Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

FOOT FOR THOUGHT for Monday May 17, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT May 11, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT May 7, 2021


Preacher arrested for preaching biblical marriage from Genesis on a London street


Reported By Emily Wood, Christian Post Reporter| Tuesday, May 04, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/preacher-arrested-for-preaching-biblical-marriage-on-uk-street.html/

A union flag is seen near the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain April 18, 2017. | REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

A Christian street pastor was arrested last month for causing “alarm and distress” in London for preaching about the biblical definition of marriage being between one man and one woman from Genesis 1. Pastor John Sherwood, the 71-year-old minister of the Penn Free Methodist Church in north London, was reportedly approached by police officers in the northwest London town of Uxbridge on April 23 while preaching on the final verses of Genesis 1. He allegedly stated that God designed families to have a mother and a father and not two parents of the same gender.

Pastor Peter Simpson, who was preaching alongside Sherwood, shared about the arrest in a blog for The Conservative Woman. He explained the need to raise awareness of how police in Great Britain are “clamping down on the freedom of Christians to proclaim in public places the teachings of the Scriptures.” He said preaching the Gospel together in public is something the two pastors often do. 

Police approached Sherwood and said three complaints had been received about his preaching and accused him of causing “alarm and distress” to members of the public. Another police officer spoke to Simpson and explained the need to avoid any homophobic statements to avoid offending people, even though there is no law protecting people from being offended. 

“I responded that the police would have no objection whatsoever to a Pride parade being held in Uxbridge, yet that would be highly offensive to Bible-believing Christians,” Simpson wrote. “The officer did not appear to appreciate the logic behind this argument.”

Police officers urged Sherwood to come down from a step ladder he was preaching from as he “respectfully” informed police he has freedom of speech and people have the freedom to ignore him and continue walking if they disagree with his statements, Simpson wrote. Sherwood resumed preaching and spoke of the “precious right to freedom of speech,” which is traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights in 1689. Onlookers again accused him of making homophobic statements and hate speech. Sherwood initially refused the arrest and argued he was engaged in lawful activity and had not committed a crime, Simpson said.

A video recorded by someone in the crowd showed Sherwood shaking his head at the officer, refusing to come down from the small step ladder.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MNe8ZdC66jU

The officers proceeded to pull the 71-year-old pastor down from the ladder as he resisted arrest and seemingly lunged at an officer as multiple officers handcuffed him and arrested him. A lady in the crowd was heard saying, “it’s a Christian country, let him speak,” while Simpson noted that others in the crowd had accused him of hate speech. 

Sherwood stayed overnight at a police detention center and was released around noon the next day after being detained around 21 hours. 

“This arrest of a faithful minister for doing nothing other than declaring what the Bible teaches about one of the important moral issues of our time reveals a dangerous assault upon freedom of speech and, not least, upon the freedom of Christian pastors to declare in public all that the Bible teaches,” Simpson wrote. “The State has no right to designate that some parts of God’s word are no-go areas.”

“Whatever one’s personal views on homosexuality might be, it is surely pertinent to ask what kind of nation have we become that the minister of a Christian church is arrested for upholding in the public square the very truths which Her Majesty the Queen promised to uphold in her Coronation Oath in 1953, with a Bible in her hand?” Simpson continued. 

A file has been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which may mean further action will be taken, Premier Christian News reported. 

“A number of other people also approached the officers with concerns about the man’s language,” a spokesperson for the Met Police told the outlet. 

“Officers spoke with the 71-year-old man and he was subsequently arrested on suspicion of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.”

The pastor’s arrest comes less than two years after a 64-year-old Nigerian street preacher was awarded £2,500 (over $3,000) in damages from British authorities due to false arrest, imprisonment and unlawful detention after he was accused of hate speech and his Bible was confiscated by police in February 2019.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT May 3, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT April 26, 2021


MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT April 22,2021


MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT April 19, 2021


MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT | Friday, April 16, 2021


MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


Gallery

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


More Food for Thought


MORE Food for Thought


What Do You Think?


Some Thoughts to Think About


What Do You Think?


IMAGRS THAT SPEAK VOLUMES


More Politically FREE SPEECH


What Do You Think?


More Politically INCORRECT Free Speech


Liberal Writer Compares Gina Carano’s Firing To Hollywood Blacklisting Communists; Fans Start Petition To Get Her Rehired


Reported By  Ryan Saavedra |  | DailyWire.com

US actress Gina Carano arrives for Disney+ World Premiere of “The Mandalorian” at El Capitan theatre in Hollywood on November 13, 2019. NICK AGRO/AFP via Getty Images

A liberal writer at New York Magazine is comparing Disney’s recent firing of conservative actress Gina Carano to when Hollywood blacklisted suspected communists.

“In the late 1940s and 1950s, Hollywood studios — under pressure from the right — promised they would not ‘knowingly employ a communist,’” Jonathan Chait wrote. “This blacklist eventually became notorious, especially in Hollywood, which came to lionize its victims in several films. And yet it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the blacklist policy from the emerging current treatment of right-wingers.”

Chait highlighted the post from Carano that sparked accusations of anti-Semitism, which compared the current political state in the U.S. to Nazi Germany.

“The post in question, which triggered a social-media firestorm that quickly led to her firing and loss of representation, was not anti-Semitic by any reasonable definition,” Chait wrote. “The post simply argued (uncontroversially) that the Holocaust grew out of a hate campaign against Jews, which it then likened (controversially) to hatred of fellow Americans for their political views. … There is no hint anywhere in this post of sympathy for Nazis or blame for their victims.”

Chait argued that a “fairer and more liberal society” is able to separate the political views of an individual and the position of that person’s employer. The piece states that those in the entertainment industry should be able to work in the industry regardless of which political leaders they support.

The piece comes as thousands of Carano’s most diehard fans have started a petition to get Disney to rehire her for the “Star Wars” TV series, “The Mandalorian.”

Fox News reports:

A new Change.org petition started by fans calling for Lucasfilm and Disney to give Carano her part on the show back and to keep politics out of their artistic decisions going forward.

The petition states that the “firing celebrities over their political views has been happening way too often, and once again, Hollywood has struck down another conservative.”

“What she said may have been a little extreme, and I can even see why some people may have been offended, but her tweet was not made to incite violence or to express discrimination or hatred of any sort to any particular group,” the petition’s author writes. “And now, once again, a beloved actress has been fired for speaking her mind. This petition is for the executives at Disney. Please, why can’t you just leave politics out of the industry and press on? ‘The Mandalorian’ is a fantastic show, and Gina Carano’s portrayal of Cara Dune is a joy to watch. The Mandalorian wouldn’t be the same without her.”

“To the fans of ‘The Mandalorian,’ please. Speak out,” the petition concluded. “Disney needs to stop the trend of firing actors for controversial tweets, and just keep treating the fans to a great show. Rehire Gina Carano. Firing her isn’t justice.”

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Dr. Death

Governor Cuomo is responsible for the death of thousands of elderly in New York due to COVID.

Cuomo Emmy AwardPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Heart Breaking

Governor Walz figures kids don’t vote so they’ll get the short end of the stick this season.

Valentines Day MinnestotaPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Mickey Mouse Operation

Disney fires Gina Carano for posting a conservative view on Social Media.

Gina Carano FiredPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.
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.

MORE Politically INCORRECT Speech, While We Still Can


Getting Caught Up with MORE Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Horowitz: For the first time in our lives, free speech is about to be criminalized


Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority.” ~James Madison

We never thought this day would arrive in America. Last year, we learned that they can shout “COVID” as an emergency, and our life, liberty, and property disappear. They can shout “racism,” and our inalienable right to self-defense disappears. The last thing we had was the freedom to criticize what is happening, even if there was nothing we can do about it. Now they can shout “right-wing terrorism” or “right-wing conspiracy” and say that freedom of speech no longer applies.

Leftists in this country claim that their violence is speech and our speech is violence. That is why they glorified riots last year that burned down numerous cities, caused thousands of injuries, cost billions of dollars, and elevated their cause as the most urgent grievance in need of redress. At the same time, they are pushing to criminalize not just the violent acts and actors at the Capitol on January 6, but any view or speech or assembly predicated on views that are held by those people. This is why they seem to be taking direct shots at the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech for Americans, even as they plan to grant amnesty to those whose entire presence in this country is illegal.

As everyone focuses on the corporate world violating the spirit of the First Amendment by excommunicating anyone with conservative views, watch carefully how the governmental actors are coming very close to violating the letter of the First Amendment with the force of the “law” behind it. Big tech might have a monopoly on the internet and communications, but government has a monopoly on violence, law, and the ability to restrain our liberty. If we don’t wake up immediately, our speech and freedom to assemble will be not only censored, but criminalized.

It started on January 6, when Tom Edsall published a column in the New York Times noting, “A debate has broken out over whether the once-sacrosanct constitutional protection of the First Amendment has become a threat to democracy.” This is a tried and tested tactic of the Left – to have their columnists float a radical idea as a “debate,” while their governmental actors begin working on it in earnest.

Just take stock of what we are seeing out in the open. They are now arresting people all over the country for merely being in the Capitol, even if they didn’t engage in violence, vandalism, or theft. Had this standard been applied to Black Lives Matter, there would literally have been millions of arrests. So no, this is not just about punishing those who acted violently. The FBI is placing signs all over the country asking people to report those who were at the Capitol, something that never happened even in the most deadly BLM/Antifa riots last year, or at Trump’s inauguration four years ago in D.C.

They are militarizing D.C. with 20,000 troops, when the threat of violence against Trump’s inaugural guests four years ago was exponentially greater. They are declaring emergencies in states as remote as New Mexico with no evidence of violence present. Garrett Soldano, a leader in the anti-lockdown movement in Michigan, claims the FBI paid him a two-hour visit because a local called the FBI and claimed he is a violent extremist.

If the FBI had done this when hundreds of cities were on fire for days on end with no control among local police departments, I would just feel they are being overly cautious. Given that BLM was promoted as the leader of our civic discourse and we are all being treated like terrorists, however, we should be very scared they are coming for the First Amendment, not for national security. Remember, the Justice Department seems to believe this was a planned attack. So the hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who just came there to express their views had no idea that a few bad actors were planning this. The fact that they are hunting down anyone and everyone should scare us all.

Last week, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman said emphatically that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to sentiments he disagrees with. “This idea that saying that Pennsylvania was ‘rigged’ or that we were ‘trying to steal the election’ — that’s a lie. And you do not have the right, that is not protected speech.”

Thus, from now on, Democrats can unilaterally change election law in middle of an election – up until and including abolishing Election Day in favor of mail-in ballots – and anyone who criticizes it or organizes a rally against it is subject to prosecution? These comments would be comical if they didn’t coincide with actions taken by his party coming into power in Washington that look a lot like martial law.

In other words, if you watch the language the Left is using about our speech and the actions the Biden administration and the governors are taking, it’s quite evident that Big Tech is not the only thing we have to worry about. If nothing changes, I predict that even if Parler is able to become completely independent in the private market, the government, which has the ultimate monopoly on power, will shut it down.

Last week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the same man who is prosecuting business owners and threatening them with labor camps for earning a living, said on a conference call with prosecutors that he is investigating those from his state who merely attended the rally.

Already in 2019, Richard Stengel, the Biden transition “team lead” for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the First Amendment needs curtailment. “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,” wrote Stengal.

This is pretty bizarre coming from a side of politics that already controls 99% of all speech and big business that controls speech. What exactly are they afraid of? If anything, we are the ones who should be scared of their speech, given the monopoly they hold.

Well, George Washington already warned us about the motivations of those who clamp down on speech. “For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter,” said Washington in an address to the Continental Army on March 15, 1783.

The question facing patriots in the coming days is quite simply this: Will we allow that final domino to fall?

The Trump Purge Makes Living In America More Like Living In China 


The Trump Purge Makes Living In America More Like Living In China 

After the terrifying ransack of the U.S. capitol Wednesday during a Donald Trump “stop the steal” rally, big tech companies are joining leftist elites in the media and government in their effort to squash the Trump movement once and for all. Seizing on the backlash from the riot, they have seamlessly banned President Trump from TwitterFacebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.

What happened at the capitol was an embarrassment for our country. Now, the hypocritical outcries from Democrats, who proudly condoned left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters as they terrorized American cities all summer, are ushering in a great reckoning.

The Jan. 6 demonstrators, the vast majority of whom were peaceful, were there to protest legitimate claims of election irregularities and voter fraud. But Google-owned YouTube doesn’t want you to know that. They announced Thursday that they will ban all videos about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The one free speech haven, Parler, Apple is keying up to ban from its app store and bar from iOS devices, claiming content on the website contributed to the capitol unrest. Google has already jumped the gun, banning Parler yesterday.

Every corner of the Trump movement is being publicly purged from the internet. Thursday, Shopify stripped all online stores for President Trump, including the Trump Organization and Trump’s affiliated campaign account.

Anyone who has supported the president is in for it, as well. Rick Klein, the political director at ABC News, in a now-deleted tweet said that getting rid of Trump is “the easy part.” The more difficult task will be “cleansing the movement he commands.” Democrats have already created a “Trump Accountability Project,” an enemies list to ban, cancel, or fire anyone who staffed, donated to, endorsed, or supported President Trump and his administration.

Trump subverted the elites who run our country. He took on big pharma and China. He negotiated, renegotiated, and destroyed trade deals in his mission to put America and American workers first. He went to war with critical race theory institutionalized in our schools and in government.

He stood for things that those who run our biggest corporations and hold our highest government positions detest. For virtually his entire presidency, they tried everything to delegitimize his administration, beginning with the now-debunked Russiagate. Trump showed their corruption, and now he will pay.

The man, the administration, and his supporters will likely go down in history books as delusional and dangerous. Why? Because the left has a monopoly on power, so they can control what people see and therefore think.

As the left’s arbiters of “truth,” big tech has been banning users they don’t agree with and suppressing stories like The New York Post’s blockbuster investigation into Hunter Biden‘s laptop and sketchy deals with foreign governments and companies with ties to the Communist Chinese government. With the help of their partisan “independent fact checkers,” big tech and the media made sure average Americans never knew about this before they went to the polls.

Following the riot among Trump supporters in the capitol, Facebook removed President Trump’s video calling for peace and rule of law, claiming it instigated violence. Then Facebook de-platformed him. Trump’s speech didn’t fit the narrative that he was a pro-violence, lawlessness insurrectionist.

This disturbing reality we live in, where one political party now has the power to control the narrative in all aspects of our lives — school, work, social media, and government — might make us feel eerie echoes of living under Chinese Communist Party influence instead of in the United States of America.

Perhaps what’s most troubling, and something that we might not have even considered in the chaos of the last few days, is the long-term impact this will have on American children. Generation Z or Zoomers, aged 13 to 21, may be one of the first generations that is more influenced by what they see and read on social media and the internet than what they hear at the dinner table from mom and dad.

A Business Insider’s poll found that 59 percent of Zoomers listed social media as their top news source. While technology used to serve as a way to make information accessible, a way to have the world at your fingertips with just a quick search, it has become something much different. It is teaching the youngest and most impressionable among us that suppression is normal and personal censorship is an important survival mechanism.

Children are being taught to watch what they say and think, lest they be labeled a racist, white supremacist, homophobe, or xenophobe. Indeed, making a pro-Trump TikTok video can get your college admission rescinded and subject you to intense personal harassment. A three-second insensitive or politically incorrect Snapchat video from 2016 can get you featured in a New York Times article and your college admission rescinded, and subject you to bitter bullying.

For young people today, it’s becoming normal to see political leaders in our country deemed “dangerous” to be ousted from public platforms and ostracized from society. They watch their parents self-censor at work, fearful of backlash from employees or coworkers that could get them fired.

Americans used to support the right of people to hold and express opinions others disagree with. Yet the newest generation believes feelings are more valuable than freedom. Study after study finds that younger people are more supportive of limiting speech than are older generations.

A recent survey found that an overwhelming majority of students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison think the government should be able to punish “hate speech.” Of course, “hate speech” is simply the left’s ambiguous term for anything veering from the leftist orthodoxy on issues such as abortion, sex, race, and immigration.

Silicon Valley oligarchs have an agenda. They aren’t platforms, they are publishers, which should nullify the privileges they enjoy under Section 230. Will the Democrats who are now running our government do anything to stop big tech tyranny? Of course not.

This problem is not going away. America’s ethos of free speech and expression is going extinct at the hands of big tech and the leftists controlling media and government.

The U.S. Capitol riots are over, thanks to law enforcement. However, the censorship that followed has created a dangerous precedent.

For young people, their “normal” is beginning to feel increasingly like it’s heading towards life in China. It’s less free and tolerant than the America their parents grew up in. Imagine how much worse things will be when today’s youths are running the country.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Evita Duffy is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at the University of Chicago, where she studies American History. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, & her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1

What Big Tech Didn’t Want You To See On The Federalist In 2020


Reported by Joy Pullmann  29, 2020

Leftist media has skewed U.S. politics for decades, but Big Tech’s amplified influence over global discourse and governments is new. While Congress passed no legislation related to this political and national security emergency, we the people were held captive in lockdowns during a major election while crucial public information was filtered, hidden, and surveilled by unaccountable companies with no allegiance to the United States and obvious disdain for hundreds of millions of its inhabitants.

This is a huge social problem. Regaining our freedom to speak and to share and compare information may be the first task towards redressing our grievances against those who claim to govern us. For how can consent of the governed be truly granted when the people’s ability to inform their consent is manipulated? It cannot.

To regain our self-governance, then, we all need to develop new habits of information-gathering and -sharing. As a tiny part of and precursor to more of that effort, here is an accounting of Federalist work that Google, Facebook, and Twitter tried to keep people from seeing in 2020.

You will notice it fits the pattern of big tech censorship that big tech claims isn’t censorship: it all goes one way politically. All of it also comprises election-meddling by effectively promoting misinformation and disinformation on key voting issues.

Just Plain Hiding the News They Can’t Use

In June, a foreign think tank, NBC, and Google colluded in an attempt to demonetize The Federalist in retaliation for our coverage of Black Lives Matter rioting. The tech giant demanded we end our commenting section, and continues to refuse to allow it back. Google-owned YouTube also continues to shadowban Federalist content and choke our engagement.

In July, Google claimed it had “mistakenly” made it impossible for people to find a slew of conservative news sites, including CNSNews.com, The Washington Free Beacon, Breitbart, Twitchy, RedState, PJ Media, The Blaze, Townhall, LifeNews, PragerU, and The Daily Wire.

After the election, Instagram slapped a warning label on a post in which President Trump honored Pearl Harbor Day. Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, put an automatic “fact check” on Trump’s post that claimed Joe Biden won the election, although Trump’s post included nothing about the election results. Instagram later removed the “warning.”

In October, “Twitter suspended U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan for a post celebrating the success of the U.S. southern border wall keeping violent criminals from reaching American communities,” reported The Federalist’s Tristan Justice.

The online publisher banned Morgan, a public official, from communicating the elected president’s publicly stated priorities, telling him in an automated message the post violated the publisher’s “hateful conduct” policies. Morgan had written: “@CBP & @USACEHQ continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.” If this is hate speech, all conservatives are criminals.

Evidence of Biden Family Corruption

Infamously, Twitter and Facebook tampered with the 2020 election in October by immediately and actively suppressing public knowledge of a federal corruption investigation into Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, related to information found on a Delaware laptop.

Yesterday, the computer store owner who turned the laptop over to federal investigators sued Twitter for defamation. Twitter’s ban was predicated on alleging the laptop containing “hacked” material, even though, as The Federalist documented, Twitter regularly allows the circulation of hacked and hoax information. The laptop owner says he did not hack it, he owns it, and that Twitter claiming otherwise has significantly damaged his reputation and employment.

In October, Twitter openly admitted it was pre-emptively choking the story on their platform even before deploying their Chinese- and Democrat-funded “fact-checking” organizations to explain away what are obviously politically motivatedselectively enforced, anti-truth information operations designed to help Democrats control the United States.

Twitter also pre-emptively blocked The New York Post’s subsequent reporting on its Hunter Biden laptop scoop, despite those containing additional corroborating details, and although witnesses and additional evidence also surfaced to independently corroborate the story. Twitter banned members of Congress and the president’s campaign from posting information about the story. It kept the Post locked out of its Twitter account for weeks following the breaking story in the run-up to the election.

Lest we all become too dulled to this successful attempt to control the nation without the people’s consent because we’re all used to leftists refusing fair play and equal treatment, we all need to remember that enough Biden voters to swing the election decisively to Trump said they would have changed their votes if they knew about this corruption story. Big tech bias is not a trivial issue. It is the difference between a fair election and a corrupted one, between self-rule and a corrupted oligarchy.

Evidence of Election Tampering and Errors

From May 2018 to October 2020, Twitter and Facebook restricted posts from President Trump at least 65 times, according to a media study. They did this precisely zero times to Joe Biden (or Hillary Clinton), and it’s not because he’s the most accurate politician alive.

In June, the anti-Trump bias ridiculously caused Twitter to put a warning label on an obvious parody video about a “racist baby.” More seriously, at the same time Twitter repeatedly throttled as “false” President Trump’s claims that mail-in ballots are an insecure voting method. That is absolutely true and it made the 2020 election ripe for fraud, abuse, and contested results.

On election night, Twitter flagged a post from President Trump that said: “We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election. We will never let them do it. Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!” Twitter claimed this was “disputed and might be misleading” and banned users from sharing the tweet. Later it was shown that Pennsylvania indeed counted post-election ballots against its own law forbidding that.

On Nov. 4, Twitter slapped a “warning label” about “disputed information” in a tweet from Federalist Cofounder Sean Davis, whose offending tweet accurately summarized the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that ballots brought in after election day would be counted.

On Nov. 9, Twitter put a warning label on a quote from and link to an affidavit of sworn testimony alleging election fraud tweeted by Federalist Senior Contributor Ben Weingarten. “This claim about election fraud is disputed,” Twitter claimed, preventing people from retweeting it without adding their own comments. It later removed the choke without explanation.

In December, Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway explored the disqualifying errors in a “fact-check” done by one of Facebook’s partners of allegations of election fraud in Georgia. Facebook used the same fact-check she fisked to pre-emptively ban her article from its platform.

COVID-19

Big communications companies rabidly policed discussions about COVID-19 in 2020. Big tech seemed especially pouncy about information related to face masks. This included Amazon’s Nov. 24 ban of a book by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenstein’s book discussing the scientific evidence that mask mandates are ineffective.

It extended to repeated bans and chokes on Federalist content about masks, many by a supposed Facebook “fact check” that didn’t fact check any Federalist articles. It was just a generic fact check applied against anyone questioning the efficacy of cloth masks and generic mask mandates, even when such individuals cited scientific evidence from reputable sources.

Former White House Coronavirus Task Force advisor Dr. Scott Atlas was banned from publishing references to scientific studies on masks. CNN anchor Jake Tapper and CNN commentator Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a professor of neurosurgery, cheered Twitter on. Google-owned YouTube infamously pulled down a June interview of Atlas.

Weirdly, in April Facebook had blocked DIY cloth mask-making sites while banning the sale of medical-grade masks and sanitizer. Yet just a few months later Facebook’s blocking activities supported the use of makeshift masks made out of any material and blocked information, including from The Federalist, pointing out that all masks are not equally effective at virus and other particle filtering. Perhaps pointing out that research has found that gaiter-style or scarf masks actually may increase virus transmission may get this article banned too.

Social media bans on mask information from The Federalist included the well-read Oct. 29 article that quoted and linked to high-quality studies from reputable sources, “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID,” which was also throttled on LinkedIn.

YOU ALL MIGHT WANT TO TRY TWO NEWER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES. https://mewe.com/ and https://parler.com/

Spygate

In October, Twitter began publicly testing stronger information controls, which resulted in it warning users who tried to tweet a Federalist article breaking new information about the Spygate scandal. Spygate, of course, is the Obama administration’s documented and so far unpunished use of federal surveillance and policing powers to baselessly persecute, prosecute, and hamstring their political opponents.

The article Twitter impeded reported handwritten notes from Obama CIA Director John Brennan that showed President Obama was made aware months before the 2016 election that the Russian government may have been influencing Hillary Clinton’s false collusion smear against Donald Trump. Sean Davis reported more in that piece for The Federalist:

There is no evidence the FBI ever took any action to ensure that Russian knowledge of Clinton’s plans did not lead to infiltration of that campaign’s operation by Russian intelligence agents. The CIA referral, specifically its reference to a ‘CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell,’ suggests that the Obama administration’s anti-Trump investigation may not have been limited to the FBI, but may have included the use of CIA assets and surveillance capabilities, raising troubling questions about whether the nation’s top spy service was weaponized against a U.S. political campaign.

Seemingly Random Acts of Censorship

In September, Facebook employed abortionists to “fact-check” two videos from Live Action explaining why abortion is never medically necessary. Numerous obstetrics professionals and a national OB-GYN organization supported Live Action’s statement as accurate, but that didn’t matter to Facebook, which choked Live Action’s page.

In November, Instagram and Facebook’s sweeps caught up an innocent and completely apolitical local charity that used Facebook to coordinate donors and volunteers. Oathkeepers Causeplay may sound like it’s a conservative group, but it’s not (and even if it were, there’s nothing wrong with being conservative). It’s a group of people who dress up like TV and movie superheroes and other characters to cheer up disabled and sick children.

The act of random censorship hurt sick kids by depriving the charity of funds and volunteers. It also scared people away from associating with the charity — which, again, not only did nothing “wrong” but actively does good — out of fears they’d also lose their Facebook-mediated access to friendships and social activity. Good job, Facebook.

Also in October — see a pattern here? — Facebook users who searched for the Christian group Let Us Worship were given a warning message falsely claiming the group was affiliated with QAnon. “This is a peaceful movement from across the political spectrum and they are suppressing it by linking us to Q,” the group’s founder, Sean Feucht, told The Federalist. Facebook claimed the mislabeling was a glitch. Yet nobody shut down their traffic over their inaccurate statements despite the harm they caused others.

Again in October, Facebook demonetized the satire website Babylon Bee for making a Monty Python joke in a headline. Facebook claimed the Bee’s silly headline “Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch” “incited violence,” and refused to alter its decision after a review. In a self-parody that is impossible to top, Snopes and Twitter also frequently “fact-check” and throttle the clean satire site. I guess humor is now too conservative to allow.

It wasn’t just 2020, either. This has been going on for years. In fact, you might say Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others have been perfecting their ability to shut down non-leftist discourse and project public opinion cascades. In retrospect, earlier tech bans on speech look like dress rehearsals for the 2020 election bleep show.

In 2018, for example, The Federalist published a theologian’s story about how Facebook banned him from expressing Christian views about teaching young children about LGBT sex and gender identities. Earlier that year, Project Veritas released undercover video of a former Twitter employee verifying the company’s practice of “shadowbanning,” called that at the time because the practice was covert. In 2019, Google banned a conservative think tank from buying online advertising because a scholar affiliated with the think tank had critiqued multiculturalism.

Punishing the Conservative Base While Monetizing Them

Once a website’s content has begun to be flagged as “false” even if it is not, search engines and social media increasingly throttle traffic to the entire site, not just the flagged content. This further serves leftist information control by making publications reluctant to challenge what the unelected tech arbiters of reality have decided we must see and say. This means Google, Facebook, and Twitter ultimately don’t want you to see anything from The Federalist. They also hope you don’t notice.

“[S]tories from right-wing media outlets with false and misleading claims about discarded ballots, miscounted votes and skewed tallies were among the most popular news stories on” Facebook directly after the election, reported The New York Times. Facebook responded with deeper cuts into the reach of information from right-leaning outlets and greater amplification for articles from leftist media:

employees proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm, which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day. It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls ‘news ecosystem quality’ scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

…The change was part of the ‘break glass’ plans Facebook had spent months developing for the aftermath of a contested election.

Unnamed sources told the New York Times Facebook is working on ways to control information while still keeping users, and that the tools it has developed for this mostly affect right-leaning content. The company may also make permanent some information control mechanisms developed specifically for the 2020 election. But they have to be careful about this, the NYT reported, because when people notice the information control they stop using Facebook so much.

Right-leaning information is consistently among the most popular content on Facebook and YouTube. This means people who consume right-leaning information provide Facebook and Twitter millions of dollars because their time spent on site lures advertising. This allows Facebook to put competing information outlets out of business by siphoning away all advertising revenue while not paying for the content creation that draws the eyeballs, reinforcing their information monopolies.

Nice little racket. Tailor-made for people who don’t believe Americans ought to be allowed to make their own decisions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is “The Family Read-Aloud Advent Calendar,” and her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

School Principal Sues After Being Fired for Sharing Conservative Political Posts on Personal Facebook Page


Reported By Warner Todd Huston | December 10, 2020

Amy Sacks, who have been an educator for more than 20 years, told her Facebook followers on Thanksgiving Day that she had been fired. Sacks wrote that the Perkiomen Valley School District and Superintendent Barbara Russell had “decided that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech has no place in public schools and that teachers and administrators are unfit to serve if they hold and express political beliefs that are right of center.”

Sacks says that she was fired in July with “little explanation” other than the superintendent’s claim that she was “racist” and her social media posts were “offensive, unacceptable, and unprofessional.”

Sacks had shared several conservative memes, including one reading, “Due to Covid, we’re gonna need people to riot from home and destroy your own sh*t.” And another that showed a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer with a caption reading “the virus,” accompanied by an image of people voting reading “the cure.”

In yet another post, Sacks added a meme that showed a potato with a caption reading, “This is a potato. If this potato was running against Joe Biden, I’d vote for the potato.” Sacks shared many other memes of similar style and subject matter. But apparently her leftist boss didn’t like it.

On Thanksgiving Day, though, Sacks shared a message with her Facebook followers:

Many of you know that I am no longer the Principal of Evergreen Elementary at this time. However, the circumstances surrounding this situation have been kept quiet until now.

I am reaching out to you today to share with you that as Principal of Evergreen Elementary School I was terminated because I expressed right of center political views – PRIVATELY. Political memes caused me to lose my job. Nothing that I did was even borderline unacceptable – they were simply political viewpoints.

However, Perkiomen Valley School District and Superintendent Barbara Russell have decided that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech has no place in public schools and that teachers and administrators are unfit to serve if they hold and express political beliefs that are right of center. This cancel culture within the public school system has to stop.

I was Principal of one of the best performing elementary schools in Pennsylvania and still fell victim to being cancelled out by liberal bureaucrats who don’t believe in diversity of thought, speech, opinion, or political affiliation.

With the support of my husband and family, I have decided to challenge the school district by filing a lawsuit against them to save my job. I hope to lead by example and inspire others to stand against the erosion of our constitutional rights in America.

Sacks is now suing for improper separation. She claims that she was never warned, and never given a chance to defend herself before being summarily fired over her political views.

If you would like to see more of the memes that Sacks re-posted to her personal Facebook page, see them at the Daily Mail.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Warner Todd Huston has been writing editorials and news since 2001 but started his writing career penning articles about U.S. history back in the early 1990s. Huston has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, and several local Chicago News programs to discuss the issues of the day. Additionally, he is a regular guest on radio programs from coast to coast. Huston has also been a Breitbart News contributor since 2009. Warner works out of the Chicago area, a place he calls a “target rich environment” for political news.

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

Tag Cloud