Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Violence’

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.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Kumbaya

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/19/kumbaya/#sL0lIUYL5IHhgAgr.99

The Shooting in Alexandra has brought both parties together for a brief moment, kind of.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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


Jihadis Ask, ‘Are You A Christian?’ Before Killing You. #Resist Asks, ‘Are You A Republican?’


Their hate looks pretty similar, doesn’t it? Jihadis ask if you’re a Christian before deciding to kill you. The Liberal murderer asked are they Republicans?

It’s widely reported that the Jackwagon Bernie supporter that shot up the Republican baseball practice asked whether they were Republican or Democrat before hunting them like the coward he was.

That story has a familiar ring to it…(Ok, one BESIDES the leftist Family Research Council shooter.)

This one.

Coptic Christians describe bus attack in Egypt: ‘Even the little children were targets’

Here are a couple of paragraphs:

After the militants boarded the bus, they asked survivors of the first round of gunfire to “either recite the Islamic shahada creed, live as practicing Muslims, or be killed,” said Nadia Shokry, 54, who was shot three times.

Defying their attackers, the passengers began to pray. “The more we prayed for Christ, the angrier they became and started shooting again and more violently,” Boshra said.

“We told them that we are Christians and we will die Christians,” Adly said as she clutched a cross that a monk had given her at the hospital.

The attackers targeted the male passengers and then began confiscating gold jewelry, money and mobile phones from the female survivors, before shooting at them, too, and running away.

“I begged my attacker to stop after he shot me the first three times. He told me to shut up or he would shoot me in the heart,” Shokry said. She watched as the militants killed her husband, Samuel, 53, her son Mina, 30, and her 18-month-old granddaughter, Maroska, the youngest victim of the attack.

Sound familiar?

For a group that keeps calling Trump supporters ‘Nazis’… which side is actually violent?

CLASH POLL: Who’s MORE Violent – Liberals OR Conservatives?


Published by ClashDaily.com | June 15, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/06/clash-poll-whos-violent-liberals-conservatives/

Is it really even CLOSE?

When Gabby Giffords was shot, they blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. When Republican Whip Steve Scalise was one of several Republicans shot… they blamed Trump.

But that’s the Media (D)’s opinion. What about yours?

It’s because of violent language… they said.

Maybe the problem could be from the methodical dehumanizing of political opponents.

The dead guy is personally and SOLELY responsible for his actions.

But if people are going to complain about over-heated rhetoric and violence
? Look around.

Groups like Antifa and BAMN are not rhetorically violent but PHYSICALLY violent. Cheering when they trash the liberties of political rivals.

In the election, we saw people blaming Trump for violent protests. But it came to light that Bernie’s supporters and Hillary’s supporters, not Trump supporters were doing the attacking. It came to light that there was ORCHESTRATED violence on the part of Hillary’s surrogates, trying to implicate Trump.

We see ‘Antifa’ crowds hitting people over the head with skateboards.

We see University Profs hitting strangers over the head with bike locks.

We have makeshift grenades made out of wine bottles tossed into crowds.

We have seen Berkley BURN so that one political side would NOT be heard.

Here is a screen shot of some of the vultures cheering the shootings.

Let’s get a closer look at one in particular… and make her famous.

Her Twitter feed went dark… but not before we got a screen grab of it!

So let’s ask the question:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Your Money or Your Life


waving flagAuthored by 

URL of the original posting site: http://ipatriot.com/your-money-or-your-life/

socialism

The armed robber puts a gun in your back and says it simply and frankly. The Marxist socialist says the same thing with more words.

As a matter of fact, the socialists main tool is words. They weaponize them by redefining concepts. They take a privilege and say it is a right. A socialist redefines himself as a “liberal” to confuse liberty with socialism. They redefine “tolerance” to confuse mercy and impunity and brand justice as “intolerant.” Now they redefine perversion as “sexual preference” so that soon pedophilia, necrophilia and animalism will be as “acceptable” as homosexuality. They have converted emasculation into “sensitivity” and masculinity into monstrosity, but in their insane rebellion against truth, the most “feminist” of “feminism” go to the most antifeminists of beliefs — Islam. In recent cases they are trying to convert immigration — a privilege by any sane standard — into a “right” for the purpose of eliminating nationality and thus national defense, sovereignty and patriotism. Socialists in judicial power will continue to do so until executive power stops their abuse and enforces constitutional law.

(Congratulations for standing up for RIGHTS President Trump.)

Globalists say they’ll take your money and kill you (wage external war or internal strife) if you don’t accept their debt based money, or accept their conditions of interest and political policy (like “human rights,” “social justice,” “tolerance,” “political correctness” and, eventually “global government and the New World Order.”) — These will use the money they created from our future to wage street protests and make nations fight each other Russia or China if you reject their money, their debt or their conditions, like not “bailing out” their banks with our future and the future of our future generations. Your money or your life — same concept different words.

In the “Affordable Health Care” plan, the globalists are, saying that they’ll keep you from even getting into a hospital if you don’t pay a big and ever increasing deductible or accept an unpayable debt. Same concept different words.

Communists say we’ll take your productive facilities or we’ll kill or throw you out. So they do, and the only thing they prove is that bureaucrats and politicians can’t produce, because they only know how to steal. And when the leaders only know how to steal, the people can’t learn how to produce. But they do learn how to steal from each other, so parasites eat parasites. In the early stages people have to wait in long lines to get bread, soap or toilet paper. In later stages, they hunt and eat each other. Same concept different words.

Fascists say, you need to buy our protection from competition with higher taxes or we’ll tax you to death and send criminal elements to shut you down. So, the net effect is big, inefficient, corporations that produce goods of less value for more costs, because of their overhead to government and banks. Honest, hardworking, creative competition dies out, and so does the morality of exchanging value for value. Same concept different words.

What dies is sovereignty, for the individual and the nation.

With the loss of sovereignty comes the loss of freedom. True freedom, the responsibility-driven freedom of doing the best and promoting the common good instead of the average bad of giving in and taking in so that you get some loot. It is, in essence a gradual loss of values which comes at a gradual increase in price. This is what religion calls selling your soul to the devil. The bigger the religion, the more formalized is the acceptance and “tolerance” of the average bad. Now, Marxism is the biggest religion.

The same concept — Your Money or Your Life.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Herman Gazort

You, the reader, must prove everything. Do not rely on an “expert.” You can find truth, I will give you what I found and will try to convince you with proof, information, example and a solid argument. But trust no one — you must prove your truth for yourself.

The Pope Defends Islam by Saying Christianity is No Different


waving flagBy Joe Scudder August 2, 2016

Invoking the idea of Christian violence, the Pope defends Islam from the charge that it inspires terrorism.

When the Pope defends Islam, it seems to me he must know that his pronouncements are utter nonsense.

From Yahoo News:

Pope Francis said Sunday that Islam could not be equated with terrorism and warned Europe was pushing its young into the hands of extremists.

“It’s not true and it’s not correct (to say) Islam is terrorism,” he told journalists aboard the papal plane during the return journey from a trip to Poland.

“I don’t think it is right to equate Islam with violence”.Islam is NOT

Okay, there are violent acts committed by non-Muslims and there are Muslims who don’t commit violent acts. So framing the issue as “equating Islam with violence” predetermines the conclusion.

Pope Francis used this type of argument to justify his hiding the truth about why a priest died.

Francis defended his decision not to name Islam when condemning the brutal jihadist murder of a Catholic priest in France in the latest of a string of recent attacks in Europe claimed by the Islamic State (IS) group.culture of deceit and lies

What purpose does it serve for leaders to hide what everyone already knows?

The Pope went on to mix up two entirely different kinds of violence.

“In almost every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. We have them too.”

“If I have to talk about Islamic violence I have to talk about Christian violence. Every day in the newspapers I see violence in Italy, someone kills his girlfriend, another kills his mother-in-law, and these are baptized Catholics.”Picture1

The pope is smudging religious violence and ordinary crime. Those “baptized Catholics” are not claiming that Jesus told them to kill anyone or that they are following Jesus’s example. It would be interesting, however, for the Pope to publicly deal with the differing crime rates in native European populations and migrant populations. But I suspect he will avoid the subject at all costs.

The other type of violence is done to serve a religious goal. There have been aberrant Christian groups in history but not nearly as many as in Islam. The “small group of fundamentalists” constitute a significant percentage of Muslims. And these “groups” are spread throughout Islamic communities.

The Pope is offering us idiotic statements in defense of immigration policies that threaten Europe!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Joe Scudder

Joe Scudder is the “nom de plume” (or “nom de guerre”) of a fifty-ish-year-old writer and stroke survivor. He lives in St Louis with his wife and still-at-home children. He has been a freelance writer and occasional political activist since the early nineties. He describes his politics as Tolkienesque.

fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: