as you know, it takes courage to do. But, the freedom of expression should never go out of style — let’s not forget that!”

Included with the letter was some campaign merchandise that Wyatt later posted pictures to social media of himself wearing.

On Monday, the president shared two photos on his own Facebook page — one of the letter he sent the kids, and the other of Wyatt with his gear.

Check out the post below:

It’s unclear if Grant also received a letter and merchandise.

But what is certain is that Grant, Wyatt and Montana’s willingness to take a stand worked. Local school district superintendent Cheryl Dyer confirmed in a letter to parents last week that new yearbooks would be issued, according to  the Asbury Park Press.

In a letter to parents, Dyer listed what she called “intentional” problems with the yearbook that required it to be reissued. Several clearly intentional, such as the Trump image censorship; in others, the intent was unknown. Regardless, the school’s yearbook adviser was suspended shortly after the incident became public.

“I do not believe that it is possible to create a yearbook of 248 pages, thousands of pictures, names and lines of text and have it be error free,” she said, according to the newspaper. “That being said, I cannot allow the intentional change that was not based on dress code to be ignored.

“I am the chief school administrator in this district and I take responsibility for the actions of those who are employed here,” she continued. “Therefore, I have determined that a re‐issuance of the yearbook is necessary.”

Excellent.

Kudos to Grant, Wyatt and Montana. Not only did they force their school to fix its error, but they even earned the attention of the president of the United States. How many other kids their age can say they’ve done the same?

Democrat Senators Ready to Limit the First Amendment because of Threats of Violence from Liberals


Reported By Onan Coca | June 21, 2017

If you  listen carefully to the Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill you can hear the whispers of fascism creeping in to their normal everyday conversation. The ease in which Democrats discuss the idea of restricting the First Amendment rights of their constituents should drive fear into the hearts of all Americans, but that simply doesn’t seem to be happening.

On Tuesday, the Senate held hearings on Free Speech and how the current campus climate is stifling the First Amendment rights of many students, teachers, and citizens. During the hearings the Senate heard from some prominent professors who argued that the attacks on free speech that we’re seeing across the country can have a deadly serious affect on other areas of civil life. Weakening one of our “God given” rights, could quickly lead to the erosion of other rights. The professors also admitted that every right has its limits, and speech is limited by the threat that could be posed by said speech. (Think of the old argument about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.) However, they argued that this limit could not be imposed on speakers by others who disagreed with their speech (often called “the heckler’s veto”), because this was the very essence of the First Amendment. Sadly, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other Democrats (including Dick Durbin) did not seem to agree as they argued that threats posed by opponents of certain speech must also be taken into account when deciding whether or not speech was permissible.

After reading the First Amendment out loud, Feinstein said,

Legal expert, Professor Eugene Volokh disagreed arguing:

“There are of course times, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, that the University isn’t trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive that there is then the threat of a violent reaction to such speech. But I tend to agree with Senator Cruz’s view that that kind of a heckler’s veto should not be allowed.

“The question was asked ‘When you have a set group of people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do?’ I think the answer is to make sure they don’t create a disturbance and to threaten them with punishment, meaningful punishment, if they do create a disturbance. And not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech that they are trying to suppress.

“One of the basics of psychology that I think we’ve learned, and all of us who are parents I think have learned it very first hand, is behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence then there’ll be more such threats from all over the political spectrum. And I think the solution to that is to say that the speech will go on and if that means bringing in more law enforcement and making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively that they be punished.”

While Volokh made stunningly simple and clear argument, Senators Durbin and Feinstein continued to push back, arguing that the threat of violence from protesters was enough to shut down speech on campus or anywhere else where violence was threatened.

Feinstein continued Durbin’s argument by saying that sometimes the danger posed is greater than the capability of the school or local authorities to handle. Volokh countered that when the police could no longer control threats of violence or lawbreakers our society would indeed be in a perilous place. Feinstein continued to press the Professors by wondering if they expected schools to always be prepared to deal with protests and threats? The professors argued that yes, schools should always accommodate speech, particularly when invited by students of that school and for credible reason. Can we also just add, that when a school schedules a speech that might be controversial, it’s really not that difficult for the school to coordinate with local authorities to provide for student and campus safety.

 

Sadly, Feinstein just never seemed to understand that if you allow the hecklers to shut down free speech… then free speech is functionally dead.

Professor Frederick Lawrence: I think the way to start with this is with a strong presumption in favor of the speech, particularly if it’s speech that’s coming from a student group who has invited somebody.

Feinstein: No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is? You should find a way to accommodate it.

Professor Lawrence: If we’re talking about the substance of the program, not the danger and credible threats but the substance of the program, then yes.

Folks, if the Democrat leaders can’t seem to grasp the concept of free speech how are their followers ever going to get it? If this hearing is indicative of the Democrat Party today… our nation is in very big trouble.

Here’s the entire hearing – Volokh on free speech starts about 1:10:00 into the video and Feinstein jousts with Professor Lawrence at about 1:46:00.

Thankfully, not everyone in the room was a Democrat. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivered a short statement that cut to the heart of the matter explaining that free speech is important and that it must be defended at all cost.

“The Best Solution For Bad Ideas And Speech, Is Better Ideas And Speech.”

Conservative Review put together some of Cruz’s best moments from the hearing:

In his opening statement during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses,” Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, offered a robust defense of free speech, criticizing colleges and universities that have “quietly rolled over” to intolerant and bullying liberal student bodies.

“If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused on inculcating and indoctrinating rather than challenging, we will lose what makes universities great,” Cruz said. “The First Amendment is about opinions that you passionately disagree with and the right of others to express them.”

“College administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police – deciding what speech is permissible and what speech isn’t,” Cruz said. “You see violent protests … enacting effectively a heckler’s veto where violent thugs come in and say ‘this particular speaker, I disagree with what he or she has to say. And therefore, I will threaten physical violence if the speech is allowed to happen.”…

“What an indictment of our university system,” Cruz declared. “If ideas are strong, if ideas are right, you don’t need to muzzle the opposition. You should welcome the opposition. When you see college faculties and administrators being complicit or active players in silencing those with opposing views, what they are saying is they are afraid.”

“They are afraid that their ideas cannot stand the dialectic, cannot stand opposition, cannot stand facts or reasoning, or anything on the other side. And it is only through force and power that their ideas can be accepted.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

High School Grad Defies Administrators After They Told Her to Remove Jesus From Speech


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/high-school-grad-jesus/

For the past few years, there has been a disturbing trend in schools all across America where administration officials have attempted to silence those who want to talk about their Christian faith. The latest example of this repression of Christian beliefs occurred at Beaver High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, where the school officials tried to stop a student from including references to God in her commencement speech, Faithwire reported.

The administration initially wanted graduate Moriah Bridges to “remove all religious references” from her commencement address, including the words “God,” “Lord” and a prayer she had included. Effectively, they wanted her to silence Jesus.

The administration’s plan backfired though, because when Bridges actually gave the speech on June 2, she defied the administration and included a well-phrased reference to Jesus Christ.

“I’ve always been a rule follower,” Bridges stated at the end of her speech. “When they said not to chew gum, I didn’t chew gum. When they said not to use your cellphone, I didn’t use my cellphone. But today, in the spirit of defying expectations, and for perhaps the last time at this podium, I say, ‘in the righteous name of Jesus Christ, Amen.’”

You can watch the key part of Bridges’ speech here:

WTAE noted that Bridges is now being represented by “First Liberty,” a religious freedom law firm, which is demanding a meeting with school administration officials to change school policy.

The Beaver Area School District Superintendent, Carrie Rowe, released a statement on June 13th where he defended the actions of the administration.

“In Moriah’s case, the district could not approve a speech written as a prayer, but did approve a second version that she submitted,”  Rowe explained in the statement. “As superintendent, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of this commonwealth.”

Rowe went on to state that she had been advised that prayer during a commencement address was “not permitted,” and that she “cannot choose which laws to follow.”

Bridges managed to silence the administration for 11 days. It took them that long to come up with a response to her act of defiance. You can read the full statement here.

It took a lot of courage for Bridges to stand up and profess her faith after the administration had instructed her not to. This world could use a few more people like Bridges who aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

H/T TheBlaze

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Today’s TOWNHALL.COM Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Today’s TOW Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Mr. Trump, Tear Down This Wall!

The Current tax code is a “Yhuge” obstacle to economic growth and prosperity. Trumps tax plan would “tear down this wall”.

Trump Tax Plan / Cartoon A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!


At A Campus Near You

Ann Coulter will not speak at UC Berkeley. AntiFa (The Left) has again been successful in silencing the conservative voice.

Ann Coulter At Berkeley / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Racist California College Students Demand Censorship of Conservative Speakers, Deny “Truth” Exists


Reported  By Andrew West | April 19, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/racist-california-college-students-demand-censorship-conservative-speakers-deny-truth-exists/

california

Only in the state of California could a story such as this even occur, as racist college students attack the First Amendment, conservatives, and the truth all at the same time.

California itself is in the middle of an existential crisis of identity.  The liberal stronghold has been in the news far more in recent weeks than ever before, as left-leaning fascist millennials continue to tear down anyone who dare opposed their progressive viewpoints, going so far as to suggest that handguns should be carried by anti-Trump protestors in the state.

The latest nonsense to come slithering out of the Bear Republic is absolutely infuriating, as a group of leftists student have demanded that Pomona College take “action” against a conservative author scheduled to speak on campus, claiming that the “truth” is no longer an objective concept.

“Students at Pomona College in California stated in a letter to outgoing President David Oxtoby that the truth is a ‘myth’ and ‘white supremacist concept’ after Oxtoby reaffirmed the college‘s commitment to free speech, the Claremont Independent reported. These same students also demanded that the college take ‘action’ against journalists who work at the Independent.

“The Claremont Independent is a conservative student paper for the Claremont Colleges consortium – of which Pomona College is a member – and is connected to the conservative Leadership Institute.

“Three self-identified black students wrote the letter after Oxtoby sent an email in April that reiterated ‘the exercise of free speech and academic freedom’ after protesters blocked the exits to Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum  in order to shut down a scheduled lecture by Heather Mac Donald, a Black Lives Matter critic.”

Not only did the students attempt to censor the scheduled speaker, it turns out that they physically confronted those who wished to attend the event, including faculty members.

Then, these menaces to freedom took it a step further in their criticisms.

“The students then wrote that there is no such thing as truth, and that this “Euro-West” concept has often be used to “silence oppressed peoples.”

 

“‘Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of “subjectivity vs. objectivity” as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–”the Truth”–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.’

“After claiming that students were right to attempt to silence Mac Donald, whom they labeled ‘a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live,’ the students demanded that Oxtoby apologize for his email promoting free speech.”

As the left continues to churn out these anti-freedom diatribes, they are consistently attempting to pin “fascism” on the conservatives of America.  The truth of the matter is, however, that these leftists are redefining fascism in their actions.  Whereas the idea once related merely to race and nationality, it is becoming more and more apparent that the left is replacing those outdated ideas with “political belief”, and themselves are attempting to create an authoritarian state based on their leftist doctrine.

The new fascism is purely a liberal construct.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew West

Andrew West is a Georgia-based political enthusiast and lover of liberty. When not writing, you can find Mr. West home brewing his own craft beer, perfecting his home-made hot sauce recipes, or playing guitar.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


The Opposition

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/04/20/the-

The opposition (Liberals) could care less about the law, constitutional rights, free speech, or tolerance if you happen to disagree with them.

What is ‘Antifa’? And why are the media so reluctant to expose it?


United States Trump Supporters Clash Liberal Intolerance / Emily Molli | AP Photo

Are all Trump supporters violent white supremacists? Clearly not. But you might not know that based on some of the reporting flying around this week.

The mainstream media are oversimplifying what happened this past weekend when riots broke out in Berkeley, California, during a rally for free speech put on by Trump backers. In doing so, the reporting implies that those supporting the president were prepared for violence while those in opposition are simply opposing “fascism.”

Twenty-one people were arrested Sunday after fistfights broke out near Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park, where a rally for free speech put on by a pro-Trump group Liberty Revival Alliance was scheduled. Rocks were thrown, and sticks and skateboards were used to beat people. Of course, the MSM reporting is slanted.

The Los Angeles Times report on the fighting, for example, takes pains to show how a member of a “citizen militia group” originating from Montana who came to the rally to protect Trump supporters might’ve been looking for a fight. “I don’t mind hitting” the counter-demonstrators, one man tells the Times. “In fact, I would kind of enjoy it.”

The paper also interviewed a woman on the Left fed up with the violence, a vendor selling organic produce, and a guy handing out “empathy kisses.” The message, clearly, is that those on the “Right” were looking for trouble and those on the Left responded.

What the Times and other outlets don’t tell you is this was not simply a clash of “Trump supporters and counter-protesters.” Just who are the groups involved?

As some in the mainstream media tell it, on the one hand you have racist white nationalists in support of Trump. This is true. Alt-Right activists such as Nathan Damigo — who founded the white supremacist organization “Identity Europa” — can be seen delivering a vicious right-hook to a woman (who, in turn, was assaulting him). But by no means was every Trump backer at this rally for “free speech” a violent neo-Nazi.

On the other hand, as SFGate reported, several “liberal groups” were there to counter protest in opposition to Trump. But these were not just milquetoast liberals there to oppose a president they don’t like. Specifically, as the Los Angeles Times notes in a different piece, officials raised concerns about the militant “black bloc” of anti-fascist (Antifa for short) rioters. But don’t take the term “anti-fascist” on its face, as the mainstream media is wont to do. Understand who these people actually are.  “Antifa” is made up of self-described anarchists — radical left-wing thugs who employ violence and intimidation to advance their beliefs.

They’ve shown up previously at Berkeley to shut down a “free speech” event hosted by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, leaving damaged property, fires, and assault victims in their wake. They also violently disrupted a “March 4 Trump” event in March. But you aren’t hearing as much about Antifa violence as you are about the Alt-Right. In fact, some outlets are offering outright praise for Antifa.

Ask Esquire magazine and Antifa rioters are noble, anti-racist counter demonstrators — a sort of Justice League vigilante group dedicated to shutting down fascist protests.

But this is a radical movement that traces its roots back to World War II, as Mother Jones recounts in The long history of ‘Nazi punching.’ They employ so-called “righteous violence” against what they consider to be the forces of fascism. What “fascism” is nowadays seems to be a subjective definition belonging to whichever particular Antifa thugs show up en force. One might say Antifa’s violent tactics, employed around the world, are fascist.  

Here in the contemporary U.S., waves of Antifa-driven riots are on the rise in in an effort to silence President Trump and his supporters by any means necessary. Antifa thugs show up at left-wing demonstrations to breed chaos, destruction, and bloodshed. They blend in with and are sometimes aided by the crowd, as National Review’s David French explained in the aftermath of Yiannopoulos’ Berkeley event in February:

What you’ll notice (and what you’ll experience, if you ever find yourself in the middle of violent left-wing protest) is that the rioters and the “peaceful” protesters have a symbiotic relationship. The rioters break people and destroy things, then melt back into a crowd that often quickly and purposefully closes behind them. They’re typically cheered wildly (to be sure, some yell at them to stop) and often treated as heroes by the rest of the mob — almost like they’re the SEAL Team Six of left-wing protest.

The “Battle of Berkeley,” as some are calling it, was a dangerous, violent, bloody mess. Instigators, Antifa and Alt-Right, should be roundly condemned. But at the moment, the American people are only getting one side of the story from the mainstream media. The majority of the MSM’s intense focus is applied to white nationalist groups, while Antifa is being cast in a heroic role opposed to the Alt-Right’s violence. The mainstream media wax poetic on the dangers of the nationalist populist Alt-Right. They ought to be wary of normalizing Antifa’s brand of radical Alt-Left violence.

Editor’s note: The title to this piece has been updated to correct a grammatical error. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are Conservative Political Philosophy, the American Founding, and Progressive Rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

After Brexit, England’s Universities Instructed to Protect Free Speech


Reported By Andrew West March 21, 2017

Brexit

As the United States continues its descent into a wildly liberal hell in which the freedom of speech is being constantly eroded, Britain has taken a massive step in the right direction.

With the recent passage of the so-called “Brexit” bill, Britain is set to remove itself from the globalist-modeled European Union and the constraints of their oppressive regime.  With that move, Britain can now focus on their sovereignty and their citizens’ rights…including free speech.

“In a move that could have wide-reaching implications on U.K. campuses, British universities will be instructed to uphold freedom of speech as a ‘legal duty.’

“Jo Johnson, British Minister of State for Universities and Science has written to universities informing them that they will be expected to uphold free speech for their students, faculty, and visiting guests. The move is being described as a response to the rise of ‘safe spaces’ and other forms of censorship in higher education.

“According to Johnson, this means that the use of universities facilities cannot be ‘denied to any individual or body on any grounds connected with their beliefs or views, policy or objective.’

“’As part of this, the government proposes to raise the issue of freedom of speech, with a view to ensuring that a principle underscoring the importance of free speech in higher education is given due consideration,’ Johnson wrote.”

Brexit has been a flashpoint for the history of the European Union, with referendums being introduced in several countries who could possibly be vying for their freedom in the next few years.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew West

Andrew West is a Georgia-based political enthusiast and lover of liberty. When not writing, you can find Mr. West home brewing his own craft beer, perfecting his home-made hot sauce recipes, or playing guitar.

Haters Will Hate Those Who Speak the Truth


waving flag disclaimerAuthored By: Bryan Fischer | Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:40 AM

“Don’t let anybody shut you up.

– Bryan Fischer

The fundamental conflict in our culture and in our politics right

Truth The New Hate Speech

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

now is a simple one. It is conflict between those who love the truth and speak the truth and those who hate the truth and want it repressed. 

Things weren’t always this way in America. I remember hearing an expression in elementary school that we almost never hear any more: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

Those of us on the right still say it and believe it. We are for open and free discourse and open and free debate. We free-speechwant everybody to have the opportunity to say their piece in the dialogue over things that matter, whether the topic is religion, homosexuality, marriage, politics, evolution, or the climate. We are eager to have a vigorous and open exchange over these matters and let the best arguments win. 

The left isn’t. They are not interested in engaging in debate. They are interested in silencing debate, in stifling debate, in squelching debate. They are determined to muzzle anyone who would dare to question secular orthodoxy in any of these matters. 

Those who believe in a scientific view of origins that is consistent with the Scripture must be silenced. Their views must not be allowed in the classroom or in polite society. Those who believe in natural marriage must be silenced and gagged since same sex marriage is now “the law of the land.” free speech def

Those who believe in two genders or sexes instead of 58, as Facebook believes, must be silenced and hounded out of public life, business, and politics. Those who believe in sexual normalcy must be punished and driven from campuses, from bakeries, from floral shops, from the offices and boardrooms of major corporations, and made to feel unwelcome in dressing rooms, shower rooms, and bathrooms. 

This tyrannical repression of the free speech of those who represent the truth is a relatively new phenomenon in America, although it’s standard fare in repressive and totalitarian governments.  But we are far from the first generation of truth proclaimers to face this challenge. The prophet Amos discovered in his day, 2800 years ago, that those who declare the truth will not be tolerated by those who hate the truth. 

“They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth” (Amos 5:10). The “gate” was the place where the people met to discuss matters, and where city leaders met to establish public policy. It was the marketplace and the public square. What Amos discovered is that those who declare the truth are not welcome there. If you want to reprove some public policy in the quiet of your own home, or maybe even inside the four walls of your church, well, we’ll let you do that. But say the same thing in the public arena, the left says, and we will land on your like a falling safegaged-by-the-left

A lesbian activist once told me to my face, “I don’t care what you say or believe inside your own church. Your church belongs to you. But the public square,” she said ominously, “belongs to us.” 

So what are we, as the people of God and as people of the truth, to do in the face of such hostility? 

First, we are to keep praying. Amos discovered that God answers prayer and is willing to spare a nation which will not listen to us from his judgment just because believers plead with him to do it. When Amos received a vision of a coming invasion of locusts, he prayed, “O Lord God, please forgive! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” The response? “The LORD relented concerning this; ‘It shall not be,’ said the LORD” (Amos 7:2-3).

When he received another vision in which the land was consumed with fire, he interceded again for his nation. “O Lord GOD, please cease! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” The response? “The LORD relented concerning this; ‘This also shall not be,’ said the Lord GOD” (Amos 7:5-6). Our persistent prayer can be effective in staying the judgment of God over our land. 

Second, we are to keep speaking. Don’t let anybody shut you up. (I’m not talking about being rude or obnoxious; I’m talking about being silent when we don’t need to be.) Amaziah tried to silence Amos completely. “Never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary” (Amos 7:13). In other words, what you want to say is politically incorrect and so we’re not going to let you say it all. Picture1

Amos’ response? “The LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’ Now therefore, hear the word of the LORD” (Amos 7:15-16). In other words, Amos said, “I don’t answer to you, I answer to God. And he has told me to speak, and so I’m gonna speak. I will not let you silence me.” 

When we are part of a conversation where others are advancing ideas that are contrary to what is good and right, it’s perfectly appropriate and perhaps even necessary for us to say something like, “Well, I hear what you are saying, but I look at it a little bit differently. Here’s the way I see it…” 

Third, we are to keep believing. Believing that God can and will overcome all spiritual and earthly opposition and bring spiritual awakening and renewal to our land. In his time, he will use our praying and our speaking to “raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old” (Amos 9:11).

Amos’ final words are words of great promise and hope for a broken land. “I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them…I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted” (Amos 9:14-15).

Our part is to pray, speak, and believe. God’s part is to do. He will do his part. Will we do ours?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Bryan Fischer Host of “Focal Point” Connect, Follow, More Articles

Gay Man asks Christian about God’s View of Homosexuality – Christian Arrested


waving flagAuthored By Onan Coca February 9, 2017

Things are getting ugly out there, folks. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both dying painful deaths in the once-Christian West. Over the last couple of years we’ve brought you a handful of stories about Christians being arrested for saying Christians things (see here, here, here, and here), and yet it just keeps happening more and more often.

The latest example may be one of the most egregious yet.

Gordon Larmour is a 42-year old Christian who has been street preaching for seven years. This past summer he was handing out leaflets and saying, “Don’t forget Jesus loves you and He died for your sins.” One of the men passing him asked, “What does your God say about homosexuals?” Mr, Larmour responded by quoting Scripture and telling the questioner that God created Adam and Eve to produce children, which sent the young homosexual man into a rage and he began chasing the preacher.

When the police arrived they arrested Larmour (who was the one being threatened) and accused him of threatening or abusive behavior, which was ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation,’ even though the preacher had not used any foul language or made any offensive remarks. Larmour was forced to spend a night in jail and the six months of court cases and legal trouble before finally being cleared of any crime by the local sheriff.

Mr. Larmour still can’t believe what happened to him, telling the Scottish Mail, “I can’t see why I was arrested in the first place – it was a massive overreaction and a waste of everyone’s time. The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights.

“I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the Gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions – I was quoting from the Bible.”Big Gay Hate Machine

Larmour believes that the police acted wrongly and points to the court case where the young man’s friend testified that Larmour had really done nothing wrong.

“I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that.

“In court the boy’s friend told the truth – that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”Leftist Giant called Tyranny

The local courts found Larmour innocent of all charges and cleared him of all wrong doing, but it doesn’t change the injustice of this situation happening at all. Cases like this are becoming all too common in the UK and across Europe and Canada where saying the “wrong” thing can lead to arrest and fines. The world is a dangerous place for Christians (Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion), but it’s even becoming dangerous for Christians living in the supposedly “Christian” West.America are you paying attention

“Bias Response Teams” – Are They Destroying Free Speech on College Campuses?


waving flagAuthored by Michael Ware

No one likes to be silenced. No one wants to be told what they can or cannot talk about. However, this is what is beginning to happen on college campuses all across America. It is an end-around free speech, rather than blatantly removing the rights of the students.

At least this is the apparent result, according to a recent study.

Heat Street reports:

So-called “Bias Response Teams” are creeping onto university campuses across the country. This was the conclusion of the first national survey of Bias Response Teams done by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

The report identified 232 public and private American colleges and universities that had bias response teams on their campuses in 2016, affecting around 2.8 million students.

BRTs encourage students to formally report on other students and faculty members whenever they perceive that someone’s speech is “biased,” which threatens free speech.pure socialism

These Bias Response Teams are run by administrators and volunteer police personnel. And they are encouraging students to report those who may have or are expressing a biased opinion on a subject. It also includes the way people dress for Halloween and the things they share on social media.

Heat Street continues:Death of a nation

Most universities receive a variety of complaints from students, including students who encounter “offensive” yet legally protected speech, but rather than responding to these incidents fairly if there’s an actual threat, campuses with Bias Response Teams conduct an investigation and if the “respondent” is found “guilty”, invite them for a “hearing”.

FIRE Senior Program Officer Adam Steinbaugh said: “Inviting students to report a broad range of speech to campus authorities casts a chilling pall over free speech rights.

“Bias response teams solicit reports of a wide range of constitutionally protected speech, including speech about politics and social issues. These sometimes-anonymous bias reports can result in interventions by conflict-wary administrators who then provide ‘education,’ often in the form of a verbal reprimand, or even explicit punishment.”free speech def

Rather than encourage students to confront ideas they do not agree with, they are teaching them to run to the governing authority. Let “Big Brother” curtail speech that we find offensive or unpleasant; another step in the destruction of free thought and open debate. This fear tactic also destroys free speech, as it makes the consequences too high to speak out.

ALERT

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHate Trumps Free Speech

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/02/07/hate-trumps-free-speech/

Again, the tolerant left can’t tolerate any speech that doesn’t agree with them. Just ask Milo.

Violent riots at UC Berkeley shut down Milo Yiannopoulos event


waving flagPosted by    Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:40pm | 2/1/2017 – 10:40pm

https://twitter.com/GillianNBC/status/826982753879019520
 

Conservative activist and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at University of California – Berkeley on Wednesday evening.

However, his event was cancelled and massive protests and violent demonstrations broke out on campus instead.

The Breitbart News editor [Milo Yiannopoulos] was set to deliver a speech inside a UC Berkeley campus building but hundreds of protesters began throwing fireworks and pulling down the metal barricades police set up to keep people from rushing into the building. Windows were smashed and fires were set outside the building as masked protesters stormed it.

The Berkeley Police Department said people threw bricks, smoking objects, and fireworks at police officers. University police locked down all buildings and ordered a shelter in place.

“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” said Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republican member said as smoke bombs went off around him. Someone threw red paint on him.

Yiannopoulous was evacuated, and assured concerned fans he was safe.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmyiannopoulos%2Fposts%2F835263563278207&width=500

free-speechAs of this report, the demonstrations were not under control.

ABC7’s reporter stated earlier that there have not yet been any attempts to put out the fire, and that police had withdrawn from the balcony above the crowd where they had previously been stationed. According to the reporter, police issued a dispersal order to the crowd, declaring it an unlawful assembly, but they have not yet attempted to move the protesters out of the plaza.

The campus may be looking at the Mizzou effect. In the wake of #BlackLivesMatter protests and social justice activism, enrollments to the University of Missouri plummeted and donations from alumni dropped precipitously.

The tweets indicate that Americans are appalled and angry at the tactics of the demonstrators.

My son is slated to begin submitting college applications in about 2 years. UC Berkeley will not be among the schools to which he applies, and I will make point of sending a note the university explaining why that will include a description of this event.

mob-rule-of-law

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

UC Berkeley is known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement that began on American campuses in 1964. It appears that this is where it has gone to die.

Leftists Lose Their Minds Over ‘Professor Watch List’ Created To Expose Liberal Indoctrination On Campus


waving flagAuthored by Annabel Scott / Contributor / 11/30/2016

URL of the original posting site:  http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/30/leftists-lose-their-minds-over-list-that-tracks-liberal-educators/#ixzz4Rd8ldBBz

Turning Point USA, a conservative organization made up of high turning-point-usa-logoschool and college students, has compiled a website database of more than 200 professors at universities across the nation that “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

The website, professorwatchlist.org, doesn’t list just any professo­r — TPUSA requires proof.

“This watchlist is an aggregated list of pre-existing news stories that were published by a variety of news organizations,” the website states. “While we accept tips for new additions on our website, we only publish profiles on incidents that have already been reported by a credible source.”

The website also says that TPUSA is not attempting to silence the professors on the list, but instead they are exposing “specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.”Happy Happy Joy Joy

Since its recent debut, the list has seen no shortage of harsh criticism.

Slate author Rebecca Schuman deemed the watchlist “grotesque,” and called it “a stock agency for photos of self-satisfied young white people.”

“Intentionally or not, the Professor Watchlist, simply by being a self-styled watch list, has aligned itself with the ugly, frightening new political status quo,” writes Schuman. “This is, indeed, a turning point in our country, a time of fear unprecedented on this continent since the Second World War. Fear of being placed on a list, targeted as undesirable, and subjected to whatever happens next.”

Schuman also compared TPUSA members and the organization as a whole to an angry violent mob, stating, “this list watches over us at our country’s darkest turning point, poised to inflame the tinder-dry, gasoline-soaked pitchforks of a mob that has just stepped boldly into the light.”Words

New York Times author Christopher Mele also attacked the list in an article titled Professor Watchlist Is Seen as A Threat To Academic Freedom.”Did you just hear what your mouth said

Mele quotes Julio C. Pino, an associate professor history at Kent State included on the list that believes it “is a kind of normalizing of prosecuting professors, shaming professors, defaming professors.”

“The website has thin information in its entries and a less-than-smooth search function,” Professor Pino continues. “That could be a reflection of how rapidly it was created to capitalize on the political climate, particularly after the election of Donald J. Trump as president.”Leftist Propagandist

Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, also expressed his feelings on being included on the list for teaching students that “we won’t end men’s violence against women if we do not address the toxic notions about masculinity in patriarchy … rooted in control, conquest, aggression.”

“It would be easier to dismiss this rather silly project if the United States had not just elected a president who shouts over attempts at rational discourse and reactionary majorities in both houses of Congress,” writes Jensen. “I’m a tenured full professor (and white, male, and a U.S. citizen by birth) and am not worried. But, even though the group behind the watchlist has no formal power over me or my university, the attempt at bullying professors — no matter how weakly supported — may well inhibit professors without my security and privilege.”What did you say 04.jpg

Alex Shephard of The New Republic wrote that “It’s hard not to feel as though Professor Watchlist is a one-stop shop for those with less innocent intentions, potentially threatening the ideas of free speech it seeks to protect.”more-words

Despite the criticism the list has received, TPUSA founder and CEO, Charlie Kirk, fiercely defended the list on Fox News Channel’s “O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night.

“If the professors are so scared of what’s going on in their lecture halls being made public then that is their problem, not ours,” says Kirk. “We’re not trying to prevent teachers from saying anything. All we want here is to shine a light on what’s going on in our universities and the response has been incredible.”

Folks, I’ve just been CENSORED


URL of the original posting site: http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/folks-ive-just-censored

Getty Images

We know about the issues of free speech on our colleges and universities. It appears there are those who define free speech as the speech they deem acceptable. If you attempt to speak on issues to which the liberal progressive socialist left does not consent, you should be censored. Or at a minimum, the little cupcakes ask for a “safe space” where they don’t have to hear opposing views — and here we were under the impression that institutions of higher learning were supposed to be places to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Many times we’ve seen on the news and elsewhere stories of conservative speakers being denied the right to speak on college campuses. I’ve watched this and just shaken my head. And then I would ask myself, when will it happen to me?Gaged by the Left

Well, it has and I’m not happy about it at all. Earlier today, I did a radio interview with former Boston Red Sox baseball superstar pitcher Curt Schilling, and he informed me of something that’s happening at St. Louis University of which I wasn’t aware. I’m to speak on the campus of St. Louis University next week, September 29th, for the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), a student conservative organization. It appears there’s some administrator at St. Louis University who is attempting to limit the free speech of the YAF chapter on campus. I contacted my speakers bureau, Worldwide Speakers Group, who confirmed through YAF Headquarters in Virginia that a very disconcerting and disrespectful action was being taken.

As posted at the YAF website, This week an administrator at Saint Louis University (SLU) informed students organizing a YAF-sponosred lecture by Lt. Col. Allen West they were not allowed to use the words “radical Islam” on any advertisements for the event. 

The administrator also claimed West, who is a veteran of both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, does not “have experience with radical Islam.” 

These comments were made after students submitted event flyers for approval and campus officials rejected their design due to the inclusion of the words “radical Islam.”  

SLU students confirmed these details to Young America’s Foundation this week. 

The lecture, scheduled for September 29, is part of Young America’s Foundation’s Fred Allen Lecture Series that is bringing Lt. Col. West to campuses across the country this school year. 

YAF activists will not back down in the face of challenges from politically correct campus bureaucrats.free speech def

Let me make myself very clear here, whomever this misguided soul is, he or she has picked the wrong fight. This reminds me of the statement by John Kerry that if the media just didn’t talk about Islamic terrorism, it would not be an issue. This “administrator” at St. Louis University represents the most deplorable embodiment of fascism. Here we are less than a week from a weekend of Islamic terrorist attacks and this individual does not want students to have an in-depth discussion about the most serious, savage, and barbaric threat this Nation has faced — well, at least since the Barbary Pirates.

And who is this person who believes they have any right to prescribe to a campus student group what can be advertised for their lecture series? Is this what our country is coming to, and is this what parents who send their kids to St. Louis University are willing to accept? I’m honored YAF has chosen me to be the main speaker of their Fred Allen Lecture Series, and I take this responsibility seriously to educate and inform our young people of the current geopolitical situation — after all, they are our future leaders.

Now, who is this “administrator” who claims I don’t “have the experience with radical Islam” — Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot! Having served 22 years active service in the United States Army, to include combat tours of duty in the First Persian Gulf conflagration and commanding a Battalion in Operation Iraqi Freedom. And after retiring, I spent two and a half years in Afghanistan as a civilian/military advisor to the Afghan Army, based in Kandahar — the place that was the capitol of the Taliban.Death of a nation

Perhaps having served two years in Congress and sitting on the House Armed Services Committee is just not enough experience to be considered capable of addressing radical Islam. Or maybe, this “administrator” should read the article I was asked to write by Military Review, the official professional journal of the US Army, for their January-February edition that addressed solutions to defeat ISIS — a radical Islamic organization. I wonder if this “administrator” has read, as I have several times, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Explanatory Memorandum for their engagement in North America — the United States. Many nations, except the United States, have declared the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist group.

Bottom line, I want to know who this “administrator” is, and I demand he or she contact me directly. Sir or Ma’am, I’m calling you out, and you tell me what about my service and experiences, in and out of uniform, disqualify me from addressing the issue of radical Islam, or Islamo-fascism, Islamic jihadism, or Islamic terrorism? The better question is, what do you think makes you experienced or qualified to make any judgement on me?

Doggone right, I along with the YAF activists will not back down from this challenge. And if this is just a case of ill-conceived political correctness, we’ll rectify that. But, if this is a case of the influence of stealth jihad radical Islamic campus organizations such as the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you will be exposed. And I recommend to the President of St. Louis University, you do not want it known that a radical Islamic organization is dictating speakers on your campus — that is not the type of PR you really want.

I’m coming to St. Louis University next week, Thursday, September 29th. I’ll be discussing radical Islam and its affects upon freedom in the United States and across the globe. I’ll use my intellect, experiences, and historical reading to share with students so they can be better educated and informed. If someone wants to protest a retired Army officer exercising First Amendment free speech on a university campus — feel free, but I’ll take pleasure in easily defeating you in an intellectual engagement — because I do have experiences and historical knowledge.

Again, I want this administrator to contact me. It’s not that hard — that is, unless you’re truly the coward I sense that you are!

West Virginia College Shuts Down Young Americans for Liberty Recruitment


waving flagBy Michael Ware September 15, 2016

cfiles40604-633x450

It is a popular misconception that the left is open to free speech and free ideas. And this is true as long as you agree with them. If you are a leftist, then, by all means, speak as loud and proud as you can. But if you are a conservative, Christian, or believe in limited government, then you have to be silenced.

This attitude was once again on display recently.

The Washington Times reports

Employees at a public university in West Virginia told a student to stop promoting his conservative club on campus because he was being “too outgoing.”

Dustin Winsky, a senior at Fairmont State University, was recruiting students to join the school’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter on Aug. 30, when campus police approached him and told him to shut down the operation.

The authorities reportedly said his efforts to talk to students about liberty and limited government were “too outgoing.”Different Free Speech Ideologies

What they actually meant was that they thought that Winsky was doing too well. He was gaining support. People were listening and starting to understand what it was he was saying. He was winning students over. So, the same reason that the left does not want Christians to display or evangelize publicly, they wanted this young conservative silenced.free speech def

But, thankfully, this is not where the story ends.

The Times continues 

Young Americans for Liberty responded to the affront by spearheading a “Fight for Free Speech” campaign, which will identify and attempt to reform universities with unconstitutional speech codes.

“I’m thrilled to see Young Americans for Liberty leading the national Fight for Free Speech campaign on campuses nationwide,” YAL Executive Director Cliff Maloney Jr. said in a statement.

“Universities should be a place for open dialogue and we will continue this battle to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protected — not just on college campuses, but everywhere in America,” he said.

Victory here is the only option. If they can silence us, we have no chance of getting our country back on track.When tolerance becomes a one way street

On October 1st the USA Will Hand Over Control of the Internet, Endangering Free Speech – Call Congress Now!


waving flagBy Bethany Blankley September 7, 2016

obama- Marxist tyrantObama has once again broken federal law by instructing the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to relinquish U.S. control of the Internet’s Domain Name System to a ‘privatized’ international body, which will take place on October 1, 2016.

  • Call your senators: 202-224-3121.

  • Tell them to pass S.3034,“Protecting Internet Freedom Act.”

  • The United Nations and other countries have no authority to control access to information and eliminate Americans’rights protected by the First Amendment.

  • Obama broke the law. Americans have a constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press.

Tyrant Obama

icann

Here’s what happened.

Congress ordered a federal agency (NTIA) to not let a government contract lapse– especially one that includes the IANA function (comparable to an “Internet phone book”), which has been managed by a non-profit organization in California since 1998. The agency chose not to comply with a Congress mandate. Meaning, a federal agency run by unelected bureaucrats ignored elected members of Congress, which is illegal. And Obama is doing nothing about it.

Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) Administrator, Lawrence E. Strickling, confirmed that “the NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract to expire as of October 1.” Because the agency did not comply with Congress, and failed to renew its contract before the end of this month, the government will be illegally allowing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to take over management of the IANA function.
(ICANN is “the private (non-government) non-profit corporation with responsibility for IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions, the services previously performed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).”) The Commerce Department does not have the authority to “turn over control of the Internet to ICANN.” It’s against federal law.

The Washington Examiner reports that:

“the feds are constitutionally prohibited from transferring federal property without approval from Congress. A coalition of 25 advocacy groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Action sent a letter to Congress making those points last week.”

In response, the coalition of 25 advocacy groups maintain:kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204

“Congress twice enacted appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds ‘to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] … with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] functions.’

“We agree that Internet governance should work from the bottom up, driven by the global comm- unity of private sector, civil society and technical stakeholders. But that “multi-stakeholder” model is fragile. Without robust safeguards, Internet governance could fall under the sway of governments hostile to freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

“If NTIA allows the contract to lapse, it will have violated federal law (31 USC § 1341(a)(1)(A). See also 31 U.S.C § 1350).”

Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R introduced S.3034 on June 8, 2016. The bill has been read twice and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which is ridiculous. It’s now the first week in September and the Senate still has not acted. If the Senate does not act they will be allowing a government agency to again break federal law and the very system the U.S. government created. This will end the U.S. government’s “historic role as a guarantor of Internet governance,” and eliminate any constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bethany Blankley

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America from the perspective of an evangelical and former communications staffer. She was a communications strategist for four U.S. Senators, one U.S. Congressman, a former New York governor, and several non-profits. She earned her MA in Theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her BA in Political Science from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley facebook.com/BlankleyBethany/ & BethanyBlankley.com.

Professors investigated for presenting opposing viewpoints


 waving flagBy Ashe Schow  (@AsheSchow) 6/22/16  Writer, The Washington Examiner

Complaints about professors’ teachings were made to Northern Colorado’s “Bias Response Team

Two professors at the University of Northern Colorado were investigated after students complained that they were forced to hear opposing viewpoints. The complaints were made to Northern Colorado’s “Bias Response Team,” an Orwellian office on campus that asks students to report their peers and professors for anything that upsets or offends them. When the news outlet Heat Street made an open records request for some of the complaints, it discovered that two students had become so upset about having to hear an opinion they disagreed with they filed reports with school administrators.AWWW Poor Baby

And rather than telling the students to buck up because they might hear those opinions outside of college or on the news or in the media, the schools told the professors to stop teaching that there’s an alternate viewpoint.mental illness

One professor instructed his students to read an article from the Atlantic written by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s president Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt titled “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The article explains that allowing students to hide from controversial and upsetting ideas (like through the use of “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”) actually harms those students by not allowing them to confront those opinions.

After reading the article, the professor asked his students to address controversial topics such as abortion, gay marriage, global warming and transgenderism. The professor made no indication as to what his opinion on the matters was, but one student, who identifies as transgender, was upset that the professor even referenced the opinion that “transgender is not a real thing, and no one can truly feel like they are born in the wrong body.”extra bowl of stupid

Instead of learning how to confront this opinion and be able to adequately teach someone how they are wrong to believe that, the student felt they shouldn’t have had to hear it in the first place.

“I would just like the professor to be educated about what trans is and how what he said is not okay because as someone who truly identifies as a transwomen [sic] I was very offended and hurt by this,” the student wrote in their complaint.mental illness

Never mind that the professor wasn’t even expressing his own opinion — this student just wanted the discussion shut down. And the school obliged.Gaged by the Left

A member of the Bias Response Team “advised [the professor] not to revisit transgender issues in his classroom if possible to avoid the students expressed concerns.” He was also told “to avoid stating opinions [his or those of the authors] on the topic as he had previously when working from the Atlantic article.”Assault

This is what America’s colleges are becoming.

Another Northern Colorado professor was also investigated by the BRT (notice how the acronym sounds like “brat”) for assigning controversial reading on homosexuality.

“Specifically there were two topics of debate that triggered them and personally felt like an attack on their identity (GodHatesFags.com: Is this harmful? Is this acceptable? Is this Christianity? And gay marriage: Should it be legal? Is homosexuality immoral as Christians suggest?),” the BRT’s report said.

As with the other complaining student, this one felt the class should not have to hear an opinion counter to what they believe.

“I do not believe that students should be required to listen to their own rights and personhood debated,” the student wrote. “[This professor] should remove these topics from the list of debate topics. Debating the personhood of an entire minority demographic should not be a classroom exercise, as the classroom should not be an actively hostile space for people with underprivileged identities.”Did you just hear what your mouth said

From the questions posed to the class about the topic, it was pretty clear the professor did not agree that homosexuality is immoral. No matter — universities are now expected to be debate- and discussion-free zones.definetly

The professor was not found to have discriminated against anyone, but a member of the BRT met with him to “have a conversation … [and] listen to his perspective, share the impact created for the student and dialogue about options to strengthen his teaching.”mental illness

Because one student in one class was offended, the professor has to change his teaching method. What it means is that our institutions of higher learning are no longer run by adults.Words are suppose to hurt

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberal Gun Control Arguments SHUT DOWN With 1 EPIC Meme


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/gun-control-shut-down/

In the social media gun control wars of 2016, the great liberal argument has been that the Second Amendment was designed by founding fathers who simply couldn’t foresee a gun like the AR-15 being invented.

Never mind, of course, that the AR-15 wasn’t used in the Orlando terrorist shooting, or the fact that Democrats and liberals know so little about guns that they can barely talk about them without making a serious mistake.

There’s also the fact that they’re discounting that the founding fathers didn’t put it that way when they wrote the Second Amendment, as a new meme pointed out.

Exactly:

musket meme eric

The Second Amendment does not read“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the gun looks really scary and fires bullets that aren’t musket balls, and you can load more than one bullet at a time, and — really, why do you need a gun? Let’s pass some gun control laws.”

The Second Amendment wasn’t just an afterthought for the founding fathers. It was one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights — the one amendment that would make sure all of the others weren’t violated.

The founders weren’t ignorant men, either. They studied military history and knew the pace of progress. They knew that more advanced firearms were coming, and they hoped that they were writing a document for a nation that would survive hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

To say that they hadn’t seen weapons like the AR-15 coming is to dramatically underestimate their foresight.

And yet, nobody challenges the Bill of Rights on any of the other counts. Free speech is so much freer in 2016 than it was in the 1700s, but most of us don’t believe it’s time to do away with the First Amendment.

So, as this meme demonstrates — if you want to complain about the Second Amendment not being designed for modern weapons, get off the computer and write me out a letter. Or, better yet, stop complaining.

Hey Leftist Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Portland public schools ban textbooks that cast doubt on climate change


Published May 22, 2016 FoxNews.com

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, as Al Gore, former vice president of the United States, looks on during welcome reception for the Climate Action 2016 summit on May 5, 2016.  (Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, as Al Gore, former vice president of the United States, looks on during welcome reception for the Climate Action 2016 summit on May 5, 2016. (Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)

WarningThe Portland Public Schools board voted last week to ban any materials that cast doubt on climate change, the Portland Tribune reported. According to the resolution passed May 17, the school district must remove any textbooks and other materials that suggest climate change is not occurring or that says human beings are not responsible for it.

“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” said Bill Bigelow, a former Portland public school teacher who worked to present the resolution. Bigelow says textbook publishers are yielding to pressure from fossil fuels companies. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”Words

One commenter to the Portland Tribune story responded to the news, saying, “I have never seen a case for homeschooling more clearly put forward. This is further proof that public schools are not interested in education, only political indoctrination.”AMEN

A petition, meanwhile, circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) currently lists nearly 32,000 signers, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, who say, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”hysteria

Still, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says addressing the issue of global warming will help to improve public health, according to U.S. News & World Report.

“I don’t want people to think that EPA is just about big rules, or that climate change is just about polar bears,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said. “It really is about direct public health issues like asthma and kids, like cardiovascular and pulmonary disease associated with air pollution.”Picture3

The Portland decision comes weeks after Yale University announced its climate change program will close at the end of June.

The shuttering follows three consecutive years of budget cuts for the program, which was established eight years ago to conduct climate change research. The impending closure was announced in an email from the institute’s co-directors, geology and geophysics professors David Bercovici and Jay Ague, and reported by the Yale Daily News.

“While not all good things have to come to an end, sometimes they just do,” the email dated May 2 said.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Black Lives Matter Activists Destroy ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Display at Dartmouth College


waving flagby Jerome Hudson16 May 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/16/black-lives-matter-activists-destroy-blue-lives-matter-display-dartmouth-college/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Black Lives Matter / Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP

A “Blue Lives Matter” display meant to honor law enforcement during National Police Week was vandalized by Black Lives Matter activists and replaced with vestiges belonging to the anti-police group.

The Dartmouth College Republicans were granted permission on Thursday, May 12 to place their police tribute on a bulletin board in the Collis Center, according to the Dartmouth Review. The campus paper reports that display was set up on Friday afternoon and was being guarded by members of the conservative student group.

On Saturday morning, Collis Center employees noticed that the “Blue Lives Matter” display had been removed and replaced with Black Lives Matter posters. Collis Center employees reportedly took down the Black Lives Matter posters and gave the College Republicans permission to repost their Blue Lives Matter tribute. The College Republicans decided to place new signs on the bulletin board. “We will not be silenced, Blue Lives Matter,” the new signs read. Collins Center employees also posted a sign on the bulletin board that said, “Bulletin Board Reserved for the College Republicans. Do not post.”

In response to the new signs, Black Lives Matter activists reportedly posted their own new signs across from the College Republicans’ refurbished display. “You cannot co-opt the movement against state violence to memorialize its perpetrators. #blacklivesmatter,” one Black Lives Matter sign read.Words

On Sunday, Dartmouth College President Philip J. Hanlon addressed the vandalism at the school in a school-wide email, calling the incident “an unacceptable violation of freedom of expression.”

One Black Lives Matter activist told the Dartmouth Review that she removed the Blue Lives Matter sign because it condones “police brutality against black individuals” in America.

“It was taken down by students and replaced because it actively co-opted a movement that is supposed to comment on police brutality against black individuals in this country,” said Mikala Williams, one of the students who replaced the College Republicans’ display. “It took that and by framing that as ‘Blue Lives Matter,’ it normalizes and naturalizes violence against people of color in this country. And that is not okay. That is in no way okay.”Picture4

On Friday, the Dartmouth College Republicans posted a Facebook message calling on the student body and people across the country to honor the challenging work of law enforcement officers.

dart

“We hope that the Dartmouth community and the United States at large joins us in appreciation of the challenging work that law enforcement officers perform,” the letter says.

 Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson
Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Chicago Students Now Required To Adopt Transgender Newspeak


waving flagReported by Photo of Peter Hasson Peter Hasson; 05/12/2016

Under a new set of guidelines rolled out last week by Chicago public schools, children will now be required to address transgender students and employees by their preferred name and pronouns — or face the consequences. Transgender students and employees can choose their preferred bathroom, locker room, name and pronouns, and everyone else is required to affirm the individual’s new identity, according to the guidelines.

Trangender students and adults in the CPS system can require their peers to adopt gender neutral terminology, such as using the pronoun “ze” instead of the usual “he” or “she.”

“Preferred Gender Pronoun (PGP) is the pronoun or set of pronouns that an individual would like others to use when talking to or referring to that individual,” the guidelines state.

Common examples include, ‘they,’ ‘their,’ ‘ze,’ ‘he’ and ‘she.‘”definetly

Students or employees who consciously use the “wrong” pronouns will be in violation of school policies on comprehensive non-discrimination, Title IX and sexual harassment, and student code of conduct.

According to the new guidelines:

the intentional or persistent refusal by students or school staff to respect a student’s gender identity (for example, intentionally referring to the student by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to the student’s gender identity) is a violation of these Guidelines, the Student Code of Conduct, and Comprehensive Non-Discrimination, Title IX and Sexual Harassment Policy.

CPS warns that “violations will result in appropriate consequences for offending staff and students.”

What did you say 07.jpg

Under the guidelines, schools cannot require transgender individuals to obtain a court order or gender change before forcing the new vocabulary upon students.What did you say 04.jpg

The guidelines explain that the CPS system is adopting a “Gender-affirming approach,” described as “a framework used to create an environment in which transgender and gender nonconforming youth are able to live as the gendered person they identify themselves.”

“The guidelines released today will help ensure every student and adult in the CPS family can participate in an environment of complete tolerance and respect,” CPS Chief Education Officer Dr. Janice K. Jackson said in a press release.delusional file

Under the guidelines, every CPS employee is required to ensure “that any incident of discrimination, harassment, or violence is given immediate attention, including investigating the incident and taking appropriate corrective action.”

CPS employees are seemingly prohibited from telling parents that their child switched genders at school.

According to the guidelines for transgender students:

[W]hen speaking with other staff members, parents, guardians, or third parties, school staff should not disclose a student’s preferred name, pronoun, or other confidential information pertaining to the student’s transgender or gender nonconforming status without the student’s permission, unless authorized to do so by the Law Department.delusional file

The new guidelines come as the Michigan State Board of Education weighs a similar set of guidelines that would push schools to allow schoolchildren to choose their name, gender and bathroom without parental or doctoral input.

CPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: