Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Free Speech’

Additional Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday September 18, 2017


Berkeley’s Overreaction to Conservative Speaker Is Incredibly Pathetic


Reported By Andrew West | September 14, 2017

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday, September 1, 2017


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


Indefensible

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

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

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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

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

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

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017

Order here!

Order here!

Order here!

Order here!

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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Keep Her In!

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

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

Political Cartoon by Antonio F. Branco ©2017.

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

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


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM

Trump Team Sends Gifts To Students Who Had Yearbook Photos Censored


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the post below:

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent.

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

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


Reported By Onan Coca | June 21, 2017

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

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

After reading the First Amendment out loud, Feinstein said,

Legal expert, Professor Eugene Volokh disagreed arguing:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Onan Coca

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T TheBlaze

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Today’s TOWNHALL.COM Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Today’s TOW Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Mr. Trump, Tear Down This Wall!

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

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

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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


At A Campus Near You

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

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

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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

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


Reported  By Andrew West | April 19, 2017

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

california

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

The new fascism is purely a liberal construct.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew West

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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


The Opposition

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

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


Reported By Andrew West March 21, 2017

Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew West

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

Haters Will Hate Those Who Speak the Truth


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

“Don’t let anybody shut you up.

– Bryan Fischer

The fundamental conflict in our culture and in our politics right

Truth The New Hate Speech

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

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


waving flagAuthored By Onan Coca February 9, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


waving flagAuthored by Michael Ware

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

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

Heat Street reports:

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

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

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

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

Heat Street continues:Death of a nation

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

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

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

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

ALERT

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHate Trumps Free Speech

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

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

Violent riots at UC Berkeley shut down Milo Yiannopoulos event


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mob-rule-of-law

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folks, I’ve just been CENSORED


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

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Virginia College Shuts Down Young Americans for Liberty Recruitment


waving flagBy Michael Ware September 15, 2016

cfiles40604-633x450

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

This attitude was once again on display recently.

The Washington Times reports

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

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

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

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

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

The Times continues 

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

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

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

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

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


waving flagBy Bethany Blankley September 7, 2016

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

  • Call your senators: 202-224-3121.

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

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

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

Tyrant Obama

icann

Here’s what happened.

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

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

The Washington Examiner reports that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bethany Blankley

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

Professors investigated for presenting opposing viewpoints


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what America’s colleges are becoming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberal Gun Control Arguments SHUT DOWN With 1 EPIC Meme


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

Exactly:

musket meme eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portland public schools ban textbooks that cast doubt on climate change


Published May 22, 2016 FoxNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

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


waving flagby Jerome Hudson16 May 2016

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

Black Lives Matter / Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dart

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

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

Chicago Students Now Required To Adopt Transgender Newspeak


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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the new guidelines:

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

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

What did you say 07.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

According to the guidelines for transgender students:

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

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

CPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

YES: This SIGN Should Be On EVERY Street Corner In The U.S.


waving flagPublished on May 9, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/05/yes-sign-every-street-corner-u-s

You are going to LOVE this.

Do you think this sign needs to be on every street corner and posted in every college and ‘safe space’ in America?

qmeme_1462840862239_376

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

More Free Speech Stolen by Leftist/Liberal/Socialist: In Wellesley, it’s curtains for three dancing Trumps


waving flagBy Nestor Ramos Globe Staff  April 15, 2016

URL of the original posting site: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/15/wellesley-curtains-for-three-dancing-trumps/59gKxaYkGDHwKZYou90J4K/story.html

Wellesley 11-year-olds Christian Mattaliano, left, Marc Maggiacomo, center, and David Maggiacomo, right.

So at the morning show for students and staff on Wednesday, they strapped on three officially licensed Donald J. Trump masks from an Internet vendor called Fathead and started dancing.

But not everyone was amused.Militent Radical liberalism socialism

The wordless, two-minute act drew at least one complaint to the principal. And a few hours before the evening performance, the boys were given an ultimatum: Ditch the masks, or sit out the show. The Bobblehead Boys, as they’d come to be known, were no more.

“The bobblehead is the act,” said Maryellen Maggiacomo, whose twin boys, Marc and David, are two-thirds of the trio. No Trump head, no show.

For the boys, it was confusing and upsetting, said Laurie Mattaliano, whose son Christian completed the trio. “They assume they did something wrong.”

And for the adults, the notion that someone would find offense in the benign gyrations of three fifth-graders is evidence that this overheated election cycle has made America grate on people’s nerves.

“No words were spoken. It’s just pop culture. The skit took no stance in support or defamation,” Mattaliano said. And both mothers said the nature of the complaint — whether it had come from someone offended on behalf of Trump or by him — was not made clear to them.

And so a dance act featuring the face of a presidential candidate who decries political correctness in all its forms was silenced so as not to offend anyone.free speech def

David Lussier, the Wellesley school superintendent, declined to say who had complained or why.

“I think it’s so important for us to be seen as nonpartisan in a highly charged election environment,” Lussier said. And though staff vetted the performances beforehand, he said a more thorough review would have weeded out the dancing Trumps and another skit that featured a Trump-Marco Rubio dance-off before they ever made it to the stage.

“We wanted to make sure that nothing we are doing would be perceived as biased in some way,” Lussier said. “You’re not seeing Democratic candidates certainly.”More Words

But how the masks — official Trump paraphernalia, said Mattaliano, who spent about $70 for them online — and the dancing, devoid of words or context, might qualify as satire was unclear.

“They see Trump in the news,” Maggiacomo said. “There was no political agenda on our boys’ part.”

Christine Norcross, whose son Andrew was Rubio in the dance-off skit, said the performance was a big hit in the morning. But at 2 p.m., the phone rang.

“A parent took offense to it,” she remembers the principal telling her, because the skits were critical of the Republican Party.Picture5

Norcross said she was unsure how the skits could be perceived as attacking the Republican Party — something that certainly wasn’t intended. “I’m so happy that he even knows who’s running for president,” Norcross said.

The boys changed their routine on the fly to feature late night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel.

Maggiacomo said she loves Fiske elementary dearly and admires the staff — she’s sent five kids there. And, she said, the school’s interim principal, Rachel McGregor, was put in a tough position once the complaint came in.

But she said she wondered why politics should be off-limits at a public school that’s ostensibly trying to prepare kids for the world.

“Have an opinion,” Maggiacomo said. “Have a discussion. Isn’t that what we want to have happen in our schools?”AMEN

Death of a nationLussier said Wellesley’s schools are open to those discussions, but that a talent show wasn’t the right forum in which to raise the issues, especially “in a highly charged political environment like the one we’re in.”Bull

Had the Bobblehead Boys gone with their first choice, this might all have been averted.

“They were going to do Justin Bieber,” Mattaliano said, “but we went through his songs and they weren’t dancey enough.”

Nestor Ramos can be reached at nestor.ramos@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @NestorARamos.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberals FREAK After Vets Set Up “Muslim Free” Zone… Cops Issue EPIC Response


waving flagBy: V Saxena on April 12, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/vets-set-up-muslim-free-zone

Unfortunately for them, the authorities in resident Troy Maxham’s town of Roxbury refused courtesy something proud patriots like to call the First Amendment.

“Local officials have said there’s nothing they can do about the sign because it’s considered free speech protected by the First Amendment,” The Barre Montpelier Times Argus explained.

Sorry liberals, but what’s good for the Black Lives Matter movement is also good for Maxham, a veteran who said he distrusts Muslims.

The issue originally arose because the U.S. Army veteran lives close to a major state highway, meaning a lot of people see his sign every day.

Still A Muslim Free Zone Sign

“While the sign is on private property, it is in public view, and its message is in direct conflict with the values we as Americans are supposed to hold dear,” Regina Logan, who lives in the nearby town of Braintree, complained in a letter to The Times Argus.Militent Radical liberalism socialism

So what? The sign’s message only applies to Maxham’s home. Moreover, forcing him to remove the sign would be a violation of his First Amendment right. Yeah, sorry, but Americans also value the right to free speech, Miss Logan.

Speaking of which, one resident responded to the veteran’s sign in a far more ingenious way — by making his own signs that promote tolerance and asking residents throughout town if they would put one up on their property.

Let this guy’s behavior serve as a fine example to all Americans. When you see a sign that you find offensive, you have two options: Whine like a baby, or exercise your own First Amendment rights and put up your own sign with a counter-message. It’s that simple and that easy.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Police set to enforce sharia law on Twitter


waving flagBy Joe Newby – April 5, 2016

Tyranney Alert

The following tweet, for example, was recently posted by police in Glasgow:

sharia-policeIt didn’t go over too well, however:

Screen-Shot-2016-04-04-at-9_33_39-AM-780x600Geller added:

Here it comes. First jihad slaughter, then sharia enforcement by Western elites crippled with fear. And this is not just in the UK, the Netherlands or Scotland (Glasgow police posted the above tweet). Obama’s Department of Justice tried this very thing, but our organization held a protest that attracted thousands to stand against sharia restriction on our First Amendment rights. Free Speech Definition

In June 2013, we reported at Examiner:

Hundreds gathered at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center in Manchester, Tenn., Tuesday night, for an event sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee on free speech and social media. But the gathering turned into a protest of what many believe is a threatened crackdown on free speech on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, Twitchy said.

Earlier, U.S. attorney Bill Killian said the meeting would serve as “an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion” and to “inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

The meeting was the result of a controversial Facebook post by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West, who posted a picture of a man holding a shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.” West apologized for the photo in early May.

Now, it seems that speech critical of jihad and migrants committing crimes are attracting more attention from authorities than the individuals actually committing the crimes.

Geller wonders: “It is unclear as to whether or not sharing this article would constitute an ‘unnecessary’ post. But it may be worth finding out.”

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

QUESTION: Would Our Founders Be Considered ‘Extremists’ Today?


 

waving flagby Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge Published on February 9, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/02/question-founders-considered-extremists-today

qmeme_1455027784790_874“Do you think that the mainstream media would love our Founding Fathers if they were here today?”

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council cause of deathmeeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.Tree of Liberty 03

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”Free Speech Definition

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

Read more: Zero Hedge

Different Free Speech Ideologies Truth The New Hate Speech We have been torn apart Freedom is never free Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

NY Couple Ordered to Complete “Re-education” to Contradict Religious Beliefs About Marriage


waving flagReported by Josie Rudd January 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://minutemennews.com/ny-couple-ordered-to-complete-re-education-to-contradict-religious-beliefs-about-marriage

Do you remember the New York couple, who was sued for their refusal to host a same-sex marriage ceremony on their property?  Not only was this their property, it was their home.   They live in the barn they built on their property, and would sometimes host weddings there.  

