Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

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?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reported by Joy Pullmann  29, 2020

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

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

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

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

Just Plain Hiding the News They Can’t Use

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of Biden Family Corruption

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of Election Tampering and Errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spygate

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

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

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

Seemingly Random Acts of Censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punishing the Conservative Base While Monetizing Them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reported By Warner Todd Huston | December 10, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon Extended – Payback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

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

Richard Stengel (Jemal Countess / Getty for TIME)

The New York Post reported last week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reported by JOSHUA CAPLAN | 

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

Lancaster Bureau of Police Chief Jarrad Berkihiser / Facebook

WHTM reports:

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorace has not commented publicly on the accusation.

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


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

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

What are the details?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK |

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

Ann Coulter / AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

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

LISTEN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Viva la Revolucion

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

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

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

Democrats LOSE Another Huge Billionaire Supporter


Posted By Kevin Jackson | 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg recognizes how the Left shuts down the First Amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Bloomberg.

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg continues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Written by Wes Walker on June 10, 2019

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

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

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

He signed it into law:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: