Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #26 
These leftists, communists, Marxists, anarchists, and devil worshippers don't like people to have freedom, choice and liberty.  They want control, nothing more nothing less.

They don't want people free and living as God intended them to live.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

Free speech is an American value -- it's a right, not a privilege


Katherine Daigle (Politichicks) says there's a clear and present danger to free speech in this country, and that means something. Free speech is probably our most cherished American value -- the right (not privilege) to say what is on your mind without fear of any repercussion beyond a spirited debate with those who disagree, certainly not a malevolent entity silencing you by force. A lot of brave people have fought very hard and even given their lives to win and preserve this precious freedom, and we honor their sacrifice and remember every moment of every day the incalculable value of what we have.

Groups like are a direct threat to this freedom, as proven by their behavior. They select political ideologies and values that they happen to find objectionable, and rather than merely exercise their own right to speak out against them, they employ social engineering techniques to make those views downright dangerous to hold. Their favorite target is people who worry about the security of the United States and the need to have a strong, impregnable border. disagrees, which is their right, but they take it a step further by labeling anyone who subscribes to this forbidden opinion a "racist." They and people like them then go about posting propaganda and making public statements denouncing these views as evil and unallowable, and they convince whole demographic sectors of the population that they must be squelched. Put simply, they make people angry -- so angry that they are willing to do terrible things.

We only have to look at the protests we've been seeing in this primary season, many of which have erupted into violence. Political events have been canceled entirely because the threat of a violent outcome was present. This is not America. This is not a place where people can speak freely and compare their ideas with those of others. This is not freedom of speech.

Of course, shouldn't be exclusively singled out. The sad truth is, a lot of people are out there "race baiting", indirectly encouraging people to do violence by making them angry. You can disagree with someone all you like and you can state your own views publicly, but when you label someone un-American, when you imply that it is not morally permissible for them to believe as they do and lead others to the conclusion that they must be stopped, then it is you who is behaving in a manner inconsistent with the principles of this nation.

The net result of this is more than just a few isolated incidents of violence, as bad as that is. It has a chilling effect on our very republic. Powerful people are directing this action, deciding what is okay and what is not okay to say in public. Simultaneously, they use their vast wealth to buy politicians with exorbitant campaign contributions and install those people as their favored leaders. Effectively, the American public has little or no choice in the way elections really turn out and the ones who really come to power. It's disturbingly similar to the rigged ballots of third world countries that make a mockery of democracy and hold "elections" for appearances alone, knowing full well who the winner is going to be. The dictators of those countries enjoy announcing "results" that report 100% of votes cast went to the supreme leader.

We have become distressingly complacent in this country, even about the things that make it the greatest country in the world. When we allow ourselves to be content to lose out most precious American freedoms, then although we may live in a country called the United States of America, we will no longer truly be Americans.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #28 

William Murray says Marxism and utopianism motivated his atheist mother


Paul Bremmer (WND) is reporting that in the early 1960s, a handful of parents concerned about the separation of church and state convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to ban organized prayer in public schools and then outlaw school-sponsored Bible reading. Or so the story goes.

One man who was behind the scenes at the time says there were far more nefarious motives involved.

"People do not understand what the real case was about to remove prayer from public schools," William J. Murray told WND. "They think it's about separation of church and state, and it was not about separation of church and state."

As a boy Murray, who is now chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, was used as a pawn in his mother's most famous public battle.

His mother was famed activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who founded American Atheists. In 1960 O'Hair filed a lawsuit alleging it was unconstitutional for the Baltimore City Public School System to force William to participate in Bible readings at school. The lawsuit was eventually consolidated with Abington School District v. Schempp and reached the Supreme Court.

By an 8-1 vote, the Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading unconstitutional.

Murray said it was "a hatred for God and a hatred for capitalism" that motivated his mother to file the lawsuit.

"Her actual, original reason for bringing this lawsuit was to get God out of the picture because she thought that the church was one of the three-legged pillars that supported capitalism, and that by eliminating, getting prayer out of schools, getting God out of the public, that that would eliminate the capitalist system and help to bring the proletariat dictatorship."

Murray described his mother as a utopian.

He said she thought she and her Marxist-atheist friends, being the smartest people around, could devise a system on Earth that would equal Heaven. Therefore, his mother had no need for God, for capital, nor for any kind of competition.

"She was basically an avowed Marxist, a utopian, and this is why I understand that issue so well, having been brought up in that type of an environment," Murray concluded.

Murray wrote about his upbringing in his book "My Life Without God." Although the book was originally published in 1982, Murray believes it is as relevant today as it was back then. (WND published a 30th anniversary edition of the book in 2012.)

This is partly because Murray still sees many utopians today who wish to turn America into a totalitarian, centrally planned system, just like his mother did years ago.

In fact, Murray draws a line from the notorious totalitarians of history to the utopian power-grabbers of today in his newest book, "Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World With Central Planning."

Murray told WND his mother, who died in 1995, would be pleased with many social aspects of Western society today. He recalled an article she once wrote for Hustler magazine in which she called for easy access to abortion, "gay marriage" and then the eventual elimination of marriage altogether. He also thinks she would be pleased that the Democrat Party is moving further toward socialism, as evidenced by the rise of Bernie Sanders.

"But the number of people who have gotten extremely wealthy in the United States and the amount of prosperity in the upper class and middle classes she'd probably be very unhappy with," Murray added.

He thinks his mother would be overjoyed at the slow erosion of religious freedom in America. Murray views freedom of religion as the linchpin that holds all other freedoms of expression in place.

"When you remove religion from the public square… you are also removing freedom of speech and freedom of press and freedom of assembly," he said. "Here is the bottom line: If I don't have the freedom publicly to express my religious beliefs and the government can suppress that, then the government can suppress any speech.

"If I'm not allowed to print… my religious beliefs, then the government can suppress anything of press. If I'm not allowed to assemble in certain places, like in public or at a school, to express my religious beliefs, then freedom of assembly is abridged for religion.

"And if it's abridged for religion, then it can be abridged for anything."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #29 

 Campus fascists take over -- university cancels conservative speaker


Bob Unruh (WND) is reporting that California State University at Los Angeles officials have abruptly canceled an event featuring conservative speaker Ben Shapiro after initially attempting to charge a sponsoring student group more than $600 due to "controversial" content in a speech titled, "When Diversity Becomes a Problem."

"Public universities should encourage, not stifle, the free exchange of ideas," said David Hacker, a senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The student group, Young Americans for Freedom, had arranged for Shapiro to speak about diversity at the Tuesday event.

Hacker said YAF has "every bit as much right to hold this event as any other student group does, and the university can't stop that because it prefers to water down the speaker's message with other viewpoints that officials find more palatable to their own political views."

"The courts have made it clear," he said, "that university officials cannot deem an event 'controversial' and then weigh down students with burdensome fees to engage in constitutionally protected free speech just because some people consider it controversial, but it's even worse to take that a step further and try to silence the speech altogether."

After hearing about the event, sociology professor Robert Weide called the YAF students "white supremacists" and invited them to fight him.

In response, the university notified the students that because of Shapiro's "controversial" subject matter, they would have to pay more than $620 for security officers.

ADF defended the students, arguing in a letter to the university that such fees aren't allowed.

"The university's assessment of a security fee for YAF's February 25 event is unconstitutional because administrators assessed the fee based on the viewpoint of YAF's speech and based on the potential negative reactions of listeners," ADF said.

ADF argues the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech "cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob."

The school policy of assessing the fees, therefore, violates the Constitution.

"By requiring YAF to pay security fees based on the potential reaction of students who are planning a counter-protest and a faculty member who is proposing physical violence, the university is using unbridled discretion inherent in the security at campus events policy to impose an unconstitutional heckler's veto," the letter said.

The university, which declined to respond to a WND request for comment, responded not to ADF but to the students.

An email from university President William Covino told student Mark Kahanding that the event was canceled.

Instead, he said, Shapiro could speak at another time when his voice would be tempered by speakers selected by the school.

"I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro's appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity," Kahanding ordered.

He claimed his decision to stop Shapiro's speech and bring in other speakers "will better represent our university's dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints."

Fox Business reported, "[Shapiro] and YAF intend to hold the speech on Thursday despite the CSULA ban and threaten to sue if they are blocked from the auditorium where the speech was scheduled to take place."

"The campus fascists have taken over," Shapiro told Breitbart News. "I pay taxes in the state of California; I'm paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they're trying to provide balance isn't just stupid, it's insultingly stupid. I am the balance, and they're too afraid to let me speak. These aren't diversity warriors. They're jackbooted thugs. If they want to call the men with guns to shut down free speech, they'll demonstrate clearly just who they are. I'll be there on Thursday. See you there, snowflakes."

ADF said the student organization may end up taking legal action.

"The First Amendment does not require YAF to consolidate its viewpoint with others," Hacker noted. "The number of events on university campuses with speakers who have different viewpoints from Mr. Shapiro's and YAF's are plentiful. No need or legitimate basis exists for canceling YAF's event."

According to Fox Business, "Covina did not cancel liberal focused speeches which include counter culture radical Angela Davis and Time Wise, who will lecture students on ‘Exploring Whiteness' on Wednesday February 24th, or Serene Khader on the topic, ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Freedom?"

In 2014, CSULA hosted socialist academic Cornel West, who spoke on the "falsity of post-racialism."

YAF, a registered student organization at the university, had followed the university's policies and procedures for planning the event.


Concerned individuals may email California State University, Los Angeles, President William Covino or Executive Vice President Jose Gomez about this issue or call them at (323)343-3030 extension 3-3030. 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

University of Texas police cite preacher for "offending" students

The Daily Caller is reporting that the University of Texas at Austin police department issued a disorderly conduct citation to an outdoor preacher on Tuesday after students complained that his message had offended them. The preacher, who was standing just off campus, recorded his interaction with several university police officers, who explained that it was illegal for him to offend the students.

The preacher was an intern with Campus Ministry USA, an evangelical ministry organization that travels around college campuses loudly preaching their message. The ministry is headed by one Brother Jed Smock, who told The Daily Caller that his intern Joshua "was speaking out against STDs, warning against anal sex."

The university told TheDC that the officer was responding to students who claimed to be "verbally harassed" by the intern-preacher. The video shows the officer explaining that the intern's use of "anal" and "penis" offended students, before issuing a citation for disorderly conduct. "After a lawyer representing Joshua called the chief of police, the chief called Joshua and apologized. The citation was withdrawn." Brother Jed told TheDC.

A university spokesperson confirmed that the citation was later "voided," adding that the officer who originally responded to the complaint is currently in the training process.

Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told TheDC that he found the video "deeply disturbing." "Speech that simply offends others is protected by the First Amendment, and contrary to the officer's statements, it is not the job of police to 'do something' about it. Issuing a disorderly conduct citation based on the content of speech violates decades of clear Supreme Court precedent," Cohn said.

"Even worse is that while Brother Jed is not a campus community member, and was not even on campus property, the officer justified his decision with the fact that students on campus across the way were offended. The implications for campus expression are dire," Cohn went on to say. "If offending someone on campus is now grounds for criminal citations, students wishing to express themselves will much more likely censor themselves, or simply refrain from speaking at all. Such a result is unacceptable, legally and morally, at a state university bound by the First Amendment."

Remember the "Free Speech Movement?"

The "Free Speech Movement" was a student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of leftist students Mario Savio, Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others.

In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom.


My, my, my! How things have changed.

The Left presents us with a wonderful example of how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Email for the chief of campus police:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Democrats castigate "anti-Muslim" speech in proposed legislation


Deborah Weiss (FrontPage) is reporting that as ISIS rises, Democrat politicians forge down a slippery slope to destroy America's First Amendment and prohibit all discussion of Islamic terrorism.

After the San Bernadino ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, that left 14 dead and 22 others injured, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, America's top law enforcement attorney, explained that her biggest fear was not more ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks, but "the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric."

She threatened to prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric "edging toward violence" and proclaimed that the Department of Justice has already been investigating those whose language is characterized in this manner. "Edging toward violence" is, of course, not the constitutional standard for illegal speech in the land of the free. The correct legal standard set forth in "Brandenburg vs Ohio" by the Supreme Court is "incitement to violence." The content of language has to explicitly encourage the violence with imminent lawless action the likely result.  No doubt that Lynch's "edging toward violence" standard will not be equally applied to the Muslims preaching "death to America" in American mosques.

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, echoed Lynch's sentiment and argued that Americans cannot "drive [Muslims] into hiding" - as if anybody were actually doing that. Unfortunately, James Comey, Director of the FBI, who is usually strong on law enforcement, told the Muslim community, "if someone is terrorizing you based on your religion, let us know," -- conflating the mass murder of terrorist attacks with harsh words that might hurt someone's feelings.

In the administration's pattern of overt sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, it is telling that the Attorney General's position was announced at a conference by a group named "Muslim Advocates for Peace and Justice," as "peace and justice" is the official motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Notably, American Advocates for Peace and Justice boast of its "strategic lawsuits" against the FBI, CIA, and NSA programs - apparently one of its main goals is to hamper law enforcement and national security efforts.

 Let's not forget either only recently in Tennessee the Attorney General Killian threatened that anti-Muslim speech "violates civil rights," implying the threat of civil prosecutions for so-called "hate speech."

All such rhetoric is mirrored if not directed by the White House as in a televised speech delivered in the wake of the California massacre, President Obama lectured Americans, scolding that, above all else, we should curb our rhetoric and refuse to define the war as America vs Islam "because that's what ISIL wants."

Now in the aftermath of a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout Europe and America, Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill titled, "HR 569: Condemning violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." This bill contains nothing but inaccurate assertions, anti-freedom proposals and a complete rejection of America's founding principles.

First, the bill asserts that "victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric face verbal, physical and emotional abuse." It singles out Muslims despite the fact that FBI statistics demonstrate that hate crimes against Muslims are low compared to other groups - even with inflated reports by CAIR.  

Yet, after a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout the West, the bill's supporters show no concern for the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks. Instead, they sympathize with the Muslim community, thus turning perpetrators into victims in a tactic known as "reverse victimization."

Second, the bill conflates speech and actions, an important distinction both legally and factually. 

The bill asserts that "hate speech" based on faith is in "contravention to the founding principles" of religious freedom. Suddenly the Democrats care about what America's Founding Fathers believed! Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that our Founding Fathers also believed in freedom of speech.  This assertion demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the First Amendment - a real problem when we are talking about elected officials sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. 

The bill also fails to acknowledge that Islam in  is not just a religion but a political ideology as well, with totalitarian aspects that are inherently anti-Constitutional. Enemy threat doctrine asserts that in order to win a war you have to know your enemy and name it by name. By refusing to identify the ideological threat motivating Islamic terrorism, elected politicians who co-sponsored this bill would have America on a suicide course - something certainly in "contravention" to the Constitution. 

Repeatedly, the bill professes that America welcomes all faiths, beliefs and cultures. Against the backdrop of political correctness and multiculturalism emerges the false idea that all values and beliefs are equal.  Yet, it is plain to see that Nazism, Communism and Islamism are NOT equal to the Judeo-Christian values of liberty, equality and human rights.

The bill argues that anti-Muslim speech plays into the "false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam…" and causes a violent reaction. This argument is not only faulty; it is dangerous!  It plays into the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's notion that "hate" speech CAUSES terrorism. Terrorism is used to restrict speech on one hand and while on the other free speech is protrayed as the origin of terrorism. If the public is convinced that so-called "Islamophobia" causes terrorism, rather than the other way around, Westerners will ultimately conform to Islamic blasphemy restrictions. 

However, Islamic terrorism pre-dates "Islamophobia." Further, Islamic terrorism has ideological roots. Blaming terrorism on geo-political grievances or any other behavior by "infidels" is simply the present hook jihadists hang their hats on. If it's not one thing, it's another. Until the West becomes part of an Islamic Caliphate and infidels subdue themselves into submission to Islam, jihadists will not be happy. Besides, America is supposed to be a nation of Judeo-Christian values including that of personal responsibility. This notion that it is OUR fault that someone else commits violence shifts the responsibility from the terrorists to those who make mere comments that the terrorists dislike.

Further, when Islamic terrorists groups say they are theologically inspired, this is not propaganda. It's true. It's the stealth groups, like CAIR, who claim there is no theological motivation, that are spewing forth disinformation.

Next, the resolution declares the Muslim civil rights need to be protected. But abridging Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not constitute a "civil rights protection." Perhaps federal agencies designed to protect the security of Americans should focus on national security rather than restricting "rhetoric." Just a thought!

Finally, the bill "affirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear. …" This is conjured up, as no such right exists. But if Democrats want people to live fear-free, they should address the very real threat of Islamic terrorism and stop worrying about people's concocted constitutional right to be free from hurt feelings.

The Judeo-Christian values of freedom, equality and human rights, serve as the foundational underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. It is these values from which freedom flourishes and what sets America apart from the tyrannical regimes of other countries, including Islamic theocracies. Other countries, lacking these values, institutionalize the oppression of women, children, and religious minorities. Our values make America exceptional and cause us to be the envy of the world.

Yet, it is these same values that are eschewed by the far left, and increasingly by mainstream Democrat politicians, as evidenced by Democrat support of this bill. As of this writing, the bill is co-sponsored by 115 Democrats in the House (out of 188 Democrat total) and no Republicans.

There is no constitutional right to be free from offense. Yet, Democrat politicians ranging from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Philadelphia Mayor want the public to refrain, not just from gratuitous offense, but from truthful comments about the roots of Islamic terrorism.

Though H.R. 569 has no mandate to make legal restrictions on speech, it creates an environment that makes hate speech laws easier to pass down the road. The threats of prosecution, the constant chastisement from political officials, voted in to uphold the Constitution but who are instead doing everything possible to violate its spirit, are sliding the United States down a slope toward legal incursions to freedom of speech. Because free speech is the basis from which political dissent, religious freedom, and other freedoms flow, speech restrictions are not just unconstitutional, they constitute an existential threat. 

Once we start down this road, it will not be only gratuitous "insult" that is prohibited. Outlawed will be dissent on refugee and national security policy, as well as truthful comments about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But facts are stubborn things. And only the truth shall make us free. Tell everyone you know about the anti-Constitutional politicians who are supporting this bill.

I guess this would qualify as anti-Muslim speech:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

Free speech and murder not all that different

Image733.jpg Trey Sanchez (TruthRevolt) is reporting that free speech and murder are not all that different according to a Duke University graduate student, at least in the context of white supremacy.

Writing his first column for the Duke Chronicle, Bennett Carpenter says he has been thinking a lot about speech lately and wanted to have a long "overdue conversation about racism." He wants to set the record straight because in his view, the issue has been "derailed" by "a diversionary and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment." Meaning too many marginalized groups other than blacks have tried to take the spotlight (he links to campus Palestinians talking about BDS issues). Even worse, he says, "the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility" and, you guessed it, that is just another "expression of white supremacy."

Carpenter goes on to define exactly what "white fragility" means: "a range of defensive behaviors through which white people deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress." And with that is included a link to a paper from 1984 which argued that there are only white people because there are black people. That is, the Europeans came to America and only became "white" by killing Native Americans, torching houses, and raping black women. See?

The whole column is literally a piece of work and it's a lot to take in right out of the gate. But it is obvious that he is trying to cover as much ground as possible in his first article to set the stage for his beef with the First Amendment; namely how it's basically the same thing as murder:

Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree.

Then, Carpenter laid out his solution strategies and... surprise! It's a safe space:

So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing.

"Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech," Carpenter concludes. "The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise."

White noise. We see what you did there.

So, who is Bennet Carpenter? He describes himself as a doctoral student in literature at Duke University whose interests include Marxism, aesthetic philosophy, comparative modernism(s), and German and British romanticism.

His page at Duke Academia has a further clue:


In other words, Bennet -- who looks like he weighs in at 100 pounds -- is just another wet-behind-the-ears kid who has spent his entire life in school and knows absolutely nothing about the real world, but is arrogant enough to tell his betters how the world should work.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #33 

Gun store owner criticized for political signs

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
 -- Voltaire

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

Supreme Court may free teachers from forced union dues

Jason Hart (HotAir) is reporting that the Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in a case that could bring freedom from forced union fees to teachers and other public employees across the country.

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Rebecca Friedrichs is asking for the right to choose whether to pay a labor union. Because California isn't a right-to-work state, she has to pay nearly $1,000 per year in union fees in order to teach.

Those mandatory fees, the legal reasoning goes, are permissible because they cover costs CTA, CTA's local chapter, and the National Education Association incur representing nonmembers. Forced union fees cannot be spent on politics.

But Friedrichs believes all teachers union activities -- not just their open campaigning for left-wing causes and candidates -- are political. As a result, she argues, making teachers pay unions violates First Amendment protections against compelled political speech.

Public-sector union bargaining over pay, benefits, and work conditions is inherently political because it always involves taxpayer money, public employees, and government services. Despite recognizing this, Supreme Court precedent treats "labor peace" as more important than workers' free speech rights.

If the Friedrichs case prompts the Court to overturn its 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, millions of public employees will gain the freedom to choose whether to pay a union.

Under the status quo, if you're a teacher or government employee living in one of 23 states without public-sector right-to-work, you can:

  1. Choose to join the union, and pay the union
  2. Choose not to join the union, and pay the union anyway
  3. Choose not to join or pay the union, and… sorry, the union just had you fired from your job

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy recently talked about Friedrichs v. CTA with Ms. Friedrichs and two of the other plaintiffs, if you're interested in learning more about their fight to restore their free speech rights:

Teachers union officials are, as you'd expect, furious at Friedrichs for threatening their flow of mandatory fees. The vitriol they're lobbing at Friedrichs and her lawyers is as predictable ("Kochs!!!") as it is dishonest.

A win for Friedrichs wouldn't end public-sector unions. It wouldn't restrict in any way the ability of public teachers or other government employees to organize, join, or support a union, despite breathless union warnings otherwise.

Still, union leaders will make every effort to muddy the waters at the Supreme Court.

If you're bored Monday, try counting the ways NEA president Lily Eskelsen Garcia (2015 pay: $416,633) and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten (2015 pay: $497,118) insist teachers should be forced to pay unions -- for their own good.

I'm helping the Mackinac Center cover the Friedrichs case this month. For the latest, visit

A ruling in Friedrichs v. CTA is expected in June.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses the notion of religious neutrality

Michael Dorstewitz (BizPacReview) is reporting that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that God has been good to the United States and that the notion of religious neutrality is not grounded in our constitutional traditions.

He made his remarks at a Catholic high school in Metairie, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans, according to The Associated Press, which reported.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he asked. "To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?"

The AP also reported:

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.

"God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways," Scalia said.

Scalia has consistently been one of the court’s most conservative justices since his appointment by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #36 

House Democrats move to criminalize criticism of Islam

Robert Spencer (FrontPage) says December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns "violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That's right: "violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric." The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence -- attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances -- with "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric," which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric" in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric." This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

That's not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It's just about condemning "hate speech," not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour -- please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: "I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I'm so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy." Proud wifey added: "As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone."

Now Samy Amimour's wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims -- that is, cut out the "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric." If we are going to be "potential targets" even if we're not "cops" or "Jews," as long as we "continue to offend Islam and Muslims," then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims -- oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" says it. Hillary "We're going to have that filmmaker arrested" Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.

And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about "hate," right? So let's see. Drawing Muhammad -- that's right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you've got to be more multicultural!

Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible "Islamophobes" are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won't even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.

Would it surprise you to know that all of the democrats listed above are socialists?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Hillary Clinton hit on Trump is her latest attack on freedom of speech


Robert Spencer says Hillary Clinton's claim during the last Democratic debate that the Islamic State (ISIS) is "showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists" was swiftly proven wrong. In reality, the latest Islamic State video features Barack Obama ("liar") and her husband ("fornicator"), but never mentions Trump.

More disquieting than its inaccuracy, however, is the fact that Hillary's claim shows that one of the people most likely to be the next president of the United States is a foe of the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of any free society.

In claiming that the Islamic State is using "videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists" (as opposed, I guess, to friendly jihadists), Hillary's implicit point is that if we stop saying and doing things that she or they claim insult Islam and Muslims, then jihad recruitment will lose its impetus.

So if we adopt Sharia blasphemy restrictions and refrain from insulting Islam, everything will be all right.

It is important to recall that groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) routinely classify any honest analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as insulting Islam and Muslims.

And that Clinton has been on board with this initiative for years.

In March 2011, OIC Secretary-General  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu gave a speech to the UN Council on Human Rights, calling upon it to set up "an Observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions … as a first step toward concerted action at the international level." On April 12, 2011, the UN Council on Human Rights passed Resolution 16/18 with full support from the Obama administration, calling upon member states to impose laws against "discriminatory" speech or speech involving "defamation of religion." In June 2011 Ihsanoglu said that such laws were "a matter of extreme priority" for the OIC.

Hillary affirmed the administration's support for this campaign on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an OIC conference on Combating Religious Intolerance. Said Hillary:

Together, we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach. These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places and they are certainly essential to democracy.

But how could both possibly be protected? Ihsanoglu offered his answer: by criminalizing what he considered to be a separate category, hatred and incitement to violence:

We cannot and must not ignore the implications of hate speech and incitement of discrimination and violence.

At the same time, he claimed that the OIC did not want to criminalize free speech:

Our cause, which stems from out genuine concerns, should not be interpreted as calls for restriction on freedom.

To understand how Ihsanoglu could call for restrictions on the freedom of speech while simultaneously claiming he was not, one had to enter his Orwellian world in which "hate speech" -- so designated by Ihsanoglu himself and his fellow Islamic supremacists -- is not and should not be considered to be protected free speech.

But Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with. So in place of legal restrictions on criminalization of Islam, she suggested:

… old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC's anti-free speech push. What agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed.

Right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain recounted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying:

We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.

And they did. The filmmaker went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet -- which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.

For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama's war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (thousands of more serious probation violators walk the streets), but for insulting Muhammad.

His arrest was a symbol of America's capitulation to Sharia. He became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

Over three years later, nothing has changed for Hillary Clinton. She is still proffering restrictions on the freedom of speech as the remedy for jihad terror: if we just "stop insulting Islam and Muslims," everything will be all right. Yet if she becomes president and goes farther than "old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming" to silence criticism of Islam and Muslims, including the counter-terror analyses of jihadi motives and goals that so many Muslim leaders in the U.S. claim insult Islam and Muslims, she will find that the jihadis will keep advancing anyway. They are energized by motivations wholly different from rage over being insulted.

To understand that, however, Hillary would have to study the Islamic texts and teachings that she assumes to be benign and that she wants to shield from all critical analysis. By the time she gets around to doing that, it will be far too late.

Related:  Hillary builds more lies around her latest debate lie

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

Yale students sign petition to repeal the first amendment

Fox News issues a trigger warning! This story and video may be unsuitable viewing for the "safe space" crowd.

Looking to understand just how controversial the debate over free speech on our college campuses really is, filmmaker and satirist Ami Horowitz recently traveled to Yale University, one of our nation's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, to speak directly to students.

"I decided to take this campus free speech debate to its logical conclusion," said Horowitz, who asked students if they'd sign a petition calling for an outright repeal of the First Amendment. "The result was this unbelievable display of total stupidity."

In fact, Horowitz discovered a solid majority of the students asked willingly signed the petition, with several expressing their enthusiastic approval for his anti-First Amendment efforts.

"I think it's really awesome that you're out here," said one student.

Watch the video to find out just how they supported the petition, and how willing many students were to sign away their most basic rights of free speech and expression.

My, how the Ivy League has fallen.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #39 

Look at what the universities are doing to your children and grandchildren

The faculty council at Occidental College is considering instituting a system for students to report microaggressions perpetrated against them by faculty members or other students.

Most of the students defended free speech in principle, if not always in practice. This is consistent with a recent Pew Research Center survey, that found that although 95 percent of Americans agree that people should be allowed to publicly criticize government policies, support erodes when the question turns to offensive speech. While a majority of millennials still believe that the government should protect speech offensive to minorities, a whopping 40 percent believe the government should restrict such speech.

This is what left-wing domination of academia has given us.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Department of just us


Stilton Jarlsberg says just to make sure everyone knows where the battle lines are drawn, Attorney General Loretta Lynch went before a Muslim group to announce that she now intends to prosecute anyone who voices anti-Muslim opinions which "edge toward violence," whatever the heck that means.

But apparently, calls for violence are still peachy keen and totally legal as long as the persons making those calls are of the same race and political disposition as Obama and his legal toady.

How else to explain the fact that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan isn't on Lynch's radar for his frequent exhortations that white people need to die? And remember the black marchers following Al "Freddie's Fashion Mart" Sharpton who chanted, "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? NOW!"  Days later, two officers were shot to death in their patrol car by a man who had said that this kind of anti-cop rhetoric was his inspiration.

But is Lynch prosecuting any of those people? Absolutely not. Rather, she's just announced that she's kicking off a big investigation to prosecute Irving school officials and police officers who believed "See something, Say something" was a good idea when Ahmed the Suspicious Timing Device Maker flashed his "invention" all over a school then refused to talk about it.

Let's be clear: Hope n' Change never has and never will support or tolerate calls for violence against any religious or ethnic group. But what Lynch is doing serves only to further divide our nation by applying unequal standards of law.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #41 
Here's the rub.  Walsh is correct in that he has the right to say anything he wants.  However, Lynch won't come after him for his words, she will use the power of her position to investigate his whole life with a fine tooth comb and use whatever she can to destroy him that way.  That's what they do.  Look what they did to D'Souza.  Not a word about his movies or books, but went after his contributions.  I have yet to find anyone who is 100% bullet proof.  But if you're willing to take a hit, then go for it.

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #42 
American Patriots agree with John Walsh.  These Muslim Appeasers need to kiss our a**.  Time to fight our own Revolutionary War to reclaim our country back from these folks.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

Former congressman dares Loretta Lynch to prosecute him in scathing rant


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

The day after Muslim terrorists killed 14 Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed to prosecute anyone who uses "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence."

What the hell does that mean? I have a 1st Amendment right, 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.

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.

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.

The video is here -- it's in a format I can't copy . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #44 

Attorney General threatens to prosecute critics of Islam


John Stanton is reporting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric "edges towards violence" and told the Muslim community that "we stand with you in this."

Speaking at Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear."

Following the Paris attacks, there has been an uptick in violent attacks on Muslims and threats against mosques across the country. That, combined with heated political rhetoric such as GOP presidential front runner Donald Trump's call to register Muslim Americans, has Muslim community leaders worried that they could be facing a new era of discrimination.

Lynch made it clear that she shares those concerns, but vowed to use the DoJ to protect Muslims from discrimination and violence. Noting the rise in violence against Muslims and mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks, Lynch added that, "When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

"My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'" Lynch said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #45 

DoJ to partner with the SPLC to nullify the 1st Amendment

Bob Bennett says when the White House announces an initiative, you can be sure it's going to be either inimical to the United States, unconstitutional -- or both.

Asst. AG John Carlin's announcement on October 14th, that the Justice Department is creating a new position of "Domestic Terrorism Counsel," shows signs of both. Its purpose is to combat the "real and present threat" of domestic extremism, he said. He ominously cited, as causes for concern: "anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs" -- which begs the question: Just who will select those showing cause for concern?

His declaration is more ominous because he implied that the DoJ would be relying upon the Southern Policy Legal Center (SPLC) for help in this new mission. In fact, the announcement was co-hosted by SPLC. This raises the concern that the SPLC will help select those suspected of "despicable beliefs."

The problem is, SPLC thinks racism, bigotry and other despicable beliefs are practiced mainly by conservative groups and Christian organizations. The latter appear on its online "Hate Groups" list because of their expressed belief that homosexuality is sinful -- though they have a clear constitutional right to that expression. Even the law firm that represented Kim Davis is on the list.

The SPLC lists individuals as well, on their Extremists list -- almost exclusively heads of Christian groups and terrorism experts, like Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer. Their Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen list includes women most rational people would call heroines, like Pamela Geller, author Ann Coulter, Brigitte Gabriel, Laura Ingraham, Mideast expert Clare Lopez; in short, people who dare to inform us of Islam's penchant for shootings, stabbings, bombings and other tactics to impose shariah law's tenets on the non-Islamic world.

To avoid being placed on SPLC's list, we're expected to ignore these murderous acts, pretend they have not even a smidgen of connection to Islam.


Asst. AG Carlin indicated that countering violent extremism would be the principle activity of the Domestic Terrorism Counsel. CVE is one of the White House's favorite themes, because it appears to be something it is not. It looks like it's meant to fight terrorism, but it's the opposite of what it appears to be, making it taqiyya, a staple in the Islamic science of deception.

In the Obama lexicon, "Countering Violent Extremism" means reaching out to Muslim groups -- notably groups "identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial," getting their input on counterterrorism strategies and allowing them to blacklist FBI instructors and censure written material from government agencies, including deletion of over 800 pages from FBI manuals.

Thus do the agencies charged with protecting America collaborate with the jihadis to obscure their true nature. Such a purge actually occurred in 2011 under the Obama Administration, terrorism expert Patrick Poole reported in TheBlaze.

Poole also wrote, "Remarkably, some of the very organizations that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties had partnered with had been identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land … trial …, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)… and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the time [of the purge], the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Majid, was serving on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group."

A document called, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," which was submitted in the Holy Land trial and stipulated to by the defense, contains a statement that makes it irrefutably clear the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating our government in order to overthrow it:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The Memorandum included a list of "friends" who would "help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad….'" One of them was ISNA.

Clearly, under Obama's CVE logic, the Nazis could've been defeated without firing a shot, if we had let the German-American Bund parse and approve every word in the U.S. Army Field Manuals. Put another way: we win the war on terror by becoming Vichy America.

CVE not only obscures the threat of jihadists, it also has the effect of silencing Islam's critics, labeling them "Islamophobes." Carlin said, in his speech:

"We are grateful to have the Southern Poverty Law Center … on our side, working with us to tackle some of today's most pressing national security threats."

His speech seemed to reassure that no one's rights would be abridged:

"In America, harboring extremist views is not itself a crime, nor is the expression of even a hateful ideology or association with a hateful group."

He added, "We do not investigate people for exercising their First Amendment rights, but we are obligated to investigate extremist groups and individuals when we have reason to believe they may be involved in the commission of a federal crime, including threatening violence."

That last refers to one of the key exceptions to the First Amendment, as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio. From

"The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

This exception to First Amendment protection is very similar to language in UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in March of 2011 -- the same year as the purge of FBI manuals. It was adopted with the full support of Obama and then-Secretary Clinton, working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world's largest group of Muslim nations. It calls on states to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." The language was clearly meant to dovetail with the Brandenburg exception to our First Amendment.

This resolution is not meant to protect Christians or Jews -- whom Muslims slaughter without outcry from the UN. The OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Article 22 had established that, in its member states:

"Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah." The Cairo Declaration was served on the UN as an official document.


Terror expert Clare Lopez wrote, in American Thinker, that on April 4, 2011 (a month after Resolution 16/18 was adopted), in their 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia, "the OIC declared that "Incitement is to be defined by applying the ‘test of consequences' to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely ‘yelling "fire" in a crowded theater,' it doesn't matter what someone actually says -- or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it's because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable."

That reasoning would make Pamela Geller liable for any death or damage resulting from jihadists' violent reaction to her cartoon contest.

The next step, called the Istanbul Process, is to get states to adopt laws criminalizing criticism of Islam. Several European countries, including France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands, have implemented laws to prosecute people for "vilifying" Islam.

But our revered First Amendment protects the right to speak the words that others despise. SCOTUS has reaffirmed that right again and again. Therefore, America is the ultimate prize in the Islamo-censors' quest. If no one could speak or write about Islam's less attractive features, it would be that much easier to "destroy our miserable house," as the Memorandum quoted above commanded. But the First Amendment must be dismembered stealthily.

In July of 2011 Secretary Clinton, in a speech before the OIC, promised "to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor."

And shaming is what SPLC does best, by listing people on its "Extremists" and "Hate Map," based on its own ideology.

Now, ten years after the OIC launched its Program of Action to criminalize defamation of Islam, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a September 29th keynote address before the UN, announced the "Strong Cities Network." "Local communities and authorities are the most credible and persuasive voices to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations in their local contexts," she declared.

Two weeks later, Asst. AG John Carlin promised the Domestic Terrorism Counsel would work with SCN in countering violent extremism. "We must begin by doing more to empower those who are best-placed to affect change – parents, teachers, coaches, mental health service providers and others who know their communities best," he said.

A number of the "Strong Cities" are subject to anti-Islamophobia laws. We can expect this initiative to extend that philosophy to America in our cities, towns and schools, making unconstitutional rules that must be argued one by one in the courts. And that's where the battle to preserve our First Amendment rights must be fought.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

Free speech


Walter E. Williams says recent events at the University of Missouri, Yale University and some other colleges demonstrate an ongoing ignorance and/or contempt for the principles of free speech. So let's examine some of those principles by asking: What is the true test of one's commitment to free speech?

Contrary to the widespread belief of tyrants among college students, professors and administrators, the true test of one's commitment to free speech does not come when one permits people to be free to express those ideas that he finds acceptable. The true test of one's commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say those things that he finds deeply offensive. In a word, free speech is absolute, or nearly so.

No doubt a campus pseudo-intellectual, particularly in a law school, will chime in suggesting that free speech is not absolute, bringing up the canard that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue. A person who shouts "fire" violates the implied contract that theatergoers have to watch a performance undisturbed. Of course, if all patrons were informed when they purchased tickets that someone would falsely shout "fire" during the performance, there would be little problem.

Then there is speech called defamation, which is defined as the action of making a false spoken or written statement damaging to a person's reputation. Defamation is criminalized, but should it be? That question might be best answered by asking: Does your reputation belong to you? In other words, are the thoughts that other people have about you your property?

The principles that apply to one's commitment to free speech also apply to one's commitment to freedom of association. Like the true test of one's commitment to free speech, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test of one's commitment to freedom of association comes when he permits people to be free to associate -- or not to associate -- in ways he deems offensive.

Permitting discriminatory association practices in publicly owned facilities -- such as libraries, parks and beaches -- should not be permitted. That is because they are taxpayer-financed and everyone should have a right to equal access. But denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates people's right to freely associate.

Christian Americans have been prosecuted for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. Those who support such attacks might ask themselves whether they would also seek prosecution of an owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?

Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race, sex or religion.

It is worthwhile noting that there is a difference between what people are free to do and what they will find it in their interest to do. For example, a basketball team owner may be free to refuse to hire black players, but would he find it in his interest to do so?

I am all too afraid that most of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principle of liberty in general. Most people want liberty for themselves. I want more than that. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #47 

Arrested for anti-Obama posts

People across America are getting arrested for posting non-violent criticisms of Barack Obama. In the case you're about to see, one Marine veteran was sent to psychiatric training and diagnosed with ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) for his criticism of the way government is being run.

In 2009, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security began a program to monitor white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups" for terrorist activities.

Included among the suspected terrorists were Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

At the time it was revealed, the program called "Operation Vigilant Eagle" caused some controversy but was quickly forgotten and buried by the media.

For the DHS, Vigilant Eagle was the expression of the misdirected paranoia that exists at the agency's highest levels since Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office. DHS has issued multiple reports about a supposed wave of terrorism by American conservatives of various stripes, from TEA Party members to off-duty cops.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Team Obama spent as much time tracking down Islamist terrorist as they do on conservatives and constitutionalists.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #48 

Ruminations on crybullies, microaggressions and "feeling" oppressed

Kerry Picket is reporting that a new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.

It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government's role.

Around 27 percent of Generation X'ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.

The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group #BlackLivesMatter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation.


Some of the demands include restrictions on offensive Halloween costumes at Yale University to the deletion of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's image and name at Princeton University to “anti-oppression training” for employees at Brown University.

"Woodrow Wilson obviously … had a very ill-informed and ignorant view of race," 1968 Princeton graduate Eric Chase told Reuters. "But he is a big piece of Princeton history and he should stay a big piece," noting that it's a push to "erase history and whitewash it and put something else in its place."

At Dartmouth College, remaining quiet and minding one’s own business was deemed offensive by a group of Black Lives Matter protesters who stormed the school’s library and screamed profanities at studying students for not joining their protest.

Pressure from students and faculty at Amherst College could result in the school dropping its unofficial mascot Lord Jeff Amherst. Amherst commanded British forces in North America during the French and Indian War. Some argue that Amherst  gave blankets infected with the smallpox virus to wipe out the Native Americans Indians. Others dispute this. In fact, a group of Amherst protesters want students who posted a flyer around campus celebrating free speech to be punished.

The University of North Dakota changed its team mascot name to the "Fighting Hawks" after the National Collegiate Athletic Association said the previous name the "Fighting Sioux" was "hostile and abusive."

Meanwhile, Georgetown University is in the midst of renaming two campus buildings that were named for two previous school presidents involved in the slave trade.


While public statements against minorities may be found offensive by these people, based on the news, public statements against white people seem to be encouraged.

I still want to know, whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?"

These kids are really going to "feel" oppressed when they won't be able to get a job after graduation, but fortunately they'll have something to blame -- "white privilege."


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #49 

Crymobs, crybullying and the Left's whiny war on free speech


Daniel Greenfield says the Left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.

The cult's credo is that its solutions to human suffering take precedence over freedom or democracy. It exploits suffering when it can and creates it where it can't. Its social media has ushered in the Warholian era of victimhood where everyone can be a famously oversharing victim for 15 trending minutes.

Forget about meritocracy. This is the victimocracy.

The victimocracy's foot soldier is the crybully. The crybully is the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears.

If you don't fight back, the crybully bullies you. If you fight back, the crybully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.

Lions form a pride, crows gather into a murder and crybullies cringe into a crymob. The crymob demands a safe space because free speech and dissent makes its crybullies feel very unsafe.

Crymobs will "safebait" by yelling and pushing and then whining that the people they're shoving make them feel unsafe. One crybully safebaiting tactic is to yell loudly, forcing anyone talking back to them to raise their voice. That's when other crybullies begin shouting, "Don't yell at her."

Crybullies will push into you and cry that you're making them feel unsafe. They will hit you and when you raise your hands in self-defense, they will scream that you're putting your hands on them. (All these safebaiting tactics and more can be seen in the Missouri video.)

Crybullies don't think this behavior is dishonest because their pain privilege entitles them to tone police you, but you can't tone police them. Their sweet social justice tears give them the right to yell at you, shove you or hit you. Crying over social justice gives them a license to bully everyone else.

If crybullies can't safebait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns crybullies into social justice heroes.

It's impossible to have a rational conversation with a crybully because it doesn't walk to talk to you; it wants to loudly broadcast its feelings. As one Yale crybully wrote, "I don't want to debate. I want to talk about my pain." My pain. Me. Stop arguing with me and start paying attention to me right now.

A crybully's pain isn't caused by poverty, disease or an elephant stepping on its toes. Instead it's caused by the existence of other people who don't take its ridiculous claims of suffering seriously.

The crybully is upset because you aren't as upset as it is upset. And you can't be as upset as the crybully because who do you think you are anyway? You don't know pain the way that a privileged 19-year-old identity politics major whose latest tantrum hasn't been affirmed by authority knows pain. Even claiming that you can relate to the crybully's pain is offensive. No one else has ever suffered like it.

The crybully isn't even all that outraged by the thing he's protesting over, but he's outraged that you aren't taking his feelings seriously. His feelings always matter more than the issue.

Administrators at Yale and the University of Missouri were crymobbed not because of what they did, but because they didn't take the feelings of the crybullies seriously enough, fast enough.

The crymob protests because its feelings are hurt. The original incidents don't matter. Like a toddler, it quickly forgets whatever made it start crying and instead it cries because it's crying. Like overgrown babies, the crymob's political objective is to punish those in power who didn't immediately pick it up, cradle it and sing it a soothing social justice song. So that next time they'll jump and then ask how high.

Crybullies want everyone who isn't a crybully to shut up and never speak again. Once this happens, they settle down to bullying each other over who has the most intersectional pain or privilege.

That's how the victimocracy is ruled.

The campus crymobs demand that everyone who isn't a crybully shut up and never speak again on pain of having to undergo privilege training sessions by otherwise unemployable identity politics studies majors.

And that is just the crymob with a permanent university position and a paycheck. The great dream of the crybully is to force every student to submit to daily crybullying. The crybully is just a weak, cowardly government licensed bully who wants a job bullying people for life while talking about his suffering.

Under a victimocracy, where college administrators knuckle under to the Office for Civil Rights and social justice hashtags, the crybullies get their way. At the top of the victimocracy, President Crybully whines that he is the victim of racism while breaking so many laws that Nixon looks like a choirboy.

At the bottom, the crybullies of Yale and Missouri, who one day aspire to be President Crybully, claim that they can't eat or sleep because someone on campus offended them and no one has been fired for the crime.

The media has become a massive crymob swarming with horrid tales of upset crybullies complete with sad photos of their social justice tears. In Missouri, the campus crymob turned on the national crymob. When crybullies and their crymobs run out of normal people to safebait, they turn on each other.

The real victims of the victimocracy aren't inside it, but outside it. They're the ordinary people whose lives are suddenly ruined by the crazed radicals and insane activists who can cry on cue and demand safe spaces while howling like maddened banshees. Maybe they told the wrong joke or wore the wrong costume. They didn't pander to a crybully fast enough or brushed off his demands as ridiculous.

Or they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And soon there was a crymob safebaiting its way across another campus, another branch of literature or around the world.

Crybullies are everything they claim to abhor. They are narcissists who complain about selfishness. Completely incapable of human empathy, they whine that no one cares about their feelings. They are prone to cowardly acts of violence, but demand safe spaces. They are bullies who say they're bullied.

The crybully embodies the Left. He is an oppressed oppressor. An abusive victim. A self-righteous hypocrite. A loudmouth censor. A civil rights activist who wants to take everyone's rights away.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 

Yes, Obama, you built this -- #BlackLivesMatter mob storms Dartmouth library

The Dartmouth Review Staff is reporting that 150 of the #BlackLivesMatter NAZIs marched into the Baker-Berry Library -- ostensibly there to denounce the removal of shirts from a display in Collis, Dartmouth's student center. They began to sing songs and chant their eponymous catchphrases and then came this:

"F*** you, you filthy white f***s"

"F*** you and your comfort"

"F*** you, you racist s**t"

These shouted epithets were the first indication that many students had of the coming storm. The sign-wielding, obscenity-shouting protesters proceeded through the usually quiet backwaters of the library. They surged first through first-floor Baker-Berry, then up the stairs to the normally undisturbed floors of the building, before coming back down to the ground floor of Novak Café.

Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march. They confronted students who bore "symbols of oppression" such as "gangster hats" and Beats-brand headphones. The flood of demonstrators opened the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.

Students who refused to listen to or join their outbursts were shouted down:

"Stand the f*** up!" "You filthy racist white piece of s***!" Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group.

"If we can't have it, shut it down!" they cried. Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting "filthy white b****!" in her face.

In the immediate aftermath of the demonstration, social media was abuzz with comments condemning the protesters for their tactics. Many students who had experienced the protests took advantage of Yik Yak's anonymity to air their grievances. Some students reached out to The Dartmouth Reviewto provide additional details.

An anonymous member of the class of 2019 explained that while working on a group project in a private study room, his undergraduate advisor came in and expressed his disappointment that the he was not joining in the protest. The advisor then demanded that he and the other members of his group project to leave the room and join in.

Another member of the class of 2019 recalled clapping after a protester said, "let's give a round of applause for the beautiful people of color who were here for this protest." The protester then turned on her saying, "for all of you that are sitting down and applauding right now, we don't care about you."

Protesters have also spoken out in the aftermath of their march. One woman, who identified herself as one of the protesters in a lengthy post to Facebook, wrote, "we raised hell, we caused discomfort, and we made our voices heard all throughout this campus in the name of standing up for our brothers and sisters across the country who are staring terrorism and assault directly in the face." She went on to accuse those she thought were insincere in their support for the movement of "faking allyship," and called the activities an "occupation of Baker Berry."

The Ivy League was once the most prestigious collection of universities in the country. It has degenerated into an anti-intellectual dung heap.

This is liberalism. This is fascism.

Where are the alumni?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved