Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


Monday, October 25, 2021

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


October 21, 2021

FOOD FOR THOUGHT


Thursday, October 14, 2021

MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT HUMOR


October 6, 2021

FOOD FOR THOUGHT for October 5, 2021


Some Food for Thought


September 16, 2021

New and Review Politically INCORRECT


FOOD FOR THOUGHT August 24, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT August 13, 2021


US street preacher arrested in London says speaking truth is now a ‘hate crime’


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Saturday, August 07, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/american-evangelist-jailed-in-uk-its-getting-very-bad-here.html/

Ryan Schiavo preaching
Ryan Schiavo, an American street evangelist, preaches in England. | Ryan Schiavo

After facing arrest and detention for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, an American evangelist is warning that “things are getting very bad” in the United Kingdom and other Western countries, suggesting that the situation has deteriorated to the point where they are “becoming communist.” 

Ryan Schiavo, who describes himself as an evangelist and missionary,” was arrested in London on July 22 for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. While Schiavo is an American, he spends a considerable amount of time in London and frequently ministers to British youth and others gathered in the public square.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Schiavo recounted the events leading up to his arrest and warned about its implications for free speech and freedom of religion in the U.K. and Western civilization as a whole. 

“I was preaching the Gospel on the streets as I frequently do, but it was about a 30-minute message, and in the course of a long message I can touch on many topics that I believe are pertinent,” he said. “At one point, I talked about the issue of homosexuality and transgenderism. I said that homosexuality is a sin; I talk about how it’s destructive, and the damage the transgender agenda is doing to children right now in the schools because it’s being pushed on children at a very young age here.”

Schiavo told CP that one of the things he said while preaching was that “the churches that have rainbow flags on them” were “not real churches.” His message drew the ire of one young woman, whom he believed was a lesbian. According to Schiavo, she was “very upset at what I had said, and so she called the police and the police came.” 

Ryan Schiavo
Ryan Schiavo, an American street preacher, is arrested by Metropolitan Police for asserting that homosexuality is a sin, July 22, 2021. | Courtesy of Ryan Schiavo

As documented in a video of his arrest, Schiavo was detained for purportedly violating Section 4A of the Public Order Act, which bans people from causing “intentional harassment, alarm, or distress.”

The law declares that “a person is guilty of an offense if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress, he — (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting.”

As Metropolitan Police officers moved in to arrest him, Schiavo declared, “It is an honor to suffer for Jesus Christ.” He predicted that “God is going to judge this country so severely” because of its embrace of LGBT ideology.

“This is because I am a Christian!” he exclaimed. “That’s why this is happening.” 

Schiavo told CP that when he was taken to jail, he was “put in a cell for 10 hours and given a mental health evaluation by the National Health Service before being released in the middle of the night.” He lamented that situations like his “egregious” detention were becoming “all too common.” 

Describing the mental health evaluation to CP, Schiavo maintained that he was asked “personal questions about my family and about my work and how I was doing physically.” Schiavo cited the fact that he had to undergo a mental health evaluation as evidence that “things are getting very bad” in the U.K. regarding freedom of speech and religious expression.

“All these institutions are working together with each other; they’re anti-Christ,” he added. “It’s time for the church to wake up and to be prepared for persecution. Freedom of speech and expression are very much under attack in the Western world, and I’m concerned that many of these Western countries are becoming communist.”

Elaborating on his mental health evaluation, Schiavo recounted that he “did talk about the issue of homosexuality and transgenderism” with the man who was questioning him. “I said to him, ‘Would you call a banana a carrot?’ And the point I was making was this is what we do with people now. We call men women and women men.”

“I didn’t say that to him. I just said, ‘Would you call a banana a carrot?’ And he looked at me and he said, ‘If somebody was offended, I would.’ And I looked at him and I said, ‘I should be the one asking you the questions.’”

Schiavo contended that his mental health evaluation, which lasted for 30 minutes, was an effort to “convince me not to talk about homosexuality in public anymore.” He told CP that “he (the mental health evaluator) wanted me to affirm him and just say, ‘OK,’ and agree, and I never did.”

The evangelist attributed his hostile treatment by the police to the fact that British law enforcement officials are “so trained to hear ‘homosexuality’ or ‘Islam’ because those are the two most protected demographics in Britain right now.” He stressed that in the U.K., “you cannot speak against homosexuality or transgenderism and you can’t speak against Islam.” 

“So if they hear those words, their antennas are up because they go through all of this pro-LGBT training … in their schooling, … at every other level of society people do here, it’s being pushed on them,” he continued. “And so when they hear that word, they’re immediately thinking ‘hate crime,’ ‘hate crime.’” 

Although he wasn’t formally charged with a crime, Schiavo’s arrest puts him “in the national police records for three years.” He’s now working with the U.K.-based Christian Legal Centre to “get this overturned.” 

“I did not commit a crime,” Schiavo insisted. “It is not a crime in the U.K. to say homosexuality is a sin in public or to say that churches with rainbow flags on them are not churches. This is protected speech.” 

In a separate interview with CP, Linda Thacker, who attends church with Schiavo when he’s in the U.K. and videotaped the arrest, explained why she decided to document his interaction with law enforcement officials on camera: “I didn’t like the security guard’s attitude toward Ryan. He seemed very hostile.” 

“We wanted to make sure that there was no kind of false accusation,” she said.

Thacker characterized Schiavo’s arrest as “a bit of a wake-up call for me,” expressing concern that “the right to have free speech and to express how we feel personally about … anyone else’s lifestyle … will put you in the position of being called a domestic terrorist or some kind of hater.” Like Schiavo, Thacker fears that the U.K. is “heading toward a communist state.” 

Before his arrest, Thacker said there had been confrontations between Schiavo, his supporters and LGBT individuals that weren’t captured on camera.

“The lesbian was very threatening and kicked his drink down the road. [She] also tried to tear my husband’s Bible out of his hands, which she didn’t manage to do, but she got a leaflet out of his Bible … and flung it into the street.” 

While Schiavo did face hostility following his comments about homosexuality, he also received support, including from an atheist, who was featured in Thacker’s video. Schiavo told CP that while the man “said that he disagreed with 99% of what I said,” he nonetheless argued to the police that ‘This man has not done anything warranting … an arrest, he’s just exercising his freedom of speech.’” 

In spite of the man’s impassioned defense of Schiavo, the street evangelist lamented that the police “never even took a statement from him.” Instead, Schiavo said, “the police only took one formal statement on the street … and it was from this young girl … [who] was upset with what I said.”

“From the beginning, they weren’t interested in getting to the truth. … It was just this one girl’s testimony that they listened to.”

Thacker seconded Schiavo’s accusation that police had conducted a one-sided investigation: “All they were interested in doing was arresting him on the grounds of this lesbian that said that she had been distressed by what was said.”

Schiavo is not the only street evangelist to face legal consequences for sharing Christian teachings about marriage and homosexuality with the British public. As CP previously reported, British Pastor John Sherwood was arrested by police in April for emphasizing the biblical definition of marriage as he preached from a step ladder in the Northwest London town of Uxbridge.

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

FOOD FOR THOUGHT August 2, 2021


Girl Tells School Board Her Teacher Wanted To Keep Woke Class Questions A Secret From Parents


Jul 27, 2021

MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS JULY 27, 2021


MORE POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS for July 26, 2021


TODAY’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS


MORE POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS July 22, 2021


Politically INCORRECT FOOD FOR THOUGHT July 20, 2021


‘America First’ Rally Canceled, California City Where It Was Planned to Take Place Issues Jaw-Dropping Statement About Where They Draw the Line on Free Speech


Reported by Jack Davis, Contributor for westernjournal.com | July 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/america-first-rally-canceled-california-city-planned-take-place-issues-jaw-dropping-statement-draw-line-free-speech/

An “America First” rally that had been scheduled for Saturday in Anaheim, California, was canceled, and city officials were jubilant over the news.

A Twitter post from the city announced the cancellation, noting that the city was a prime mover in ensuring that the event featuring Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia would not take place.

“The city of Anaheim shared public safety concerns with the operator, and those concerns were shared by the operator,” the statement said.

Then came a hint at the real reason.

“As a city we respect free speech but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect the city or our values,” the statement said.Advertisement – story continues below

When the city was called out for picking and choosing which brands of free speech were permitted, the city insisted safety concerns it did not elaborate upon were the real reason.

“Please help us share accurate information. We uphold free speech every day in Anaheim. As a city, we enjoy the same right of free speech and can note when something doesn’t align with our values. To be clear: public safety concerns are why this is not still on,” the city said in a statement.

Many on Twitter noted that this decision smacked of censorship.

Saturday’s canceled rally was to be held at the Anaheim Event Center, a privately owned facility, according to KNBC-TV.Advertisement – story continues below

The event had been scheduled at venues in two other southern California cities — Laguna Hills and Riverside — but each backed out, KNBC reported.

“I recognize this was a divisive issue in our community, and I am glad it has been resolved,” Riverside Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson said, adding that she commended a venue that canceled the event.

The Laguna Hills venue, the Pacific Hills Banquet & Event Center, is also privately owned.

However, the Riverside Convention Center, which also canceled the rally, is owned by the city. That means the cancellation could face a serious legal challenge, KNBC reported.

Greene and Gaetz did hold a protest event outside Riverside City Hall on Saturday.

“They may try to shut down our venues, but we will take this fight to them in the courts, in the halls of Congress and, if necessary, in the streets,” Gaetz said, according to KCAL-TV.

“Here’s what they need to understand,” Greene said, according to KNBC-TV. “We’re going to put America first, we will not back down.”

Lawsuits have been threatened over the cancellations.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis, Contributor,

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT July 9, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT Friday, July 2, 2021


END OF THE WEEK FOOD FOR THOUGHT June 11, 2021


FOOD FOR THOUGHT June 9, 2021


Star volleyball player — a conservative Christian — sues U of Oklahoma, claims coaches punished her for her views, violated her free speech rights


Reported by NEWSDAVE URBANSKI | June 04, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/star-volleyball-player-a-conservative-christian-sues-u-of-oklahoma-claims-coaches-punished-her-for-her-views-violated-her-free-speech-rights/

A star volleyball player and conservative Christian has filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Oklahoma, claiming coaches on the women’s volleyball team punished her for her views, excluded her from the team, and violated her free speech rights.

Kylee McLaughlin — who was the team captain and a first team All-Big 12 player for the Sooners in 2018 and 2019, according to OU Daily — named head coach Lindsey Gray-Walton, assistant coach Kyle Walton, and the school in the suit for a minimum of $75,000 in damages for financial loss, humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering, KFOR-TV reported.

The suit said that during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the death of George Floyd, the team “emphasized discussions about white privilege and social justice rather than coaching volleyball,” the station reported, adding that players were required to participate in discussions and watch a documentary on racism and slavery. OU Daily said it was the Netflix documentary “13th.”

When Kyle asked McLaughlin for her opinion on the documentary, according to the suit, she replied that while slavery was wrong, the film was slanted “left” and was critical of then-President Donald Trump. When asked for more input, the suit says McLaughlin replied with commentary directly from the documentary — that black people were incarcerated at a higher rate than other racial groups despite representing a smaller overall percentage of the population.

Following that discussion, a teammate accused McLaughlin of racism in a social media post, the suit says.

The suit adds that Gray-Walton in a 90-minute phone call “ordered” McLaughlin to remove a social media post that used a laughing clown emoji in regard to the University of Texas wanting to abolish its fight song, “The Eyes of Texas,” due to its alleged racist content and history. In addition, Gray-Walton told McLaughlin she needed to identify the “white privilege” inside her, the suit says.

Days later, the suit says McLaughlin was called a “racist and a homophobe” during a Zoom meeting with incoming seniors, coaches, and a representative from the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And despite McLaughlin’s attempt at an apology, the suit says it wasn’t accepted since it lacked sufficient “feeling.”

McLaughlin later called the University of Texas volleyball team to apologize for her “Eyes of Texas” post, the suit says.

During another Zoom meeting with Gray-Walton and other OU staffers, the suit says McLaughlin “was told she did not fit the culture of the program, and they could not trust her based on comments she had made (according to teammates) in the past …” — and she was given an “ultimatum.”

The suit says she had three choices:

1) keep her scholarship, red shirt, practice only with the coach and not the team, and receive diversity training;

2) keep her scholarship and just be a student;

3) transfer to another college “with only two weeks left before volleyball started for fall semester.”

After the meeting, the suit says McLaughlin cried for three days, could not sleep, and refused to eat. The suit added that McLaughlin initially choose to red shirt but then decided to try to transfer to UCLA, which was unsuccessful — and that a UCLA assistant coach is a friend and former assistant coach of Gray-Walton.

What’s more, the suit says that after McLaughlin tested positive for COVID-19 last September and was quarantining in a hotel, Gray-Walton contacted one of McLaughlin’s roommates and asked if she was “doing okay” living with McLaughlin and her other “conservative” roommate. The suit adds that Gray-Walton and other volleyball coaches later helped two of McLaughlin’s roommates move out of the apartment they shared while McLaughlin was in class and without any notice.

In addition, the suit says McLaughlin was given a “growth plan” from the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that included training about unlearning “classism,” “ableism,” “trans and homosexual negativities,” and “sexism.” The suit also says McLaughlin was forced to take courses on diversity and identities and privilege and race — all designed to “condition” her to “be woke.”

Soon she transferred to the University of Mississippi, the suit says.

KFOR’s report on the controversy included an interview with Oklahoma City criminal defense lawyer Jacqui Ford, who seemed decidedly unsympathetic to McLaughlin.

“What I see is that her feelings are hurt, and she’s filing a lawsuit because her feelings are hurt,” Ford told the station in what one might characterize as a condescending tone.

Image source: KFOR-TV video screenshot

Interestingly, a profile on Ford published at the hight of last summer’s rioting indicated she’s a member of the “OKC Protestors Lawyers Coalition, to serve as legal representatives for peaceful protestors arrested in Oklahoma City while exercising their First Amendment rights to free assembly and free speech.”

Ford also said in the KFOR interview that “when [McLaughlin is] creating a situation that is a hostile environment for some of her other teammates, then the coaches must act to the benefit of her team.”

The attorney added to the station that “from what I can tell she hasn’t suffered any damages. She was given options to remove herself from the situation, so she’s not damaged. I think that’s gonna be a huge obstacle for her and for her lawyers to overcome.”

OU told the station it’s aware of the suit but will not comment on pending litigation. KFOR also said it contacted McLaughlin’s attorney for comment but hadn’t received a response.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT June 1, 2021


Richard D. Land Op-ed: The First Amendment religion clauses: ‘Full-throated’ freedom or ‘mere’ toleration?


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor| Friday, May 21, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/first-amendment-on-religion-full-throated-or-mere-toleration.html/

Richard Land
(Photo: The Christian Post/Katherine T. Phan)

Last week I wrote my column on “The First Amendment: Alive and well?” in which I noted the revolutionary impact of the Amendment on religious freedom in particular and on human rights in general. 

The First Amendment has indeed proven itself to be a magnificent legal and political engine driving the cause of soul freedom and freedom of conscience in America first, and subsequently as a shining beacon of light and hope to a suppression-weary world.

This week I want to address the current tension that has arisen among various groups of Americans over what was the Founding Father’s ‘original intent,’ and how should the First Amendment be applied to today’s ever-more ethically and religiously diverse populace.  Columnist Judd Birdsall has conveniently and helpfully divided and labeled the two camps as “First Freedom” and “Article 18,” personified by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (2018-2021) and current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Pompeo was the most openly evangelical Secretary of State since William Jennings Bryan (1913-1915) in the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Pompeo, as Secretary of State, took virtually unprecedented actions and initiatives to promote religious freedom worldwide. His unprecedented efforts yielded encouraging results with two very well attended ministerial events at the State Department, including one that was hailed as the largest meeting promoting religious freedom ever held at the State Department.

Pompeo and then-President Trump were leading exponents, along with the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, of the First Freedom view that argues that religious freedom is not just first sequentially because it touches on questions of “ultimate significance and the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are there to aid and buttress the ‘first freedom’.”

Proponents of the Article 18 view, vocalized by current Secretary of State Blinken, argue that religious freedom, while crucially important, is “co-equal” with the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and peaceful redress of grievance.

I believe, however, based on my observation and experience, that there is disagreement on an issue of fundamental importance at stake in this debate.

I had the privilege of serving as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 2001-2012. This Commission, set up by the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act, is an independent, federal government commission, not under the State Department or Congress, charged with monitoring the state of religious freedom in every country in the world. They are required to write an annual report about the state of religious freedom in each country, followed by recommendations to both the President and the Congress on ways in which American foreign aid can, and should be, used to promote religious freedom.

The Commission is structured to be extremely bi-partisan. When you have a Democrat president, for example, he appoints three commissioners and the Democratic leader in the House and in the Senate nominate one commissioner each and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate nominate two each. So, the President’s party has a one-vote majority (5-4) and it takes six votes for the Commission to act.

During my years there, we would periodically undertake fact-finding trips to various countries around the world to measure for ourselves how much religious freedom was actually afforded to citizens in those countries. Undoubtedly the most memorable fact-finding trip we undertook during my tenure on the Commission was an almost two weeks visit to Communist China and Tibet in 2005.

This visit took place during what turned out to be a temporary “spring of hope” when the Chinese Communist government appeared to be relaxing many of its very oppressive policies against Christians in that country. Alas, the promised reforms were still-born and the situation has degenerated drastically for all religious faiths in China, with the Uyghur Muslims suffering what can only be called a genocidal policy.

Invariably, on these site visits, we Commissioners went to great lengths to make it crystal clear to the host country that the USCIRF standard was not America’s First Amendment standard that guaranteed complete religious liberty and freedom from government interference with people’s religious free expression rights. We often said that we would recommend it, but we could not demand it because that would interfere with the host nation’s sovereignty.

The USCIRF standard was the international one – the one codified in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, which reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, this right includes freedom to change his religious belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.

So, what is the difference between the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration’s Article 18? The First Freedom position legally restricts the government from interjecting itself into the religious experience and practice of its people.

Quite simply, the First Amendment guarantees people from government interference with their religion. The Article 18 position merely guarantees some level of toleration for dissenting faiths in a society where Islam or Communist oppression may take over and rescind government support or toleration. 

For example, when we were in China it became apparent that the Chinese officials were increasingly irritated that we were not more impressed with the comparatively greater toleration they had been granting people of faith.

In our final exit dinner with the Chinese officials, I was designated to explain the Commission’s position. I did so in the following way: “It has become apparent to us that you are frustrated that our team has not been more impressed with the greater degree of toleration you have been affording many religious groups in your country. We have noticed.  However, while it is a bigger cage, and it is a gilded cage, it is still a cage. And that is toleration, not freedom.”

Sadly, history has proven our position correct since the Chinese have cracked down drastically and have made the cage very small.  

Under Article 18, each country could make Islam or some other religion, the official state religion supported by the people’s taxes. Under the First Freedom system that would not or could not happen.

In other words, under the First Freedom position, the people are sovereign and no religion can discriminate against them or hamper their mission. 

As Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote over a half-century ago in the famous Supreme Court prayer decision (School District of Abington, Pennsylvania et.al V. Schemp et.al):

“The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government neither engage in, nor compel religious practices, that it effects no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion. . .”  then Justice Goldberg went on to declare that “the attitude of government toward religion must be one of neutrality.” Justice Goldberg then went on to say that even “untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to approval of results which partake not simply of that non-interference and non-involvement with the religious which the constitution demands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but it seems to me “are prohibited by it.”

Justice Goldberg warns, quite correctly, that even with the government neutrality required by the First Amendment freedom from government interference in religion must be carefully monitored. With mere toleration, you will always have government abuses against religion.

The conflict between First Freedom advocates and Article 18 supporters is clearly a “full-throated” freedom vs. “mere” toleration debate. Those who deny that this is the case either fail to comprehend the problem, or they support mere toleration.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Dr. Richard Land, BA (magna cum laude), Princeton; D.Phil. Oxford; and Th.M., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, was president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) and has served since 2013 as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. Dr. Land has been teaching, writing, and speaking on moral and ethical issues for the last half century in addition to pastoring several churches. He is the author of The Divided States of AmericaImagine! A God Blessed AmericaReal Homeland SecurityFor Faith & Family and Send a Message to Mickey.

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?

Tag Cloud