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.
Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’
Reported By Emily Wood, Christian Post Reporter| Tuesday, May 04, 2021
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.
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.
Liberal Writer Compares Gina Carano’s Firing To Hollywood Blacklisting Communists; Fans Start Petition To Get Her Rehired
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.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Dr. Death
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Heart Breaking
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Mickey Mouse Operation
“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?
School Principal Sues After Being Fired for Sharing Conservative Political Posts on Personal Facebook Page
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.
A.F. Branco Cartoon Extended – Payback
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Free Speech Ass-sassin
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.
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.
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.
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.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Viva la Revolucion
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 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.
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.
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:
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:
Sarah Lawrence College “students of color” protesters issue 9-pages of demands, target conservative professor
Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:06pm
“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.
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):
- 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.
- 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.
- We demand there be at least three more courses offered in African diasporic studies taught by Black professors.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
(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]
Masterpiece Cakeshop wins again – Colorado drops prosecution for refusal to bake ‘gender-transition cake’
Posted by William A. Jacobson | 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”
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 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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
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:
“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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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:
Reported by Steve Jordahl (OneNewsNow.com) | Thursday, November 15, 2018
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!
Shut Up and Conform
Project Veritas with their hidden camera has busted social media giant twitter for shadow banning conservatives views.
Reported by Dan Backer | Attorney | 6:56 PM 09/22/2017
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.