An appeals court just ruled that their refusal to host the union of a same-sex couple, in their own home, was discriminatory. They were fined $13,000, and to top it off – they were ordered to attend “re-education training classes” to counter their religious beliefs on marriage as a sacred union between a man and woman.pure socialism

What is happening to the United States of America?

CNSNews reports:

“After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ it fined them $10,000, plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” a press release issued following the court decision stated.pure socialism

In order to comply with the order, the couple will have to attend those “re-training” classes or have a “trainer” come to them, according to ADF.Big Gay Hate Machine

“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” ADF legal counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the court on behalf of the couple in Gifford v. Erwin, said in a statement. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property.”

Free Speech Definition Different Free Speech Ideologies Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Young Boy Stands Up For Trump- Then His Teacher Does Something Sickening In Response


waving flagReported by Kevin Whitson January 25, 2016

Western Journalism has reported in the past on liberals who target conservatives’ exercising of their freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press on college campuses. Now, according to one 11-year-old caller to the Rush Limbaugh show, liberals are apparently going after pre-teens’ exercise of their freedom of speech.

An 11-year-old named Matthew, whose last name has not been released, spoke to Limbaugh on his radio show Friday. According to Matthew, his teacher asked for students to write the names of visionaries on the board. Some students wrote down names like Pope Francis and Rosa Parks, but Matthew chose Donald Trump. The student said he was immediately accosted by his teacher, who demanded that he erase Trump’s name from the board.

Matthew said his teacher then asked him what Trump ever did for anyone. He responded by saying that Trump was a successful businessman, and had built many beautiful buildings all around the world. He defended his view that Trump was a visionary, specifically mentioning his plans to close the borders by building a border wall with Mexico, and to put an end to ISIS.

Matthew had to erase Trump’s name, and was taken aback by the experience. He also said his classmates called him an idiot for supporting Trump.

“And she made me erase it. I’m thinking like, ‘Wait, why is…? I thought I had freedom of speech.  I mean, an anchor baby gets citizenship. Why don’t I?’ I kind of got mad after that. And people are targeting me, they’re saying, ‘Donald Trump’s sucks and you do too,’ and I really don’t know what to do,” he recountedATTA BOY

Stating that he didn’t want to disobey his teacher, Matthew told Limbaugh, “Well, she forced me to erase it because I didn’t want to disobey the teacher. But, I mean, I don’t exactly like backing down that much and I was kind of disturbed by that.”

Limbaugh encouraged Matthew to stay strong: “Well, it’s an honor to have you in the audience, and there’s no question about that. You’re very, very mature. Your parents gotta be so proud of you. You just continue to stay — I can’t believe I’m saying this to an 11-year-old — you just stay dedicated to what you truly believe, understanding that all kinds of people are gonna insult you or tell you you’re wrong.”

Different Free Speech Ideologies Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagLoretta Lynch | Political Cartoon | A.F.Branco 

Loretta Lynch says she will prosecute those who use Anti-Muslim speech.

Former Congressman DARES Loretta Lynch to Prosecute Him in Scathing Rant


waving flagPublished on December 4th, 2015 | by Stephen Rowe

URL of the original posting site: http://hypeline.org/joe-walsh

 rep-joe-walsh-jul-20

The day after the horrific terrorist San Bernardino shooting spree, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a group of Muslim activists that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Joe Walsh, former Congressman from Illinois, didn’t back down from the Attorney General’s threat. In fact, Walsh has released a statement to Hypeline News directly challenging Lynch:

“What the hell does that mean? I have a 1st Amendment Truth The New Hate Speechright, Ms Lynch, to say whatever I want about Muslims.’

“You want to try and prosecute me for what I say? I dare you. Here goes:’

“Most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law. They are our enemy. I don’t want them in America. Any Muslim that won’t assimilate should get the hell out of America. Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If “Moderate” Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country. I hope there is a backlash against Muslims because Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is not a religion of peace, and all of us who do live in peace should do whatever we can to defeat Islam.’AMEN

“There Ms Lynch. As an American, I have a right to say everything I just did. And I will continue to speak the truth about Islam in the hopes that others will wake up to this truth and do what we can to defeat this evil in our midst.’ 

“Is that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.” Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”ME TOO

Joe Walsh was elected to the United States Congress in 2010 where he openly refused his Congressional health benefits and pensions, slept in his office, limited himself to no more than three terms in office, and held more town hall meetings than any member of Congress.

About the Author

Stephen Rowe

Stephen is a Staff Writer for TurningPoint USA. He grew up in Montana, “The Treasure State”. An ardent coffee addict and political junkie. Wistful for History, Chess, and Broncos Football.

Freedom is never free Tree of Liberty 03 Different Free Speech Ideologies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Political Correctness Runs Wild: Campus Activists Demand Sensitivity Resignations, Collect a Scalp at University of Missouri


waving flagby John Hayward9 Nov 2015

The president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, is out, cause of deathforced to resign by protests over his allegedly inadequate response to racist incidents on campus.

In a similar, but much more bizarre, incident at Yale, student activists are demanding the resignation of professors who dared to argue with them about their demand for safe-space protection from hypothetical Halloween costumes. The wheels are coming off the American university system, at a time of skyrocketing tuition costs.

The University of Missouri president lost a power struggle with students, with the decisive blow coming when the university football team “drew national attention to the campus protests by announcing during the weekend that they would not participate in team activities until Wolfe was removed,” as Fox News reports. The team acted in solidarity with a student named Jonathan Butler, who was staging a hunger strike:

“It is my belief that we stopped listening to each other,” Wolfe said during his statement. “We didn’t respond or react. We got frustrated with each other and we forced individuals like Jonathan Butler to take immediate action, unusual steps to affect change. This is not – I repeat, not – the way change should come about. Change comes from listening, learning, caring and conversation and we have top respect each other enough to stop yelling at each other and quit intimidating each other.

“Unfortunately this has not happened,” Wolfe said.

The protests began after the student government president, who is black, said in September that people in a passing pickup truck shouted racial slurs at him. In early October, members of a black student organization said slurs were hurled at them by an apparently drunken white student. Recently, a swastika drawn in human feces was found in a dormitory bathroom.

More recently, two trucks flying Confederate flags drove past a site where 150 students had gathered to protest on Sunday, a move some saw as an attempt at intimidation. One of the participants, Abigail Hollis, a black undergraduate, said the campus is “unhealthy and unsafe for us.”

“The way white students are treated is in stark contrast to the way black students and other marginalized students are treated, and it’s time to stop that,” Hollis said. “It’s 2015.”Words are suppose to hurt

This is less about specific allegations of unsatisfactory performance by Wolfe, and more like an avalanche of grievances that rolled into politically-correct fascist territory, complete with impromptu show trials:

The Concerned Student 1950 group, which draws its name from the year the university accepted its first black student, had demanded, among other things, that Wolfe “acknowledge his white male privilege,” that he be removed immediately, and that the school adopt a mandatory racial-awareness program and hire more black faculty and staff.

The Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Wolfe was confronted outside a fundraising event in Kansas City Friday night by protesters who asked him to define systemic oppression. According to video of the encounter posted on Twitter, Wolfe responded that the students may not like his answer before saying, “Systematic oppression is because you don’t believe that you have the equal opportunity for success —”

That statement provoked anger from the protesters, one of whom asked “Did you just blame us for systematic oppression, Tim Wolfe?” as the president walked away.Mob Rule

At least Wolfe’s critics can point to some incidents they think he should have handled better, even if they’re rather vague about exactly what he should have done, and display a creepy enthusiasm for forcing him to admit to thoughtcrimes. At Yale, there was no actual incident behind the student activist rampage. They want scalps because they don’t think the professors were sympathetic enough to their demands for protection from “offensive” Halloween costumes people might wear.

“Students called for the resignation of Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis after she responded to an email from the school’s Intercultural Affairs Council asking students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes,” reports campus watchog group FIRE. “According to The Washington Post, students are also calling for the resignation of her husband, Master of Silliman College, Nicholas Christakis, who defended her statement.”

Ironically, Christakis was on campus that day to speak at a conference on free-speech issues in higher education. The student mob is essentially demanding punishment for professors who dared to oppose their drive for “safe space” controls on free expression.

Erika Christakis’ “offensive” email included the following unacceptable passages:

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

[…] Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.States Formal Sacred Cow of Policital Correctness

Order must be maintained on campus. The students who verbally assaulted Christakis should have been expelled immediately, with their parents left to contemplate the loss of thousands of dollars in tuition spent on kids who clearly weren’t ready for higher education, or even productive spaces in polite society. The University of Missouri is not setting a good precedent by giving their campus activists a scalp.

Among other things, this sort of campus chaos is interfering with the ability of serious students to get an education, while absorbing enormous resources, and making it difficult to detect or deal with serious problems. On the contrary, the exact wrong lessons about using mob tactics to extract satisfaction for “grievances” are being taught.

Steven Hayward recalls a better solution to campus activism at PowerLine, recalling how acting president Sam Hayakawa dealt with protests at San Francisco State University in 1969:

Hayakawa quickly showed that he was made of sterner stuff than his witless predecessors in the president’s chair. He drew nationwide publicity when he climbed onto a sound truck from which protestors were shouting obscenities through a microphone, knocked a protestor to the ground who stood in his way (Hayakawa weighed only 145 pounds), and ripped out the wiring of the sound equipment, which the protestors were unable to repair.

On another occasion Hayakawa brought a bullhorn to the protest, and shouted back at demonstrators. He also did not hesitate to call in police in large numbers to arrest protestors who disrupted classes.

“In a democratic society,” Hayakawa said in justifying his recourse to the police, “the police are there for the protection of our liberties. It is in a totalitarian society that police take away our liberties.”

He took activists at their word that their demands were “non-negotiable,” and refused to negotiate.

A star was born, and he would serve as a complement to Reagan’s tough approach to campus troubles. Like Reagan, he referred to campus protestors as a “gang of goons and neo-Nazis,” and criticized the hypocrisy of campus liberals who expressed sympathy for the extremism of black radicals.

Hayakawa attacked “the intellectually slovenly habit, now popular among whites as well as blacks, of denouncing as racist those who oppose or are critical of any Negro tactic or demand. We have a standing obligation to the 17,500 or more students—white, black, yellow, red and brown—who are not on strike and have every right to expect continuation of their education.”

The grim truth of campus totalitarianism is that fascism is fun. It’s exhilarating to be part of an angry mob, and social media makes it easier than ever. There’s a huge rush to crushing enemies, silencing dissent, and winning tangible victories against established order. If these tactics keep working, we’ll get more of them, and the students trying to get a real education will be left to wonder why no one has any consideration left over for them.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Court says Police Can’t Force Christians to SHUT UP Just because Muslims are Violent


waving flagBy / 2 November 2015

Often, when there is a confrontation of free speech in the public square and one side becomes violent, police want to step in and instead of dealing with the violent party, they will remove the law-abiding citizens “for their own safety.” It is clearly a violation of the right of the people to assemble, as well as a free speech violation. Now, a US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled constitutionally when it comes to police attempting to remove Christians from public areas just because Muslims threaten them with violence.

Bob Unruh reports:

The case was brought by Bible Believers, Ruben Israel, Arthur Fisher and Joshua DeLosSantos against Wayne County, Michigan, Sheriff Benny Napoleon and deputies Dennis Richardson and Mike Jaafar.

It cited the plaintiffs’ messages on signs and T-shirts that included “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder,” “Turn or Burn,” “Fear God,” “Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others are Thieves and Robbers” and “Prepare to Meet Thy God – Amos 4:12.”

The Christians also began their walk carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd.

The opinion noted that two types of speech are unprotected, incitement to riot and fighting words.

The judges found any advocacy for the use of force or lawless behavior is “absent from the record in this case.” And the judges found regarding fighting words, “the average individual attending the festival did not react with violence, and of the group made up of mostly adolescents, only a certain percentage engaged in bottle throwing.”

The opinion cited the “heckler’s veto” concept of one person or group silencing others by threatening violence.

Cops Remove ChristiansWhile lower courts ruled that police could issue unlawful commands to Christians to remove themselves from the public square because of lawless threats against them by Muslims at the International Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those rulings by stating, “We find that defendants violated the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights because there can be no legitimate dispute based on this record that the [county and officers] effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction.”

“The First Amendment offers sweeping protection that allows all manner of speech to enter the marketplace of ideas,” the ruling added. “This protection applies to loathsome and unpopular speech with the same force as it does to speech that is celebrated and widely accepted. The protection would be unnecessary if it only served to safeguard the majority views. In fact, it is the minority view, including expressive behavior that is deemed distasteful and highly offensive to the vast majority of people, that most often needs protection under the First Amendment.”

The incident in question occurred in 2012. Many Christian apologists attend the festival to share the Gospel with Muslims who are willing to listen. However, often the confrontations are not exactly positive, but do become violent. Take a look at this video from 2012 at the festival in which Muslims assaulted Christians with milk crates, glass bottles, eggs and whatever else they could get their hands on.

The American Freedom Law Center co-founder and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise, who worked on the case said, “This was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. This decision makes clear that the First Amendment protects speech critical of Islam and that when the government seeks to suppress such speech by enforcing a heckler’s veto that favors the violent Muslim mob over the free speech rights of Christians, the government will pay dearly for this egregious violation of the Constitution.”Different Free Speech Ideologies

“Kudos to Judge Clay and the majority. Judge Rogers’s dissenting opinion, on the other hand, speaks volumes about how progressives (be they Republicans or Democrats) view the Bill of Rights,” added AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.  “For Judge Rogers, there is one constitution for minorities and quite a lesser document for those perceived to be in the majority. The former’s speech is protected; the latter’s is protected only up to the point that some minority – especially Muslims – protests or, as in this case, engages in violence by attacking the speaker. In this case, the Christians and the Constitution did not lie down and roll over. This is an example where lawfare, fought on behalf of liberty, has moved the proverbial mountain and buried the jihadi’s heckler’s veto six feet under.”Free Speech Definition

In 2013, the City of Dearborn actually had to apologize to Christians for arresting them “for their own safety” at the Arab festival.

This is a huge win for Christians in the public square. Now, if we can just get those who are entrusted to keep the peace to actually do that by arresting those who act unlawfully and protecting those who are doing good, then all will be well.

from Freedom Outpost

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Carson: ‘If People Don’t Speak Up For What They Believe,’ Hitler Could Happen In America


waving flagPosted by Photo of Christian Datoc Christian Datoc, Reporter, 10/01/2015

Ben Carson told reporters Wednesday that if “people don’t speak up for what they believe,” then America could start resembling Hitler’s Nazi Germany, CNN reports.

In a speech earlier in the day, Carson rejected the idea that a radical, totalitarian party could ever gain power in the United States.

“If you go back and look at the history of the world, Truth The New Hate Speechtyranny and despotism and how it starts, it has a lot to do with control of thought and control of speech,” he explained.

“If people don’t speak up for what they believe, then other people will change things without them having a voice. Hitler changed things there and nobody protested. Nobody provided any opposition to him.”

War on ChristiansAdditionally, Carson shot down a question insinuating that he was comparing President Obama to Hitler.

“No. I am saying in a situation where people do not express themselves, bad things can happen.”

WE MUST NEVER FORGET   In God We Trust freedom combo 2

GAY JIHAD: The Death of Free Speech


waving flagWritten by Pete Parker on July 20, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/07/gay-jihad-the-death-of-free-speech

Today in America if you dare speak out concerning the evils of homosexuality, same- sex marriage, gender dysphoria and transgenderism you run the very risk of becoming a victim of Gay Jihad.  That’s right: Gay Jihad.
 
This particular brand of “holy war” is designed to instill fear and apprehension in all those who oppose the above mentioned abnormalities. The goal is to silence all vocal opposition by way of character assassination, litigation and legislation driven by such groups and organizations as LGBT, the Human Rights Campaign and the Democrat Party.  In other words: Gay god idol  
President Obama–unquestionably–is a key ally of the Gay Jihad movement. His use of the bully pulpit to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage (while at the same time demonizing those who opposed it) was nothing short of stunning. Obama did this knowing full well that it would not only create a backlash against Christians–but also against one of the most cherished and sacrosanct rights in all of Western Civilization–free speech.
And just how cherished is this right? Well, it compelled George Washington to state the following: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Washington–unlike the childish, thin-skinned misfits of Gay Jihad–understood that all speech must be protected. Yes, even speech which includes expressions and opinions that gays deem “offensive” and “intolerant.”  Free Speech Definition  
And, yes–that includes Christians bakers who refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, or a Jewish school teacher who is of the opinion that homosexuality is deviant.
 
Again, the First Amendment is not a bulwark to protect gays (and their hyper-sensitive minions) from speech that might damage their fragile feelings. Quite the opposite. It was designed to protect the very speech they disdain and detest. (It’s time for gays to grow-up, get over themselves, stop hiding behind judicial tyranny and grow thicker skin.)
 
In the final analysis–the only way to confront the enemies of free speech–is with more free speech. And that’s why I urge all patriotic Americans to speak out on the issues–regardless of whom it offends. Because–if we don’t–we will suffer the death of free speech.
 
God save the Republic from Gay Jihad (and its ally in the White House).

Different Free Speech Ideologies freedom combo 2

Newspaper faces firestorm after attempted crack-down on anti-gay marriage op-eds


waving flagPublished June 27, 2015, FoxNews.com

A Pennsylvania newspaper is facing a firestorm of criticism after the editorial board said it would “very strictly limit” op-eds and letters against same-sex marriage on the heels of Friday’s historic Supreme Court ruling. PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg has issued a string of statements on its opinion page policies since the ruling — which legalized gay marriage nationwide — and by Saturday morning, appeared to have softened its op-ed restrictions on the subject.  But the newspaper initially took a hard-line stance. Editorial Page Editor John Micek tweeted shortly after the ruling that the newspaper would “no longer accept” or print op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

He then tweeted:

tw03

The editorial board then began to dial back, in the face of apparent criticism from readers.

A newspaper editorial published online was updated Friday afternoon to clarify the board’s op-ed policy. In the editorial, which cheered the decision and said majority opinion author Justice Anthony Kennedy “nailed it,” the board issued the following statement:

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. 

“These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. 

“We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court’s decision and its legal merits.” 

Micek also tweeted:

tw04

Picture4This apparently did not satisfy readers, who posted a cascade of critical comments online. One read: “Clearly, PennLive’s policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editors like.” 

Saying he had been inundated with critical emails and phone calls, Micek then apologized in a column on Saturday morning — saying they had made a “very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion” but recognize that “there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday’s high court ruling.” you think

He wrote: “They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day. These pages, I remind myself finally, belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania. I’m a conduit, I recognize, for them to share their views and to have the arguments that make us better as a people. And all views are — and always will be — welcome.” Different Free Speech Ideologies

Micek stressed that nobody at the newspaper is an opponent of the First Amendment. But he stressed that a civil debate is important, and the opinion page would draw the line when it comes to offensive speech. “More than once yesterday I was referred to as ‘f****t-lover,’ among other slurs,” he wrote. “And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement: We will not publish such slurs any more than we would publish racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech. There are ways to intelligently discuss an issue. The use of playground insults is not among them. And they are not welcome at PennLive/The Patriot-News.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

WATCH MEYGN KELLY’S BROADCAST BELOW:

foxvid

Big Gay Hate Machine freedom combo 2

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDeep In The Weeds

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/deep-in-the-weeds

PC-Weed-NRD-600
cause of death Free Speech Definition Liberalism a mental disorder 2 burke freedom combo 2

AFDI Rolls Out New Free Speech Billboard Campaign Featuring Muhammad Cartoon


waving flagby Pamela Geller 8 Jun 2015

St Louis Muhammad

The new free speech campaign went up on 100 billboards today in St. Louis.

Geller explained: “Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.”

“Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected (i.e., the Mohammed cartoons). Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.”freedom

St Louis Airport AFDI ad

Geller added: “There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history.”free speech

AFDI Vice President Robert Spencer stated: “Many people on both the Left and the Right are saying that we should do nothing to provoke Islamic fundamentalism. The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. But if we did that, they would not they stop coming at us. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: ‘We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.’

IMG_5539

“In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission.”

The ads have been submitted to run on billboards in the St. Louis area. The next city will be going up tomorrow.

afdi free speech drawing billboard

AFDI stands for:

  • The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
  • The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
  • The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Join the AFDI Facebook page here.freedom combo 2

It’s here! Shariah in America


waving flagPosted By Pamela Geller On 05/31/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL of the Original Positng Site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/its-here-shariah-in-america/

Following the cowardly policy change for the New York MTA, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or WMATA, has now suspended all shariah_billboardissue-oriented ads through the end of year after we submitted our free-speech ad.

Because freedom of speech is under violent assault, my human-rights advocacy group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI, had announced a new ad campaign to defend freedom of speech and stand up to violent intimidation, kicking off in the nation’s capital.

Because the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Shariah without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we had intended to run an ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.muslim-obama

We wanted to allow the American people to see what the cowardly press is censoring in accordance with the blasphemy laws under the Shariah (Islamic law). We submitted the ad campaign to WMATA to run on buses and train dioramas in the Foggy Bottom, Capitol South, Bethesda, L’Enfant Plaza and Shady Grove stations. But instead of doing what was necessary to protect the public and defending the freedom of speech, WMATA changed its rules, submitting to the assassin’s veto and sending the signal that violent intimidation works.

Oh, the irony.

This is an end run around the First Amendment. This is clearly a 21st-century tactic being used to impose Islamic law, and we cannot submit. The latest development is the media, the cultural and political elites, continue to self-enforce the Shariah without the consent of the American people. They’re doing so by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing how innocuous the cartoon was in Texas that jihadists opened fire over, trying to slaughter all of us.

These cowards may claim that they are making people safer, but I submit to you the opposite. They are making it far more dangerous for Americans everywhere. Rewarding terror with submission is defeat. Absolute and complete defeat.

More demands, more violence will certainly follow. The message is that terror works.

This is Shariah in America. The only upside is the anti-Semitic groups will not be able to run their blood libels.

Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.AMEN

WMATA has already done so, but as a society we cannot submit to the assassin’s veto.

It was the jihadis, not I, who made the cartoons a flashpoint. If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Shariah enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again. Shariah is a unique threat to free speech and liberty.free speech 27829d1311102858-funny-political-cartoons-memes-political-cartoon

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear and while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.cause of death

There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. AFDI Vice President Robert Spencer stated: “Many people on both the left and the right are saying that we should do nothing to provoke Islamic fundamentalism. The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. But if we did that, they would not stop coming at us. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: ‘We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.’”Islam is NOT

Spencer continued, “In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission.”

If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history.bully

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books – featured at the WND Superstore

Media wishing to interview Pamela Geller, please contact media@wnd.com.


freedom combo 2

Cartoonist Left Islam and Became Advocate for Free Speech


waving flagPosted on May 7, 2015 by

I’ve always admired people who stick up for their principles even under threat of violence or death. Thomas More, the “Man for All Seasons,” is a hero of mine.

After this week, I’ve got a couple of other heroes on my list. There’s Pamela Geller, who now has a fatwah, a death threat, on her head because she stood up for free speech against the world’s Islamo-fascists. And there’s Bosch Fawstin, the cartoonist who won both the judges prize and the People’s Choice prize at last weekend’s contest in Garland, Texas.

The winning drawingFawstin is also under threat of death by the backward forces of Islam, simply for drawing an image of Mohammed. It’s interesting that in all the talk about the failed terrorist attack in Garland, few if any news outlets have actually runFawstin’s winning illustration. It’s pretty nifty line art, and I especially like theHitlerian mustache.The image shows Mohammed threatening the artist, saying, “You can’t draw me!” and the artist responding, “That’s why I draw you.”

It’s clever, and I don’t think there’s anything offensive about it, unless you’re a Muslim who’s embarrassed to have his Prophet’s and fellow Muslims’ attitudes summed up in a sentence.

Many of the entries were offensive on various levels, from the naughty-but-funny to the truly cringe-inducing, but I don’t think any of them were necessarily inaccurate. Speaking as a fellow entrant, I think Fawstin’s piece was the right choice. (Mine was more a study for a painting, rather than a cartoon, but I thought it was important to represent for the First Amendment. I would post a link to all the contest entries, but the page seems to have been removed from Photobucket.)

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart, Fawstin explained that he was raised as a Muslim in the Bronx but left the religion. When 9/11 occurred, he researched his former faith extensively and decided that he had to use his artistic talents to stand up against jihad. From the Breitbart interview:

“I did receive some flack for leaving Islam, but I didn’t feel like I left anything important behind. I wanted to get the hell out. Islam had no hold on me whatsoever. It wasn’t a heartbreak, I just left.

“Right after I left Islam, 9/11 happened. I revisited everything. I reread the Koran. I read countless books on jihad, Islam, and Muhammad. I knew as a cartoonist, as an artist, I had a tool to respond to the atrocities. I made sure I knew Islam very well before making any move. 

“I became a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and remain so to this day. Ironically, I went from the most misogynistic philosophy on earth, to that created by a woman. Without her work, I don’t know where the hell I’d be today.”

Fawstin’s discussion about growing up in a Muslim household underscores some of the things we’ve discussed about Islam here at Godfather Politics, including the sympathy for Nazism and the Left’s myth of the “moderate Muslim.”

“Almost all of the women in my generation were beaten by their husbands. There was strong admiration for Hitler in the household, because he killed more Jews than anyone. That’s why I refer to Hitler as Islam’s favorite infidel. They forgive him because he killed more Jews than anyone. we were ‘moderate Muslims,’ but there was still hardcore misogyny and Jew-hatred in my community.”

As might be expected from that champion of liberals-only speech, Facebook, Fawstin’s Facebook page has been removed, and Fawstin has been requesting that people share his winning cartoon with friends and associates.

The Left is abominable when it comes to protecting the free speech rights of anyone who is not in their PC club. Not only that, but Homeland Security has not even bothered contacting Geller about the Islamic death threat made against her on social media. (For that matter, I don’t think the threat has been taken down as of yet.)

But the Left — and I’m including here the RINO crowd and “moderate” Right — doesn’t get it. If we conservatives lose free speech to Islamic terror, it undercuts all our rights.freedom

While the Left may be fine with that, the rest of us who know the cost must stand up with Geller and Fawstin for free speech against the forces of jihad and totalitarianism.

OARLogo Picture6

ISIS in America and the Importance of the Second Amendment


waving flagPosted on May 5, 2015 by

The push for gun control is a push for assured destruction. A well-armed American cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgpopulation will stop any attempt by Islamic extremists to coordinate a planned domestic terror attack using conventional weapons. I’m reminded of an exchange between Rick, Humphrey Bogart’s character in the film Casablanca (1942), and Major Heinrik Strasser (Conrad Veidt). It has relevance to what happened in Garland, Texas, where two radical Muslims tried to kill people at a First Amendment freedom of speech event.

The Associated Press reports, “An audio statement on the extremist group’s Al Bayan radio station said that ‘two soldiers of the caliphate’ carried out Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future.”

Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?

Rick: It’s not particularly my beloved Paris.

Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?

Rick: When you get there, ask me!

Major Strasser: How about New York?

Rick: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.

There are a great many places in the United States that I would advise radical Muslims not to go. At the present time, the United States would be difficult to invade, but if gun-control advocates get their way, it would be Red Dawn (1984 and 2012) with a different ending.

Gotta-loveTexas-600-LI
“GOTTA LOVE TEXAS”

The man who is now leading the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL), once held as a prisoner by the United States, told his captors upon his release, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” This is why the Second Amendment is so important. As long as Americans are armed, there is little chance that Islamists will try to take over America from the inside. They will be hopelessly out armed.

They would have a very hard time where I live since everybody is heavily armed. Often I can hear gunfire. People are practicing. An 83,000-square-foot indoor gun range is in the works down the road from where I live. It’s “expected to Gun clubinclude a 35,000 square-foot indoor sporting clay range, a 13,000 square-foot retail showroom and a 6,000 square-foot restaurant and lounge.”

Any discussion about the Second Amendment must take seriously the Islamic threat. The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it’s about defending ourselves from threats of force.

Consider the following from Breitbart. “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), sent a message to his fellow Sunni supporters to commemorate the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.

Baghdadi wrote:

“Soon, by Allah’s permission, a day will come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master, having honor, being revered, with his head raised high and his dignity preserved. Anyone who dares to offend him will be disciplined, and any hand that reaches out to harm him will be cut off.” 

He went on to say, “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it, you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”

Europe is vulnerable because gun rights are limited. People in the United States are heavily armed. And that’s a good thing.

OARLogo Picture6

This Church Faced Criminal Charges for Posting a Pro-Life Sign on Its Own Property


waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt   May 4, 2015

Harrisonburg, VA

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/04/this-church-faced-criminal-charges-for-posting-a-pro-life-sign-on-its-own-property/

One sign shows an unborn baby cradled in a pair of hands with a quote from Mother Teresa: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” The other sign quotes Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the Womb I Knew You,” with a picture of the face of a baby.

Zoning officials with the city of Harrisonburg, Virginia threatened criminal charges at a local church over its display of pro-life messages on private property.

On April 20, 2015, the church received a letter from the City’s zoning inspector advising the church that a complaint its timehad been received about the signs and that the church was in violation of a section of the City’s sign ordinance which prohibits banners, pennants and flags. However, the section cited by the City contains several exemptions from the prohibition, allowing national flags, flags of political subdivisions, corporate/business flags, flags of civic and charitable organization, and banners pertaining to holidays or civic events. The City’s letter ordered that the church correct the “violation” within 10 days or it could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Thankfully, attorneys intervened on behalf of the church and the city backed down.

The city’s reversal came after attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, a pro-liberty organization, intervened on behalf of Valley Church of Christ, which had been ordered to take down signs on its property that quote Mother Teresa and the Bible on the sanctity of human life. In coming to the defense of the Harrisonburg church, Rutherford Institute attorneys pointed out that the City’s actions constituted discrimination based on the content of the church’s signs, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. “Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

He continued: “While we are pleased that Harrisonburg city officials were quick to set things right in this matter, this is merely one example out of a hundreds of incidents taking place across the country in which speech and expressive activities that the government perceives as controversial, politically incorrect or unpopular are criminalized, caged, censored or silenced.”Tyranney AlertFree Speech Definition

In its letter to the City on behalf of the church, The Rutherford Institute pointed out that the City Code section relied upon in its letter to the church makes content-based distinctions on those banners and flags that are allowable and those that are not. “This kind of preference for banners that express certain messages and discrimination against banners that express other messages is precisely the kind of content-based regulation of speech the First Amendment prohibits,” the Institute’s letter contended. The letter also cited court decisions which have found similar laws regulating the display of flags and banners unconstitutional.

cropped-different-free-speech-ideologies.jpg OARLogo Picture6

Tag Cloud